Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No.

7, September, 477–490
doi: 10.1680/macr.2008.61.7.477

Shear strength of reinforced recycled concrete

beams without stirrups
G. Fathifazl*, A. G. Razaqpury, O. Burkan Isgor{, A. Abbas}, B. Fournier} and
S. Foo**

Adjeleian Allen Rubeli Consulting Structural Engineers; McMaster University; Carleton University; Amec
Americas; Université Laval; Public Works and Government Services Canada

A new method of mixture proportioning is used for investigating the shear performance of reinforced concrete (RC)
beams made with coarse recycled concrete aggregate (RCA). In this method, RCA is treated as a two-phase
material comprising mortar and natural aggregate therefore to proportion the concrete mixture with RCA, the
relative amount and properties of each phase are considered separately. Using the new mix proportioning method,
several beams were designed and tested to study the effect of a number of parameters including the shear span-to-
depth ratio and beam size on the serviceability and strength of RCA concrete beams without shear reinforcement.
For each beam its load–deflection curve, shear deformations, diagonal cracking load, crack pattern, ultimate shear
strength and failure mode were determined. The results showed that the shear performance of RC beams made with
RCA can be comparable, or even superior, to that of beams made entirely with natural aggregates at both
serviceability and ultimate limit states, provided the proposed mixture proportioning method is used. Furthermore,
the simplified methods of ACI and CSA standards as well as Eurocode 2 were found applicable to all reinforced
RCA-concrete beams.

In the past, the majority of investigations have re-

Introduction
Despite the economical and environmental benefits
of concrete involving recycled concrete aggregates
(RCA),1 the construction industry has not embraced it,
especially for structural applications. This is partly a
consequence of previous findings reported in the litera-
ture and of the prevailing belief that concrete made
with coarse RCA has inherently inferior short- and
long-term properties compared with conventional con-
crete made entirely with natural aggregates.
* Adjeleian Allen Rubeli Consulting Structural Engineers, Ottawa,
ON, Canada
y Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada
{ Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton Uni-
versity, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
} Amec Americas, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
} Department of Geology and Engineering Geology, Université Laval,
Québec, Quebec, Canada
** Public Works and Government Services Canada, Gatineau, Que-
bec, Canada
(MACR 800203) Paper received 14 December 2008; accepted 10
February 2009
ported similar shear cracking pattern and failure modes
in conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and rein-
forced recycled concrete (RRC) beams, but lower diag-
onal cracking load and ultimate shear strength have
always been presented.2–4 Furthermore, smoother crack
interface, less effective aggregate interlock mechanism
and consequently less ductile shear behaviour in RRC
beams compared with conventional RC beams have
been reported.2 Consequently, questions have been
raised with respect to the applicability of the existing
empirical relations for calculating the concrete contri-
bution to the shear resistance of conventional RC mem-
bers, commonly denoted as vc , to RRC beams,
especially at larger shear span-to-depth ratios.2,4 This
has been mainly attributed to the less effective aggre-
gate interlock mechanism in RRC beams compared
with conventional RC beams. It is shown in the current
study that the previously reported lower shear strength
of RCA-concrete – that is, concrete made with RCA –
is not an intrinsic property of RCA-concrete; rather, it
is the consequence of an improper method of mixture
proportioning.
Until now the conventional mix proportioning
method for normal concrete has been commonly used
477

www.concrete-research.com 1751-763X (Online) 0024-9831 (Print) # 2009 Thomas Telford Ltd

G. Fathifazl et al.
for RCA-concrete, with some adjustments, such as in-
crease in the cement content, but with no special con-
sideration given to the residual mortar quantity in
RCA.5–10 However, RCA is a two-phase material com-
prising residual mortar and original virgin aggregate;
thus concrete made with coarse RCA, if proportioned
in accordance by conventional methods, would contain
less natural aggregate and more mortar compared with
the concrete containing an equal volume of natural
aggregate only. The reason is that in the conventional
mix design, the residual mortar in RCA is treated as
part of the aggregate rather than mortar. In the current
authors’ opinion, the lower total natural aggregate con-
tent of RCA-concrete is generally responsible for the
observed inferiority of both plain and RRC concrete
compared with conventional concrete. From the shear
resistance perspective, the smaller natural aggregate
content of RCA-concrete results in fewer coarse aggre-
gate particles crossing the cracked shear plane, which
results in reduction of the roughness or asperity of the
crack faces and consequently reduction in the effective-
ness of aggregate interlock mechanism to resist shear
in members made of RCA-concrete. It is suggested
here that the observed inferior properties of RCA-
concrete are not intrinsic, but instead are the conse-
quence of its composition, and the inferiority can be
eschewed by adjusting its composition through applica-
tion of a proper method of mix proportioning.
To test this hypothesis, a new mix proportioning
procedure was developed by the authors of the current
paper,11 based on the fundamental premise that RCA is
a two-phase material comprising residual mortar and
original virgin aggregate; therefore, when proportioning
a concrete mix involving RCA, the volumetric ratio
and relevant properties of each phase must be ac-
counted for separately. In other words, it cannot be
assumed, as is currently customary, that RCA simply
replaces natural aggregate in the mix because it also
modifies the overall mortar content of the mix owing to
the presence of residual mortar in RCA. The main
feature of the proposed method, termed equivalent mor-
tar volume (EMV), is the treatment of residual mortar
in RCA as part of the total mortar volume of concrete.
The total mortar volume is considered as the sum
of the residual and fresh mortar volumes in RCA-
concrete. Concrete proportioned based on this method
has been found to have the same or superior fresh and
hardened properties compared with an equivalent con-
ventional concrete with the same volume of fresh mor-
tar as the total volume of mortar in the companion
RCA-concrete.11
Because the RCA-concrete mixes proportioned by
the EMV method do not suffer from the inferiorities of
similar concrete proportioned by the conventional
method, it is expected that RC beams made of RCA-
concrete proportioned by the EMV method will not
experience lower ultimate shear strength compared with
conventional RC beams made of natural-aggregate-
478
concrete. To verify this hypothesis, an extensive experi-
mental study was carried out. Concrete mixes propor-
tioned by the EMV method were used to cast a large
number of beams. As the key parameters that are
known to affect the concrete contribution to the shear
resistance of RC member, vc , are the shear span-to-
depth ratio and the beam size,12 the effects of these
parameters on vc in reinforced RCA-concrete beams
are investigated. RCA from two different sources are
used in the study, and are designated as RCA-M and
RCA-V, which were obtained from demolition concrete
recycling plants in Montreal (M) and Vancouver (V)
respectively. The original virgin aggregate in RCA-M
is limestone while that in RCA-V is river-bed gravel.
Experimental investigation
Mixture proportions
Two mix types were prepared for each RCA source
using ordinary Portland cement: (a) a control concrete
mix made with coarse natural aggregate of the same
kind as that in the companion RCA and proportioned
according to the American Concrete Institue (ACI)
method for normal concrete;13 and (b) a companion
RCA-concrete mix involving replacement of the coarse
natural aggregate by coarse RCA and proportioned
according to the EMV method.11 The fine aggregate in
all the mixes was natural sand. Note that using the
EMV method ensured equal total mortar volume in the
two mix types.
To compensate for the deficiency in the total natural
aggregate volume of RCA-concrete mix compared with
its companion natural-aggregate-concrete mix, in the
former, which contained both RCA and fresh coarse
natural aggregate, the fresh natural aggregate volume,
V RCA-concrete
NA , was set equal to the total residual mortar
volume in RCA-concrete, V RCA-concrete
RM . The fresh natur-
al aggregate and the natural aggregate contained in the
RCA in each mix were of the same kind; depending on
the RCA source, that is Vancouver against Montreal,
they were either river gravel or crushed limestone.
The specific gravity and absorption capacity of the
aggregates were determined using the standard testing
procedures of the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM).14 The residual mortar content of
each RCA type was determined based on a new method
that involved the immersion of RCA in sodium sul-
phate solution and exposure to several freeze–thaw
cycles.15 Table 1 shows the weighted average properties
for RCA-M, RCA-V, natural limestone, natural gravel
and river sand. Both the natural and the recycled con-
crete aggregates had a nominal maximum size of
19 mm. These aggregates were presoaked while the
fine aggregate was kept moist for 24 h before mixing.
For each mix, six 100 3 200 mm cylinders were pre-
pared and cured in a moist room for 28 days to deter-
mine the compressive and splitting tensile strengths of
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7
 Shear strength of reinforced recycled concrete beams without stirrups

Table 1. Average physical properties of coarse and fine aggregates

Aggregate Moisture Absorption Specific gravity RMC*: %

content: % content: %
Bulk SSD Apparent

RCA-M 1.1 5.40 2.31 2.42 2.64 41

RCA-V 1.3 3.30 2.42 2.50 2.64 23
Limestone 0.2 0.34 2.70 2.71 2.73 —
River gravel 0.2 0.89 2.72 2.74 2.79 —
River sandy 4.0 0.54 2.70 2.72 2.76 —

* Residual mortar content ¼ oven-dry weight of residual mortar/oven-dry weight of RCA

y
Fineness modulus of 2.60

the concrete, using three specimens for each test. An-
other three 150 3 300 mm cylinders were similarly pre-
pared to determine the 28-day elastic modulus of each
concrete mix. An additional nine concrete cylinders
were prepared and cured adjacent to and in the same
manner as the test beams to evaluate the compressive
strength (three 100 3 200 cylinders), splitting tensile
strength (three 100 3 200 cylinders) and elastic modu-
lus (three 150 3 300 cylinders) of the pertinent con-
crete at the time of the testing of the beams. Table 2
presents the proportions of the mixes for the beams,
with the mix designations defined in the last row of the
table. Note that the proportions of the fine and coarse
aggregate are based on oven-dried and air-dried states
respectively. The air-dried coarse aggregate was pre-
pared in individual size fractions (35%, 25% and 40%
for 4.75 mm, 9.5 mm and 12.5 mm fraction sizes re-
spectively) and subsequently combined to produce the
desired grading.
All the beams for each RCA source were cast simul-
taneously using a truck mixer, but as the number of
beams made of the control concrete mixes was small, a
pan mixer was used to prepare the mixes for the control
beams. Table 3 shows a summary of the fresh and
hardened properties of the mixes used.
All of the steel used as flexural reinforcement was

Table 2. Mix proportions of reinforced recycled concrete and control beams

Beam ID RCA content: % Mix proportions: kg/m3

Water Cement Sand Coarse aggregate WRA*: AEy : ml

ml
RCA Natural aggregate

EM 63.5 151 335 630 720 414 1055 35

CL 0 193 430 808 0 835 None 92
EV 74.3 161 358 645 813 281 1132 38
CG 0 191 424 763 0 900 None 91

Mix designation E or C: mix proportioned based on EMV (E) or conventional method (C); and 2) M, V, L or G: mix made with RCA-MO
nomenclature (M), RCA-VA (V), natural limestone (L) or natural gravel (G)

* WRA: Water reducing agent, y AE: Air entraining

Table 3. Fresh and hardened properties of investigated concrete mixes

Mix ID Fresh properties Hardened properties Hardened

ªc : kg/m3
f c9 : MPa Ec : GPa f t : MPa

Slump: Air content: Fresh 28 Test 28 Test 28 Test

mm % ªc : kg/m3 days date days date days date

EM 96 6.4 2341 41.6 36.9 29.8 24.6 3.4 2.8 2333

EV 60 4.5 2398 49.1 43.5 31.8 27.1 3.7 3.4 2364

CL Batch-1 185 5.9 2333 37.1 38 30.3 24.5 3.2 3.0 2308
Batch-2 160 6.4 2330 38.8 38.3 31.7 25.2 3.8 2.7 2324
CG Batch-1 220 6.4 2347 33.8 35.9 30.5 27.9 3.3 3.2 2308
Batch-2 200 6.2 2358 34.4 32.8 31.3 27.1 3.3 3.2 2322

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7 479

G. Fathifazl et al.

grade 400 bars in accordance with the requirements of
CAN/CSA G30.18.16 Nominal bar diameters varied
from j8 mm to j30 mm; the j8 mm bar was smooth
while all the other bar sizes were deformed. In the
coupon tests, the deformed bars exhibited a clear yield
plateau with their yield strength varying between 407
and 473 MPa and their ultimate strength varying be-
tween 572 and 733 MPa. The round smooth bar had a
yield strength of 530 MPa and ultimate strength of
596 MPa. The elastic modulus for all the bars was
approximately 180 GPa, which seems smaller than the
expected value of 200 GPa.
Details of test beams
The test programme comprised 20 longitudinally re-
inforced beams without shear reinforcement. In addi-
tion to the type of concrete, the other test parameters
included beam shear span/depth ratio, a/d, and beam
size.12 Four a/d ratios (1.5, 2, 2.7 and 4) were selected
to cover the shear behaviour of short, intermediate and
slender beams, which are known to exhibit different
shear strength even if they are otherwise identical.17
For each RCA-concrete type proportioned by the EMV
method, four beams were tested – that is, one beam for
each a/d ratio. All the beams were prismatic with
200 mm wide rectangular cross-section, and with an
overall depth ranging from 350 to 375 mm (effective
depth of 305
5 mm). For each RCA type, a control
beam with a/d ratio of 2.70 was made of the compa-
nion natural-aggregate-concrete. Therefore, in total, ten
beams were tested to investigate the effect of a/d ratio
on the shear behaviour and strength of RRC beams
without shear reinforcement. All the beams were long-
itudinally reinforced, with their reinforcement ratios
given in Table 4. To facilitate tracking of the shear
deformations and diagonal crack movements, the west
shear span of each beam was instrumented with a
rosette of linear variable differential transducers
(LVDTs) as described below; consequently, to ensure
shear failure occurrence in the instrumented half of the
span, the other half was reinforced with j10 mm closed
steel stirrups as shown in Figure 1(a). There was only
one exception, in which the whole beam was inadver-
tently reinforced with stirrups, and this case will be
further discussed in a subsequent section.
To study the size effect, four 200 mm wide rectangu-
lar beams with depths of 250, 375, 450 or 550 mm, and
with a constant a/d ratio of 2.70 were built for each
RCA type. Once again, for each RCA type a 200 mm
wide by 375 mm deep control beam was made of

Table 4. Test beams details

Effect of a/d ratio

Beam a/d Dimensions Stirrup Longitudinal bottom bars

ID spacing(s) (r, %)
D L

EM-1.5N 1.50 300 1900 150 2 No. 20 (1.00)

EM-2N 2.00 300 2200 200 3 No. 20 (1.5)
EM-2.7N 2.59 309 2600 200 3 No. 15 + 2 No. 15 (1.62)
CL-2.7N 2.59 309 2600 200 3 No. 15 + 2 No. 15 (1.62)
EM-4N 3.93 305 3400 200 3 No. 20 + 2 No. 20 (2.46)
EV-1.5N 1.50 300 1900 150 2 No. 20 (1.00)
EV-2N 2.00 300 2200 200 3 No. 20 (1.5)
EV-2.7N 2.59 309 2600 200 3 No. 15 + 2 No. 15 (1.62)
CG-2.7N 2.59 309 2600 200 3 No. 15 + 2 No. 15 (1.62)
EV-4N 3.93 305 3400 200 3 No. 20 + 2 No. 20 (2.46)

Size effect

Beam ID a/d Dimensions: mm Stirrup Longitudinal bottom bars

spacing(s) (r, %)
A L

EM-L 2.69 201 2080 135 2 No. 20 + 1 No. 15 (1.99)

EM-M 2.59 309 2600 200 3 No. 15 + 2 No. 15 (1.62)
CL-M 2.59 309 2600 200 3 No. 15 + 2 No. 15 (1.62)
EM-H 2.73 381 3180 200 2 No. 25 + 2 No. 15 (1.83)
EM-HH 2.73 476 3700 200 2 No. 25 + 2 No. 20 (1.68)
EV-L 2.69 201 2080 135 2 No. 20 + 1 No. 15 (1.99)
EV-M 2.59 309 2600 200 3 No. 15 + 2 No. 15 (1.62)
CG-M 2.59 309 2600 200 3 No. 15 + 2 No. 15 (1.62)
EV-H 2.73 381 3180 200 2 No. 25 + 2 No. 15 (1.83)
EV-HH 2.73 476 3700 200 2 No. 25 + 2 No. 20 (1.68)

480 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7

 Shear strength of reinforced recycled concrete beams without stirrups
West East
beam depth as 250 mm (low-L), 375 mm (medium-M),
450 mm (high-H) and 550 mm (very high-HH), respec-
a 600 a tively. These beams were similarly reinforced as those
L
previously described.
2 No. 10
No. stirrup (west)
No. 10 @ S (east)
Instrumentation and test set-up
d
h
As Electrical resistance strain gauges were used to mea-
200 sure the strain in the longitudinal reinforcement and the
(a) concrete. Beam deflection was measured using linear
potentiometers placed along the beam. All the beams
sx were simply supported and tested in four-point bending.
West ST3 h/2 East The load was applied by a 1000 kN servo-controlled
Sy ST1 ST2
hydraulic actuator, attached to a rigid frame. The actua-
x tor applied the load by stroke control to a steel spreader
beam supported by two heavy-duty rocker-and-roller
(b) assemblies symmetrically located 300 mm from the
midspan of the beam. The load was applied using a
Figure 1. Beam details: (a) details of shear beams without displacement rate of 0.01 mm/s, and the automatic data
shear reinforcement; (b) arrangement of LVDT rosette for
acquisition system recorded data every 10 s.
sheared deformation measurements
As the majority of previous research has reported
wider cracks, smoother crack interface and less ductile
behaviour for RRC beams compared with conventional
EM-1·5N

concrete beams,2–4 to verify the validity of these find-

ings with regard to the beams in this investigation, the
EM-2·0N

beams were outfitted with a rosette of three LVDTs

(ST1, ST2 and ST3), arranged as illustrated in Figure
CL-2·7N EM-2·7N

1(b). The length of the LVDTs and the location of the

rosette were chosen based on the expected location of
the major diagonal crack. The LVDTs were placed to
measure both diagonal tension and diagonal compres-
EM-4·0N

sion deformations in the instrument part of the beam,

with the former giving an indication of crack width and
(a) the latter providing information about the extent of
deformation sustained by the concrete in the diagonal
strut.
EV-1·5N
EV-2·0N

Experimental results
EV-2·7N

The results are presented with focus on the effects of

the a/d ratio and beam size on the shear behaviour and
GG-2·7N

strength of RCA-concrete beams without shear rein-

forcement.
EV-4·0N

Effect of a/d ratio

(b)
Failure modes. Figure 2 illustrates the cracking
Figure 2. Typical crack patterns of test beam with different a/d patterns of the beams with different a/d ratios. In this
ratios at failure: (a) EM and CL beams; (b) EV and CG beams figure, the dark lines represent the major diagonal
cracks leading to shear failure, the grey lines the
natural aggregate concrete to compare its shear strength minor shear and flexure-related cracks, and the dark
with that of an otherwise identical beam made of RCA- zones the crushed concrete areas. All the beams
concrete. Therefore, a total of ten beams were tested to failed in shear, except beams EV-1.5N and EV-2.7N,
investigate the size effect on the shear strength of re- which failed in flexure prior to shear failure. The
inforced RCA-concrete beams; Table 4 gives the details flexural failure of beam EV-2.7N was caused by a
of these beams. The following notation is used to desig- fabrication mistake that resulted in the reinforcement
nate them: symbols 1.5N, 2N, 2.7N or 4N refer to the of this beam with stirrups throughout its length and
nominal a/d ratio of 1.5, 2, 2.7 or 4 and N signifies no thus to an inadvertent increase in its shear strength.
shear reinforcement; L, M, H or HH characterises the After inclined cracking, the RCA-concrete beams
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7 481
G. Fathifazl et al.

with a/d ratio of 1.5 or 2 behaved akin to a tied arch
carrying the load by direct compression by way of
struts extending from the loading plates to the supports
and by the longitudinal tension reinforcement acting as
tie. Consequently, they exhibited considerable shear
capacity. On the other hand, the beams with a/d ratio of
2.7 or 4.0 did not develop the same shear resistance
mechanism; therefore, they failed shortly after the for-
mation of the major diagonal crack. These observations
are consistent with the known behaviour of conven-
tional concrete beams with similar a/d ratios.17
Considering the ratio of the failure load to the in-
clined cracking load as an indicator of ductility, or
ductility index, beam EM-1.5N had the highest ductility
index of 2.59 compared with 2.07, 2.00, and 1.0 for
beams EM-2.0N, EM-2.7N and EM-4.0N. Similarly,
beam EV-1.5N had a ductility index of at least 3.06
compared with 2.89 and 1.56 for beams EM-2.0N and
EM-4.0N. Beam EM-2.7N had a ductility index of
2.00, which is much higher than the value of 1.38 for
the companion control beam CL-2.7N made of conven-
tional concrete. The latter ductility index values contra-
dict the reported findings of other researchers with
regard to the ductility of RCA-concrete members.
Figures 3(a) and (b) illustrate the effect of a/d ratio
on the longitudinal steel strain variation at a distance d
from the west support face with shear load for both EM
210
EM-1·5N
180 EM-2·0N
and EV beams. It can be seen that the longitudinal steel
reinforcement near the west support in beams EM-1.5N
and EV-1.5N yielded. This is because of the high shear
resistance of these beams that was sustained by the arch
mechanism, the maintenance of which requires the
development of a substantial tensile force in the tension
reinforcement acting as the arch tie. Consequently, the
resistance of these beams was limited by the tensile
capacity of the longitudinal reinforcement rather than
the shear capacity of the RCA-concrete.
Ultimate shear strength. Figure pffiffiffiffiffi 4 illustrates the
normalised shear resistance (vc = f c9 ) of the EM and
EV test beams with different a/d ratios. For conveni-
ence, the vc value for each beam is normalised by
the square root of the compressive strength of its
concrete. pffiffiffiffiffi
Notice that generally the vc = f c9 value increased as
the a/d ratio decreased. As stated earlier, this is mainly
owing to the arch mechanism resistance which depends
on the magnitude of the diagonal compression and on
the inclination of the thrust line of the arch, which is a
function
pffiffiffiffiffi of the a/d ratio. According to Figure 4(a), the
vc = f c9 values of EM-1.50N, EM-2.0N and EM-2.7N
beams were, respectively, 128%, 102% and p 9%,
ffiffiffiffiffi higher
than that of EM-4.0N. Furthermore, the vc = f c9 values
of EV-1.50N and EV-2.0N beams were 88% and 68%
higher thanpthat .
ffiffiffiffiffi of EV-4 0N (Figure 4(b)). Note that the
actual vc = f c9 value for EV-1.5N may be higher than
that given in Figure 4(b) because it failed in flexure

150 0·6
Shear: kN

120 0·5
EM-4N
CL-2·7N
90 0·4

EM-1·5N
Vc /f ⬘c

60 0·3
EM-2N
EM-2·7N
30
EM-2·7N

0·2
CL-2·7N
EM-4·0N

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0·1
Microstrain
0·0
(a) (a)
210 EV-1·5N

180 0·6
EV-2·0N
150 CG-2·7N 0·5
Shear: kN

120 0·4
EV-1·5N
Vc /f ⬘c

90 EV-2·7N
EV-2·0N

0·3
CG-2·7N

60
EV-4·0N

EV-4N 0·2
30
0·1
0
0 3000 6000 9000 0·0
Microstrain (b)
(b)
Figure 4. Effect of a/d ratio on the ultimate shear resistance
Figure 3. Effect of a/d ratio on longitudinal steel strain near of RCA-concrete beams: (a) EM and control CL beams;
the support: (a) EM and CL beams; (b) EV and CG beams (b) EV and CG beams
482 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7
 Shear strength of reinforced recycled concrete beams without stirrups

rather than shear. This is indicated by the arrow at the
top of the EV-1.5N bar chart. pffiffiffiffiffi
According to Figure 4(a), the vc = f c9 value of EM-
2.7N was 14% higher than that of control beam CL-2.7N.
This finding is contrary to reported findings by others
who have indicated the shear strength of RRC beams to
be lower than that of comparable conventional concrete
beams.2–4 The reason for the previously observed lower
strength can be ascribed to the use of the conventional
mix proportioning method in previous studies against the
EMV method used in this study. The conventional meth-
od leads to lower coarse aggregate content in the RCA-
concrete and thus fewer coarse aggregate particles are
expected to cross the cracked shear plane, which would
reduce crack roughness and weaken the aggregate inter-
lock mechanism of shear resistance.
To ascertain whether existing codes expressions for
estimating the concrete contribution to the shear resis-
tance of concrete beams can be applied to RCA-
concrete members with their concrete mixes propor-
tioned by the EMV method, the vc values for the tested
beams are compared with the values calculated using
three well-known concrete design codes. The bar
graphs in Figure 5 show that none of the tested beams
had smaller shear strength than the calculated values
according to the simplified methods of the Canadian
Standard CSA A23.3-0418 and the American Code
ACI-31819 (equation (11.3)), and Eurocode 2,20 regard-
less of the a/d ratio or the RCA source. It can be
observed that in many cases the calculated values are
rather conservative, particularly for the beams with a/d
ratio of 2 or less, mainly due to the higher contribution
of the arch mechanism to the shear resistance at lower
a/d ratios. Consequently, for RCA-concrete designed by

200 40 200 40

160 160
30 30

120 120
Vc: kips
Vc: kN

Vc: kips
Vc: kN

20 20
80 80

10 10
40 40

0 0 0 0
EV-1·5N EM-1·5N EV-2N EM-2N
(a) (b)

120 27 160 36

120 27
80 18
Vc: kips
Vc: kN

Vc: kips
Vc: kN

80 18

40 9
40 9

0 0 0 0
CL-2·7N EM-2·7N CG-2·7N EV-2·7N
(c) (d)

120 36

27 Experimental
80
EC-2
Vc: kips
Vc: kN

18
ACI-318 (simplified)
40
9 CSA (simplified)

0 0
EV-4N EM-4·0N
(e)

Figure 5. Experimental and predicted ultimate shear strength of RRC beams with different a/d ratios: (a) a/d ¼ 1.5; (b) a/d ¼ 2;
(c) a/d ¼ 2.7; (d) a/d ¼ 2.7; (e) a/d = 4
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7 483
G. Fathifazl et al.

the EMV method, one can safely use the existing codes
expressions for calculating vc .
Shear performance. Figure 6(a) illustrates pffiffiffiffiffi the ef-
fect of a/d ratio on the variation of vc = f c9 against
midspan deflection in the EM and EV series of
beams. Notice that as the a/d ratio increases, the
post-cracking stiffness decreases irrespective of the
RCA type. This can be mainly attributed to the maxi-
mum moment to the maximum shear (M/V) ratio in
the beam, viz. for larger a/d ratio, for the same shear
level the moment would be larger and consequently
the effective moment of inertia of the section would
be smaller after the formation of the cracks, leading
to a noticeable drop in beam stiffness.
Figure 6(b) shows
pffiffiffiffiffi for the EM and EV beams the
variation of vc = f c9 with the deformation measured by
the LVDT bridging across the inclined crack in the west
shear span (ST1). Observe that all of the curves exhibit
an initial linear elastic portion, followed by a descending
branch, a longer ascending part and finally another
descending part after the peak load. The first descending
branch is due to the formation of the first major crack and
the fact that the member is under displacement control.
The load at the beginning of the first descending
branch corresponds to the diagonal cracking load, and
its magnitude is mainly a function of the concrete
strength. The length of the horizontal projection of the
first descending branch, which is an indicator of the
reduction of stiffness of the beam, is generally a func-
tion of the a/d ratio of the beam. The deeper beams with
lower a/d ratio have a shorter descending branch than
the slender beams with higher a/d ratio. This is mainly
due to the moment-to-shear ratio and the ratio of the
cracked to the gross moment of inertia of the beam.
The slope of the ascending part of the curve after the
first descending part is also a function of the a/d ratio
of the beam. This slope is another indicator of the shear
stiffness of the beam, which is higher for the deeper
beams with lower a/d ratio. At higher a/d ratios, after
the inclined crack formation, the load dropped slightly,
but owing to the aggregate interlock mechanism, it
increased again until diagonal tension failure occurred.
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the effect of coarse aggre-
gate type – that is, limestone against river gravel – on
pffiffiffiffiffi
the vc = f c9 variation with midspan deflection and with
the diagonal tensile deformation, respectively. As it can
be seen, generally the type of aggregate has a negligible
effect on the shear strength and stiffness, irrespective of
the a/d ratio.

0·6 0·6
EM-1·5N EV-1·5N
0·5 0·5
EM-2·0N
0·4 0·4
EV-2·0N
Vc /f ⬘c

Vc /f ⬘c

0·3 0·3
EM-2·7N
EV-4·0N
0·2 0·2
EM-4·0N

0·1 0·1

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 10 20 30 40 50
Midspan deflection: mm Midspan deflection: mm
EM beams EV beams
(a)

0·6
0·6 EV-1·5N
EM-1·5N
0·5 EV-2·0N
0·5

EM-2·0N 0·4
0·4
EM-2·7N
Vc /f ⬘c
Vc /f ⬘c

0·3 0·3
EV-4·0N
0·2 EM-4·0N 0·2

0·1 0·1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Side deformation: mm Side deformation: mm
EM beams EV beams
(b)

Figure 6. Effect of a/d ratio on shear behaviour of beams: (a) normalised shear stress–midspan deflection response;
(b) normalised shear stress stress–diagonal deformation response
484 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7
 Shear strength of reinforced recycled concrete beams without stirrups
0·6 EV-1·5N 0·6
0·5 0·5
0·4 0·4 EV-2·0N
EM-1·5N
Vc /Öf ⬘c

Vc /Öf ⬘c
0·3 0·3 EM-2·0N
0·2 0·2
0·1 0·1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 3 6 9 12 15
Midspan deflection: mm Midspan deflection: mm
(a) (b)

0·4 0·3
EV-4·0N
0·3 CL-2·7N
EM-2·7N 0·2

Vc /Öf ⬘c
Vc /Öf ⬘c

0·2 EM-4·0N
0·1
0·1

0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 5 10 15 20
Midspan deflection: mm Midspan deflection: mm
(c) (d)

Figure 7. Coarse aggregate type effect on normalised shear stress resistance–midspan deflection response of beams with
different a/d ratios: (a) a/d ¼ 1.5; (b) a/d ¼ 2; (c) a/d ¼ 2.7; (d) a/d ¼ 4

0·6 EV-1·5N 0·6

EM-1·5N EM-2·0N
0·5 0·5
EV-2·0N
0·4 0·4
Vc /Öf ⬘c

Vc /Öf ⬘c

0·3 0·3
0·2 0·2
0·1 0·1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 3 6 9 12 15
Side deformation: mm Side deformation: mm
(a) (b)
0·5 0·3
EV-4·0N
0·4
EM-2·7N 0·2
0·3 EM-4·0N
Vc /Öf ⬘c

Vc /Öf ⬘c

CL-2·7N
0·2
0·1
0·1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Side deformation: mm Side deformation: mm
(c) (d)

Figure 8. Aggregate effect on normalized shear stress resistance diagonal deformation response of beams at different a/d ratios:
(a) a/d ¼ 1.5; (b) a/d ¼ 2; (c) a/d ¼ 2.7; (d) a/d ¼ 4

According to Figures 7(c) and 8(c), beam EM-2.7N 7(c) the results for beam EM-2.7N with those of the
is less stiff compared with beam CL-2.7N, but it is companion control beam CL-2.7N
more ductile in the post-inclined cracking stages. This
finding is again contrary to the results previously re- Serviceability. Assuming the service load to be
ported by others2 where RCA-concrete beams were 40% of the failure load, the diagonal crack width at
reported to be less ductile. The reason for this differ- service load level was estimated for these beams
ence may be ascribed to the concrete mix proportioning using the diagonal deformation measured by the
method. By using the EMV method, both crack inter- LVDT ST1 parallel to the diagonal tension field. The
face roughness and aggregate interlock mechanism LVDT measures the total deformation, which includes
were enhanced. This is evident by comparing in Figure the crack opening and the deformation of concrete,
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7 485
G. Fathifazl et al.

but the latter is generally much smaller than the

EM-L
former. By ignoring the concrete deformation, crack
width values of 0.19, 0.05, 0.06, 0.01 and 0.03 mm

EM-M
were found for beams EM-1.5N, EM-2.0N, EM-2.7N,
CL-2.7N and EM-4.0N, respectively. Similarly, crack

CL-M
width values of 0.22, 0.00, 0.04 and 0.02 mm were
found for EV-1.5N, EV-2.0N, CG-2.7N and EV-4.0N

EM-H
beams respectively. Note that the higher crack width
in beams with lower a/d ratio is mainly attributable

EM-HH
to their higher ultimate shear strength, and corre-
spondingly higher service load. Similarly, the higher
crack width in EM-2.7N compared with control beam (a)
CL-2.7N is partially due to the higher failure load
and therefore higher service load of the former beam.

EV-L
Practically all these crack widths are well below the
Canadian Standard CSA A23.3-0418 recommended

EV-2M
maximum crack width of 0.4 and 0.33 mm for inter-
ior and exterior exposures respectively.

GG-M
Size effect
In conventional RC beams the size effect on vc is

EV-H
recognised by a number of design codes, including the
Eurocode. In this section the results of beam size effect
EV-HH
on the shear strength of RRC beams without shear rein-
forcement are discussed.
(b)
Failure mode. Figure 9 illustrates the cracking
patterns of the EM and EV series of beams with Figure 9. Typical crack patterns of the test beams with
different depths as well as those of the control beams different depths at failure: (a) EM and CL beams; (b) EV and
CG beams
CL-M and CG-M, which have depth of 375 mm. All
the beams failed in shear with the mode of failure
being diagonal tension, except beam EV-L and EV-L,
which failed in flexure. After the formation of the
major diagonal crack, it propagated towards the com- 0·4
pression face of the beam. In the RRC beams with
small and medium depths (effective depth of 200 and 0·3
Vc /Öf ⬘c

300 mm), the aggregate interlock mechanism and

EM-L
0·2
EM-M

dowel action were capable of sustaining the load in

CL-M
EM-H
EM-HH

the post-inclined cracking stage. The increase in load 0·1

eventually led to the failure of the beam in shear
owing to diagonal tension. On the other hand, the 0·0

RRC beams with larger depth values (effective depth (a)

of 400 and 500 mm) were not capable of load redis-

0·5
tribution after the formation of inclined crack and
they failed shortly thereafter.
0·4

Ultimate shear strength. Figure 10 illustrates the

pffiffiffiffiffi
Vc /Öf ⬘c

normalised shear stress resistance vc = f c9 of EM and 0·3

EV-L
CG-M

EV series of beams having p different

ffiffiffiffiffi effective depth.
Generally, the quantity vc = f c9 decreased as d in- 0·2
EV-H

creased. This may be attributed to less effective

EV-HH

aggregate interlock resistance in larger size beams. 0·1

The aggregate interlock contribution to the shear re-
sistance depends on the maximum distance between
the layers of distributed longitudinal reinforcement as
stipulated in the Canadian Standard CSA A23.3-04.18
While the size effect on shear resistance of conven-
tional concrete members is recognised by many de-
486
0·0
(b)
Figure 10. Experimental nominal shear strength of RCC
beams with different sizes: (a) EM and control beams; (b) EV
and control CG beams
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7
 Shear strength of reinforced recycled concrete beams without stirrups

sign standards, it is clear from the present results that
the same effect exists in RRC beams.
pffiffiffiffiffi
According to Figure 10(a), vc = f c9 of beams EM-H,
EM-M and EM-L are 19%, 53% and 102%p higher
ffiffiffiffiffi than
that of beam EM-HH. Furthermore, the vc = f c9 of EV-
H and EV-L beams are 17% and 143% higher thanpthat ffiffiffiffiffi
of EV-HH (Figure 10(b)). Note that the actual vc = f 9c
value for EV-L may be higher than that given in Figure
10(b) because it failed in flexure rather than shear. This
is indicated by the arrow at the top of p theffiffiffiffiffiEV-L bar
chart. It can also be observed that the vc = f c9 value for
beam EM-M is 14% higher than that of the control beam
CL-M, which is made entirely with natural limestone.
Once again, if the experimentally observed shear
resistance of these beams is compared with the corre-
sponding values predicted by the CSA A23.3-04,18
ACI-31819 (equation (11.3)), and Eurocode 2,20 as in
Figure 11, it is shown that practically all the predictions
are conservative. The only exception is the slightly
higher predicted value by Eurocode 2 for beam EM-
HH. The degree of conservatism tends to increase with
decreasing depth owing to the greater contribution of
the aggregate interlock mechanism to the shear resis-
tance of beams with smaller depth.
Shear performance.
pffiffiffiffiffi Figure 12(a) shows the varia-
tion of vc = f c9 with midspan deflection in the beam
series EM and EV with different sizes. Generally, the
slope of the curves tends to decrease as the beam
size increases. This is again attributed to the greater
effectiveness of the aggregate interlock mechanism in
smaller size beams. In the larger size beams – that
is, EM-HH and EV-HH – after the formation of the
inclined crack, the stiffness of the beam drops drama-
tically. pffiffiffiffiffi
Figure 12(b) shows the variation of the vc = f c9 with
the nominal size of the diagonal crack as measured by
the diagonally oriented LVDT bridging over the in-
clined crack in the west shear span. These curves ex-
hibit a response similar to that described earlier with
reference to Figure 12(a).
As the first descending part of each curve is due to
the formation of the diagonal crack, it is clear that the
larger-size beams experience significant loss of stiff-

160 36 120 27

120 27
80 18
Vc : kips

Vc : kips
Vc : kN

Vc : kN

80 18

40 9
40 9

0 0 0 0
EV-L EM-L CL-M EM-M
(a) (b)

160 36 160 36

120 27 120 27
Vc : kips

Vc : kips
Vc : kN

Vc : kN

80 18 80 18

40 9 40 9

0 0 0 0
CG-M EV-M EV-H EM-H
(c) (d)

160 36

Experimental
120 27
Vc : kips

EC-2
Vc : kN

80 18
ACI-318 (simplified)
40 9 CSA (simplified)

0 0
EV-HH EM-HH
(e)

Figure 11. Experimental and predicted ultimate shear strength of RRC beams with different sizes: (a) d ¼ 201 mm;
(b) d ¼ 309 mm; (c) d ¼ 309 mm; (d) d ¼ 381mm; (e) d ¼ 476 mm
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7 487
G. Fathifazl et al.
0·5 0·6
EV-L
0·4 0·5

0·4
0·3
Vc /Öf ⬘c

Vc /Öf ⬘c
0·3
EM-L
0·2 EV-H
EM-M 0·2
0·1 EM-HH 0·1
EM-H EV-HH
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Midspan deflection: mm Midspan deflection: mm
EM beams EV beams
(a)

0·5
0·6
EV-L
0·4 0·5
EM-M 0·4
0·3
Vc /Öf ⬘c

Vc /Öf ⬘c
0·3
0·2 EM-L EV-H
EM-HH 0·2 EV-HH
0·1 EM-M 0·1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Side deformation: mm Side deformation: mm
EM beams EV beams

(b)

Figure 12. Size effect on shear behaviour or RRC members: (a) normalised shear stress resistance–midspan deflection response:
(b) normalised shear stress variance plotted against diagonal tensile deformation

ness and strength compared with the smaller-size diagonal cracks and they reach their maximum shear
beams after the advent of this crack. Furthermore, the capacity just before the formation of the diagonal
magnitude of the change in the diagonal deformation crack. Conversely, the smaller-size beams carry signifi-
between the initial and terminal points of the descend- cantly higher shear than their diagonal cracking load.
ing part is indicative of the size of the diagonal crack. Figures 13 and 14, respectively, illustrate the effect
pffiffiffiffiffi
Accordingly, the larger-size beams experience wider of aggregate type on the variation of vc = f c9 plotted
0·6 0·4
EV-L
0·5
0·3 CL-M
0·4 EM-M
Vc /Öf ⬘c

Vc /Öf ⬘c

0·3 0·2
0·2 EM-L
0·1
0·1
0
0
0 7 14 21 28 35
0 3 6 9 12 15
Midspan deflection: mm Midspan deflection: mm
(a) (b)

0·3 0·3

0·2 0·2 EV-HH

EM-HH
Vc /Öf ⬘c

Vc /Öf ⬘c

EV-H

0·1 0·1

EM-H
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 0 2·5 5·0 7·5 10
Midspan deflection: mm Midspan deflection: mm
(c) (d)

Figure 13. Aggregate type effect on normalised shear stress resistance–midspan deflection of beams with different sizes:
(a) d ¼ 201 mm; (b) d ¼ 309 mm; (c) d ¼ 381 mm; (e) d ¼ 476 mm
488 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7
 Shear strength of reinforced recycled concrete beams without stirrups
0·6 0·5
EV-L
0·5 0·4
0·4 EM⫺2·7N
0·3
Vc /Öf ⬘c

Vc /Öf ⬘c
0·3 CL⫺2·7N
EM-L 0·2
0·2

0·1 0·1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Side deformation: mm Side deformation: mm
(a) (b)

0·3 0·3

0·2 0·2
EV-H
Vc /Öf ⬘c

Vc /Öf ⬘c
EV-HH

0·1 0·1 EM-HH

EM-H
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 3 6 9
Side deformation: mm Side deformation: mm
(c) (d)

Figure 14. Effect of aggregate type on normalised shear stress resistance–diagonal tensile deformation of RRC beams with
different sizes

against midspan deflection and diagonal deformation.
These figures show that the type of natural aggregate
in the two kinds of coarse RCA used in this study did
not have any significant effect on the shear strength of
the beams made with these aggregates.
Serviceability. Assuming the serviceability load to
be 40% of the failure load of these beams, under
service load approximate diagonal crack width values
of 0.16, 0.06, 0.01, 0.02 and 0.00 mm were measured
for beams EM-L, EM-M, CL-M, EM-H and EM-HH,
respectively. Similarly, crack width values of 0.28,
0.04, 0.03 and 0.00 mm were measured for beams EV-
L, CG-M, EV-H and EV-HH, respectively. Note that the
larger crack width in smaller-size beams is mainly
attributable to their higher ultimate shear strength, and
consequently their proportionally higher service load.
These crack widths are well below the maximum crack
width of 0.4 and 0.33 mm for interior and exterior
exposures recommended by CSA A23.3-04.18
Conclusions
In this paper, the results of an investigation into the
shear strength and behaviour of RRC beams without
shear reinforcement were presented. The focus of the
study was the effect of the proposed EMV concrete
mix design method on the shear capacity of RCA-
concrete beams. Based on the results of the current
investigation, provided the RCA-concrete mix is de-
signed by the EMV method, the following conclusions
are reached.
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7
(a) There is no major difference between the failure
modes, cracking patterns and shear performance of
RRC beams and conventional RC beams. Gener-
ally, the tested RRC beams had higher shear stress
resistance (vc ) and were found to be more ductile
after the formation of diagonal cracking than the
conventional RC beams.
(b) The shear strength of RRC beams increased as the
a/d ratio decreased, irrespective of the source,
mainly owing to the higher contribution of the arch
mechanism to the shear resistance at lower a/d
ratios.
(c) Irrespective of the RCA source, the vc of RRC
beams increased as the overall depth of the beam
decreased, which is a result of the well-known size
effect as in conventional RC beams. This increase
is primarily attributed to the lower effectiveness of
the aggregate interlock mechanism in larger-size
beams.
(d) Despite the slightly larger diagonal crack width in
RRC beams compared with the companion RC
beams, the observed crack widths in all the RRC
beams were below the maximum crack width per-
mitted by the Canadian Standard CSA A23.3-04
and ACI-318 codes.
(e) For the same a/d ratio, concrete compressive
strength and beam depth, the effect of aggregate
type (RCA against natural aggregate) on the shear
strength of RRC beams was found to be negli-
gible.
( f ) The simplified methods of CSA A23.3-04 and
ACI-318 as well that of Eurocode 2 for calculating
vc were found to be conservative when applied
489
G. Fathifazl et al.
to predict the shear of practically all the RCA-
concrete beams tested in this study.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to express their sincere apprecia-
tion to Public Works and Government Services Canada
and to Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada for their financial support of this
study.
References
1. Abbas A., Fathifazl G., Isgor O. B., Razaqpur A. G., Four-
iner B. and Foo S. Environmental benefits of green concrete.
Proceedings of Climate Change Conference, Ottawa, Ontario,
2006.
2. Han B. C., Yun H. D. and Chung S. Y. Shear capacity of
reinforced concrete beams made with recycled-aggregate. ACI
Special Publications, 2001, 200, 503–516.
3. Maruyama I., Sogo M., Sogabe T., Sato R., Kawai K. Shear
behaviour of reinforced recycled concrete beams. Proceedings
of the Conference on the Use of Recycled Materials in Building
and Structures, Barcelona, Spain, 2004.
4. Etxeberria M., Marı́ A. R. and Vázquez E. Recycled aggre-
gate concrete as structural material. Materials and Structures,
2007, 40, No. 5, 529–541.
5. Dhir R. K., Limbachiya M. C. and Leelawat T. Suitability of
recycled concrete aggregate for use in BS 5328 designated
mixes. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Struc-
tures and Buildings, 1999, 134, No. 3, 257–274.
6. Limbachiya M. C., Leelawat T. and Dhir R. K. Use of
recycled concrete aggregate in high-strength concrete. Materials
and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 2000, 33, No. 233,
574–580.
7. Mandal S., Chakarborty S. and Gupta A. Some studies on
durability of recycled aggregate concrete. Indian Concrete Jour-
nal, 2002, 76, No. 6, 385–388.
8. Gomez Soberon J. M. V. Shrinkage of concrete with replace-
ment of aggregate with recycled concrete aggregate. ACI Special
Publications, 2002, 209, 475–496.
9. Gomez Soberon J. M. V. Creep of concrete with substitution of
490
normal aggregate by recycled concrete aggregate. ACI Special
Publications, 2002, 209, 441–464.
10. Gomez-Soberon J. M. V. Porosity of recycled concrete with
substitution of recycled concrete aggregate: an experimental
study. Cement and Concrete Research, 2002, 32, No. 8, 1301–
1311.
11. Fathifazl G., Abbas A., Razaqpur A. G., Isgor O. B., Four-
nier B. and Foo S. The key to the design and production
of high quality structural-grade recycled aggregate concrete.
Proceedings of the 2008 Concrete Technology Forum: Focus on
Sustainable Development, Denver, CO, USA, 2008.
12. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)–American
Concrete Institute (ACI) Task Committee 445. Recent ap-
proaches to shear design of structures. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 1998, 124, No. 12, 1375–1417.
13. American Concrete Institute. Standard Practice for Select-
ing Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight and Mass concrete,
ACI 211.1-91. ACI, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1998, ACI
Committee 211.
14. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C
127-88. Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorp-
tion of Coarse Aggregate. ASTM, West Conshohocken, Phila-
delphia (reapproved 1993), 1996.
15. Abbas A., Fathifazl G., Isgor O. B., Razaqpur A. G., Four-
nier B. and Foo S. Proposed method for determining the
residual mortar content of recycled concrete aggregates. Journal
of ASTM International, 2008, 5, No. 1. http://www.astm.org/
DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/JAI/TOC/512008.htm.
16. Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Billet-Steel bars
for Concrete Reinforcement. CSA Standard CAN/CSA-
G300.18-M92 (R2007), 2007, Rexdale, Ontario.
17. Park R. and Paulay T. Reinforced Concrete Structures. Wiley-
Interscience, New York, 1975, pp. 271–300.
18. Canadian Standard Association. Design of Concrete Struc-
tures. CSA Standard A23.3-04, CSA, Rexdale, Ontario, 2000.
19. American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete. ACI 318-05. ACI, Farmington Hills,
2005, ACI Committee 318.
20. Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN). Eurocode 2.
Design of Concrete. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the editor by
1 March 2010
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2009, 61, No. 7