Updating the ACI Shear
Design Provisions
by Evan C. Bentz and Michael P. Collins
T
he current ACI Code1 shear provisions, while
well-established, have a few disadvantages that
suggest that improvements are possible. For
example, for members heavily loaded in shear, the
provisions can provide overly conservative designs; by
contrast, for deep one-way slabs without stirrups, the
provisions can provide unconservative designs. There are
also potential improvements in terms of generality and
simplicity. Consider, for example, that the current code
contains eight separate equations to calculate the nominal
shear strength provided by concrete Vc, and yet none of
these equations applies to the shear strength of prestressed
columns. Thus, there may be a potential to simplify shear
provisions in the Code and, at the same time, address safety
issues. This article presents one such method.
Basis of Method
When engineers encounter novel situations, it is often
ZLVHWRUHYHUWWR¿UVWSULQFLSOHV)RUVKHDUVRPHRIWKH
pioneering work in this regard occurred in the 1980s at the
University of Toronto. From pure shear tests in specially
built testing machines, a theory for the behavior of
reinforced concrete elements in shear was developed by
Vecchio and Collins.27KLVWKHRU\WKH0RGL¿HG
Compression Field Theory (MCFT), contains 15 equations
that must be simultaneously solved—indicating both that
cracked concrete behavior can be complex but also that
MCFT is not appropriate for use for day-to-day engineering
calculations. Early applications of MCFT to create shear
SURYLVLRQVUHVXOWHGLQH൶FLHQWVKHDUGHVLJQVEXWLWZDV
UDWKHUGL൶FXOWWRLPSOHPHQWLQVSUHDGVKHHWVEHFDXVHWKH
method required the use of lookup tables.
A breakthrough occurred in 2002 when it became clear
that, by relaxing the optimization process used to ensure
WKHKLJKHVWGHVLJQH൶FLHQF\LWZRXOGEHSRVVLEOHWR
VLJQL¿FDQWO\VLPSOLI\WKHPHWKRGE\UHSODFLQJWKHWDEOHV
ZLWKHTXDWLRQV7KLVPHWKRGZDVFDOOHGWKH6LPSOL¿HG
MCFT to distinguish it from the more complex full version
of the MCFT, and it has been implemented into the bridge
and building codes in Canada and Australia, the ¿E Model
Code 2010,3 and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
6SHFL¿FDWLRQV4 Herein, it is proposed for the ACI Code
as well.
The assumptions behind the shear design method presented
in this article are that:
• Plane sections remain plane;
• No external “clamping stresses” through the thickness of
the member are present;
• Shear stresses are uniformly distributed over the shear depth;
• At shear failure, the member will be diagonally cracked;
• MCFT provides the constitutive relationships for shear
stress versus shear strain;
• Members without stirrups fail by breakdown of aggregate
interlock; and
• Members with stirrups fail by yielding of the stirrups,
followed by crushing of the concrete in diagonal compression.
1RWHWKDWLIWKH¿UVWWKUHHLWHPVDUHYLRODWHGLQDGHVLJQ
situation, then the strut-and-tie method should be used
(although the sectional method presented herein should be
conservative). The fourth item indicates that the mere
presence of diagonal cracks due to, say, restrained shrinkage,
will not necessarily indicate imminent shear failure, as Vc
models the post-cracking shear strength.
These assumptions are applied to a member along an
assumed diagonal crack. Figure 1 is a free body diagram
showing the forces along the crack. Flexural moments and
axial forces are resisted by the force couple between Cx
and As fs. Shear forces are resisted by aggregate interlock
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | SEPTEMBER 2017 33
shear stresses on the crack vci and stirrup forces Av fy . The
contribution to shear strength from shear reinforcement Vs
is similar to that in the existing Code, except that the
proposed method allows the use of crack angles θ lower
than 45 degrees.
Mechanisms for members without stirrups
Members without stirrups are assumed to reach the shear
strength limit state when the applied shear stresses on
diagonal cracks exceed the ability of these cracks to resist
them. The MCFT includes an equation for this ability; this
equation was derived from Walraven’s classic aggregate
interlock tests. It is important to note the equation—indeed
the entire proposed design method—is not derived
empirically from beam test results. Rather, the method is
derived from more fundamental material tests. That the
equations as proposed can accurately predict the shear
strength of experiments suggests that the listed basic
assumptions are appropriate. Put another way, each shear
test that is compared to the method is a validation of the
method rather than a FDOLEUDWLRQ, as no parameters in the
PRGHOUHVXOWHGIURPFXUYH¿WVWREHDPWHVWV
The MCFT predicts that the ability of a crack to resist
aggregate interlock stresses will increase with increasing
FRQFUHWHVWUHQJWKDQGLQFUHDVLQJPD[LPXPVSHFL¿HGFRDUVH
aggregate size (representing crack roughness). Also, the wider
the diagonal crack predicted at shear failure, the lower the
predicted aggregate interlock resistance (this is, we hope,
intuitive). To estimate a crack width w, the following
relationship can be used
w=H·s (1)
where s is the crack spacing perpendicular to the crack
and ε is the average cracked concrete strain in the same
direction. As wider cracks will be associated with lower
aggregate interlock strength, anything that increases the
value of w can be expected to result in decreased shear
capacity. Thus, if the crack spacing increases due to, say,
the construction of a deeper member without stirrups, it
can be expected that the shear stress at failure will
decrease. This is called the size effect in shear and is an
important aspect of the shear behavior of members
Fig. 1: Free body diagram of member subjected to shear
34 SEPTEMBER 2017 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
without stirrups. Secondly and equally importantly, if ε
increases due to, say, applied axial tension, then the shear
strength is also predicted to drop. This is called the strain
effect in shear and means that larger tensile strains result
in lower shear strengths.
Design equations for members without stirrups
The full derivation of the proposed method is given
elsewhere,5 but the important concepts are explained
herein. Determining shear strength will depend on the
terms s and ε in Eq. (1). The value of the crack spacing
will depend largely on the overall size of the member if it
does not contain stirrups. The effective crack spacing in
the longitudinal direction sx is taken as 0.9d if no stirrups
are provided and 3/4 in. aggregate is used. If the member
is constructed with a different aggregate size, the
aggregate interlock capacity will be affected and an
equation is provided to modify the value of sx. For
high-strength concrete, the aggregate fractures and does
not contribute to crack roughness, so the effective
aggregate size should be taken as zero for fƍc > 9000 psi.
Figure 2 shows the test of a 1 ft wide strip taken from a
5 ft thick slab. It can be seen that the spacing of the
cracks at the middepth of the strip is much greater than
the spacing of the cracks at the flexural tension face. The
parameter s x refers to the longitudinal spacing of the
cracks at middepth of the member, where the crack widths
tend to be widest at shear failure.
The value of ε to use in Eq. (1) is slightly more
complex, as it depends on the applied loads, amount of
flexural reinforcement, and more. Consider that a given
amount of applied load will be associated with a given
strain in the longitudinal reinforcement based on a free
body diagram such as that in Fig. 1. This value of strain
will be present in the longitudinal reinforcement, whereas
Eq. (1) requires an average strain in the concrete at
90 degrees to the diagonal crack. As such, the MCFT
equations must be employed to derive a relationship
between the diagonal crack width at shear failure and the
longitudinal strain.
Figure 3 shows the results of the calculation of
diagonal crack width for various longitudinal strains
by MCFT. As the longitudinal strain increases, the
calculated crack width at shear failure also increases.
The analysis results are nonlinear but the figure shows a
simplified (linear) equation that conservatively
approximates the nonlinear behavior. This equation is
selected to provide a good match to the full MCFT for
middepth strains that are expected for a member
reinforced with 60 or 80 ksi flexural reinforcement. If a
member is to be subjected to larger longitudinal strains,
say, with high-strength or fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
flexural reinforcement, these provisions should be
conservative, as the simple equation will overestimate the
diagonal crack width.
Fig. 2: A 5 ft deep slab-strip without stirrups subjected to shear. Note crack spacing is larger at middepth than at flexural tension face

ACI CHAPTER
FALL ROUNDTABLE
NETWORKING | RESOURCES | GROWTH
Saturday, October 14, 2017
The ACI Concrete Convention and Exposition
chapter Disneyland® Hotel, Anaheim, California, USA

roundtable Email: Tosha.Holden@Concrete.org

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | SEPTEMBER 2017 35

Fig. 3: MCFT relation between longitudinal strain in member and predicted diagonal crack width with simplified equation
When the equation in Fig. 3 is substituted into the MCFT
HTXDWLRQIRUDJJUHJDWHLQWHUORFNDQGVL]HH൵HFWLVDOVR
incorporated, the following equation in U.S. customary units
is obtained for the concrete contribution to shear strength:
(2)
Components: Vc = Part A × Part B × Part C
Note that Eq. (2) applies to all reinforced and
prestressed members subjected to any combination of
loading type, with or without stirrups. Equation (2)
includes three parts: A, B, and C. Part A is the traditional
and familiar shear-strength equation from the current Code.
3DUW%LVWKHWHUPWKDWDFFRXQWVIRUWKHVWUDLQH൵HFWDQG
3DUW&LVWKHWHUPDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVL]HH൵HFWQRWHWKDWLI
the member depth of a design is altered, Parts B and C will
both change).
,IDPHPEHUKDVDQH൵HFWLYHGHSWKRIDERXWLQ
Part C will reduce to a value of 1. If the strain in the
UHLQIRUFHPHQWLVFORVHWRWKDWRIÀH[XUDO\LHOGIRUNVL
reinforcement, (or εx = 0.85 × 103, refer to the following),
Part B will also reduce to a value of 1. Thus, for most slabs
under one-way action designed with normal-strength
reinforcement, the traditional shear-strength equation of
“2 roots” remains unchanged as the recommended shear
design method of the ACI Code. If the member is much
deeper than this, however, the shear strength will reduce by
3DUW&DQGWKLVLVWKHVL]HH൵HFWLQVKHDU,IKLJKHU
36 SEPTEMBER 2017 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
longitudinal strains occur due to the use of lower Young’s
modulus longitudinal FRP bars, for example, the shear
strength will again be predicted to be reduced by the strain
H൵HFWYLD3DUW%3UHVWUHVVLQJLQFUHDVHVVKHDUVWUHQJWKE\
lowering the strains in Part B.
While Eq. (2) provides an estimate for the shear strength
that can be expected for a given crack spacing, a known value,
it also depends on the longitudinal strain at middepth at shear
failure εx. This can be calculated based on a simple free body
diagram similar to Fig. 1 as
(3)
The numerator of this equation represents the calculated
WHQVLRQIRUFHLQWKHÀH[XUDOWHQVLRQUHLQIRUFHPHQWDQGWKH
denominator turns this into a strain by dividing this force
by the reinforcement area and Young’s modulus. To
estimate the strain at middepth of the member, where the
FUDFNVSDFLQJLVWKHODUJHVWWKHÀH[XUDOWHQVLRQVWUDLQLV
conservatively divided by 2 assuming that plane sections
remain plane. This equation indicates that increased strains
can be expected for higher applied loads, lower prestress,
ORZHUDPRXQWVRIÀH[XUDOUHLQIRUFHPHQWDQGORZHU
VWL൵QHVVHVRIWKDWUHLQIRUFHPHQW)URPWKLVHTXDWLRQ
it can also be seen that it is not just the percentage of
reinforcement that controls the shear strength as the
applied loads also matter. The reason is that the crack
width, which controls Vc, is not governed simply by the
DPRXQWRIÀH[XUDOUHLQIRUFHPHQWEXWDOVRE\WKHGHPDQG θ = 29° + 7000εx (5)
on this reinforcement.
where εx is the same value calculated earlier with Eq. (3).
EW\_ZWŬRQQRbWU]^S\R\ORabfWcV^dcbcWaad_b Finally, the shear reinforcement contribution to shear strength
:KLOH(TLVQRWGL൶FXOWWRDSSO\LWHUDWLYHO\IRU is taken as
strength assessment, a simpler method is needed for design.
1RWHWKDWLIDVX൶FLHQWO\ODUJHPRPHQWLVDSSOLHGWKHÀH[XUDO (6)
steel will yield and the member will not fail in shear but in
ÀH[XUH7KHPLGGHSWKVWUDLQDWZKLFKWKLVZLOORFFXUZLOOEH
approximately εx = fy/(2Es). Accounting for some of the where 0.9dLVWKHDVVXPHGÀH[XUDOOHYHUDUPDWVKHDUIDLOXUH
FRQVHUYDWLYHQHVVRIQHJOHFWLQJWKHÀH[XUDOFRPSUHVVLYHVWUDLQ Based on MCFT, the combination of the concrete component
IRUNVLÀH[XUDOUHLQIRUFHPHQWLWLVDSSURSULDWHWRDVVXPH shear strength from Eq. (2) can be added to Eq. (6) to give
that εx = 0.85 × 10–3 for design cases. If this constant is
substituted into Eq. (2), the following equation for slab design (7)
is obtained
where the 0.22fƍc upper limit is to ensure yielding of the
(4) stirrups prior to diagonal crushing of the concrete. Note the
VLJQL¿FDQWLQFUHDVHLQWKHDOORZDEOHPD[LPXPVKHDUIRUFH
compared to the current Code, particularly for high-
It is suggested that Eq. (4) is no more complex for the strength concrete.
design of new members than the current “2 roots”
equation because the value of sx will be a known Longitudinal Yield Check
parameter if d is known. While this equation will be $VD¿QDOFKHFNRIWKHFDSDFLW\RIDVHFWLRQLWLV
appropriate for new designs, it will not be optimal for QHFHVVDU\WRFRQ¿UPWKDW\LHOGLQJRIWKHORQJLWXGLQDO
strength assessment or statistical comparison to reinforcement will not occur prematurely due to the
experiments, however, as the important strain effect has FRPELQHGH൵HFWRIPRPHQWDQGVKHDU7KHIROORZLQJ
been intentionally removed from the equation. Such HTXDWLRQPXVWEHVDWLV¿HGZKHUHFlt is the tensile capacity
comparisons should be made to the more general form of RIWKHÀH[XUDOUHLQIRUFHPHQW
Eq. (2).
If reinforcement with a yield strength higher than 60 ksi is (8)
used in a new design, a new version of Eq. (4) should be
derived directly from Eq. (2). Thus, for a new design with
NVLÀH[XUDOUHLQIRUFHPHQWεx would be taken as 1.4 × 10–3, As in Eq. (3), Mu and Vu are always positive, and Nu is
and the value of 100 in the numerator of Eq. (4) would need to positive for tension and negative for compression. Note,
be lowered to 73. This indicates that design shear strength however, that Flt need not exceed the value obtained at the
VKRXOGEHH[SHFWHGWREHORZHUIRUÀH[XUHFULWLFDOGHVLJQV location of the maximum moment, when shear is neglected. If
using 100 ksi reinforcement due to the wider cracks that the WKLVHTXDWLRQLVQRWVDWLV¿HGWKHQWKHSUHGLFWHGVKHDUVWUHQJWK
higher yield strain steel will allow. VKRXOGEHUHGXFHGXQWLOLWLVVDWLV¿HGRUIRUGHVLJQDGGLWLRQDO
longitudinal reinforcement should be provided until it is
EVRMaQRbWU]^S\R\ORabfWcVbcWaad_b VDWLV¿HG
The presence of transverse reinforcement that satisfies
ACI detailing rules means that the spacing of diagonal Comparison to Test Data
cracks will not dramatically change as the member is Figure 4(a) shows the results of the method compared
made larger. As such, it is appropriate to take the effective to a database of 740 shear experiments subjected to
crack spacing parameter sx as a constant value of 12 in. SRLQWORDGV$VFDQEHVHHQIURPWKH¿JXUHWKHPHWKRG
for members with at least minimum stirrups. Note that the provides a similar level of safety for all values of εx,
current maximum stirrup spacing limit of 24 in. must be although for smaller values, some tests are predicted quite
retained, as this ensures that as members get deeper than conservatively. Because of this, the statistics are based on
4 ft, the crack spacing will remain no more than about WKHERWWRPKDOIRIWKHGDWDZKHUHE\DQRUPDOFXUYHLV¿WWR
12 in. the bottom half of the data set to determine the mean and
$VHFRQGGL൵HUHQFHIRUPHPEHUVZLWKVWLUUXSVLVWKDWWKH
angle of inclination θ, of the principal compression stress in
the web concrete, is also needed. Based on an MCFT
analysis at high-shear stresses, the following equation for θ
was derived5
FRH൶FLHQWRIYDULDWLRQ&29RIWKHXQVDIHVLGH2YHUDOO
the method for members without stirrups provides an
appropriate level of safety.
For members with stirrups, Fig. 4(b) shows a similar
comparison, again indicating an appropriate level of safety.
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | SEPTEMBER 2017 37
 • Proven—A similar method to that proposed in this paper
has been in use in Canada, and for bridge design in the
United States for more than 10 years. The method has
been shown to produce good designs in practice as well
as in theory.

References
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp.
9HFFKLR)-DQG&ROOLQV03³7KH0RGL¿HG&RPSUHVVLRQ)LHOG
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI
-RXUQDO 3URFHHGLQJV, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
3. “¿E Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010,” ¿E (International
Federation for Structural Concrete), Lausanne, Switzerland, 2010,
434 pp.
³$$6+72/5)'%ULGJH'HVLJQ6SHFL¿FDWLRQV´VHYHQWKHGLWLRQ
$PHULFDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI6WDWH+LJKZD\DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ2൶FLDOV
Washington, DC, 2014, 2160 pp.
5. Bentz, E.C., and Collins, M.P., “Development of the 2004 CSA
A23.3 Shear Provisions for Reinforced Concrete,” &DQDGLDQ-RXUQDORI
&LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ, V. 33, No. 5, May 2006, pp. 521-534.
6. Collins, M.P.; Bentz, E.C.; and Sherwood, E.G., “Where is Shear
Reinforcement Required? Review of Research Results and Design
Procedures,” $&,6WUXFWXUDO-RXUQDO, V. 105, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2008,
pp. 590-600, and Appendix to ACI Paper, 49 pp.

Received and reviewed under Institute publication policies.

Fig. 4: Comparison of predicted method to database of members: (a)
without stirrups; and (b) with stirrups

For more information on the correlation between methods

of this type and experimental observations, the reader is Evan C. Bentz, FACI, is an Associate
referred to Collins et al.6 Professor of civil engineering at the
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON,
Concluding Remarks Canada. He is Chair of ACI Committee
The design provisions presented in this article have a series 365, Service Life Prediction, and a
of advantages to keep in mind: member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee

• Safety—The proposed method accounts for the size 445, Shear and Torsion. He received
his bachelor’s degree from the
H൵HFWDQGVWUDLQH൵HFWDFFXUDWHO\DQGWKXVUHÀHFWVWKH
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON,
latest knowledge about these topics;
• Simplicity—Equations (4) and (6) are no more complex
Canada, in 1994, and his PhD from the University of Toronto
in 2000.
to apply than the current ACI shear design provisions.
They are directly derived from Eq. (2), the one equation
ACI Honorary Member Michael P.
for Vc proposed for the ACI Code; Collins is a Professor of structural
• Generality—These provisions apply equally to all loading engineering at the University of
types, all member types, and also to high-strength concrete, Toronto. He is past Chair and a
KLJKVWUHQJWKVWHHODQG)53ÀH[XUDOEDUV member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee
• Rationality—The method is derived from a more
fundamental theory, the MCFT;
445, Shear and Torsion. His research
interests include developing rational
• Consistency—Most current ACI shear designs would but simple shear design procedures
be unchanged by this proposed method. Assessment of for both reinforced and prestressed
existing structures will only be impacted where concrete structures.
needed; and

38 SEPTEMBER 2017 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com