Australian Journal of Structural Engineering

ISSN: 1328-7982 (Print) 2204-2261 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsen20

On the use of MCFT per AS 5100.5 for the

assessment of shear capacities of existing
structures

Colin C. Caprani & Mayer M. Melhem

To cite this article: Colin C. Caprani & Mayer M. Melhem (2019): On the use of MCFT per AS
5100.5 for the assessment of shear capacities of existing structures, Australian Journal of Structural
Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13287982.2019.1664207

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2019.1664207

Published online: 11 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsen20
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2019.1664207

ARTICLE

On the use of MCFT per AS 5100.5 for the assessment of shear capacities of
existing structures
Colin C. Caprani and Mayer M. Melhem
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In the recent update of AS 5100 (2017 + Amdt. 1, 2018), the Modified Compression Field Received 3 May 2019
Theory (MCFT) was introduced for shear design of members. Part 7 of the code, which deals Accepted 2 September 2019
with the assessment of existing structures, directs engineers to use the MCFT provisions of KEYWORDS
Part 5 (for design) in assessing the shear capacity of an existing member. The MCFT provisions Concrete shear capacity;
in Part 5 are intended for shear design, rather than shear capacity assessment. Without bridges; modified
modification, false shear capacity assessments can result from their use. This note discusses compression field theory;
the background to the design rules and explains how capacity assessment should differ. It Australian standards
shows how, through iteration, the design rules can be adopted to give capacity assessments
for existing sections. It concludes by showing the errors that can arise for a range of sections,
typical of bridge assessments, from the incorrect application of the shear design rules to an
assessment problem. Recommendations are given to remove this ambiguity in future editions
of AS 5100.7.

1. Introduction more than half a century of academic research into

1.1. Background to AS 5100:2017
AS 5100 is the Australian standard for the design of new
bridges and assessment of existing bridges. The first
edition of the code was released in 2004 and comprised
of seven parts. In particular, Part 5 (AS 5100.5 -
Standards Australia 2017a) is used for the design of
concrete bridge components, whereas Part 7 (AS 5100.7
- Standards Australia 2017b) details the procedures for
the assessment of existing bridges. In early 2017, the
entire code series underwent a significant revision
(Pritchard 2017a).
Although AS 5100.7 has been considerably revised,
the fundamental process remains the same as the super-
seded 2004 code (Pritchard 2017b). The code stipulates
that the structural capacity of an existing bridge com-
ponent is to be determined using the relevant design
standard (Clause 10.1 AS 5100.7:2017). For concrete
bridge components, the applicable standard is AS
5100.5. Unlike AS 5100.7, some significant differences
exist between AS 5100.5:2004 and AS 5100.5:2017
(Hilton 2017). The most notable change in the updated
code is the new shear design provisions for which the
2017 code adopts equations based of the modified com-
pression field theory (MCFT).
1.2. History of MCFT
As suggested by Kani (1964), shear behaviour in con-
crete structures was often seen as a ‘riddle’. But after
concrete shear behaviour, the modified compression
field theory (MCFT) is now well-established as a very
accurate theory for shear behaviour in concrete struc-
tures (Collins et al. 2008). Indeed, the theory is sup-
ported by a number of international and national
laboratory and field research studies (Al-Mahaidi,
Taplin, and Giufre 2000; Higgins et al. 2004). In
Australia, Al-Mahaidi and Taplin (1998) have com-
mended the accuracy of MCFT shear capacity predic-
tions when compared with field results of an existing
Australian concrete bridge load-tested to failure.
MCFT considers the shear behaviour of the
cracked concrete, requiring an iterative process of
equilibrium equations, strain compatibility, and con-
stitutive relationships to infer the shear capacity of
a given section (Vecchio and Collins 1986). Such
a complex procedure may not always be convenient
for engineering practice. Therefore, a simplified ver-
sion of MCFT has been introduced by Bentz,
Vecchio, and Collins (2006) for assessing shear capa-
city. As demonstrated through a number of examples
by these researchers published for international
(Bentz 2010; Bentz, Vecchio, and Collins 2006) and
Australian audiences (Collins and Mitchell 2014), an
iteration process is required to obtain the shear capa-
city of a concrete section. Codified versions of MCFT
for concrete shear design, where iteration is not
required, are now adopted in the Canadian standards
(Bentz and Collins 2006), American standards
(Kuchma et al. 2008), and recently the Australian

CONTACT Colin C. Caprani colin.caprani@monash.edu

© 2019 Engineers Australia
2 C. C. CAPRANI AND M. M. MELHEM

concrete structures (AS 3600:2018 - Standards
Australia 2018) and bridge standards (AS
5100.5:2017).
1.3. Problem outline
Based on anecdotal observations of structural engi-
neering consulting reports made available to the
authors, it is clear that the difference between shear
design and assessment to MCFT is not being ade-
quately taken into account by all practicing engineers.
To be fair, iteration is required for capacity assess-
ments as discussed in various publications such as
Collins and Mitchell (2014), but this is not made clear
in Part 7 of AS 5100:2017. The purpose of this note is
to explain the theoretical background and code pro-
visions, clarify how the design rules must be adapted
for correct shear capacity assessments, demonstrate
the method through a series of example concrete
sections, and make recommendations to remove the
ambiguity in the code.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Full MCFT analysis
The modified compression field theory (MCFT) was
developed at the University of Toronto by Vecchio and
Collins (1986). The theory assumes cracked concrete can
be treated as a new material with its own stress-strain
behaviour. MCFT considers concrete tension stresses,
the effect of aggregate interlock, dowel action, and the
presence of steel reinforcement on the behaviour of the
cracked concrete. In a full MCFT analysis, 15 equations
of equilibrium, strain compatibility, and constitutive
relationships, shown in Figure 1, require an iterative
process to obtain the shear capacity of a given concrete
member.
The MCFT equations are implemented in
a software program called Response 2000, developed
by Bentz and Collins (2000) at the University of
Toronto. The software is a two-dimensional sectional
analysis program that evaluates the load-deformation
response, and thus capacity, of a given cross-section
subject to shear, moment and axial loads. The soft-
ware is considered accurate, with a number of studies
indicating software results varying only 1% to 5%
from concrete sections experimental tested to shear
failure (Bentz 2010; Higgins et al. 2004; Metwally
2012). However, the shear capacity for sections with
moment-shear (M/V) ratios less than 2d appear to be
not well predicted in the software, where d is the
distance from top fibre to the longitudinal reinforce-
ment centroid (Higgins et al. 2004).
2.2. fib model code 2010 levels of
approximations
The solution of the MCFT equations seen in Figure 1
is tedious for engineering practice. Hence, four
‘Levels of Approximation’ (LoA) are given in the fib
Model Code 2010 for assessing shear capacity in

Figure 1. Fifteen equations requiring iteration in a full modified compression field theory analysis for concrete member shear
capacity assessment (Bentz, Vecchio, and Collins 2006).
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 3

concrete sections (Bentz 2010). The higher the level, 2.3. Adoptions to codes of practice for design
the greater the computational effort, but also greater
Simplified MCFT equations have now been adopted
accuracy of the results. In Levels I to III the two
to international codes of practice for shear design of
MCFT-based parameters based of the simplifications
concrete sections. Provisions from the American ACI
published by Bentz, Vecchio, and Collins (2006) are
code, and the Canadian simplified methods resemble
defined in closed-form equations. These parameters
fib Model Code LoA I (Bentz 2010). Meanwhile, the
are the angle of principal compression stresses in the
equations for LoA III are adapted in the Canadian
web of the member, θ v, and the factor to account the
CSA A23.3 (Bentz and Collins 2006), the American
shear resistance of cracked concrete, kv. For example,
AASHTO (Kuchma et al. 2008) and now the
in LoA I, θv = 36° and

200 Australian standards AS 5100.5:2017 for concrete
Asv ¼ 0 bridge structures and AS 3600:2018 for concrete
kv ¼ ð10001:3dÞ (1)
0:15 Asv  Asv;min building structures.
where Asv is the amount of transverse reinforcement in
the section, and Asv,min is the minimum amount of 2.4. Shear design in AS 5100.5
transverse reinforcement. LoA I is only applicable to
sections with selected material properties (Bentz 2010). Figure 2 depicts the MCFT-based shear design provi-
In LoA II, kv is taken as zero and θ v is a function of the sions found in AS 5100.5:2017+ Amdt 1:2018 for
longitudinal strain at the mid-depth of the member, εx . normal density concrete. In Figure 2, f’c is the com-
The equations for LoA II are intended to consider the pressive strength of concrete, bv is the effective web
effects of plasticity to better model heavily reinforced width, dv ¼ maxð0:72D; 0:9dÞ where D is the total
concrete beams (Bentz 2010). LoA III is an extension of depth of the section, Asv =s is the reinforcement per
LoA I, where both θv and kv are functions of εx. In unit length, and fsy is the yield strength of the steel
particular, kv is taken as a product of ‘strain effect’ and stirrups.
‘size effect’. That is: The prescribed equations for θv and kv in AS
8h ih i 5100.5:2017 Clause 8.2.4.2 are similar to those found
< 0:4 1300
Asv ¼ 0 in the Canadian and AASHTO standards. The only
kv ¼ h i
1þ1500εx 1000þsxe
(2)
: 0:4
Asv  Asv;min difference is the use of 32, rather than 35, in the crack
1þ1500εx
spacing parameter equation (AS 5100.5:2017 Equation
where sxe is the crack spacing parameter. Finally, LoA 8.2.4.2(2)) – intended improve the fit against materials
IV is the use of sophisticated tools such Response 2000. test data for thinner sections with larger aggregate sizes

Figure 2. AS 5100.5 MCFT-based shear design provisions and their relationships. Equation numbers are those found in AS
5100.5:2017+ Amdt 1:2018. Note that M* and V* are defined to be absolute values (Clause 8.2.4.3/4(a)).
4 C. C. CAPRANI AND M. M. MELHEM
(Foster 2017). Before Amendment 1, AS 5100.5
included the ‘size effect’ regardless of presence the mini-
mum transverse reinforcements. The amendment
released in late 2018 ensured AS 5100.5 was consistent
with other codes to disregard the ‘size effect’ similar to
that shown in Equation (2) (AS 5100.5:2017+ Amdt
1:2018, Equation 8.2.4.2(4)).
3. Adaptation of AS 5100.5 provisions for
assessment
3.1. Longitudinal strain
As seen from Figure 2, the shear capacity of the section
(Vu) depends on the longitudinal strain at the mid-
depth of the member (εx). In turn, the equation for εx
is based on an idealised cracked section of compression
and tension ‘flanges’ and the average strain along the
web. The strain along the web is taken as half of the
tensile strain in the tensile ‘flange’ (Collins et al. 2018).
The longitudinal strain is limited to the range of
−2 × 10−3 to 3 × 10−3, where a positive value indicates
tension. The additional EcAct term is only necessary if it
is found that εx < 0, meaning the section is uncracked in
the tensile half-depth. The subscript t indicates the
tension half-depth of the section.
There exists a fundamental difference in the con-
sideration of longitudinal strain between design and
assessment:
●
In design, the applied shear load is the design
shear load (V = V*) as seen in Figure 2, and the
longitudinal strain directly results.
● In assessment, the applied shear load is the ulti-
mate shear capacity (V = Vu); the applied shear is
thought of as increasing from zero, until failure of
the section at V = Vu, and so the longitudinal strain
must be consistent with this applied shear.
In a section capacity assessment, as the applied load-
ing increases on the structure, the responses increase.
Assuming linear-elastic behaviour of the structure
globally and only the application of the single critical
load case, the absolute ratio between shear force and
the other load effects (bending moment, torsion
moment, and axial force), termed influence coeffi-
cients, η, remains constant. Hence, the expression
for longitudinal strain in Figure 2 may also be linearly
related to the shear on the section using these
 coeffi-
cients: ηM ¼ jM=V j, ηT ¼ jT=V j, ηN ¼ N jV j, where
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h i2ffi
2 0:9jV jηT uh
jV j  ηM =dv þ ðjV j  Pv Þ þ
εx ¼  
2 Es Ast þ Es Apt þ Ec Act
ηM is moment-to-shear coefficient, ηT is torsion-to-
shear coefficients (both lever arms), and ηN is a non-
dimensional coefficient for shear to axial load on the
section. This results in the equation:
such that now all load effects and hence longitudinal
strain are expressed solely in terms of the absolute
applied shear force. These influence coefficients can
be obtained using structural analysis of the bridge
deck via methods such as grillage analysis or the finite
element method. All other variables in Equation (3)
are still as defined in AS 5100.5:2017.
3.2. Shear capacity
In an assessment problem, since the web-shear capa-
city both depends on the longitudinal strain and
causes the longitudinal strain, a non-linear equation
where unknown Vu is located on both sides of the
equality must be solved. More specifically, this is
because both the reinforced concrete shear capacity
(Vuc) and transverse reinforcement shear capacity
(Vus) are now functions of Vu (Figure 2) due to εx
being a function of Vu (Equation (3) with V = Vu).
Hence, an iteration process is necessary so that the
output Vu term of the left converges to the same
value to input term on the right of Equation 8.2.3.1
in AS 5100.5. The results from the iteration provides
the capacity of the web-shear mode of failure (Vu w).
An underlying assumption in the provisions
shown in Figure 2 is that a flexure-shear failure of
the section occurs after the web-shear failure (Bentz
and Collins 2006). That is, the available flexural capa-
city of the longitudinal reinforcement in the section
(Flt,u) is sufficiently higher than the resulting long-
itudinal force (Flt). This can be expressed as Flt,u ≥ Flt
which when expanded becomes (Bentz and Collins
2006):

Ast fsy þ Apt fpy  jV j  ηM dv
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
0:45jV j  ηT  uh 2
þ cot θv ðjV j  0:5Vus  Pv Þ2 þ
2Ao
þ 0:5jV j  ηN
(4)
If the inequality is not met in design (V = V*) then
additional reinforcement is required so to increase
the left side of Equation (4). This is stipulated in
Clause 8.2.7 of AS 5100.5:2017+ Amdt 1:2018.
If the inequality is not met in assessment (V = Vu)
then the applied shear force V is reduced to satisfy
2Ao þ 0:5jV j  ηN  Apt fpo
(3)

Equation (4). However, θv and Vus are functions of εx,
which in turn are functions of V (Equation (3)).
Therefore, an iteration process is required to determine
the value of V that satisfies the inequality. The results
from this iteration provides the capacity of the flexural-
shear mode of failure (Vu f).
The overall shear capacity of the section is then the
lower of the web-shear and flexural shear capacities:
ing force (Flt,), then V must be increased. Otherwise,
Vu ¼ min Vuf ; Vuw (5)
3.3. Assessment process flowchart
A flowchart describing the process required to adapt the
design provisions in AS 5100.5 for shear assessment of
concrete structures is shown in Figure 3. In addition,
the process is depicted graphically in Figure 4 for a case
where flexural-shear is more critical than web-shear (Vu
f
< Vu w). Indeed, it possible for web-shear to be more
critical in other cases. In these curves (Figure 4–6) shear
capacity is plotted on the left (blue) axis and longitudi-
nal forces is plotted on the right (red) axis, both against
the longitudinal strain. The solid black line represents
the applied shear force increasing as the longitudinal
strain increases (Equation (3)). The solid blue line
depicts the relationship between the design provisions
in AS 5100.5 and the longitudinal strain (Figure 2). The
relationship between longitudinal strain and the resul-
tant longitudinal force is the solid red line (right side of
Equation (4)). Finally, the available longitudinal force is
dashed red line (left side of Equation (4)) which does
not depend on the longitudinal strain.
To perform the calculations, first the material and
geometric properties for the section under assessment
are established, and the available longitudinal force
(Flt,u) is quantified (dashed red line in Figure 4). Then,
an initial guess of the longitudinal strain is required.
The influence coefficients ηM, ηT, and ηN need to be
known. This can be achieved by conducting a structural
analysis of the bridge deck under the relevant applied
loading case. The initial guess of longitudinal strain can
be determined from an initial guess of the shear capacity
in the equation. A suggestion for this guess is to let this
be the design (or assessment) action, V*, at the section.
Once an initial longitudinal strain is obtained, the two
iteration processes are required to separately obtain the
web-shear and flexural-shear capacities.
To determine the web-shear capacity, the AS 5100.5
shear provisions are followed (Figure 2) to give the out-
put shear capacity (Vuw). Most likely the output will not
be equal to initial input guess. Thus the process is
repeated, with the output as the new input for the long-
itudinal strain, until the relative difference between the
output shear capacity and input shear value are accepta-
bly close (∈TOL = 1 × 10−4). Once the two values con-
verge, the capacity results for web-shear failure is known.
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 5
Graphically, this is converging towards the intersection
between the solid black line and the solid blue line shown
by the blue dashed arrows in Figure 4.
To determine the flexural-shear capacity (Vu f), θv
and thus Vus are calculated for the initial guess (V*)
and the resulting longitudinal force is compared with
the available longitudinal force capacity. If the avail-
able longitudinal force (Flt,u) is larger than the result-
if Flt,u > Flt, V is decreased. The longitudinal strain,
θv, and thus, Vus are re-calculated and the process
repeated until the relative difference in the longitu-
dinal forces is acceptably small (∈TOL = 1 × 10−4).
Graphically, this is the shear force at the correspond-
ing longitudinal strain where the intersection
between the solid red line and dashed red line in
Figure 4 occurs (shown by red dashed arrows).
It is interesting to note from Figure 4, that the
iteration for Vuf requires aroot finding trial-and-error
approach, whereas it is an automatic process for Vuw.
Such iterations can be conducted using standard soft-
ware tools such as Microsoft Excel Solver, Goal Seek,
or MATLAB’s fsolve. The final shear capacity is then
the smaller of the two capacities and the capacity
reduction factor φ is applied as appropriate to give
the factored shear capacity of the assessed section.
3.4. On the importance of the iteration process
Anecdotal observations of consultants’ reports, show that
for shear assessment in existing concrete sections to AS
5100:2017, some engineers define V in Figure 3 as V*, but
ignore the need for iteration. Even further, checks on
longitudinal force (Flt) have been omitted. This is some-
what understandable as it is simply following what is
shown in Figure 2. However, it ignores the fact that V*
is a value independent to an existing concrete section and
should have only been used for its design.
The naïve approach of assuming V* and ignoring the
necessary iteration processes gives false results on the
capacity. This is depicted in the schematic shown in
Figure 5 for a case when web-shear is more critical
than flexural-shear (thus, the red axis and lines are
omitted for clarity). The naïve approach overestimates
the shear capacity when the applied shear is less than the
shear capacity estimated using the correct approach (V1
*). This is unconservative and may potentially incorrectly
conclude the bridge is safe from damage after applying
the capacity reduction factor (V* < φVu), when the risks
of damage are indeed higher. Alternatively, overconser-
vative estimate of the shear capacity occurs using the
naïve approach if the applied shear load is more that
the estimation from the correct approach (V2*). Indeed,
since the true shear capacity is not known, without the
iterations, an engineer will not know if their estimate is
overconservative or unconservative. Thus, it is crucial the
iterations are conducted to provide the true capacity.
6 C. C. CAPRANI AND M. M. MELHEM

Figure 3. Flowchart for using design provisions of AS 5100.5 for the shear assessment of existing concrete structure.ϵTOL
= 1 × 10−4. Clause numbers are those found in AS 5100.5:2017+ Amdt 1:2018.

Equally important is the need to conduct both iteration 4. Illustrative examples

for web-shear and flexural-shear failure modes and select
the lower value, as it is not known which mode of failure
is more critical (Figure 6). A number of existing
Australian and international example sections assessed
to AS 5100.5 are considered to illustrate the differences
between true and false capacity assessments.
4.1. Representative sections
Five sections (Sections 1 to 5) are considered to
demonstrate the false results that may arise from
incorrect application of the design rules for assess-
ment. The sections are representative of those arising
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 7

Figure 4. Schematic depicting the double iteration process as per Figure 3. Automated iteration for web-shear (Vu w) is indicated
by blue dashed arrows. Trial-and-error iteration for flexural-shear (Vu f) is indicated by red dashed arrows. Equation numbers as
per this paper. Clause numbers are those found in AS 5100.5:2017+ Amdt 1:2018.

Figure 5. Schematic depicting how false results arise when V* is used and iterations are ignored.

in the assessment of some forms of existing bridge forces and torsion does not need to be considered for
structures in Australia. The geometries of the sections calculating εx following Clause 8.2.1.2 of AS 5100.5.
are shown in Figure 7 with other key properties sum- Section 1 and 2 are the critical sections for reinforced
marised in Table 1. For all sections there are no axial concrete rectangular crossheads from the substructure
8 C. C. CAPRANI AND M. M. MELHEM

Figure 6. Difference between shear capacities for (a) Section 2 (reinforced concrete) and (b) Section 3 (prestressed concrete) (see
Figure 7). For Section 2 flexural-shear is more critical (Vu w > Vu f). For Section 3, web shear is more critical (Vu w < Vu f). Since, Section 3
is a prestressed concrete section, the shape of the curve is different due to the Aptfpo term in Equation (3). Equation numbers as per
this paper. Clause numbers are those found in AS 5100.5:2017+ Amdt 1:2018. Forces in kN.

of two existing bridges, previously investigated by con- 4.2. Results

sultants. Section 3 is the critical section for a prestressed
Type 3 I-girder of an existing Australian bridge, also
previously investigated by consultants. Section 4 is the
critical section for one of the reinforced concrete
T-beams from a bridge that Al-Mahaidi, Taplin, and
Giufre (2000) load-tested to failure. Finally, Section 5 is
the critical section in the reinforced concrete T-beam
(1T18) from the American study by Higgins et al.
(2007) where a number of T-beams with varying mate-
rials and geometric properties were fabricated and
tested to failure in the laboratory. For each of Sections
1 to 3, the load effects each from a different assessment
load model is obtained using a grillage analysis of the
bridge deck. This analysis is performed to obtain the
influence coefficient (ηM) for the section, but also for V*
to be used in the naïve approach. For Sections 4 and 5,
V* for the naïve approach is taken as the load resulting
in failure of the section.
For each of the five sections, Table 2 lists the unfactored
shear capacity (Vu) using the naïve approach (using V*
and no iterations), and the correct approach (with itera-
tions). Also included in Table 2 are the shear capacities
estimated using Response 2000 which adopts the full
MCFT analysis.
4.3. Discussion of the results
For Sections 1 to 3, the naïve approach is unconser-
vative, giving values larger than the correct approach
because the applied load is less than the true shear
capacity (Figure 5). Alarmingly for Sections 2, even
when the capacity reduction factor (φ = 0.7) is
applied, the naïve approach concludes the section is
safe (V* < φVu), whereas the correct approach con-
cludes the section is unsafe (V* > φVu). For Sections 4
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 9

Figure 7. Geometry for representative sections (Section 1 to 5). All dimensions in mm.

Table 1. Properties for the considered sections (Section 1 to 5).

Property Units Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5
D mm 660 600 1310 610 1219
d mm 596 538 1260 545 1143
bw mm 610 600 150 280 356
Act × 103 mm2 201.3 180 181.4 85.4 217.0
Ast mm2 2834 2440 628 3852 6036
Apt mm2 - - 2460 - -
Asv mm2 254 226 400 192 258
s mm 304.8 150 225 320 457
f’c MPa 25 25 45 29 34
Ec GPa 23.5 28 33.8 28 28
dg mm 19 16 19 19 19
fsv MPa 230 230 400 375 463
Es GPa 200 200 200 200 200
fpb MPa - - 1870 - -
fpy MPa - - 1533 - -
Ep GPa - - 195 - -
V* kN 208 374 1362 541 755
ηM mm 0.22 0.30 0.83 0.6 2.31

Table 2. Comparison between naïve and correct approaches for shear capacity assessment of Section 1 to 5 (Figure 7).
Includes results from computer software Response 2000. All results are prior to application of the capacity reduction
factor, φ.
Shear Capacity (Vu) Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5
Naïve Approach 583.9 556.3 1767 457.9 707.3
Error1 49% 58% 3% −4% −2%
Correct Approach 392.6 352.5 1717 475.5 721.1
Difference2 −16% −6% 4% −17% −5%
Response 2000 456.4 373.4 1645 557.3 756.8
1
Percentage error of the naïve approach compared to the correct approach
2
Difference between correct implementation of AS5100.5 rules for assessment and Response 2000 implementation of full MCFT
equations (‘truth’).

and 5, the naïve approach is conservative because the flexural-shear is more critical, and thus if the trial-
true capacity of the section is greater than the esti- and-error iteration is ignored, significantly large
mated capacity. For Sections 1 and 2 (Figure 6), errors arise (49% and 58%, respectively). Meanwhile,
10 C. C. CAPRANI AND M. M. MELHEM
Sections 3 (Figure 6) to 5 fail through web-shear.
Intriguingly, for Section 3, the correct approach pro-
vides a slightly larger estimated capacity to that of
Response 2000. Section 3 is the only section out of the
five that is prestressed. Because of the presence of the Aptfpo
term as per Equation (3), the curves for prestressed con-
crete are different to that of reinforcement concrete mem-
bers (Figure 6). For prestressed members, the AS5100.5
MCFT rules state fpo (see Equation (3)) can be assumed as
70% of the breaking strength of the tendons (Clause
8.2.4.3/4 Note (c)). In the Response 2000 model we have
used this assumption, with a 6.7 mm/m (= 0.7fpbEp) pre-
strain. However, the values are still smaller compared to
the AS 5100.5 output. As a subcase, Section 3 is re-con-
sidered but with its prestress reinforcement now converted
to passive reinforcement (Ast = 628 + 2460 = 3088 mm2, fsy,
Es). That is, all prestress is removed from the section. For
this subcase, Response 2000 results in a higher capacity
output (1001 kN) than the correct approach using AS
5100.5 (870.3 kN). This suggests the reasons for
Response 2000 providing a smaller output in the original
Section 3, is not due to the I-girder geometry, but rather
due to the presence of prestress.
Response 2000 software requires detailed additional
properties to be defined such as the concrete tension and
reinforcement strengths. For this work, the Popovics/
Thorenfeldt/Collins model is used for the concrete mate-
rial base curve with the default peak strain of 2.17 mm/m
(for 45 MPa). However, the software includes a range of
different models for concrete compression softening and
tension stiffening. Hence, the capacities from Response
2000 are approximate and differ slightly when alternative
material models are used (something not possible with
the other approaches). For example, for the original
Section 3, when the peak strain is reduced to 1.33 mm/
m, (which is f’c divided Ec for the section), but the same
base curve is used, the capacity predicted by the software
is now higher (1767 kN, coincidently the same as the
naïve approach) than that of AS 5100.5. Nevertheless, as
described in Section 2.2 earlier, one would expect that
a LoA III approach to be more conservative than a LoA
IV approach, and so it is possible that the AS5100.5
MCFT rules are somewhat non-conservative for pres-
tress concrete members.
As discussed in Section 3.1, the longitudinal strain is
assumed as half of the tensile strain in the flexural tensile
‘flange’ (Collins et al. 2018). More precisely, it is average
of the strains in the compression and tension ‘flanges’.
For reinforced concrete, when under-reinforced, the
compression flange has a small negative strain (compres-
sion), while the tension flange has larger positive strains
(tension). Hence, as a conservative approach the com-
pression strains are taken as zero, resulting in Equation
(3). However, for prestressed concrete, it is possible for
both compression and tension flanges to have negative
strain due to the prestress. As discussed in the commen-
tary on CSA-S6-06 (Clause 8.9.3.8), when M < (V – Vp)dv,
then the compression flanges may experience strain in
the same direction as the tension flanges (CSA Standards
2011). It becomes unconservative then to assume the
longitudinal strain is half of the tensile strain in the tensile
flange. For Section 3 this condition is true, hence it is
more accurate to calculate the longitudinal strain as the
average of compression and tension flanges, and not half
of the tension flange. When this is done for Section 3, the
correct approach provides 1707 kN, which is lower than
considering the tension flange alone (using Equation 3),
but still higher than that of Response 2000 (by 3.7%).
Indeed, Collins and Mitchell (2014) have presented an
example section where the code provisions can be slightly
unconservative (3% error) when compared to results of
the same section tested to failure. However, such small
variations are allowed for in the reliability calibrations of
the shear capacity reduction factors.
5. Conclusions & recommendations
The equations found in AS 5100.5 for concrete shear
are applicable to design while AS 5100.7 directs engi-
neers to make use of these for assessment. Our review
of the underlying theory of MCFT shows that
a modification to the design equations is required
for assessment. A flowchart (Figure 3) is presented
to make clear the need for iteration when adopting
the MCFT-based shear design provisions of AS
5100.5 for shear capacity assessments. Further, by
considering a series of representative sections, the
ramifications of naively ignoring the need for itera-
tion has been demonstrated.
It is found that the influence of prestress may not
be adequately captured by the AS 5100.5 MCFT rules
when used for assessment. Further investigation of
this, particularly in the longitudinal strain assump-
tions, is recommended.
Finally, it is recommended that an additional clause
be inserted into AS 5100.7 that explains the modifica-
tion required, perhaps including a flowchart similar to
Figure 3, for the correct use of the MCFT design equa-
tions of AS 5100.5 in a shear capacity assessment.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the valuable inputs and efforts
from Mr Brandon Gerber, and the data provided from
Dr Geoff Taplin, Prof Riadh Al-Mahaidi, and the staff in
VicRoads. The research work is completed under a Noel
Murray Scholarship at Monash University and supported
by the Australian Government Research Training Program
Scholarship.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Monash University [Noel
Murray Scholarship];Australian Government [Research
Training Program Scholarship].
Notes on contributors
Colin C. Caprani is a Chartered Professional Engineer and
Fellow of Engineers Australia (CPEng FIEAust) and
Chartered Structural Engineer (CEng MIEI, MIStructE)
with considerable industrial and academic experience. His
work specializes on the safety assessment and performance
monitoring of bridges. He is a Director of the non-profit
Confidential Reporting on Structural Safety – Australasia
(CROSS-AUS). Dr Caprani is a Senior Lecturer in Civil
Engineering at Monash University. He has supervised
many PhD and MSc students in a variety of topics related
to structural safety and bridge engineering. He has received
numerous awards and attracted significant research fund-
ing. He is a prominent media contributor on structural
safety issues.
Mayer M. Melhem is a structural engineering researcher
and assistant lecturer in the Department of Civil
Engineering at Monash University. His PhD research
topic focuses on adopting structural reliability theory for
safety-based design and network risk management of heavy
vehicle access to existing concrete highway bridges. He has
presented at a number of international and national con-
ferences on his research. As a graduate structural engineer,
he has worked on a number of highway bridge assessment
and structural performance monitoring projects.
References
Al-Mahaidi, R., and G. Taplin (1998). Analysis of the Load
Testing Results of the Old Kiewa Valley Highway Bridge
Over Yackandahdah Creek: Report to VicRoads.
Melbourne.
Al-Mahaidi, R., G. Taplin, and A. Giufre. 2000. “Load
Distribution and Shear Strength Evaluation of an Old
Concrete T-Beam Bridge.” Transportation Research
Record 1696: 52–62. doi:10.3141/1696-08.
Bentz, E. C. 2010. “MC2010: Shear Strenght of Beams and
Implications of the New Approaches.” Fib Bulletin 57:
15–30.
Bentz, E. C., and M. P. Collins. 2000. Response-2000.
University of Toronto. Retrieved from www.ecf.utor
onto.ca/~bentz/r2k.htm.
Bentz, E. C., and M. P. Collins. 2006. “Development of the
2004 Canadian Standards Association (CSA) A23.3 Shear
Provisions for Reinforced Concrete.” Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering 33: 521–534. doi:10.1139/l06-005.
Bentz, E. C., F. J. Vecchio, and M. P. Collins. 2006.
“Simplified Modified Compression Field Theory for
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 11
Calculating Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Elements.” ACI Structural Journal 103: 614–624.
Collins, M. P., E. C. Bentz, P. T. Quach, and G. T. Proestos.
2018. “Predicting the Shear Strength of Thick Slabs.” In
Towards a Rational Understanding of Shear in Beams
and Slabs, 50–63. Zurich: fib Bulletin 85.
Collins, M. P., E. C. Bentz, E. G. Sherwood, and L. Xie. 2008.
“An Adequate Theory for the Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Structures.” Magazine of Concrete Research 60
(9): 635–650. doi:10.1680/macr.2008.60.9.635.
Collins, M. P., and D. Mitchell. 2014. “Shear Design and
Evaluation of Concrete Structures.” Concrete in
Australia 40 (1): 28–38.
Foster, S. (2017). Personal Communcation. 29 October.
Higgins, C., T. H. Miller, D. V. Rosowsky, S. C. Yim,
T. Potisuk, T. K. Daniels, B. S. Nicholas, et al. 2004.
Assessment Methodology for Diagonally Cracked
Reinforced Concrete Deck Girders. Final Report SPR
350, Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT), Salem, OR.
Higgins, C., T. Potisuk, W. C. Farrow, M. J. Robelo,
T. McAuliffe, and B. S. Nicholas. 2007. “Tests of RC
Deck Girders with 1950s Vintage Details.” Journal of
Bridge Engineering 12 (5): 621–631. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1084-0702(2007)12:5(621).
Hilton, J. 2017. “The New AS 5100.5.” Austroads Bridge
Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Kani, G. N. J. 1964. “The Riddle of Shear Failure and Its
Solution.” Journal of the American Concrete Institute 61
(28): 441–466.
Kuchma, D. A., N. M. Hawkins, S.-H. Kim, S. Sun, and
K. S. Kim. 2008. “Simplified Shear Provisons of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.” PCI
Journal 53–73. May-June. doi:10.15554/pcij.05012008.53.73.
Metwally, I. M. 2012. “Evaluate the Capability and
Accuracy of Response-2000 Program in Prediction of
the Shear Capacities of Reinforced and Prestressed
Concretre Members.” Housing and Building National
Research Centre Journal 8: 99–106.
Pritchard, R. 2017a. “Revision of Australian Standard AS
5100 Part 1 – Scope and General.” Austroads Bridge
Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Pritchard, R. 2017b. “Revision of Australian Standard AS
5100 Part 7 : Bridge Assessment.” Austroads Bridge
Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Standards Australia. 2017a. AS 5100.5-2017: Bridge Design -
Concrete. Sydney: Standards Australia.
Standards Australia. 2017b. AS 5100.7-2017: Bridge Design
- Bridge Assessment. Sydney: Standards Australia.
Standards Australia. 2018. AS 3600-2018: Concrete
Structures. Sydney: Standards Australia.
Standards, C. S. A. 2011. Commentary on CAN/CSA-S6-06
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Mississauga:
Canadian Standards Assocation.
Vecchio, F. J., and M. P. Collins. 1986. “The Modified
Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subject to Shear.” ACI Journal 83 (2): 219–231.