Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 56, No.

3, April, 159166

Shear strength of RC beams with defective

stirrup anchorages
P. E. Regan* and I. L. Kennedy Reid

Formerly University of Westminster; Atkins Highways and Transportation

The effects of corrosion removing the end anchorages of stirrups were investigated by tests of beams in which up to
75% of the shear reinforcement lacked end anchorages. In some beams a further effect of corrosion was simulated
by the lower main steel being half-exposed. A small number of bond tests were also performed on vertical bars of
the same types as the stirrups. The beams shear strengths agree well with simple truss model calculations made
treating the effectiveness of web steel as being a function of its anchorages above and below shear cracks. A more
complete model of actual behaviour is given by a modified truss system.

angle between web compression and main

Notation
steel
a shear span rw ratio of shear reinforcement taking account
As cross-section of main tension reinforcement of all links with and without end
b breadth of beam anchorages
d effective depth to main tension rw,eff effective ratio of shear reinforcement
reinforcement rw,min minimum, ratio of shear reinforcement
d9 depth to compression reinforcement calculated only for links with end
f bu ultimate bond stress anchorages
f cu cube compression strength of concrete  bar diameter
fy yield stress
f yw yield stress of shear reinforcement
ly development length required for yield of
shear reinforcement
Introduction
M bending moment
s spacing of shear reinforcement The corners of stirrups are often the first parts of a
V shear force beams reinforcement to suffer corrosion. The corrosion
VBD characteristic shear resistance of a beam may weaken or remove the links end anchorages while
without shear reinforcement according to leaving their vertical legs intact. If such a situation is
BD44/95 discovered in the assessment of an existing structure,
Vu ultimate shear force whether on its own or associated with other deteriora-
z internal lever arm tion, it is important to be able to estimate the residual

proportion of stirrups lacking end shear capacity.
anchorages This paper describes the results of tests of beams in
 average effectiveness of stirrups without which varying proportions of the stirrups lacked end
end anchorages anchorages. Some of the beams also simulated delami-
nation of the cover to the main steel. A few auxiliary
tests were performed on the bond of the bars used as
* 46 Temple Fortune Hill, London, NW11 7XS. links in the beams.
Atkins Highways and Transportations, Woodcote Grove, Ashley
The data from the tests are used to develop a method
Road, Epsom, KT18 5BW.
for calculating the residual shear resistance, and it is
(MCR 1138) Paper received 14 May 2003; last revised 6 October shown that the approach can be understood in terms of
2003; accepted 28 October 2003 a rational truss model.
159

0024-9831 # 2004 Thomas Telford Ltd

Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Regan and Kennedy Reid

used. In the four beams where delamination of the

Beam specimens
Ten of the beams tested were 150 mm 3 400 mm in
section and 3 m long. They were simply supported on
spans of 2.5 m and subjected to central concentrated
loads. A further four beams were 150 mm 3 250 mm
in section and 2 m long. These were tested with central
loads on spans of 1.5 m. The shear span/effective depth
ratio varied only from 3.50 to 3.66.
Where deterioration of the shear reinforcement was
modelled, the normal links were replaced by straight
pins, except in one beam where open U shapes were
cover to the main steel was simulated the specimens
were cast with the lower main bars exposed to mid-
barrel.
The beams formed four groups in each of which the
main steel and total (end-anchored + unanchored) shear
reinforcement were constant. The only exception to this
was one beam that had no stirrups in its shear spans.
The variables within groups were the proportion of the
shear reinforcement lacking end anchorages and the
exposure of the lower main bars in four beams.
Details of the beams are drawn in Figs 1 and 2. The

150 150

2T20 2T20

30

30
T6 R6
c/c150 d 335

350
c/c150
50

4T20 4K20

40 40
40

Beams 14 Beams 5, 6
[in beam 3 defective stirrups
were u-shaped]

150 150

2T25 2T25
37

37
R8 R8
340

c/c150 c/c150

340

4T25 4T25

47 47
Section at
Beams 7, 8 Beams 9, 10 supports

150 150

2T20 2T20
30

30
200

R6
200

R6
c/c75 c/c75

4T20 4T20
10

40 40
Section at
Beam 11 Beam 12 Beams 13, 14 supports

Fig. 1. Cross-sections with complete and defective stirrups

160 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 56, No. 3

Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Shear strength of RC beams with defective stirrup anchorages
3000
concrete was made with rapid-hardening Portland ce-
1250 1250
ment, natural sand and gravel (maximum size 20 mm).
The reinforcement was of plain round mild steel (R),
100 100 100
type 2 deformed bars to British Standards (T) and
Swedish Kam steel Ks60s (K). Yield stresses are given
in Table 1.

Beam tests
Beams 14 were designed to have a shear resistance Beam 2 Complete stirrup Defective stirrup
slightly above their flexural capacity, if all the stirrups
worked fully. In spite of up to 75% of the stirrups
lacking end anchorages, and extensive shear cracking
being developed (see Fig. 3), all of these beams failed Beams 3, 4
in flexure.
The remaining beams were designed to fail in shear,
and all did so. The shear resistances were reduced
where stirrups were without end anchorages, but the
Beam 6
losses of strength were only 1433% for 6575% loss
of anchorage. Strengths were also reduced somewhat
where the lower main bars were exposed. Beams with
both types of simulated deterioration developed fewer
Beams 8, 9, 10
cracks than their undeteriorated counterparts, but the
basic pattern of cracking was unchanged, as can be
2000
seen from Figs 36. 750 750
Stirrup strains were measured in a few beams using
pairs of gauges at opposite ends of a diameter. The 100 100 100
results obtained showed that yield could sometimes be
developed by links without end anchorages, but was
highly dependent on the positions of the gauges relative
to shear cracks.
Measurements were also made of main steel strains
at midspan and near supports, and even where the lower Beams 13, 14

bars were half-exposed and 67% of the stirrups lacked Fig. 2. Elevations of beams. All elevations are drawn with
end anchorages there were no signs of breakdown of normal bottom cover. Sections with defective cover are shown
bond: see Fig. 7. With stirrup effectiveness reduced, in Fig. 1. The extents of the regions without normal cover in
where end anchorages were missing, the apparent beams 9, 10, 13 and 14 can be seen in Figs 5 and 6

Table 1. Data from beam tests

Beam no. d (mm) 100As =bd
rw f yw (N/mm2 ) Cover to main bars? Percent stirrups f cu (N/mm2 ) VBD (kN) Vu (kN) Failure
defective mode
1 335 2.50 1.39 Yes 58.1 70 157 Flex
2 Yes 75 56.6 69 155 Flex
3 Yes 50 60.2 71 157 Flex
4 Yes 50 52.8 67 157 Flex
5 350 2.39 0.68 Yes 51.9 68 125 Shear
6 Yes 75 43.8 64 105 Shear
7 340 3.85 1.56 Yes 0 47.3 70 207 Shear
8 Yes 67 53.3 73 170 Shear
9 No 67 45.0 69 165 Shear
10 No 67 49.7 71 140 Shear
11 200 4.19 1.66 Yes 47.5 47 126 Shear
12 0 Yes 47.5 47 50 Shear
13 1.66 No 67 50.7 48 90 Shear
14 1.66 No 67 50.7 48 96 Shear
* Yield strengths of reinforcement: R6 beams 5, 6 270 N/mm2 ; R6 beams 11, 13, 14 330 N/mm2 ; R8 350 N/mm2 ; T6 556 N/mm2 ; T20
500 N/mm2 ; T25 475 N/mm2 ; K20 600 N/mm2 .
In beam 3, the defective stirrups lacked only top anchorages.
In beam 14 there were no tie wires between the main bars and the defective stirrups. In other beams small wires were present.
VBD characteristic shear resistance of a beam without stirrups according to BD 44/95.

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 56, No. 3 161

Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Regan and Kennedy Reid

Beam 1 Beam 11

Beam 12 (no stirrups)

Beam 2 75% defective

Fig. 3. Crack patterns, beams 1 and 2

Beam 13 67% defective

Beam 5
Beam 14 67% defective

Fig. 6. Crack patterns, beams 1114

Beam 6 75% defective

cot 2 cot 3 cot 4
400 Beam 7
Fig. 4. Crack patterns, beams 5 and 6

350 Beam 8
Beam 9

300

Beam 7
250
Load: kN

200

Beam 8 67% defective

150
z cot /2

100
Beam 9 67% defective z

V cot
50 N
2

Beam 10 67% defective

0
200 400 600 800 1000
Fig. 5. Crack patterns, beams 710 Strain 106

Fig. 7. Strains of main bars near supports. Strains were

angles of web compression were lower than in normal measured 100 mm from centres of supports at both ends by
beams. gauges top and bottom of one upper and one lower bar.
The test results are summarised in Table 1, where it Variations shown are from end to end
can be seen that for all the beams except no. 12, which
had no shear reinforcement, the ultimate shears were Bond tests
well above the strengths calculated according to BD
1 A few bond tests were performed on bars that were
44/95 for beams without shear steel. The characteristic
resistance from BD 44/95 is vertical during casting. The test arrangements are
shown in Fig. 8, and the results are given in Table 2.
rr All the plain bars yielded. The bar with the longest
3 100As 4 500 embedment (30) sustained its yield force up to large
VBD 0:24 f cu  (1)
bd d loaded end movements. The test was terminated at a
movement of 20 mm. The other two bars, with embed-
with 100As =bd limited to 3.0 and d in mm. ments 12 and 8, yielded and then slipped, although
162 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 56, No. 3

Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Shear strength of RC beams with defective stirrup anchorages
1080 f yw
100 80 ly  (2)
4 f bu

30

20
From Fig. 9, the average stress of closely spaced defec-

160
tive stirrups is fyw , where

20
30
Plan
d  d9
 if (d  d9) < 2ly (3)
4ly
Embedment
varies
or
ly
1

200
if (d  d9) > 2ly (4)
d  d9
Elevation (stirrup cage not shown) Section The shear resistance of a beam, with a proportion
of
its stirrups lacking end anchorage, can be calculated
Fig. 8. Specimen for bond tests
from a basic truss model, by considering the shear
reinforcement to have an effective value of rw f yw given
by
the shorter bar sustained seven eighths of its yield load
at a slip of more than 25 mm. rw,eff f yw rw f yw [
(1 
)] (5)
The shorter deformed bar, with an 8 embedment, Vu rw,eff f yw  bz cot (6)
produced a horizontal crack, at which stage the test
was ended. The bar with a 12 embedment developed with
a stress well into the strain-hardening range. Although
the specimens contained more bars, no further tests
Typical anchorage length
were performed.
All five tests, excepting that of the longest plain bar,
in which the bond did not fail, gave bond stresses more
than twice the characteristic strengths according to BD d d
44/95: that is, more than twice 0.39fcu for plain bars
or 0.7fcu for deformed bars, where all stresses are in
N/mm2 . For the deformed bars this is unsurprising, as x
the splitting mode of failure for which the 0.7fcu is c
intended does not occur with small bars having large
fsw /fyw ly /(d d) ly /(d d)
covers. The result for the plain bars was more unex-
pected, but the bond of plain bars is sensitive to their 10 10
positions and orientations during casting, and a vertical
2
orientation is the most favourable.
(d d)/2ly

0 05 10 0 05 10
Calculation of shear strength x/c
(a) (b)
The stresses that stirrup legs without end anchorages Distributions of fsw /fyw along inclined plane
can develop at an inclined crack are limited by the
lesser of their development lengths above and below Fig. 9. Stresses of defective stirrups at an inclined plane: (a)
the crack and by their bond strengths. If the bond elevation; (b) cross-section. f sw stress in defective stirrups;
length required to develop yield is ly , then ly development for stress f yw

Table 2. Results of bond tests on stirrup reinforcement

Test no. Bar type Anchorage length Maximum load Maximum steel Maximum bond Note
f bu
(mm) (kN) stress (N/mm2 ) stress, f bu p
f cu
(N/mm2 )
1 R6 180 7.5 265 2.21 0.32 No bond failure
2 R6 48 8.0 283 8.84 1.29
3 R6 72 8.0 283 5.89 0.86
4 T6 48 15.5 548 17.13 2.50 No bond failure
5 T6 72 19.5 690 14.37 2.10
Note: fcu 47 N/mm2 .

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 56, No. 3 163

Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Regan and Kennedy Reid
s
f c2
cot  1 < (cot )max

0
(7)

C9
rw,ef f f yw

M
5
3 4

2
According to both EC2 and MC90 :

EC
 
f c 4
f c2 0: 6 f c 1  (8)
250

Vu/bwz: N/mm2
The concrete cylinder strength, fc , can be taken as 0.8fcu 3
for all but very high concrete strengths. The term
(cot )max is 2.5 according to EC2 or 3.0 according to
MC90. VBD
2
Figure 10 shows the results obtained from the above
equations, using z values calculated for ultimate limit Key See Fig 10
p
flexure and taking f bu 0:78 f cu for plain stirrups
and 1.4fcu for deformed ones. In all cases cot 1

(cot )max . Two results are not plotted: that for beam 4,
where the defective stirrups had normal anchorages in
the compression zone, and that for beam 12, which had 0
0 05 10 15 20
no stirrups in its shear spans. w,min fyw: N/mm2
All of the predictions are on the safe side if cot is
limited to EC2s 2.5, and all but one of the shear fail- Fig. 11. Shear strengths as functions of rw,min f yw
ures are on the safe side with MC90s limit of 3.0. The
two predictions for low values of rw,eff fyw are the most
conservative, which is a common feature of truss mod- Limitations of method
elling. However, the ratios of Vu /bz to rw,eff fyw are
The method of calculation given above appears to
similar for the one of these beams with all its stirrups
produce good results, but it does not offer a complete
end-anchored and the other with only 25% having end
model of behaviour. Truss models consistent with the
anchorages.
calculations are shown in Fig. 12 and demonstrate the
Figure 11 shows the very poor results obtained if the
need for limits to the approach.
stirrups without end anchorages are neglected in the
As the resistance of the lower ends of the stirrups
calculation: that is, if the equations are applied with
decreases, the inclination of the web struts reduces at
rw,eff replaced by rw,min.
their meeting with the tension chord. In the extreme,
with no end anchorages, although the equations do not
indicate this, the models are not applicable. The only
truss system then possible is one dependent on the
0
C9
M

5
2
EC

4
Vu/bwz: N/mm2

Stirrups without end anchorages

VBD Stirrups with end anchorages
2
Key
Flexural failures
Part-exposed main
steel
1 All other beams

0
0 05 10 15 20
w,eff fyw:N/mm2

Fig. 10. Shear strengths as functions of rw,eff f yw Fig. 12. Truss models incorporating defective stirrups
164 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 56, No. 3

Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

tensile resistance of the concrete, which is unlikely to
be reliable in a beam with inclined cracks.
Even before this limit, the inclination may be so
small that a truss model is unrealistic. It seems neces-
sary to impose some limit on the ratio V =bzrw,min f yw ,
where rw,min is the web steel ratio at the tension chord
calculated with  0. In the present shear failures of
beams with defective stirrups, the ratio varied from just
under 6 to just over 7, with the sole exception of a
value of 13 for beam 6. The strength of beam 6 is
predicted conservatively and was well above the shear
cracking load, but in the absence of more experimental
data a limit
V favourable samples as they were practically rust free.
<8
bzrw,min f yw
would be prudent.
There is probably also a need for an upper limit to
the spacing of end-anchored stirrups. The maximum
spacings in these tests were 1.79d in beam 2 and 1.71d
in beam 6. A limit could be taken as
smax < 1:75d
Although there is no proof here that larger spacings
could not be accepted, if the spacing were significantly
greater, a beam would probably behave more as an arch
than as a truss.
The approach developed here treats an essentially
uniform deficiency of stirrup anchorages such that, for
example, every second, third or fourth stirrup remains
end-anchored. It must become less reliable as the dete-
rioration becomes less uniform. Equation (10) does
guard against this to some extent, but in any particular
circumstances it is necessary to consider whether mod-
els similar to those in Fig. 12 are appropriate.
If the situation were one in which stirrup anchorages
were lost in a particular zone, but were retained in the
remainder of the length of a beam, a more appropriate
model would be one with a local arch action in the
deteriorated zone, reverting to truss action outside it.
The transition or transitions between arching and truss
action would require special consideration using strut-
and-tie models.
A check is necessary on the bond and end anchorage
of the main bars. For any pure truss model the maxi-
mum rate of change of the main tension is V/z. The
main steel force that acts at any section not within the
region of radiating compression near a section of maxi-
mum moment is
M V cot
Ns
z 2
The main problems here are the increased values of
cot associated with the reduction from rw fyw to
(rw fyw )eff , and the possible delamination of cover asso-
ciated with corrosion.
Proposals for residual bond stresses for bars with
delaminated cover are given in reference 5 and include
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 56, No. 3
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Shear strength of RC beams with defective stirrup anchorages
allowances for the beneficial effect of vertical pressure
at supports. For the present beams, with or without
simulated delamination, bond and anchorage are not
predicted to be critical, and no anchorage failures oc-
curred.
A final point to be made is that, although the values
of bond strengths used above are to the safe side of the
results of the bond tests, and their use in the assessment
of the beam strengths gives safe results, they are twice
the values given in current British codes. Some inde-
pendent confirmation of their validity would be wel-
come, especially in the case of plain round bars. The
bars used in the tests were, however, not particularly
(9)
Conclusion
It is clear that stirrups lacking end anchorages can
make a significant contribution to the shear resistances
of reinforced concrete beams. This can be taken into
(10)
account by the device of using an effective ratio of web
reinforcement in conventional truss model calculations.
The effective ratio depends upon the proportion of the
stirrups lacking end anchorages, the ratio of the web
height to the stirrup diameter, and the bond strength of
the stirrups.
The bond strengths of stirrup legs, which were verti-
cal during casting and have a reasonably large cover,
appear to be about twice the characteristic bond stres-
ses of current British codes.
Although this simple approach gives good predic-
tions of shear strengths, it is not a complete solution,
and a modified truss model giving a more correct
picture of behaviour has been presented and a number
of limits for the simple method are proposed. The
modified truss model is not itself a very practical
means of assessment.
Acknowledgements
The work reported here was part of a research pro-
gramme carried out by W.S. Atkins Transportation En-
gineering under contract to the Highways Agency and
supervised by the Agencys Technical Director for
Bridge Design, Mr Sibdas Chakrabarti. The authors are
grateful to the Agency and to Mr Chakrabarti for per-
(11) mission to publish this paper. Any views expressed are
those of the authors and not necessarily those of the
Highways Agency.
The testing was carried out at the University of
Westminster largely by Ms Sylvia Theunissen, a student
from the Technical University of Delft, whose work
and contribution to the findings is gratefully acknowl-
edged.
165
 Regan and Kennedy Reid
References
1. Highways Agency. The Assessment of Concrete Highway
Bridges and Structures. Highways Agency, London, 1995, BD
44/95.
2. Hajnal-Konyi K. Bond Between Concrete and Steel: History,
Some Recent Research and Comments on CP114. Reinforced
Concrete Association, London, 1962.
3. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures Part 1: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings, pr EN 19921 (Final draft).
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2001.
166
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
4. Comite Euro-International du Beton. CEB-FIP Model
Code 90. Thomas Telford, London, 1993.
5. Regan P. E. and Kennedy-Reid I. Assessment of concrete
structures affected by delamination: 1 Bond strength, shear
cracking and effects of debonding. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil EngineersBridge Engineering (submitted).
Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the editor by
1 October 2004
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 56, No. 3