Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
* Corresponding author.
ABSTRACT
The shear behaviour of concrete beams made from phyllite aggregates subjected to
monotonic and cyclic loading is reported. First diagonal shear crack load of beams with and
without shear reinforcement was between 4258% and 4292% of the failure loads
respectively. The phyllite concrete beams without shear links had lower post-diagonal
cracking shear resistance compared to corresponding phyllite beams with shear links. As a
result of hysteretic energy dissipation, limited cyclic loading affected the stiffness, strength
and deformation of the phyllite beams with shear reinforcement. Generally, beams with and
without shear reinforcement showed anchorage bond failure in addition to the shear failure
due to high stress concentration near the supports. The ACI, BS and EC codes are
conservative for the prediction of phyllite concrete beams without shear reinforcement but
they all overestimate the shear strength of phyllite concrete beams with shear reinforcement.
It is recommended that the predicted shear capacity of phyllite beams reinforced with steel
stirrups be modified by a reduction factor of 0.7 in order to specify a high enough safety
factor on their ultimate strength. It is also recommended that susceptibility of phyllite
concrete beams to undergo anchorage bond failure is averted in design by the provision of
greater anchorage lengths than usually permitted.
1. Introduction
As the population of the world increases and urban centres expand, the levels of construction
are also expected to increase. The construction industry in most countries makes use of
aggregates extracted from natural sources for the production of concrete. In the UK alone,
nearly 208 million tonnes of sand, gravel and crushed rock aggregates are mined for
construction annually [1]. The use of aggregates in concrete is primarily dependent on their
1
Earlier work [7] has expressed concerns about the low compression and flexural strengths
of plain phyllite concrete. This was attributed to the flakiness and elongation properties
coupled with the reactive materials in phyllite aggregates that affect the absorption and bond
characteristics of its concrete. A study [8] of the flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete
phyllite beams adequately reinforced with shear stirrups indicated concerns about their shear
capacity as a result of the formation of diagonal tension cracks at failure. It was concluded
that the BS8110 [9] theoretical shear strength of the concrete made from phyllite aggregates
be reduced as a result of the early formation of diagonal tension cracks observed during the
testing of the beams.
Shear mechanism is an important aspect of structural concrete behaviour, yet this is an area
lacking in-depth understanding and consensus amongst researchers [10]. It is therefore not
surprising that neither the distribution of shear stress across a flexurally cracked beam nor the
determination of shear stress magnitude have been fully understood. The complex nature of
this phenomenon-non has been attributed to the many different parameters that are identified
to influence shear strength. However, it is generally accepted [11,12] that the shear capacity
of reinforced normal concrete beams without shear reinforcement derive its contributions
from compression shear zone (ranging between 20% and 40%), aggregate interlock
mechanism (ranging between 35% and 50%) and the dowel action of longitudinal
reinforcement (ranging between 15% and 25%). Walraven [13] reported that shear failure is
2
usually caused by a large amount of shear force that is transferred along the cracked surface
via aggregate interlock which provides resistance against slip. The effect of aggregate
interlock on concrete shear resistance reduces as the depth of beam increases. This is because
an increase in crack widths at points above the main reinforcement weakens the aggregate
interlock capacity and reduces concrete shear capacity [1417]. It is also known that
aggregate interlock is dependent on longitudinal reinforcement ratio. Higher percentages of
longitudinal reinforcement results in smaller crack widths which in turn enhance aggregate
interlock and shear capacity. For beams with very small shear-span to depth ratio, Kani [18]
explained that the shear resistance may be affected because the applied shear force may be
transmitted directly to the supports by arch action (compressive struts) of the concrete.
Table 1 Properties of aggregates.
Physical Properties
Unit weight (relative)
Water Absorption (%)
Aggregate Impact (%)
Aggregate Crushing (%)
Ten-percent Fines (KN)
Flakiness Index (%)
Elongation Index (%)
Los Angeles Abrasion
Phyllite Aggregates
2.72
1.80
9.80
18.64
255.75
28.00
25.00
17.50
Fine aggregate
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01
0.1
10
100
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) to the specifications of BS 12:1989 [25] was used for
concrete manufacture. Grading of fine and coarse aggregates were done to the specifications
of appropriate codes [26]. River sand was used as fine aggregates whilst crushed phyllite
stones were used as coarse aggregates in phyllite concrete beams. Table 1 shows the physical
properties of the phyllite aggregates performed according to specifications [27]. Fig 1a shows
phyllite aggregates of diverse sizes whilst Fig 1b shows particle size distribution curves for
fine and coarse aggregates. The average yield strength of the tensile reinforcing bars was 375
N/ mm2 with nominal diameter (size) of 12 mm. Steel bar size of 6 mm was used as nominal
top reinforcement having average yield strength of 250 N/mm2.
Sixteen (16) beams were cast and tested in the laboratory. Ten (10) of these beams were
without shear reinforcement whilst the remaining had shear reinforcement. All the 16 beams
were of design mix ratio 1:1.5:3 (cement: sand: coarse aggregates) and water-cement ratio of
0.5 with a target 28-day compressive strength of 25 MPa. Five different beam dimensions
with different cross sectional areas (140 mm X310 mm, 140 mm X 265 mm, 110 mm X 225
mm, 110 mm X184 mm and 90 mm X 150 mm) and respective lengths (2400 mm, 2000 mm,
1700 mm, 1500 mm and 1000 mm) were considered for the beams without shear
reinforcement (P1P10). Each type of beam dimension was reinforced with 1% and 2%
amount of longitudinal steel reinforcement. There was no shear reinforcement, within the
effective span of the beams (P1P10). The 6 beams with shear reinforcement (P11P16) had
dimensions 145 mm X 265 mm X 2000 mm as shown in Table 2. The beams with stirrup
reinforcement were made of 3 stirrup spacing types; R6@250mm (P11 and P12),
R6@150mm (P13 and P14) and R6@100mm (P15 and P16). The shear span to depth ratio
was kept between 2.35 and 2.5 to ensure that shear rather than bending failure occurred in all
beams during testing. The reinforcement details of the beams are shown in Fig 2.
Percentage
Longitudinal
reinforcement
(%)
28days
Concrete
compressive
strength,
fcu (N/mm2)
28days
Concrete
flexural
strength,
fcr(N/mm2)
BEAM
No.
BXD
(mm x mm)
Length
(mm)
Shear
span/eff.
depth ratio
(av/d)
P1
140 X 310
2400
2.45
23.50
3.40
P2
140 X 310
2400
2.45
23.50
3.40
P3
140 X 265
2000
2.45
23.50
3.40
P4
140 X 265
2000
2.45
23.50
3.40
P5
110 X 225
1700
2.45
23.00
3.38
P6
110 X 225
1700
2.45
23.00
3.38
P7
110 X 184
1500
2.45
23.00
3.38
P8
110 X 184
1500
2.45
23.00
3.38
P9
90 X 150
1000
2.35
23.00
3.38
P10
90 X 150
1000
2.35
23.00
3.38
PS4A
140 X 265
2000
2.45
R6@250mm
23.50
3.40
PS4B
140 X 265
2000
2.45
R6@250mm
23.50
4.00
PS4C
140 X 265
2000
2.45
R6@150mm
23.50
2.50
PS4D
140 X 265
2000
2.45
R6@150mm
23.50
3.40
PS4E
140 X 265
2000
2.45
R6@100mm
23.50
4.00
PS4F
140 X 265
2000
2.45
R6@100mm
23.50
2.50
All the beams were cast, placed in wooden moulds and compacted with a shutter vibrator.
Beams were left to cure under damp mats for 28 days after which they were tested.
Companion concrete cubes (100 X 100 X 100 mm) and modulus of rupture beams (100 X
100 X 500 mm) were cast and cured in water for 28 days to determine the compressive and
bending strengths of the plain concrete respectively. The average compressive strength of
phyllite concrete was 23.2 N/mm2. The beams were tested by four point bend test as
described in Fig 3. Beam deflections at mid-span for a steady loading rate of 0.2 kN/s were
taken with the aid of a dial gauge fixed at the bottom of each beam. Crack development on
the concrete beam surface was closely monitored to ascertain first flexural and shear cracks,
and crack width at tension steel level. Crack widths were measured at the load increments
using a crack microscope of optical magnification 10X and reading to 0.02 mm. Crack
6
D
900 2100 mm
1000 2400 mm
265mm
1800 mm
145mm
2000 mm
(b) Beam with shear reinforcement (P11-P16)
Fig.2 Beam details
spacing). This implies that confinement of concrete by shear reinforcement and increasing
effect of shear reinforcement per unit volume influences the strength and ductility
characteristics of phyllite concrete beams with same longitudinal tension reinforcement.
However, the ultimate load and displacement of P11 (R6@250 link spacing) was higher than
that of P13 (R6@150 link spacing) which is counterintuitive. The only logical explanation
could be due to the higher flexural strength of concrete in P11 as compared to P13. The
ultimate displacements of the beams with shear reinforcement were also very low ranging
from about 46 mm. From Fig. 4 and 5, the RC phyllite beams showed poor ductility
behaviour. All the beams exhibited low amount of deflection coupled with brittle failure
modes that occurred without providing ample warning to the imminence of failure.
compared to corresponding phyllite beams (P11P16) with shear link values ranging from 38
to 64 kN. As expected, post-diagonal cracking shear resistance increased with decreasing
stirrup spacing.
90
P2
80
70
80
P4
70
P1
60
80
P3
40
Load (KN)
50
70
60
60
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
90
90
50
50
30
30
30
20
20
20
10
10
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Midspan Deflection
(mm)
P8
40
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Midspan Deflection
(mm)
P7
Midspan Deflection
(mm)
The ACI 318-02 [23] equations for shear resistance of concrete and steel shear
reinforcement are given by:
Vc =
(1)
kN
(2)
Where Vu is factored shear force at section; M is factored moment at section; b is the beam
width; d is the effective depth of beam cross-section; fcu is compressive strength of concrete;
fyv is characteristic yield strength of reinforcement; q is the percentage of tension
10
120
P11
P13
Load (kN)
100
80
P4
60
40
20
0
0
BS 8110: Part 1: 1997 [9] equations used in the calculation of shear resistance of concrete
and shear reinforcement are given by:
(3)
kN
(4)
As per EC 2 specification [ ], shear resistance of concrete and shear reinforcement are given by:
kN
kN
where a is the shear span and
(5)
(6)
is the diagonal concrete strut angle which is set between 22o and 45o.
In this research, a value of 45o was used to give the lowest possible shear resistance due to shear
reinforcement in equation 6.
11
100
Load (kN)
80
P12
60
40
20
0
0
3
4
5
Midspan deflection (mm)
120
P13
100
P14
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0
12
P16
Load (kN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
3
4
Midspan deflection (mm)
Table 4 shows the experimental shear force in KN compared with those based on the
recommendations of the ACI, BS and EC codes. The shear strength ratios (Vexp/Vcode) for the
beams without shear reinforcement (P1P10) vary from 1.20 to 2.84. Therefore, all the three
codes underestimate the actual ultimate shear strength of the beams without shear
reinforcement and are therefore conservative in their estimations. Others [20] have shown
that the shear prediction of normal concrete beams without shear reinforcement using ACI,
BS and EC codes was conservative with shear strength ratios in the range 1.982.17. This
suggests when beams without shear reinforcement are considered, there could be a wide
variation in the code prediction of phyllite concrete shear as com-pared to that of normal
concrete. In the current study, the ACI code was the most conservative whilst EC 2 was the
least conservative in terms of shear prediction for beams which has only bottom tension
reinforcement. As expected in beams P1P10, the beams with 1% longitudinal reinforcement
ratio recorded lower shear strengths than those of corresponding beams with 2% longitudinal
reinforcement ratio. This is because for beams with same geometrical dimensions and
concrete compressive strength, dowel action is controlled by the amount of longitudinal
tension reinforcement provided. BS 8110 and EC 2 codes have very conservative equations
for the deeper beams but the ACI code proved most conservative for the smaller beams
predicting low shear strength as compared to the rest. Hassan et al. [12] also indicated in an
13
experimental study on normal concrete and self-consolidating concrete beams in shear that
the ACI code is conservative for smaller beams. The unconservative prediction of the ACI
code for larger beams with low reinforcement ratios has also been recognized by others
[12,32].
As expected, the experimental shear capacities (Vexp) for the beam without shear
reinforcement (P4) is lower than those of cor-responding beams with stirrups (P11P16).
Shear capacities in beams with stirrups, generally increased with decreasing stirrup spacing.
The experimental shear strength for beams with shear reinforcement (P11P16) was
generally lower than those derived from the code prediction. The strength ratios for P11P16
for all the 3 codes were generally less than one (1) for all the 3 codes. In-fact, 75% of the
shear strength ratios had values from 0.8 to 0.98. These results are in contrast to tests done on
both normal concrete and palm kernel shell concrete beams with shear reinforcement by
Alengaram et al. [20]. In that experimental study, the experimental to predicted shear
capacities varied from 1.57 to 2.83 for both type of beams using the ACI, BS and EC codes.
Higher experimental shear capacities obtained for beams made of normal concrete and palm
kernel shell concrete beams could be attributed to good aggregate interlock [20,33].
A reduction factor of 0.8 recommended for the modification of the BS 8110 code shear
capacity prediction against early formation of shear cracks in an earlier study on flexural
behaviour of phyllite beams [8] may still not be safe because of the limits of the unsafe ratios.
Structural concrete codes of practice (e.g. ACI, BS and EC) al-low for strength adjustments
to be made for shear strength calculation of non-conventional aggregates. The ACI code
permits the use of a reduction factor for shear strength calculation of light weight concrete
(LWC). The ACI code allows for respective reduction factors of 0.85 and 0.75 for sandlightweight concrete and all-lightweight concrete. BS code makes provision for a reduction
factor of 0.8 for LWC whilst EC 2 also provides for a reduction factor varying from 0.6 to
0.94 for LWC depending on the dry density of the concrete. Based on the unsafe ratio range
obtained in this limited study, it is recommendation that a reduction factor of 0.7 must be
applied to code prediction of shear capacity when designing RC beams with shear
reinforcement made from phyllite aggregates. This will ensure the specification of a high
enough safety factor on ultimate strength. It must be emphasised that whilst all the 3 codes
are conservative for the prediction of phyllite concrete beams without shear reinforcement,
they over predict the shear strength of beams with shear reinforcement. It can therefore be
inferred that the shear contribution of the steel stirrups in the phyllite concrete beams could
14
not be effectively mobilised. This could be attributed to the flaky nature of the aggregates
which indirectly affects the load transfer mechanism between the concrete and steel rods.
15
16
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
Experimental load,
First
First Failure
flexural shear
load,
crack,
crack
Pult
Pcr
Ps
14
40
68
12
60
78
10
44
66
10
66
80
14
28
50
14
46
50
16
24
40
14
28
46
12
18
28
14
24
40
28
44
106
Ps
0.29
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.32
0.40
0.39
0.33
0.40
0.26
0.59
0.77
0.67
0.83
0.77
0.92
0.60
0.61
0.50
0.60
0.42
28
18
22
14
22
4
16
18
10
16
62
P12*
26
48
86
0.30
0.56
38
P13
38
56
96
0.40
0.58
40
36
58
114
0.31
0.51
56
P15
36
64
128
0.28
0.50
64
P16*
40
68
118
0.34
0.58
50
P14
17
anchorage length than the calculated length based on anchorage bond stress and contact area
of the bar be used as done in other non-conventional aggregate concrete beams where
anchorage failure occurred [30].
In view of durability problems which cause concrete components to fail prematurely,
cracking characteristic of phyllite concrete beams were investigated. During loading, flexural
cracks propagated first in the mid- span and the number of cracks also in-crease and become
wider with increase in loading. With further in-crease in loads, cracks develop in the shear
region extending diagonally toward the loading point. Other new diagonal cracks be-gin to
form separately from locations closer to the supports. The number of cracks at failure varied
from 2 to 10 in phyllite concrete beams without stirrups (P1P10). There was a notable trend
in the distribution of cracks and crack widths. More number of cracks (1128) and wider
crack widths (3.939.82 mm) were observed in the beams with shear reinforcement (P11
P16). As observed by other researchers [12,2831], a high number of cracks resulted in
smaller crack widths. Beams subjected to cyclic loads (P12, P14 and P16), exhibited wider
crack widths as compared to corresponding beams subjected to monotonic loading (P11, P13
and P15).
Table 4 Experimental and predicted shear capacity
BEAM
Vexp
(kN)
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12*
P13
P14*
P15
P16*
68
78
66
80
50
50
40
46
28
40
106
86
96
114
128
118
ACI
1.33
1.37
1.53
1.67
1.88
1.68
1.87
1.91
2.21
2.84
1.31
1.07
0.92
1.09
0.96
0.88
EC2
1.28
1.14
1.38
1.30
1.63
1.25
1.57
1.37
1.57
1.74
1.19
0.97
0.86
1.02
0.92
0.85
18
Failure mode
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
PS4A
Shear/anchorage
Shear/anchorage
Shear/anchorage
Shear/anchorage
Shear
Shear
Shear
Shear
Shear
Shear
Shear
PS4A*
Number
of cracks
at failure
Maximum
crack width
at failure
10
6
6
2
6
4
6
2
4
6
23
0.14
0.12
0.44
0.52
0.66
2.00
0.96
0.40
0.80
1.00
3.93
Shear
18
5.82
PS4B
Shear/anchorage
19
4.34
PS4B*
Shear/anchorage
18
6.78
PS4C
Shear/anchorage
16
4.52
PS4C*
Shear/anchorage
11
9.82
Fig.8. Typical variation of crack width with load for beams P4, P11, P13 and P15.
19
Fig. 8 shows graphs of load against crack width for corresponding beams P4 (no links), P11
(R6@250mm), P13 (R6@150mm) and P15 (R6@100mm) all subject to monotonic loading.
The graphs reveal that the phyllite aggregate developed wider cracks as steel stirrup spacing
increased. This is because aggregate interlock which plays a major role in the shear transfer
mechanism is influenced by frictional forces that develop across diagonal cracks. These
frictional forces are at a minimum in phyllite concrete as a result of the physical
characteristics of the aggregates thus leading to wider cracks. The presence of wider cracks
also affects ultimate shear capacity of concrete beams. An increase in crack widths at points
above the main reinforcement weakens the aggregate inter-lock capacity and reduces
concrete shear capacity [1417].
4. Conclusions
The shear resistance of phyllite concrete beams with and with-out shear reinforcement is
described based on test results of experimental beams. The crack load, crack width, number
of cracks, failure modes and overall shear resistance at failure are critically analyzed to study
the effect of longitudinal tension reinforcement, shear reinforcement, monotonic loading and
cyclic loading on RC beams made from phyllite aggregates. Based on the results presented in
this paper, the following conclusions are made:
All the RC phyllite beams showed typical structural behaviour in shear. Most of the beams
(14 out 16) with or with-out shear reinforcement showed anchorage bond failure in addition
to the diagonal shear failure due to high stress concentration near the supports.
The RC phyllite beams showed poor ductility behaviour. All the beams exhibited low amount
of deflections coupled with brittle failure modes that occurred without providing ample
warning to the imminence of failure.
The shear capacity of phyllite concrete beams without shear reinforcement predicted using
ACI 318-02, BS 8110 and EC 2 are conservative for the prediction of phyllite concrete beams
without shear reinforcement, with average experimental shear capacities of approximately
80%, 50% and 40% respectively higher compared to predicted.
For beams with shear reinforcement, the codes (ACI 318-02, BS 8110 and EC 2)
underestimate the ultimate shear capacity of RC phyllite beams by between 4% and 20%.
It is recommended that the predicted shear capacity of phyllite beams reinforced with steel
stirrups be modified by a reduction factor of 0.7 in order to specify a high enough safety
factor on their ultimate strength.
20
References
[1]
FIP manual of lightweight aggregate concrete. 2nd ed. London: Surrey University
Press; 1983.
[2]
Valera TS, Ribeiro AP, Valenzuela-Diaz FR, Yoshiga A, Ormanji W, Toffoll SM.
The effect of phyllite as a filler for PVC plastisols. In: Annual technical conference
society of plastics engineers, vol. 60, no. 3; 2002. p. 394953.
[3]
Garzon E, Sanchez-Soto PJ, Romero E. Physical and geotechnical properties of clay
phyllites. Appl Clay Sci 2010;48:30718.
[4]
Vazquez J, Garzon E, Romerosa A, Serrano-Ruiz M, Sanchez-Soto P, Galera M.
South Spain soils containing phyllites improved by using cement and lime. Concr Sustain
Agri 2005:299304.
[5]
Montenari M, Servais T, Paris F. Palynological dating (acritarchs and chitinozoans) of
lower Paleozoic phyllites from the Black Forest/ southwestern Germany. Ser IIA Earth
Planet Sci 2000;330(7):4939.
[6]
Ramamurthy T, Venkatappa RG, Singh J. Engineering behaviour of phyllites. Eng
Geol 1993;33(3):20925.
[7]
Adom-Asamoah M, Afrifa Owusu RA. Study of concrete properties using phyllite as
coarse aggregates. J Mater Des 2010;31(9):45616.
[8]
Adom-Asamoah M, Afrifa Owusu R. Investigation on the flexural behaviour of
reinforced concrete beams using phyllite aggregates from mining waste. J Mater Des
2011;2011(32):513240.
[9]
British Standards Institution: structural use of concrete. BS 8110: Part 1; 1997. [10]
Kong Evans. Reinforced and prestressed concrete. 3rd ed. London: Chapman &
Hall; 1994.
[11] Taylor HPJ. The fundamental behaviour of reinforced concrete beams in bending and
shear. In: Proceedings ACI-ASCE shear symposium, Ottawa, 1973 (ACI Special
Publication SP42) ACI, Detroit; 1974. p. 4377.
[12] Hassan AAA, Hossain KMA, Lachemi M. Behavior of full-scale self-consolidated
concrete beams in shear. Cem Concr Compos 2008;30:58896.
[13] Walraven JC. Fundamental analysis of aggregate interlock. J Struct Div ASCE
1981;108:224570.
[14] Collins MP, Mitchell D, Adebar A, Vecchio FJA. General shear design method. ACI
Struct J 1996;93(1):36.
[15] Bazant ZP, Kim JK. Size effect in shear failure of longitudinally reinforced beams. ACI
J 1984;81:45668.
[16] Bazant ZP, Kazemi MI. Size effect on diagonal shear failure of beams without stirrups.
ACI J 1991;88:26876.
[17] Walraven J, Lehwalter N. Size effects in short beams loaded in shear. ACI Struct J
1994;91(5):58593.
[18] Kani GNJ. Basic facts concerning shear failure. ACI J 1966;63(6):67590.
[19] Zararis PD, Papadakis GC. Diagonal shear failure and size effect in RC beams without
web reinforcement. ASCE J Struct Div 2001;127(7):73341.
[20] Alengaran UJ, Jumaat MZ, Mahmud H, Fayyadh MM. Shear behaviour of reinforced
palm kernel shell concrete beams. Constr Build Mater 2011:291827.
21
[21] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Predicting the response of reinforced concrete beams subjected
to shear using modified compression field theory. ACI Struct J 1988;85(S27):25868.
[22] Waner RF, Rangan BV, Hall AS, Faulkes KA. Concrete structures. 1st ed. South
Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman Australia Pty Ltd.; 1999.
[23] ACI ACI committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 31802) and commentary (ACI 318R-05) USA; 2002.
[24] EC2. Design of concrete structures Part I. General rules and rules for buildings.
European Committee for Standardization. Brussels; 2002.
[25] British Standard Institute: specification for ordinary Portland cement. BS12; 1989.
[26] British Standard Institute: specification of aggregates fo0r concrete. BS882; 1983.
[27] British Standard Institute: specification of aggregates for concrete. BS812: part 1; 1975.
[28] Teo DL, Mannan MA, Kurian JV. Flexural behavior of reinforced lightweight concrete
beams made with oil palm shell (OPS). J Adv Concr Technol 2006;4(3):110.
[29] Lim HS, Wee TH, Mansour MA, Kong KH. Flexural Behaviour of reinforced
lightweight aggregate concrete beams. In: Proceedings of the 6th Asia-pacific structural
engineering and construction conference, Kuala Lumpur; 2006. p. A6882.
[30] Swamy RN, Adepegba D. Shear resistance of reinforced beams without web steel. Build
Sci 1969;3:20720.
[31] Kumar PS, Mannan MA, Kurian VJ, Achuytha H. Investigation on the flexural
behaviour of high-performance reinforced concrete beams using sandstone aggregates.
Build Environ 2007;42:26229.
[32] Collins MP, Kuchma D. How safe are our large, lightly reinforced concrete beams, slabs
and footings? ACI Struct J 1999;96(4):48290.
[33] Jumaat MZ, Alengaram UJ, Mahmud H. Shear strength of oil palm shell foamed
concrete beams. Mater Des 2009;30:222736.
22