ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 108-S04

TECHNICAL PAPER

Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with ASTM A1035 Grade 100 Stirrups under Shear
by Aruna Munikrishna, Amr Hosny, Sami Rizkalla, and Paul Zia
This paper presents the results of an investigation of shear strength of large-sized concrete beams reinforced with ASTM A1035 Grade 100 bars. The performance of these beams is compared to that of similar beams reinforced with ASTM A615 Grade 60 bars. The results indicate that by using the higher yield strength of ASTM A1035 bars with a reduced reinforcement ratio, the beams can achieve similar shear strengths as the beams reinforced with Grade 60 bars. The results also show that cracking and deflection under service load of the beams with a reduced reinforcement ratio are within acceptable limits.
Keywords: beam; cracking; deflection; high-strength reinforcement; shear strength; stirrup; web reinforcement.

contribution of transverse steel to the shear capacity of RC flexural members. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM The experimental program included 18 tests using nine large-sized RC beams tested under static loading up to failure. All beams were 22 ft (6.7 m) long and were designed using a nominal concrete compressive strength of 4000 psi (28 MPa). The beam length was chosen such that each beam could be tested twice, thus doubling the amount of collected data. The shear span-depth ratio (a/d) of all specimens was kept constant. The nine beams were classified into three groups based on their shear resistance. The spacing of the shear reinforcement was varied to reflect a minimum and maximum level of shear resistance allowed by ACI 318-08.10 Test specimens were designed to induce stresses of 80 and 100 ksi (550 and 690 MPa) in the high-strength stirrups. Within each group, the beams were geometrically similar and the shear reinforcement was designed to achieve the same nominal shear capacity. Hooks were provided at both ends of the longitudinal tension reinforcement to prevent anchorage failure. The transverse reinforcement consisted of No. 3 and No. 4 (No. 10 and No. 13) closed stirrups designed according to ACI 318-0810 requirements, with a bend radius equal to six times the bar diameter and an extension of six times the bar diameter past the 90-degree bend. Figure 1 shows the elevation and cross section of the beams in Groups 1, 2, and 3. The cross sections and reinforcement details of all of the specimens are summarized in Table 1. The beams shown in Table 1 are identified by three parameters: the first two characters indicate the group to which the beam belongs; for example, G1 is Group 1. The second parameter specifies the longitudinal and transverse steel type, using C for conventional steel and M for highstrength steel. The third parameter is the specified design yield strength in the stirrup; 0 indicates no transverse reinforcement, 60 indicates 60 ksi (415 MPa), 80 indicates 80 ksi (550 MPa), and 100 indicates 100 ksi (690 MPa) design stress in the stirrup based on ACI 318-08.10 The beams were tested with a targeted a/d = 3. For the first four beams of Group 1 with a target shear capacity of 3 f c bd, the beams were tested with a loaded span equal to 19.0 ft (5.8 m) as detailed in Table 2 and shown in Fig. 2. The same four beams were then rotated and tested with a loaded span equal to 13.2 ft (4 m) while maintaining the same a/d of 3. This set of tests is identified as Group 2. With the smaller sectional
ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 1, January-February 2011. MS No. S-2008-327.R2 received January 13, 2010, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2011, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the NovemberDecember 2011 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2011.

INTRODUCTION Reinforcing bars conforming to ASTM A10351 are characterized by their high tensile strength and enhanced corrosion resistance in comparison to ASTM A6152 Grade 60 bars. The use of these high-strength steel bars offers several advantages, such as the reduction of the reinforcement ratio, less cost for reinforcement placement, reduced reinforcement congestion, better concrete placement, and an increase in service life due to enhanced corrosion resistance. The highstrength reinforcing bars used in this investigation3 exhibit a nonlinear stress-strain curve without a distinct yield plateau reaching a stress of 100 ksi (690 MPa) at 0.35% strain. One major concern with using this high-strength steel bar is whether the larger induced steel strains under service load could cause unacceptably large cracking and deflection of the reinforced concrete (RC) beam and whether the beam would achieve adequate ductility under ultimate load. The objective of this research is to examine the behavior of concrete beams reinforced with different reinforcement ratios of high-strength steel stirrups up to yield strength of 100 ksi (690 MPa) and to evaluate the serviceability and effectiveness of using high-strength steel as transverse reinforcement in flexural members. The paper also examines the ability of current codes to predict the contribution of transverse steel to the shear capacity of RC flexural members. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE There are no experimental data or design guidelines for the use of high-strength steel as shear reinforcement with a yield strength of 100 ksi (690 MPa) for RC flexural members. Most of the research currently available in the literature focuses on the use of high-strength steel as flexural reinforcement.4-9 This paper will provide much-needed information on the behavior of high-strength steel stirrups designed for a yield strength of 80 and 100 ksi (550 and 690 MPa) for RC members. It also provides an evaluation of the current ACI 318-08,10 CSA A23.3-04,11 and AASHTO12 code provisions in predicting the ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011

ACI member Aruna Munikrishna is a Practicing Engineer in the Raleigh, NC area. She received her BE from R.V. College of Engineering, Bangalore, India, in 2005, and her MSc from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, in 2008. ACI member Amr Hosny is a PhD Candidate in structural engineering at North Carolina State University, where he also obtained his MSc in 2007. He received his BSc from Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, in 2004. Sami H. Rizkalla, FACI, is a Distinguished Professor of civil and construction engineering in the Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University, where he also serves as the Director of the Constructed Facilities Laboratory and NSF I/UCRC in Repair of Structures and Bridges. ACI Honorary Member Paul Zia is a Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at North Carolina State University. He served as ACI President in 1989 and is a member of several ACI committees, including ACI Committee 363, High-Strength Concrete; Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 423, Prestressed Concrete, and 445, Shear and Torsion; the Concrete Research Council; and the TAC Technology Transfer Committee, serving as Chair of ITG-6.

Fig. 2Typical section and test setup of beams. dimensions of the remaining five beams compared to the first four beams, it was possible to test these beams twice using the same setup configuration. For the replicate tests, an additional letter R was added at the end of the identification to differentiate the second test from the first test of the specimen. In each group, the beams reinforced with high-strength stirrups were compared with beams reinforced with Grade 60 steel stirrups. Also, Beams G1-M0, G2-M0, G3-C0, and G3-M0 were designed without shear reinforcement and were used to determine the nominal concrete contribution to the shear strength Vc. Details of the experimental program can be found elsewhere.13 MATERIAL PROPERTIES Local ready mixed concrete using Type I cement and a maximum aggregate size of 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) was used to construct all specimens. Three 4 x 8 in. (102 x 204 mm) concrete cylinders were used to determine the compressive strength of concrete in accordance with ASTM C39 at the time of testing, as shown in Table 3. Tension coupons from the reinforcing steel were used to determine the stress-strain characteristics. Samples of No. 3 and No. 4 Grade 100 and Grade 60 bars were taken from the supply used to fabricate the beams. The stress-strain relationships for No. 3 and No. 4 Grade 100 bars and Grade 60 bars are shown in Fig. 3. The Grade 60 bars used in this research program had yield strengths greater than 60 ksi (415 MPa) and did not exhibit a typical yielding plateau. The No. 3 bars had a yield strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) compared to 69 ksi (475 MPa) for the No. 4 bars. Both bars had an ultimate strength of approximately 100 ksi (690 MPa), as shown in Fig. 3. In general, the Grade 100 bars exhibit a linear stress-strain relationship up to a stress level of 95 ksi (655 MPa) for No. 3 and No. 4 bars. This linear behavior is followed by a nonlinear behavior and reduction in the modulus of elasticity up to an ultimate strength of 155 ksi (1070 MPa) for No. 3 bars and 160 ksi (1105 MPa) for No. 4 bars. The stress of 100 ksi (690 MPa) at a strain of 0.35% was taken as the yield strength according to the recommendations of ACI 318-08,10 Section 3.5.3.2. TEST SETUP The test setup was designed to allow each beam to be tested twice to replicate test data. Table 2 shows the test setup details, including the location of the load from two supports, the effective depth of beams, and the a/d for each group. All beams were instrumented to measure applied ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011

Fig. 1Typical cross sections for beams of Groups 1, 2, and 3. 2

Table 1Reinforcement details of beams

Group ID G1-M0 G1-C60 G1-M80 G1-M100 G2-M0 G2-C60 G2-M80 G2-M100 G3-C0 G3-M0 3 G3-C60 Maximum 7 f c bd G3-M80 G3-M100
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

Target shear capacity

Cross section, Design flexural in. a/d stress 100 ksi CONV. 60 ksi 100 ksi 100 ksi 100 ksi CONV. 60 ksi 100 ksi 100 ksi

Flexural steel Design stirrup Spacing, Tensile Compressive stress Stirrup size in. Four No. 11 Six No. 11 Four No. 11 Four No. 11 Four No. 11 Six No. 11 Four No. 11 Four No. 11 Two No. 9 Two No. 9 Two No. 9 Two No. 9 Two No. 9 Two No. 9 Two No. 9 Two No. 9 CONV. 60 ksi 80 ksi 100 ksi CONV. 60 ksi 80 ksi 100 ksi CONV. 60 ksi 80 ksi 100 ksi No. 3 No. 3 No. 3 No. 3 No. 3 No. 3 No. 4 No. 4 No. 4 8.0 10.0 13.0 8.0 10.0 13.0 4.5 5.5 7.0

tr 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.31 0.25 0.20

Minimum 3 f c bd

24 x 28

3.1

Minimum 3 f c bd

24 x 28

3.1

CONV. 60 ksi Seven No. 11 Four No. 10 100 ksi Five No.11 Four No. 10 16 x 22 3.0 CONV. 60 ksi Seven No. 11 Four No. 10 100 ksi Five No. 11 Four No. 10 100 ksi Five No. 11 Four No. 10

Table 2Load location and a/d details

Cross Test Target Effective section Loaded configuration shear span, depth, l1, in. l2, in. l3, in. l4, in. Group capacity b, in. h, in. ft in. a/d 1 2 3 3 f c bd 24 3 f c bd 24 7 f c bd 16 28 28 22 19.0 13.2 14.8 15 3 15 79 79 54 155 85 129 15 97 66 25.4 25.4 18.0 3.1 3.1 3.0

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 304.8 mm.

Fig. 3Stress-strain relationship for No. 3 and No. 4 highstrength and Grade 60 steel. loads, deflections, crack widths, and steel strain. For each beam, a strain gauge was placed on one bar of the bottom layer of the tension reinforcement at the location of the applied load to measure strains. Weldable strain gauges were used to measure strains in stirrups. The location of the weldable strain gauges was determined by estimating the location of the compressive strut acting from the point of load application to the support. The weldable strain gauges were attached to the stirrups using a spot welder as recommended by the manufacturer. Three strain rosettes were attached to the front face of the beam to measure the crack widths and the strain in the stirrups after cracking. The rosette consisted of three 7.87 in. (200 mm) calibration test pressure gauges placed ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011

Fig. 4Instrumentation. horizontally, vertically, and inclined at 45-degree angles. In addition to the rosettes, six 3.94 in. (100 mm) calibration test pressure gauges were attached to the back face of the beams to measure strain in a stirrup. Crack comparators were also used to measure the crack width at different load levels in addition to the rosettes. All instruments were connected to an electronic data acquisition system to continuously record the data. Figure 4 shows pictures of the instrumentation. LOAD-DEFLECTION BEHAVIOR The applied shear versus deflection at the load point up to failure for beams in Group 1, 2, and 3 is shown in Fig. 5. The results indicate that the precracking stiffness of the beams in 3

Table 3Service loads

Group 1 ID G1-C60 G1-M80 G1-M100 G2-C60 2 G2-M80 G2-M100 G3-C60 G3-M80 G3-M100 24 25 b, in. d, in. fc, psi Stirrup size Spacing, in. Vc, kips Vs, kips 4710 No. 3 8.0 84 42 24 25 4710 4950 4710 4710 4950 5090 5240 5840 No. 3 No. 3 No. 3 No. 3 No. 3 No. 4 No. 4 No. 4 10.0 13.0 8.0 10.0 13.0 4.5 5.5 7.0 84 86 84 84 86 41 42 44 45 43 42 45 43 96 105 103 Vn, kips 126 128 129 126 128 129 137 146 147 128 77 128 77 Vn(avg), kips Vservice, kips 32 35 41 27 36 40 47 38 49 No. of cracks 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

16

18

143

86

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1000 psi = 6.895 MPa; 1 kip = 4.4482 kN.

each group were almost identical, but there is a reduction in the post-cracking stiffness of the beams reinforced with Grade 100 bars using the design strength of 80 and 100 ksi (550 and 690 MPa) due to the larger strains in the longitudinal reinforcement and the reduction of the transverse reinforcement ratios. The figures, however, show that despite the lower shear reinforcement ratio for beams reinforced with high-strength stirrups in comparison with a beam reinforced with conventional steel stirrups, all of the beams were capable of sustaining similar loads. This behavior is attributed to the use of the higher tensile strength of high-strength steel. The use of the lower longitudinal reinforcement ratio for the beams reinforced with the high-strength steel caused higher deflections compared to the beams reinforced with the conventional Grade 60 steel at the same load levels. The reduced transverse reinforcement ratio results in larger crack widths and reduced stiffness of the beams reinforced with high-strength stirrups. The beams without stirrups failed as expected in a brittle manner at a much lower load and had significantly less deflection than the beams with transverse reinforcement. Beams reinforced for shear were capable of sustaining much higher loads and deflections and showed more ductile failures. CRACK PATTERN The general crack patterns observed for all beams within the same group were identical. The first flexural crack occurred at an applied load of 30 kips (133 kN) and was located near the location of the applied load and maximum moment. As the load increased, the flexural cracks propagated toward the compression zone and the number of flexural cracks also increased. Flexural cracks tended to develop at approximately the location of the stirrups. Therefore, the spacing of cracks was dominated by the location of the stirrups. As additional load was applied, new flexural cracks began to form toward the support, and these cracks developed into flexural-shear cracks. For beams without transverse reinforcement (that is, Beams G1-M0, G2-M0, G3-C0, and G3-M0), a further increase in load resulted in the formation of a critical diagonal shear crack and sudden failure, as shown in Fig. 6 for Beams G1-M0 and G2-M0 characterized by the formation of a single critical diagonal crack spanning from the point of load application to the support. On the other hand, beams with transverse reinforcement were capable of carrying higher loads and were characterized by the initiation of additional flexure-shear cracks between the applied loads and the supports. They exhibited a fairly ductile response without explosive failure. As the loading continued, a welldefined shear crack formed at the middle of the shorter shear span and propagated toward the support and the loading ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011

Fig. 5Applied shear versus deflection for beams of Groups 1, 2, and 3. 4

Fig. 6Failure for beams of Groups 1 and 2.

plates under the load. The shear crack widened and extended toward the supports at a faster rate than the flexure cracks. All beams failed due to crushing of concrete in the nodal zone of the compression strut connecting the nodes at the support and at the applied load, as shown in Fig. 6. The failure of Beams G3-M80 and G3-M100 was due to high stresses developed in the stirrups and the high compression stresses in the strut, leading to crushing at the tip of the strut. CRACK WIDTH Crack widths were measured using a crack comparator and calibration test pressure gauges at each load level. The latter method uses the geometry of two calibration test pressure gauges in the rosettes to determine the summation of the shear crack width within the gauge length. In the analysis, the vertical and diagonal gauge readings were used to calculate the summation of the crack widths using the Shehata14 equation w = ( 2 D v 0.5l g ct ) sin + ( v 0.5l g ct ) cos where V is the PI gauge reading in the vertical direction, D is the PI gauge reading in the diagonal direction, is the measured crack angle to the horizontal beam axis, lg is the gauge length of the PI gauge, and ct is the maximum tensile concrete strain taken as 0.1 103. The average crack width w was determined based on the number of cracks within the gauge length of the rosette. According to the commentary of ACI 318-08,10 at the service load level, the acceptable crack width is 0.016 in. (0.41 mm). The shear at service load for this analysis was taken as 60% of the nominal shear strength of the beam predicted using ACI 318-0810 for the given reinforcement. Table 3 shows the service shear load for each group, the number of cracks recorded at service load for each beam, and the measured angle of the crack with respect to the beam axis. It should be noted that all beams were designed to achieve the same nominal shear capacity using different stirrup spacing for the specific yield strength of the steel. Therefore, all of the beams within each group have the same service load. It was also observed that the crack widths measured by the calibration test pressure gauge and the crack comparator were approximately the same for the beams within the same group. Therefore, only the crack widths measured using the crack comparators are presented in this paper. Furthermore, at service, the measured crack width ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011

Fig. 7Crack width versus applied shear for beams of Groups 1, 2, and 3.

was less than 0.016 in. (0.41 mm) for all of the beams, as shown in Fig. 7, for Groups 1, 2, and 3. Due to the selected design strength of 80 and 100 ksi (550 and 690 MPa) used in high-strength stirrups, Beams G1-M80, G2-M80, and G3-M80 had a larger crack width in comparison to Beams G1-C60, G2-C60, and G3-C60, respectively. Figure 7 shows that Beam G1-M100 in Group 1 had no cracks at service load. This is mainly due to the higher compressive strength of concrete in Beam G1-M100 that provided greater concrete contribution and delayed the formation of the first shear crack. The first measured flexural-shear crack width of 0.004 in. (0.1 mm) was recorded at 76 kips (338 kN) of shear. The results suggest that using high-strength stirrups slightly increased the crack width in comparison to conventional stirrups. 5

Fig. 8Applied shear versus transverse strain for beams of Groups 1, 2, and 3.

STRAIN IN STIRRUPS The strains in the stirrups were measured using the vertical component of the calibration test pressure gauge rosette, the calibration test pressure gauges on the back side of the beams, and weldable strain gauges that were attached to the stirrups at selected locations for Beams G1-M80, G2-M80, G3C60, and G3-M80. For Group 1, the measured shear versus transverse strain is shown in Fig. 8(a). The figure shows that the stirrups were stressed only after first cracking. The corresponding shear was taken as the concrete contribution to shear strength, Vc. The concrete contribution Vc was also estimated from the control specimens. Figure 8(a) indicates that Beams G1-C60 and G1-M100 have a higher Vc compared to Beam G1-M0. This difference is due to the higher compressive strength of the concrete used for these beams. It can be seen that at any given load, beams reinforced with high6

strength stirrups have a slightly higher strain value due to the reduced transverse reinforcement ratio in comparison with beams reinforced with Grade 60 stirrups. The test results indicated that the mere yielding of the transverse reinforcement of Beam G1-C60 did not cause the failure of the beam. Instead, the failure of the beams was due to the crushing of the concrete in the nodal zone of the compression strut. The shear versus strain relationship for the beams of Group 2 is shown in Fig. 8(b). The same phenomenon was observed where the strains in the beams reinforced with high-strength stirrups were higher at any given load level due to the lower transverse reinforcement ratio of these beams. It can also be seen that the strains measured from the weldable strain gauges, Curve G2-M80-WSG, closely matched the strains measured using the PI gauges, Curve G2-M80. These results indicate that the strains in the transverse reinforcement for both beams exceeded 0.0025 and 0.0035 corresponding to the design stress of 80 and 100 ksi (550 and 690 MPa), respectively, as determined from the stress-strain curves of the reinforcing bars; however, the beams continued to sustain increasing loads. Failure was caused due to crushing of the concrete in the nodal zone of the compression strut. It should be noted that the results for Beam G2-M100 were not included in Fig. 8, as failure occurred due to a diagonal shear crack that occurred in the longer shear span of the beam where no instrumentations were provided. Similar observations can be made for the beams of Group 3, as shown in Fig. 8(c). At any given load level, the strains are higher for Beam G3-M100 with the lowest transverse reinforcement ratio, followed by the strains for Beam G3-M80; Beam G3-C60 had the lowest strains in the stirrups because it had the highest transverse reinforcement ratio. For Beams G3-M80 and G3-M100, it was observed that, following the formation of the first shear crack, the stirrup reached very high strains without much increase in the load. It is believed that once these stirrups yielded, the increase in the applied load was transferred to the adjacent stirrups and so on until all of the stirrups yielded. Once all of the stirrups in the shear span yielded, the compression strut carried additional load, and failure occurred when the concrete at the nodal zone of the compression strut crushed. An explosive failure was observed in Beams G3-M80 and G3-M100. Spalling of the concrete cover was also observed during testing. All of the stirrups were terminated with 90-degree hooks. At high stresses, these 90-degree hooks were insufficient in confining the concrete and opened up, resulting in an explosive failure; however, the measured strains were higher than the strains corresponding to 100 ksi (690 MPa) prior to failure. CODE PREDICTIONS Concrete contribution to the shear strength of each beam was determined by three methods: Vc1, using the test results from the control specimen without transverse reinforcement; Vc2, using the shear versus transverse strain relationship when the strain is first detected in the stirrups; and Vc3, based on the initiation of the first diagonal crack. The concrete contribution determined from these three methods is compared with the predictions according to the ACI, CSA, and AASHTO codes in Table 4. It can be seen that for larger beamsthe beams in Groups 1 and 2the concrete contribution was overestimated by all of the codes. This is likely due to the size effect, which is not accounted for in the code equations. For the smaller-sized beams of Group 3, the ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011

Table 4Code comparisons for Vc

ACI Group 1 ID G1-C60 G1-M80 G1-M100 G2-C60 2 G2-M80 G2-M100 G3-C60 G3-C60-R 3 G3-M80 G3-M80-R G3-M100 G3-M100-R S, in. 8.0 10.0 13.0 8.0 10.0 13.0 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 7.0 7.0 Vc1, kips 51 51 51 75 75 75 62 62 63 63 63 63 Vc2, kips 65 52 67 77 63 70 62 68 54 52 52 53 Vc3, kips Vc, kips 56 52 59 60 68 68 56 54 59 58 53 56 Average
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.4482 kN.

CSA Vc, kips 104 89 96 98 85 87 44 45 37 38 42 42 1.10 Vc(exp) /Vc ratio 0.50 0.58 0.54 0.77 0.88 0.87 1.39 1.37 1.67 1.64 1.48 1.49 Vc, kips 97 97 100 97 90 92 44 44 41 41 44 44 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.90 0.90 0.88 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.42 1.42

AASHTO Vc(exp) /Vc ratio 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.77 0.84 0.82 1.41 1.41 1.51 1.51 1.43 1.43 1.06

Vc(exp) /Vc ratio

84 84 86 84 84 86 41 41 42 42 44 44 1.11

Table 5Code comparisons for Vs

Group 1 ID G1-C60 G1-M80 G1-M100 G2-C60 2 G2-M80 G2-M100 G3-C60 G3-C60-R 3 G3-M80 G3-M80-R G3-M100 G3-M100-R S, in. 8.0 10.0 13.0 8.0 10.0 13.0 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 7.0 7.0 Vs(exp), kips 82.8 72.5 61.2 78.9 59.8 61.3 149.9 145.1 149.4 143.0 126.3 129.4 Average Standard deviation Coefficient of variation
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.4482 kN.

Vs, kips 50.3 44.7 43.0 50.3 44.7 43.0 108.8 108.8 104.7 104.7 102.9 102.9

ACI Vs(exp) /Vs ratio 1.65 1.62 1.42 1.57 1.34 1.43 1.38 1.33 1.43 1.37 1.23 1.26 1.42 0.13 0.09

Vs, kips 71.2 60.1 58.8 69.8 59.1 56.7 129.7 130.2 131.9 132.8 133.0 132.5

CSA Vs(exp) /Vs ratio 1.16 1.21 1.04 1.13 1.01 1.08 1.16 1.11 1.13 1.08 0.95 0.98 1.09 0.08 0.07

AASHTO Vs, kips Vs(exp) /Vs ratio 76.8 68.3 65.7 76.8 60.3 58.0 156.1 156.1 135.1 135.1 132.7 132.7 1.01 0.06 0.06 1.08 1.06 0.93 1.03 0.99 1.06 0.96 0.93 1.11 1.06 0.95 0.98

code equations underestimated the concrete contribution. Also, there are some differences in the concrete contribution determined by the different methods. For example, for Beam G1C60, the control specimen failed at Vc1 = 51 kips (227 kN), whereas Vc2 = 65 kips (289 kN) based on the strain first detected in the weldable strain gauge, and Vc3 = 56 kips (249 kN) was observed at the first diagonal cracking. These differences are due to the fact that the initiation of the first diagonal crack did not always pass through the instrumented stirrups with the weldable strain gauge. In addition, the diagonal crack could be too small to be visible, but it can be detected by the strain gauges as is the case for Beam G2-M80, where Vc2 = 63 kips (280 kN) and Vc3 = 68 kips (303 kN). The steel contribution Vs to the shear strength is compared to the predicted values according to ACI 318-08,10 which is based on a 45-degree truss model; CSA and AASHTO codes, which are based on the Modified Compression Field Theory, as shown in Table 5. The comparisons between the experimental and predicted values by the code equations indicate that ACI 318-0810 is the most conservative because it underestimates the steel contribution Vs from stirrups, especially ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011

when high-strength steel is used. The test results also indicate that CSA and AASHTO codes more accurately predict the steel contribution Vs in all cases except for Beam G3-M100, which is more heavily reinforced with stirrups using a design strength of 100 ksi (690 MPa). CONCLUSIONS Based on the tests of large-scale beams reinforced with high-strength longitudinal and transverse reinforcements, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The shear strength of flexural members can be achieved by using a lesser amount of high-strength stirrups and a lower high-strength longitudinal reinforcement ratio in comparison with using Grade 60 reinforcement. 2. The use of the lower longitudinal reinforcement ratio for the beams reinforced with high-strength steel caused higher deflections compared to the beams reinforced with conventional Grade 60 steel at the same load levels. 3. The measured shear crack widths for all beams reinforced with high-strength stirrups designed with a yield strength of 7

80 and 100 ksi (552 and 690 MPa) were within the allowable limit recommended by ACI 318-08.10 4. At ultimate, failure is typically due to crushing of the concrete strut for beams with and without stirrups. For beams with high-strength stirrups, the measured strains in the stirrups were equal to or greater than the strain of 0.0035 corresponding to 100 ksi (690 MPa) prior to crushing of the concrete strut. 5. The ACI, CSA, and AASHTO LRFD design codes can all be used to predict the shear strength of concrete beams reinforced with high-strength stirrups, with ACI 318-0810 being the most conservative. The predictions by the CSA and AASHTO codes are quite accurate and are very close to each other. A yield strength up to 100 ksi (690 MPa) can be used in the design of high-strength transverse reinforcement for flexural members without impairing the ultimate load-carrying capacity and without exceeding the limits of the crack width. The stirrups, however, should have 135-degree hooks to provide better anchorage when it is designed for such high stresses. More testing is recommended to validate this detail. 6. The ultimate load-carrying capacities recorded for all of the beams were at least five times the service load specified by ACI 318-08.10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank MMFX Technologies Corporation for their financial support for this research. They are also indebted to several members of the Constructed Facilities Laboratory, including J. Atkinson, B. Dunleavy, G. Lucier, and L. Nelson for their help with beam fabrication and laboratory testing.

REFERENCES
1. ASTM A1035/A1035M-07, Standard Specifications for Deformed and Plain, Low Carbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007, 5 pp.

2. ASTM A615/A615M-09, Standard Specifications for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009, 6 pp. 3. MMFX Technologies Corporation, MMFX Steel Technologies, 2005, http://www.mmfx steel.com/. 4. Briggs, M.; Miller, S.; Darwin, D.; and Browning, J., Bond Behavior of Grade 100 ASTM A1035 Reinforcing Steel in Beam-Splice Specimens, SL Report 07-01, The University of Kansas Center for Research Inc., Lawrence, KS, Aug. 2007 (revised Oct. 2007), 83 pp. 5. Glass, G. M., Performance of Tension Lap Splices with MMFX High Strength Reinforcing Bars, MSc thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2007, 141 pp. 6. Hosny, A., Bond Behavior of High Performance Reinforcing Bars for Concrete Structures, MSc thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2007, 150 pp. 7. Seliem, H. M., Behavior of Concrete Bridges Reinforced with HighPerformance Steel Reinforcing Bars, PhD dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2007, 259 pp. 8. Seliem, H. M.; Hosny, A.; and Rizkalla, S., Evaluation of Bond Characteristics of MMFX Steel, Technical Report No. RD-07-02, Constructed Facilities Laboratory (CFL), North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2007, 71 pp. 9. El-Hacha, R.; El-Agroudy, H.; and Rizkalla, S. H., Bond Characteristics of High-Strength Steel Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2006, pp. 771-782. 10. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp. 11. CSA Committee A23.3, Design of Concrete Structures (CSA A23.3-04), Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, ON, Canada, 2004, 258 pp. 12. AASHTO LRFD, Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary, third edition, American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2004. 13. Munikrishna, A., Shear Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with High Performance Steel Shear Reinforcement, MSc thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2008, 167 pp. 14. Shehata, E. F. G., Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) for Shear Reinforcement in Concrete Structures, PhD thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 1999.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011