ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 97-S59

Experimental Study on Shear Strength of High-Strength

Concrete Beams
by Raghu S. Pendyala and Priyan Mendis

The authors conducted a comprehensive experimental and analyti-

cal investigation to assess the concrete component of shear resis-
tance Vc in beams made with high-strength concrete. The
experimental program consisted of testing 24 beams (18 with stir-
rups and six without stirrups) to determine the contribution to
shear resistance by the concrete component. Test data from six
other investigations covering 125 specimens are also analyzed.
The data from the experiments and literature are compared with
the shear provisions of high-strength concrete from selected codes.
When extrapolating current code provisions to determine the con-
crete component of shear resistance for high-strength concrete, the
authors find that safety margins for structural design are reduced.

Keywords: aggregate interlock; high-strength concrete; proportion; shear

reinforcement; shear strength.

INTRODUCTION
Many major concrete codes from around the world1-3 are
based on research conducted on structural members made of
normal strength concrete (NSC), where concrete strength fc
is less than 41 MPa (6000 psi). Recently, however, some
concrete codes4,5 have included provisions for the design of
high-strength concrete (HSC) members. Extrapolations of
design rules meant for NSC for use with HSC (where fc is
from 50 to 100 MPa [7000 to 14,000 psi]) may not always be
appropriate. When failure is governed by brittle or non duc-
tile failure, as with shear failure, extrapolating existing NSC
design rules for HSC may result in structural engineers using
less conservative or nonconservative design criteria.
To understand the implications of shear stresses in HSC, it
is first necessary to go through the basic mechanism of shear
transfer in reinforced concrete beams. The details of shear
transfer are well documented in many research
publications6,7 and text books.8,9 Nevertheless, a brief de-
scription of the mechanisms involved is presented herein.
In a concrete beam reinforced with shear stirrups, the re-
sistance to the total shear force V* is distributed between the
concrete Vc and the stirrups Vs. Initially upon loading, the
shear reinforcements carry only a small portion of the shear
force; most of the shear force is carried by the concrete. On
formation of the first inclined crack, redistribution of shear
stresses occur, with some part of the shear being carried by
concrete, and the rest being carried by stirrups. Figure 1
shows the idealized distribution of shear forces in the section
of the beam resisting shear. In the idealized diagram, it is as-
sumed that total shear is resisted by concrete until the forma-
tion of diagonal cracks.
Increases in shear force beyond that which causes inclined
cracking results in the shear stirrups carrying increasing
shear, while the contribution to shear resistance by the con-
crete remains nearly constant. The shear load that caused di-
agonal or inclined cracking Vcr is considered to be the
Fig. 1Idealized distribution of shear forces in shear
reinforced beam.
ultimate capacity of concrete Vuc to resist shear.7 The shear-re-
sisting capacity of the beam remains constant once the shear
stirrups have yielded. Inclined cracking is assumed to occur
when the predominant inclined crack crosses midheight of the
beam.
The concrete component Vc is the sum of the resistance to
shear due to various shear mechanisms. Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 4266 lists three separate shear mechanisms that
go under the umbrella of concrete contribution to shear resis-
tance. They are:
1. By uncracked concreteThis mechanism for shear
transfer occurs in uncracked members or uncracked portions
of cracked members (for example, the compressive zone of
the cracked section);
2. By aggregate interlockThis mechanism occurs be-
tween two slip surfaces in the cracked portion of the beam.
The protruding aggregates from either surface interlock. The
ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 4, July-August 2000.
MS No. 99-100 received November 6, 1998 and reviewed under Institute publica-
tion policies. Copyright

2000, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright pro-
prietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the May-June 2001 ACI Structural
Journal if received by January 1, 2001

564 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2000


Raghu S. Pendyala is the Principal of Pendyala Consulting, a structural engineering
practice in Melbourne, Australia.
ACI member Priyan Mendis is a senior lecturer at the University of Melbourne, Vic-
toria, Australia. He is the chairman of the international subcommittee of ACI Commit-
tee 363, High-Strength Concrete. His research interests include the design of concrete
structures, high-strength high-performance concrete, seismic design of concrete struc-
tures, and tall buildings.
Fig. 2Forces acting at inclined crack: (a) beam without
stirrups; and (b) beam with stirrups.
contribution to the shear resistance by aggregate interlock is
dependent on the crack width and the jaggedness of the slip
surfaces; and
3. By dowel actionThe longitudinal steel reinforcement
resists part of the shear displacement by dowel forces in the
bar. The dowel force in the longitudinal reinforcement bar
depends on the relative stiffness of the portion of the bar
crossing the crack.
Figure 2 illustrates the various components of the shear
transfer mechanisms in a beam with and without stirrups,
where C is the compressive force in the concrete; T is the ten-
sile force in the longitudinal steel; V is the support reaction;
and Va, Vcz, Vd, and Vs are the shear contributions due to ag-
gregate interlock, concrete, dowel action, and shear stirrups,
respectively. These shear mechanisms are all present in
widely varying extents in all beams subjected to shear.
It is not theoretically possible to assess the individual com-
ponents that go under the umbrella of the concrete contribu-
tion to shear. Swamy and Andriopoulos10 and Taylor11 have
attempted to experimentally determine the contributions of
each of the components of shear resistance for NSC. Their
work has shown that in NSC beams, where the crushing
strength of aggregates is relatively higher than the com-
pressive strength of concrete, the shear cracks skirt across
the aggregates. The result is an uneven, jagged surface that
enhances the aggregate interlock component of shear resis-
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2000
tance of concrete. It has been shown by these experimental
and theoretical studies that the aggregate interlock mecha-
nism contributes to a significant amount (30 to 90%) of the
post cracking shear resistance of the concrete component of
an NSC beam.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
There is some concern among researchers and designers
that HSC may not be strong in shear because some of the
mechanisms resisting shearnotably the aggregate inter-
lock mechanismmay be absent in HSC. Due to the smaller
difference in the strength of the concrete matrix and the ag-
gregates in HSC, the fracture planes are relatively smooth as
compared to NSC members.12-14 Smooth fracture planes re-
duce the shear resistance of concrete by reducing the aggre-
gate interlock between the fracture surfaces.
In this paper, the experimental results from a study con-
ducted at the University of Melbourne and six other investi-
gations are compared with the existing design provisions for
shear from five major codes, including that of ACI Commit-
tee 318,1 to examine their applicability to HSC with
strengths up to 100 MPa.
The comparisons given in this paper will help structural
engineers to assess realistically the margins of safety in shear
design when existing rules are used to predict the shear
strength of HSC beams.
REVIEW OF CODE PROVISIONS TO COMPUTE
SHEAR STRENGTH OF CONCRETE
In most concrete codes, the shear capacity of a reinforced
concrete beam is taken to be the sum of the shear capacity of
the concrete component and the steel component. This sim-
plification is purely for convenience, even though the resis-
tances offered by the concrete and steel form parts of a
complex interaction.15 The equation for the steel component
Vs in most codes, including the ACI 3181 and the AS 3600,2
is assumed to be independent of the concrete strength, and is
generally of the form
As v fsy.f dv ( cot v + cot ) sin
V s = -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- (1)
s
where
Asv = area of shear reinforcement within spacing s;
fsy.f = yield strength of shear reinforcement;
dv = lever arm resisting flexural moment (usually equal
to 0.9d);
v = angle of inclination (which varies between 30 and
60 degrees) of the diagonal compressive stresses to
the longitudinal axis of the beam; and
= angle of inclined stirrups to the longitudinal axis of
the beam.
The steel component in Eq. (1) is independent of the con-
crete strength. Most codes specify more than one method to
assess the shear strength of concrete such as the variable angle
truss method, modified compression field theory, and strut-
and-tie methods. Only the simplified methods specified in
each of the codes have been used in this comparative study.
American Code, ACI 318-951
The equivalent ACI 318 equations for the ultimate
strength for concrete in shear Vuc are
565
 V u d resistance: 1) the general design method (based on the modi-
V uc = 1.9 f c + 2500 w --------
- b d 3.5 f c b w d (in.-lb) (2)
Mu v 0 fied compression field theory); 2) the simplified method; and
3) the strut-and-tie method. Only the simplified method is
covered herein for direct comparison with other codes. The
V u d
V uc = 0.16 f c + 17.2 w --------
shear equations postulated in the Canadian code are
- b d 0.29 f c b w d (mm-N)
Mu v 0
V c = 1.3 c ( 12 ) f c b w d v (in.-lb) (6)
where
w = longitudinal tensile steel ratio = Ast /bd; and
Vu, Mu = shear force and moment at the critical section. V c = 1.3 c ( ) f c b w d v (mm-N)
ACI 318 allows the following simplification, assuming the
term Vu d/Mu is small where
= factor to account for low-density concrete ( = 1 for
V uc = 2 f c b w d (in.-lb) (3) normal density concrete);
= factor to account for shear resistance of cracked con-
crete;
V uc = 0.17 f c b w d (mm-N) c = capacity factor of concrete in shear (equal to 0.6); and
dv = lever-arm resisting flexural moment.
Australian Code, AS 36002 For members having either the minimum amount of
The current Australian code is valid for fc up to 50 MPa transverse reinforcement or an effective depth not exceed-
(7250 psi). The equivalent AS 3600 equations for Vuc are ing 300 mm, the concrete contribution can be calculated as
given by Eq. (7)
1---
Ast f c 3 V uc = 0.17 f c b w d (mm-N)
= 28 1 2 3 b w d 0 ------------
(7)
V uc
bw d0
- (in.-lb) (4)

This equation is applicable only for normal density concrete

1
---
Ast f c 3
V uc = 1 2 3 b w d 0 ------------
- (mm-N)
bw d0
where
1 = factor to account for the depth of the section and is
given by 1 = 1.1(1.6 d0/1000) 1.1;
2 = factor to account for the axial forces in the member,
and is equal to 1 for members with zero axial loads;
3 = factor to account for the presence of a large concen-
trated load near a support, equal to 2d0/a, where a is
the distance of the concentrated load from the sup-
port; and
d0 = distance of the extreme compression fiber to the cen-
troid of the outermost layer of tensile reinforcement
(not less than 80% of the overall depth of the section),
in mm.
New Zealand Code, NZS 31013
The New Zealand concrete structures code is applicable
for fc up to 100 MPa, for members not resisting earthquake
forces.
The ultimate contribution of the concrete component Vu is
given by
V c = ( 0.84 + 120 w ) f c b w d (in.-lb)
V c = ( 0.07 + 10 w ) f c b w d (mm-N)
within the maximum and minimum limits of 0.2 f c bwd and
0.08 f c bwd, respectively.
Canadian Code CSA CAN3-A23.34
The Canadian standard for design of concrete structures is
applicable for concrete with strengths up to 80 MPa. The Ca-
nadian standard specifies three methods to calculate the shear
and is similar to the simplified ACI equation (Eq. (3)).
Norwegian Code, NS 3473E 5
The Norwegian code is applicable for concrete with cylin-
der strengths up to 100 MPa.
The shear equation postulated in the Norwegian code is
k A A st
- b d 0.66f td b w dk v
V c = 0.33 f td + ------------- (8)
c bw d w
where
kA is taken as 100 MPa;
ftd = design tensile strength of concrete = ftn/;
ftn is the in-place tensile strength of concrete (given in Table
5 of NS 3473E5);
c = material factor for concrete (equal to 1.40); and
kV = factor to account for the distance of the concentrated
load from the edge of the beam.
The inequality in Eq. (8) is reached at fc = 66 MPa.16
EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
The experimental program described in the paper consist-
ed of a total of 24 beams. Eighteen of the test beams were re-
inforced for shear and six beams were not. The experimental
variables in the program were:
(5) 1. Concrete strengthTo cover NSC and HSC strength
ranges, three values of nominal concrete strength fc were
chosen equal to 30, 60, and 100 MPa;
2. Shear span-to-depth (or the shear-span ratio a/d)
Two shear-span ratios a/d equal to 2 and 5 were adopted to
cover both stocky and slender beams; and
3. Stirrup spacingStirrup spacing is an important vari-
able that has the most influence on the relative proportions of
the shear contributed by concrete and steel. Stirrups of 6 mm
(1/4 in.) diameter were used for all the beams in this series
of experiments. The stirrup spacings were 70, 140, and 210
mm, which correspond to stirrup spacing-effective depth

566 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2000

Table 1Specimen details
Nominal
Shear Stirrup concrete
span-depth spacing s, strength fc, Specimen
No. ratio a/d mm MPa label
1 2 30 (30)(2)
2 5 30 (30)(5)
3 2 60 (60)(2)
4 5 60 (60)(5)
5 2 100 (100)(2)
6 5 100 (100)(5)
7 2 70 30 70(30)(2)
8 2 140 30 140(30)(2)
9 2 70 60 70(60)(2)
10 2 140 60 140(60)(2)
11 2 70 100 70(100)(2)
12 2 140 100 140(100)(2)
13 2 70 30 2_70(30)(2)
14 2 210 30 210(30)(2)
15 2 210 60 210(60)(2)
16 2 70 60 2_70(60)(2)
17 2 70 100 2_70(100)(2)
18 2 210 100 210(100)(2)
19 2 140 100 2_140(100)(2)
20 2 210 100 2_210(100)(2)
21 2 140 30 2_140(30)(2) Fig. 3Cross section of test beam.
22 5 210 30 210(30)(5)
23 5 210 60 210(60)(5)
ber for # indicates how many of such specimens were tested
24 5 140 60 140(60)(5) (when more than one), s indicates the stirrup spacing, fc is
Note: denotes beams without shear reinforcement. the nominal concrete strength, and a/d is the shear span-
depth ratio. Thus, 2_70(60)(2) represents the second speci-
men with a constant stirrup spacing of 70 mm throughout, a
Table 2Mixture proportioning for 30, 60, and
100 MPa nominal strength mixtures nominal concrete strength of 60 MPa, and an a/d of 2.
Table 1 provides details about all the test specimens.
30 MPa, 60 MPa, 100 MPa,
The value in the specimen label indicates that the beam
Material Units quantity/m3 quantity/m3 quantity/m3
is unreinforced in shear. Figure 3 shows the cross-section-
Cement kg 348 500 500
al details of the beams, and Fig. 4(a) and (b) show typical
Silica fume 44 44
longitudinal sections of the specimens tested (refer to
10 mm aggregate kg 1278 1252 1280 Pendyala12 for complete details of other possible longitu-
Fine aggregate kg 592 568 640 dinal sections). The main longitudinal bars were cut from
(sand)
12 mm (1/2 in.) diameter high-strength deformed bars, and
Water L 200 180 136
the stirrups were fabricated from 6 mm (1/4 in.) diameter
Total weight kg 2418 2544 2600 mild steel bars.
w/c 0.57 0.33 0.25
ConcreteTable 2 gives the details of the concrete mix-
Superplasticizer L 10 20 tures adopted for casting the nominal 30, 60, and 100 MPa
specimens. The mixture proportions were determined after
ratios (s/d) of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5, respectively. Most codes con- evaluating various proportions. HSC manufacturing re-
servatively stipulate the maximum limit of spacing for stirrups quired the addition of silica fume and water-reducing ad-
as 0.5d. This limit is fixed mainly for design purposes, where mixture to achieve high strength. Beams and cylinder
uniformly distributed loads are often present. In an experi- specimens manufactured with the 30 and 60 MPa mixtures
mental situation, the maximum angle of inclination for diago- were tested at 28 days, and specimens manufactured with
nal cracks is limited to 45 degrees so that the inclined crack the 100 MPa mixture were tested at 56 days.
crosses at least two stirrups at failure. During tests where point StirrupsThe mild steel used for stirrup reinforcements
loads were applied, it was observed that the cracks were as and the longitudinal tensile bars was tested in the laboratory
shallow as 20 to 30 degrees, and two or more stirrups were al- to the relevant Australian standards to obtain their stress-
ways engaged, even for spacings of d and 1.5d. strain characteristics. Figure 5 gives the plot of the experi-
mentally determined stress-strain curves for mild steel and
Specimen details high-strength deformed (HSD) bars.
All beams tested in this program had rectangular cross sec- High-strength deformed (HSD) barsThe experimentally
tions with identical dimensions and identical amounts of determined yield strength fsy of the high-strength deformed
main tension reinforcement ( = 2.0%). Each specimen was bars used for the tensile reinforcement was 410 MPa, with an
identified by a label in the form #_s(fc)(a/d), where the num- elastic modulus Es of 228 GPa.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2000 567

 Fig. 4Longitudinal sections of beam.

Plain mild steel bars The experimentally determined

yield strength fsy , of mild steel bars used for stirrups was
370 MPa with an Es value of 202 GPa.

Details of instrumentation
The stated aims for the experimental program were to
measure the contribution to shear resistance by steel and con-
crete. Accordingly, the beams were instrumented to measure
two characteristics:
1. The total shear load resisted by the beam V* was mea-
sured by connecting the machine load cell to a data-logger,
which in turn was connected to a personal computer for data
collection. The shear resisted by the critical section of the
beam was half of the total imposed load on the beam.
2. The steel Vs and concrete Vc contribution to shear re- Fig. 5Stress-strain curves for reinforcing steel.
sistance was measured by attaching strain gages to nomi-
nated shear stirrups. The strain gages were attached at
found by subtracting the forces carried by the stirrups from
midheight of the stirrups. While it was not economical to
the total shear.
attach strain gages to each leg of the stirrups, strain gages
were attached so that there were enough data to estimate,
with confidence, the strains in intermediate stirrups. Some TEST RESULTS
strain gages were attached at points of longitudinal and Table 3 gives the summary of the experimental results
transverse symmetry to ensure they gave similar readings. from the shear tests. The data in Column (b) show the
When instruments could not be attached to one or more in- strength of concrete on the day of the beam test. The test cyl-
termediate stirrups, linear interpolation of strains from inders used for compressive strength testing of the 30 MPa
strain gages on stirrups at either side was adequate to esti- concrete were 100 mm in diameter and 200 mm long, while
mate the strains. All strain gages were coated with wax for the cylinders for testing for 60 and 100 MPa concrete were
waterproofing and to prevent damage during handling. 75 mm in diameter and 150 mm long, as per the recommen-
Once strains were determined, the force carried by the stir- dations of Ting et al.17 for testing HSC cylinders.
rups was estimated by multiplying the strains with the cross- The failure load for beams was taken as the load at the in-
sectional area of the stirrups and the modulus of elasticity stant of the formation of the diagonal crack. Two methods
obtained from the tests. The force resisted by concrete was were employed to determine this load at the instant of diagonal

568 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2000

Table 3Summary of experimental details
Load at
Stirrup Ultimate diagonal Deflection at
fc, Shear span, spacing, load, cracking obs., peak load,
Beam MPa mm a/d mm kN kN Failure type mm Comments
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
(30)(2) Shear, shear
1 34 280 2 50 41 compression 1.6

(30)(5) Shear, diagonal

2 34 700 5 33 32 tension 5.9 Long. rft. yield

3 (60)(2) 63 280 2 62 40 Shear, shear 3.8

compression
4 (60)(5) 63 700 5 32 32 Shear, diagonal tension 5.2 Long. rft. yield
(100)(2) Shear, shear
5 87 280 2 70 41 compression 3.6

6 (100)(5) 87 700 5 36 35 Shear diagonal tension 5.5 Long. rft. yield

7 70(30)(2) 33 280 2 70 97 50 Flexural 3.8 Long. rft. yield

8 140(30)(2) 33 280 2 140 68 41 Shear, shear 3.5

compression
Long. rft. yield;
9 70(60)(2) 62 280 2 70 87 41 Flexural 4.3 shear rft. yield
10 140(60)(2) 62 280 2 140 79 32 Flexural 3.9
11 70(100)(2) 69 280 2 70 87 34 Flexural 4.4 Long. rft. yield
12 140(100)(2) 69 280 2 140 97 31 Shear, diagonal tension 4.1 Long. rft. yield
13 2_70(30)(2) 32 280 2 70 95 39 Flexural 5.4 Long. rft. yield;
shear rft. yield

14 210(30)(2) 32 280 2 210 86 42 Shear, diagonal tension 3.5 Long. rft. yield;
shear rft. yield
15 210(60)(2) 61 280 2 210 88 37 Shear, diagonal tension 3.6 Long. rft. yield

16 2_70(60)(2) 61 280 2 70 88 38 Flexural 8.4 Long. rft. yield;

shear rft. yield
17 2_70(100)(2) 91 280 2 70 87 43 Flexural 6.5 Long. rft. yield
Shear, shear Long. rft. yield;
18 210(100)(2) 91 280 2 210 92 43 compression 3.4 shear rft. yield
19 2_140(100)(2) 83 280 2 140 96 47 Flexural 8.4 Long. rft. yield
Shear, shear
20 2_210(100)(2) 83 280 2 210 88 51 compression 4.0 Long. rft. yield

21 2_140(30)(2) 36 280 2 140 93 42 Shear, shear 4.5

compression
22 210(30)(5) 36 700 5 210 35 34 Flexural 9.7 Long. rft. yield
23 210(60)(5) 55 700 5 210 37 35 Flexural 6.3
24 140(60)(5) 55 700 5 140 33 33 Flexural 9.4 Long. rft. yield
Note: Long. rft. yield in Column (j) stands for failure by yield of longitudinal reinforcement.

Fig. 6Shear in critical stirrup for typical beam.
cracking. A visual method noted the load at the instant the di-
agonal crack was seen to have crossed the midheight of the
beam. The second method involved monitoring the strain in
the critical strain gage, which is defined as the strain gage on
the stirrup that resists the greatest amount of shear among all
the stirrups resisting imposed shear. Usually, the critical strain
gage was located at a distance of d/2 to d from the edge of the
support. Figure 6 is the plot of shear force resisted by the crit-
ical section versus strain in the critical stirrup for a typical
beam, 70(30)2. As can be seen in Fig. 6, the redistribution of
shear force at the instant of diagonal cracking is reflected by a
change of slope in the plot. The results obtained by both the vi-
sual and the strain gage methods were in close agreement with
each other.
As mentioned previously, the internal shear force consists
of steel and concrete components, and the external component
is the imposed shear due to loading. The experimentally de-
termined concrete component is the difference between the
external shear force and the steel component shear force,
which was determined from strain data. Figure 7 shows the
relationship between internal and the applied shear forces for
the beam 70(30)2. The relationship is similar to the idealized
internal shear distribution diagram shown in Fig. 1, except
that in the idealized diagram, the stirrups are assumed not to
resist any shear until the onset of the diagonal cracking. In

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2000 569

Fig. 7Internal versus applied shear for typical beam. Fig. 9Results from past investigations on shear in HSC.

Table 4Vc and vc calculated from experimental

data
Beam Vc, kN vc, MPa = vc/bd
(a) (b) (c)
1 (30)(2) 20.5 1.90
2 (30)(5) 16.1 1.49
3 (60)(2) 20.2 1.87
4 (60)(5) 16.1 1.49
5 (100)(2) 20.5 1.90
Fig. 8Summary of experimental results. 6 (100)(5) 17.4 1.61
7 70(30)(2) 17.8 1.65
reality, the stirrups start to carry some shear even before di- 8 140(30)(2) 17.9 1.66
agonal cracking.18 9 70(60)(2) 18.9 1.75
Pendyala12 generated relationships similar to Fig. 7 for all 10 140(60)(2) 15.6 1.44
the 18 beams with shear reinforcement to determine the 11 70(100)(2) 15.3 1.42
shear resisted by the concrete Vc. For beams without shear 12 140(100)(2) 16.1 1.49
reinforcement, Vc is the load at diagonal cracking deter- 13 2_70(30)(2) 12.8 1.18
mined by the visual method. The values of Vc were deter- 14 210(30)(2) 19.8 1.83
mined by the previously mentioned methods, and nominal 15 210(60)(2) 17.4 1.61
shear stress values in concrete vc (MPa) for all 24 beams test- 16 2_70(60)(2) 16.3 1.51
ed were calculated, and these values are shown in Table 4. 17 2_70(100)(2) 18.3 1.69
Figure 8 shows the plot of vc versus fc. This figure also 18 210(100)(2) 18.7 1.73
shows the variation of the means of 30, 60, and 100 MPa 19 2_140(100)(2) 18.4 1.71
clusters of the beams tested. Although there is a large scatter, 20 2_210(100)(2) 21.5 1.99
it can be seen that the mean shear strength of 60 MPa con-
21 2_140(30)(2) 15.3 1.42
crete is nearly the same as the 30 MPa concrete, and there is
22 210(30)(5) 13.4 1.24
an increase in the value at 100 MPa. Figure 8 also shows that
specimens with an a/d of 2 show higher concrete shear ca- 23 210(60)(5) 16.0 1.48
pacities than specimens with an a/d of 5. 24 140(60)(5) 16.0 1.49
Note: vc is nominal shear resistance of concrete = Vc/bd, where b = 80 mm and d =
135 mm.
RESULTS FROM OTHER INVESTIGATIONS
A comprehensive literature review was conducted to find includes NSC) and had various a/d values, stirrup spacings,
published test data on shear strength of HSC beams. The amounts of longitudinal reinforcement, effective beam
concrete component of the shear resistance values vc for 149 depths, and beam-aspect ratios (b/d).
specimens from this study and six other research
studies7,14,19-22 have been plotted in Fig. 9. The data drawn Also plotted in Fig. 9 are the shear strengths vc as predicted
from the six research studies are given in the Appendix.* The by the American Code ACI 318 (Eq. (2)), the Australian
specimens selected had fc values less than 100 MPa (which Code AS 3600 (Eq. (4)), the New Zealand Code NZS 3101
(Eq. (5)), and the Norwegian code NS 3473 (Eq. (8)).
Figure 9 confirms observations from Fig. 8 that the shear
*The Appendix is available in xerographic or similar form from ACI headquarters,
strength of concrete beams does not increase in the range of
where it will be kept permanently on file, at a charge equal to the cost of reproduction 30 to 70 MPa; the data actually show a decrease in the shear
plus handling at time of request. strength in this range. The shear strength increases, however,

570 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2000

from 70 MPa up to approximately 90 MPa. Above 90 MPa,
the shear strength of HSC either levels off, or its increase is
insignificant. It can be seen from Fig. 9 that extrapolating
some of the current code provisions to 100 MPa through the
50 to 80 MPa range is clearly unsafe.
On comparing the shear provisions given in the various
codes, it can be seen from Fig. 9 that the Norwegian NS
3473E (a code applicable to HSC) and the ACI 318 provi-
sions are the most conservative, with the ACI 318 provision
being the most conservative. The provisions given in these
codes can be safely applied for HSC up to 100 MPa. The pro-
visions of AS 3600 and NZS 3101 are clearly unsafe and
need modifications to make them applicable for HSC.
Sarsam and Al-Musawi18 reached similar conclusions in
their study on shear strength of HSC. They concluded that
the ACI code, even though it is a code for NSC, is conserva-
tive for HSC. They also confirmed New Zealand NZS code
provisions to be nonconservative for shear in HSC.
The reason why the shear strength decreases in the range
of 50 to 70 MPa is currently being investigated. One possi-
ble direction for other researchers may be to study the 50 to
70 MPa range as a transition zone, wherein the increase in
shear strength of compressive concrete may not adequately
compensate factors such as reduction in compressive area of
concrete and reduction in aggregate interlock. Considering
the published test data plotted in Fig. 9, it can also be seen
that at the high-strength end (80 to 100 MPa), the shear
strength of concrete is nearly constant with increasing fc.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper reports on a comprehensive experimental and
analytical investigation on the shear strength of HSC beams.
Twenty-four beams, selectively reinforced or unreinforced
for shear, were tested to determine the shear capacities of
normal and high-strength concrete beams. The variables in
the test program were the stirrup spacing s, the strength of
concrete fc , and the shear-span ratio a/d. A comparative
study analyzed 149 specimens from seven investigations of
shear in HSC. The following conclusions were drawn based
on this study:
1. The shear strength of concrete does not increase in the
range of 50 to 70 MPa. The shear strength of concrete ap-
pears to level off above concrete strengths of 90 MPa;
2. The provisions for shear design contained in ACI 318
and NS 3473 are conservative and are applicable for HSC
beam design; and
3. The provisions for shear design contained in AS 3600
and NZS 3101largely derived from studies of NSC speci-
mensare no longer conservative when applied to HSC.
NOTATIONS
Ast = area of longitudinal tensile reinforcing steel
Asv = area of shear reinforcement within spacing s
bw = width of web of cross section of beam
d0 = effective depth of concrete in beam resisting shear, usually equal to
0.95D (refer to Eq. (4))
fc = strength of concrete
fsy.f = yield strength of shear reinforcement
s = center-to-center spacing of shear stirrups
V* = support reaction or maximum shear force carried by beam
Vc = contribution to shear resistance by concrete
vc = shear strength of concrete = Vc /bd
Vs = contribution to shear resistance by stirrups, in case of shear-reinforced
beams
Vuc = predicted ultimate shear strength of concrete
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2000
Vus = predicted ultimate shear capacity of stirrups
v = inclination of diagonal crack, usually between 30 and 60 degrees
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 mm = 0.039 in.
1 MPa = 145 psi
1 kN = 0.225 kips
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, 369 pp.
2. AS 3600-1994, Concrete Structures, Standards Australia, Sydney,
1994.
3. NZS 3101-1995, Code of Practice and Commentary on: The Design
of Concrete Structures, Standards Association of New Zealand, Welling-
ton, 1995.
4. CSA CAN3-A23.3-1994, Design of Concrete Standards for Build-
ings, Rexdale, Ontario, 1994.
5. NS 3473E-1992, Concrete Structures Design Rules, Norwegian
Council for Building Standardization, Norway, 1992.
6. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426, The Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Members, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 99, No.
ST6, June 1973, pp. 1091-1187.
7. Mphonde, A. G., and Frantz, G. C., Shear Strength of High-Strength
Reinforced Concrete Beams, Research Report CE 84-157, Department of
Civil Engineering, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, June 1984.
8. Park R. and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley
and Sons, 1975.
9. Nilson, A. H., and Winter, G., Design of Concrete Structures,
McGraw-Hill, 1991.
10. Swamy R. N., and Andriopoulos, A. S., Contributions of Aggregate
Interlock and Dowel Forces to Shear Resistance of Reinforced Beams with
Web Reinforcement, Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1974, pp. 43-77.
11. Taylor, H. P. J., Investigation of the Forces Carried Across Cracks in
Reinforced Concrete Beams in Shear by Interlock of Aggregates, British
Cement Association (formerly Cement and Concrete Association), Lon-
don, 1970.
12. Pendyala, R. S., The Behaviour of High-Strength Concrete Beams,
PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne, 1997.
13. Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., Shear Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Using High-Strength Concrete, ACI JOUR-
NAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 290-296.
14. Konig, G.; Grimm, R.; and Remmel, G., Shear Behaviour of Lon-
gitudinally Reinforced Concrete Members of HSC, Darmstadt Con-
crete, V. 8, 1993, pp. 27-42.
15. Duthinh, D., and Carino, N. J., Shear Design of High-Strength Con-
crete Beams: A Review of the State-of-the Art, NIST, U.S. Dept. of Com-
merce, Technology and Administration, NISTIR 5870, Gaithersberg, Md.,
1996.
16. Thornfeldt, E., and Drangholt, G., Shear Capacity of Reinforced
High-Strength Concrete Beams, Second International Symposium on
High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., 1990, pp. 129-154.
17. Ting, E. S .K.; Patnaikuni, I.; Johanson, H. A.; and Pendyala, R. S.,
Compressive Strength Testing of Very High-Strength Concrete, 17th
Conference on Our World in Concrete and Structures, Singapore, 1992,
pp. 217-226.
18. Sarsam, K. F., and Al-Musawi, J. M. S., Shear Design of High- and
Normal Strength Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992, pp. 658-663.
19. Ahmad, S. H.; Khaloo, A. R.; and Poveda, A., Shear Capacity of
Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V.
83, No. 3, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 297-305.
20. Drangsholt, G. and Thorenfeldt, E., Shear Capacity of High-
Strength Concrete Beams, Research Report No. 2.1, Structural Engineer-
ingFCB, SINTEF, Norway, 1992.
21. Roller, J. J., and Russell, H. G., Shear Strength of High-Strength
Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1990, pp. 191-198.
22. Kim, J. K. and Park, Y. D., Shear Strength of Reinforced High-
Strength Concrete Beams without Web Reinforcement, Magazine of Con-
crete Research, V. 46, No. 166, 1994, pp. 7-16.
571