ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 103-S10
Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected
to Monotonic Loads
by Malte von Ramin and Adolfo B. Matamoros
A model to calculate the shear strength of reinforced concrete
members subjected to monotonic loading was developed. The
proposed model includes the contribution of the most significant
mechanisms of shear transfer in reinforced concrete members
identified in the research literature. The shear strength is calculated
by the superposition of components related to arch action, truss
action, friction, and the contribution of the uncracked compression
zone. A procedure to calculate the shear strength of members in the
transition phase from deep to slender members is formulated, so
that the proposed expression can be used for members with
geometric configurations varying from squat to slender members.
The proposed model was found to provide good estimates of
strength for members with and without transverse reinforcement,
and having a wide range of geometric configurations and concrete
compressive strengths.
Keywords: aggregate interlock; friction; shear; wall.
INTRODUCTION
Although current design provisions for shear strength in the
ACI 318 Building Code1 are simple in nature, they do not
provide a consistent framework applicable to different types
of reinforced concrete members. For instance, Chapter 11 of
the ACI 318 Building Code1 includes design expressions for
beams and columns (Eq. (11-3) and Eq. (11-5) through (11-7)
that are different from those for walls (Eq. (11-29) and
(11-30)). Because the design equations for slender members
neglect the effect of the shear span-to-depth ratio on shear
strength, there is no smooth transition between squat
(relatively short shear span-to-depth ratios) and slender
(relatively large shear span-to-depth ratios) members.
Additionally, recent studies have shown that the strength of
members without transverse reinforcement tends to decrease
with increasing effective depth,2-6 an effect which is not
reflected by the design equations in the ACI code.
A more comprehensive model proposed by Watanabe and
Ichinose7 and Aoyama8 accounts for the effects of the shear
span-to-depth ratio and repeated load reversals on shear
strength. This model, adopted in the design guidelines of the
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ),9 consists of separate
contributions from arch and truss action, which makes it
applicable to both deep and slender members. More recent
studies conducted in Japan have resulted in modifications to
the AIJ design guidelines to make them applicable to
members with axial load and high-strength concrete.10,11
This paper introduces a methodology for shear design based
on the physical and geometric properties of reinforced concrete
members that is applicable to a large number of member config-
urations. The proposed model includes the various mechanisms
that contribute to shear strength, such as arch action, truss
action, and contributions from the uncracked compression
zone and from friction between crack surfaces.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006
TECHNICAL PAPER
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
A cohesive model to calculate the shear strength of
reinforced concrete members is derived. The proposed
model is able to represent the effects of axial load, flexural
reinforcement ratio, shear span-to-depth ratio, effective
depth, amount of transverse reinforcement, and concrete
compressive strength on shear strength. Because the
proposed model is applicable to more types of elements than
those previously found in the literature it provides the means
for a more consistent approach for shear design.
Comprehensive model for shear design
The design equations in the ACI 318 Building Code1
present a fragmented approach to shear design. While
Section 11.3 of the ACI Code has provisions for the design
of slender members, the shear strength of squat members
must be calculated according to Appendix A of the code,
which lists provisions for the use of strut-and-tie models. A
relationship between both methods is not provided.
A methodology that provides a smooth transition between
the calculated shear strength of deep and slender members
was formulated by Watanabe and Ichinose7 and Aoyama.8
This method was later adopted in the design guidelines of the
AIJ.9 The proposed approach,7,8 which was used as a frame
of reference for the model developed in this paper, describes
the shear strength of slender and deep members by the super-
position of arch and truss mechanisms. The truss mechanism
consists of a variable angle truss model, also described by
Collins and Mitchell.4 The contribution of the arch component
to the total shear strength depends on the geometric shape of
the member and the effective strength of concrete. The
strength of the concrete in the arch mechanism is reduced
due to the stresses induced by the truss, limiting the arch
contribution to the total shear strength. The model proposed
by Watanabe and Ichinose7 was modified by Watanabe and
Kabeyasawa11 to reflect the effects of high-strength concrete
and axial load. According to Watanabe and Kabeyasawa, the
shear strength is given by
V n = γ [ ρ w fwy bj t cot φ + 0.5 ( 1 – β ) ⋅ v 0 f c ′bh ⋅ tanθ ] (1)
in which Vn = nominal shear strength; γ = strength reduction
factor = 0.91 for beams, = 0.95 for columns; b = member
width; jt = distance between uppermost and lowermost layers
of longitudinal reinforcement; ρw = web reinforcement ratio;
ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 1, January-February 2006.
MS No. 04-311 received September 29, 2004, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-
December 2006 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2006.
83

ACI member Malte von Ramin is Senior Design Engineer at O’Reilly Brothers Ltd.,
Kingscourt, Co. Cavan, Ireland. He received his Dipl.-Ing. in civil engineering from
the University of Dortmund, Germany, and his PhD from the University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kans.
ACI member Adolfo B. Matamoros is a professor at the University of Kansas. He is a
member of ACI Committees 314, Simplified Design of Concrete Buildings; 341,
Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges; 408, Bond and Development of Reinforcement;
439, Steel Reinforcement; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 441, Reinforced Concrete
Columns, and 445, Shear and Torsion. He received his MS and PhD from the University of
Illinois at Urbana, Urbana, Ill.
fwy = yield strength of web reinforcement; φ = angle of incli-
nation of the compression field due to the truss mechanism;
β = reduction factor to account for stresses induced by the
truss mechanism in the strut; h = height of the member;
ν0 fc′ = effective compressive strength of concrete; and θ =
inclination of the strut in the arch mechanism.
In the model proposed by Watanabe and Ichinose7 the
nominal strength of the web reinforcement is limited to
f wy ≤ 125 ν 0 f c′ (2)
The first and second terms in Eq. (1) represent the truss
and arch action components, respectively. The angle of
inclination of the compression field, represented by the term
cot φ, is given by the minimum value of Eq. (3) through (5)11
ν 0 fc ′
cotφ = ------------
-–1 (3)
ρ w f wy
cotφ = 2.0 – 3np (4)
jt
cotφ = -----------------
- (5)
tanθ ⋅ h
Equation (3) sets a limit on the strength provided by the
truss based on the requirement that the truss-induced stresses
must not exceed the effective strength of concrete. Equation
(4) relates the strength afforded by the truss mechanism to
the axial load ratio, where
P
n p = --------- (6)
Af c ′
Equation (5) is based on the geometric configuration of the
member. According to Watanabe and Ichinose,7 the nominal
shear strength Vn increases with an increase of cotφ, up to the
limiting value given by Eq. (5).7
The second term in Eq. (1) represents the contribution of
arch action to shear strength. It originates from a lower
bound plasticity solution12 of a strut-and-tie model proposed
by Nielsen.12 In the analytical model used by Nielsen,12 load
is applied to members by means of rigid anchor plates that
impose a uniform pressure to hydrostatic nodal zones. This
assumption leads to a solution in which the maximum load is
obtained when the depth of the compression zone, which
defines the width of the strut, is equal to one half of the
member depth.12 Although the dimensions of the loading
area are not implicit in Eq. (1), it is required that the bearing
area be sufficiently large to prevent crushing of the concrete,
and that the reinforcement be properly anchored.12 The
angle of inclination of the arch, which results in the optimal
plastic mechanism,12 is given by
84
2
tanθ = L--- + 1 – L
--- (7)
 h h
where L = shear span of the member.
The effective strength of concrete is given as a function of
the axial load demand, np (Eq. (6)).
0.667
ν 0 fc ′ = 1.7 ( 1 + 2n p )f c′ (8)
Equation 8 shows that an increase in axial load results in a
larger effective strength. The capacity of the arch is reduced
according to the stresses induced by truss action. The reduction
of the arch component originates from the notion that the
superimposed stresses cannot exceed the effective
strength of concrete.7 The arch component is reduced by
a factor (1 – β) with
σt ρ w f wy( 1 + cot φ )
2
β = ----------
- = ----------------------------------------
- (9)
ν 0 fc ′ ν 0 f c′
in which σt = stresses in the compression field induced by
the truss.
The approach proposed by Watanabe and Kabeyasawa11
can be used to calculate the shear strength of slender and
deep reinforced concrete members, with or without web
reinforcement, and with or without axial load. The model
was formulated for nonductile as well as for ductile
members.7,8,11 The derivation and different aspects related
to the contributing mechanisms are described in detail
elsewhere.7,8,11,13 While the method constitutes a cohesive
model applicable to a wide range of element types, the model
has the following limitations:
1. The method cannot be used to calculate the shear
strength of slender members without transverse reinforcement
because the shear strength of members without transverse
reinforcement is provided entirely by the arch mechanism. A
transition between squat and slender members without
transverse reinforcement is not formulated;
2. The effect of the section depth on the nominal shear
stresses is not reflected;
3. The effect of axial load on shear strength is not modeled
directly. The method was modified to account for the effect
of axial load by increasing the angle of inclination of the
compression field and the effective strength of concrete with
increasing axial load;11 and
4. Horizontal web reinforcement is not considered in the
model. The arch is solely reduced with respect to vertical
web reinforcement.
The goal of the research conducted was to develop an
improved model that could account for these effects.
Proposed model for shear strength of reinforced
concrete members
According to the proposed model, the shear strength is
calculated as a superposition of arch action, truss action, friction,
and a component related to the strength of the compression zone
of the member. Consequently, the nominal shear strength is
given by
Vn = Va + Vt + (Vcz + Vf ) (10)
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006
where Va, Vt, Vcz, and Vf are the contributions resulting from
arch action, truss, compression zone, and friction, respectively.
Arch component
Arch action is assumed to be related to a single strut
directed from the loading point towards the support, as
shown in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1, the concrete strut is designated Cs
and the tie formed by the longitudinal reinforcement is
designated Ts. The angle of inclination of the strut θ, spanning
from the exterior surface towards the interior of the
member, is approximately calculated based on the shear
span-to-depth ratio as
a
cotθ = --- (11)
d 4.6
where a = shear span or the distance between the inflection
point and the point of maximum moment demand for
members loaded through end stubs and deformed in double
curvature; and d = effective depth. The width of the strut
depends on the loading conditions of the member. Because
the strut cannot cross cracks developed from flexure or the
inclined compression field of the truss, the projection of the
strut normal to the member axis was defined as the smallest
of the depth of the compression zone or the depth of the tie
corresponding to longitudinal reinforcement, assumed as
twice the cover of the longitudinal reinforcement. It was
found that in the case of deep beams it was a safe assumption
to calculate the width of the strut based on the depth of cover
of the longitudinal reinforcement (Fig. 2).
w = h a ⋅ cosθ + l b ⋅ sinθ (12)
with ha = 2cR = twice the cover depth of the longitudinal
reinforcement; and lb = dimension of the loading plate in the
axial direction of the member (Fig. 2). In slender members, the
smallest value of the depth of the compression zone, or ha, is
used to calculate the strut width. One of the main differences
between the model by Watanabe and Ichinose7 and the
approach introduced in this paper is that the strut configuration
in the former was obtained based on the assumption of a nodal
zone under uniform hydrostatic pressure, while the latter relies
strictly on geometric considerations dictated by Eq. (12).
The strength of the arch mechanism is defined based on
the previously described geometric configuration of the
strut, the effective strength of concrete, a reduction factor
related to truss action, and a transition function ka.
between deep and slender members, a transition function ka
was introduced to describe the decreasing influence of arch
action with increasing aspect ratio. Based on the trends
observed in the experimental data15-18 different functions
ka are formulated for members with and without web
reinforcement. For members without web reinforcement,
the following expression is proposed
1
k a = ---------------------------------
- (15)
3
1 + 0.1 ( a ⁄ d )
In the case of members with web reinforcement
k a = ----------------------------------------- (16)
5
6.5 + 0.13 ( a ⁄ d )
A comparison of Eq. (15) and (16) shows a larger reduction in
strength was observed in the case of members with transverse
reinforcement. This effect is attributed mainly to two
different causes. Due to different inclinations of the
compression field and the strut, the stresses induced by truss
action in the interface between the strut and the nodal zone
create a two-dimensional state of stresses in the concrete,
weakening the strength of the concrete in the arch.13 In addition,
the presence of web reinforcement allows larger tensile
strains in the strut without brittle failure of the concrete in the
strut, which has the effect of reducing the effective compressive
strength of the strut at failure. Similar to the proposal by
Watanabe and Ichinose,7 the contribution from arch action to
shear strength is reduced by a factor Ra to account for additional
stress demand due to truss action.
Truss-component
The strength of the truss component is calculated using a
variable-angle truss model,4 based on the yield strength of
the transverse reinforcement, the internal lever arm jd, and
the angle of inclination of the compression field. The strength of

V a = k a R a β s f c ′ ⋅ w ⋅ b ⋅ sin θ (13)

The reduction factor βs for the effective strength of Fig. 1—Reinforced concrete panel with inclined strut.
concrete is defined as a function of the compressive strength
of concrete fc′. A calibration was performed using a database
described in a following section. Concrete compressive
strengths of the members in the database ranged from 15 to
140 MPa.13 The following expression for the reduction
factor is proposed

β s = 0.85 – 0.004f c ′ ≥ 0.5 (14)

While arch action is a major shear-carrying mechanism in

squat members, this mechanism becomes negligible in
slender members.2,7,8,14 To allow for a smooth transition Fig. 2—Definition of strut width in deep beam.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006 85

the truss mechanism resulting from web reinforcement placed
parallel to the direction of the shear load is given by
V t, v = ρ w, v fwy, v b ⋅ jd ⋅ cotφ (17)
with ρw,v = the reinforcement ratio of the vertical transverse
reinforcement; fwy,v = yield strength of the vertical transverse
reinforcement; b = member width; jd = distance between the
centroid of the flexural reinforcement and the compression
force in the concrete; and φ = inclination of the compression
field with respect to the longitudinal reinforcement.
For simplicity in the calibration of the model the lower limit
for the angle of inclination of the compression field was assumed
to be φ = 30 degrees. Although optimization of this limit would
allow greater accuracy in the estimates of shear strength for
slender members, it would also imply developing procedures to
calculate the optimized angle of inclination of the strut, which
would increase the complexity of the design equations.
In the case of deep members, the distance jd cannot be
calculated due to the absence of a well-defined compression
zone. It was found that in members with a/d ≤ 2.5 it was a
reasonable assumption to substitute the term jd in Eq. (17) by
the effective section depth, d.13
The stress in the compression field ft,v induced by the
vertical truss mechanism is given by
ρ w, v fwy, v
f t, v = --------------------
- (18)
2
sin φ
In deep beams and walls, it is common practice to use
orthogonal layers of transverse reinforcement (vertical
and horizontal). The contribution of the horizontal web
reinforcement is derived in a similar manner to that of the
vertical truss mechanism
2
V t, h = ρ w, h fwy, h b ⋅ a ⋅ tan ψ (19)
where ψ represents the angle of inclination of the compression
field with respect to the horizontal web reinforcement
(Fig. 3). The stress in the compression field induced by the
horizontal truss mechanism is then
ρ w, h fwy, h
f t, h = --------------------- (20)
2
cos ψ
Fig. 3—Geometric configuration of vertical and horizontal
truss in deep beam.
86
It should be noted that for walls, the horizontal and vertical
directions have to be exchanged because the lateral load is
applied in the horizontal direction.
In members with relatively small shear span-to-depth
ratios the configuration of the truss is constrained by the
distance between the loading point and the support (Fig. 3).
Assuming that the web reinforcement is lumped at the center
of the span, the inclination of the compression field with
respect to the vertical truss is limited to
a
cotφ ≤ ------ (21)
2d
Similarly, the angle of inclination of the compression field
with respect to a horizontal truss in deep members and walls
is limited to
2a
cotψ ≤ ------ (22)
d
Interaction between truss and arch mechanisms
Similar to the proposal by Watanabe and Ichinose,7 the
arch action component is reduced based on the stress demand
induced by the truss. This reduction is necessary because, if
both mechanisms act simultaneously, each mechanism
introduces a stress demand on the concrete under compression.
The assumption is made that the truss develops its full
capacity because it is the more reliable shear carrying
mechanism. The fraction of the concrete compressive
strength that remains available for the arch mechanism is
determined as follows. The term ft represents the stress
induced in the compression field by the truss mechanism,
as defined by Eq. (18) or (20). The compressive strength of
the concrete in the arch is given by the effective compressive
strength βs fc′. The demand on the concrete induced by the
vertical truss mechanism can be expressed as a fraction of
the effective compressive strength of the concrete
f t, v
R v = ----------
- (23)
β s fc′
There are two limitations for the factor Rv:
If ft,v ≥ βs fc′, the stress in the inclined compression field
exceeds the allowable compressive stresses. In this case, the
strength of the truss must be lowered by the ratio of stress
demand to effective compressive strength. Thus, Vt must be
reduced by the inverse of Rv
1 β s f c′
- ≤ 1.0
----- = ---------- (24)
Rv f t, v
If Rv is interpreted as the fraction of the effective compressive
strength taken by the truss mechanism, Ra can be defined as
the fraction of the effective strength that remains available to
the arch mechanism. Consequently, the sum of these two
terms must equal unity19
Rv + Ra = 1 (25)
The allowable demand on the strut without exceeding the
effective compressive strength of concrete is obtained by solving
for Ra
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006
 f t, v V f = τ fu ⋅ b ⋅ ( d – kd ) (33)
R a = 1 – ----------
- (26)
β s f c′
The limiting friction stress at the crack surface τfu is calculated
It should be noted that the factor Ra defined in Eq. (26) based on the tensile strength of concrete, as defined in
agrees with the factor (1 – β) used by Watanabe and Eq. (31). The friction stress is reduced proportional to the
Ichinose7 to limit the strength of the arch in Eq. (1). Similar ratio of the average crack width ∆w to a critical crack width
to Eq. (23), a term Rh, related to the horizontal truss in deep ∆wu, which represents the average width at which friction
beams, can be defined along the crack becomes negligible.

f t, h
R h = ----------
- (27)
β s f c′
In this case, the sum of the three factors must equal unity
Ra + Rv + R h = 1 (28)
The system of Eq. (23), (27), and (28) can be solved for
Ra to find the maximum allowable demand on the strut.13
Equation (29) is equal to 1.0 for ft,v = ft,h = 0, and reduces to
Eq. (26) if only one truss component is considered.
( β s f c′ – f t, h ) ( β s f c′ – f t, v )
R a = ---------------------------------------------------------
2
- (29)
( β s f c′) – f t, h f t, v
Contributions to shear strength from uncracked
compression zone and friction
The shear strength of slender members without web
reinforcement is attributed to the strength of the uncracked
compression zone and from friction between crack surfaces
in the tension zone of the member. As previously described,
arch action decreases with increasing values of cotθ and
becomes negligible in the case of slender members.
The shear strength of the uncracked compression zone Vcz
is calculated as a function of the tensile strength of concrete
fct and the area of the uncracked compression zone
∆w
τ fu = const ⋅ f ct  1 – ----------  (34)
 ∆w u 
The value of the limiting crack width in Eq. (34) was
calibrated based on experimental results from shear tests. A
value of ∆wu = 1.0 mm was found to reflect the reduction in
strength observed with increasing crack width reasonably
well. The average crack width ∆w in Eq. (34) is calculated
based on the strain in the longitudinal reinforcement εs, the
average crack spacing scr, and the orientation of the crack.13
Assuming an angle of inclination of the crack equal to the
inclination of the compression field induced by truss action
(φ = 30 degrees), the average crack width is given by
0.5 ⋅ ε s ⋅ s cr 0.01 ⋅ cot 30°
∆w = -----------------------------------------------------------
- + ------------------------------------------- ≅
sin30° ( 1 – 0.336cot30° ) 1 – 0.336 ⋅ cot 30° (35)
2.4 ⋅ ε s ⋅ S cr + 0.04
The strain in the longitudinal reinforcement is calculated
with sufficient accuracy based on the properties of the
cracked transformed section. At a critical distance d from the
support,1 εs is given by
V⋅d
ε s = ----------------------------------- (36)
ρ s ⋅ bd ⋅ jd ⋅ E s

V cz = const ⋅ f ct ⋅ b ⋅ kd (30)

with

f ct = 3 f c ′ ( MPa ) (31)

2
k = ( ρ s n ) + 2ρ s n – ρ s n (32)
Fig. 4—Constant distribution of friction stresses along
where ρs = longitudinal reinforcement ratio and n = the ratio crack, adapted from Reineck.20,21
of the modulus of elasticity of steel to that of concrete.
The friction component Vf is calculated using a formulation
similar to that proposed by Reineck.20,21 The distribution of
friction stresses adopted in the model by Reineck is depicted
in Fig. 4. A free-body diagram of a slender member without
transverse reinforcement is shown in Fig. 5. This figure,
adapted from Reineck,20 also serves to illustrate the effect of
axial load on shear strength. The contribution of the dowel
force Vd to the total shear strength was neglected in the
proposed model because it has been found to be very small
compared with the other components.13 According to
Reineck, the friction strength is obtained by integrating a Fig. 5—Equilibrium and designations in reinforced concrete
constant friction stress over the area of the surface of the member with tooth element in center of figure, adapted from
crack13,20,21 Reineck.20,21

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006 87

 The average crack spacing is calculated from13
scr = (d – kd)
It should be noted that the calibration of the model
described in this paper was carried out based on members
with single shear spans, such as simply supported beams or
cantilever columns, subjected to point loads. If the critical
section is assumed to be at a different location than a distance
d from the support, the respective value for ∆wu changes due
to the differences in the geometry of the crack. Results for the
limiting crack width based on different assumptions about the
location of the critical shear crack are presented elsewhere.13
Because experimental results show that a well-defined
compression zone does not develop within “D-regions,”22 it
was deemed appropriate to neglect the contributions of the
terms Vcz and Vf in calculating the strength of deep members.
In the proposed model, it was assumed that the magnitude of
these components of the shear strength increases gradually
with the shear span-to-depth ratio. A function kc was intro-
duced with a form approximately axially symmetric to ka to
account for the transition from deep to slender members.13 An
exception was made in the case of structural walls. Because
experimental results have shown that the presence of
boundary elements has a significant effect on the shear
strength of structural walls, it was assumed that boundary
elements do constitute well-defined compression zones, and
that in these cases the transition function kc should have a
value of 1 regardless of the shear span-to-depth ratio. As it
will be shown in a later section this assumption was in
good accordance with experimental results.
The sum of the compression zone Vcz and friction Vf
components constitutes the term Vc. Based on Eq. (30), (33),
and (34), Vc can be calculated as follows.13
• For members without web reinforcement
∆w
V c = k c 0.5 ⋅ f ct ⋅ b ⋅ kd + 0.5 ⋅ f ct ⋅ b ⋅ ( d – kd )  1 – -----------
 ∆w 
u (38)
∆w
⇔ V c = k c ⋅ 0.5 ⋅ 3 f c ′ ⋅ bd k + ( 1 – k )  1 – ----------
 ∆w u
with the transition function kc given by
1 of the truss component to the total shear strength reduces the
k c = 1 – ----------------------------------------- ≥ 0
0.9 + 0.02 ( a ⁄ d )
3 relative contribution of the friction component.
• For members with web reinforcement
∆w
V c = 0.4 ⋅ f ct ⋅ b ⋅ kd + 0.4 ⋅ f ct ⋅ b ⋅ ( d – kd )  1 – ---------- 
 ∆w u 
∆w
f c ′ bd k + ( 1 – k )  1 – ----------
⇔ V c = 0.4 ⋅ 3
 ∆w u
with
1
k c = 1 – ----------------------------------------- ≥ 0
5
0.1 + 0.01 ( a ⁄ d )
The parameter kc was introduced strictly to facilitate a
smooth transition between deep and slender members. It is not
88
intended to imply that the shear transfer mechanisms previ-
ously described for these two types of members interact with
(37) one another. A simpler approach to calculate the shear
strength consists of avoiding the use of the function kc and
instead adopting the largest of the terms Vc and Va as the
contribution of the concrete to the total shear strength. If this
approach is adopted, Vn for members without transverse
reinforcement can be calculated as the maximum between
Eq. (13) and Eq. (40). For members with transverse rein-
forcement, the contribution from the truss mechanism would
have to be added. The use of the coefficient kc leads to more
conservative results, while the simpler alternative results in an
average ratio of measured to calculated strength slightly
higher than one. In the data set evaluated, Vc was the controlling
quantity for all beams with shear span-to-depth ratios greater
than 2.9, and in some beams with shear span-to-depth ratios as
low as 2.4.
Another simplification for design can be made by
choosing a limit to the reduction in the friction component.
In beams without web reinforcement for which the crack
width is relatively small Eq. (40) can be approximated as
V c = k rf 0.5 ⋅ 3 f c ′ bd (42)
where krf is a constant dependent on the limit chosen for the
reduction in the friction component. Equation (42) is very
similar in form to Eq. (11-3) of the ACI 318 Building Code.
The main difference between the two is that in Eq. (42) the
shear strength is a function of the cubic root of the compressive
strength while in Eq. (11-3) of the ACI 318 Building code,
the shear strength is proportional to the square root of the
compressive strength. Through mathematical derivations
based on the proposed model, the authors developed
recommendations for ranges of concrete compressive
strength, reinforcement ratio, and member depth in which
Eq. (42) is applicable.13 A similar simplification had a
negligible effect on the strength of members with transverse
reinforcement. For the data set considered in the study,
neglecting the reduction in the friction component resulted in
an average ratio of measured to calculated strength of 1.0 and
a coefficient of variation of 0.18. This simplification, however,
introduced a slight increasing trend between the ratio of
measured to calculated strength and the ratio of Vs to Vn.
This was to be expected because increasing the contribution
(39)
Effect of axial load on shear strength
The strength of the terms related to friction and compression
zone tends to increase with increasing axial compression, and to
decrease with increasing tension. The reason is that axial
(40) compressive forces reduce the strain in the longitudinal
reinforcement and increase the depth of the neutral axis, both of
which have the effect of increasing Vc according to Eq. (39) and
(41). Because Eq. (36) was derived for the case of beams, it
should not be used to calculate the strain in the longitudinal
reinforcement when the member is subjected to axial load.
Instead, equilibrium equations for the cracked member (shown
(41) in Fig. 5) can be used to calculate the strain in the longitudinal
reinforcement, accounting for the effect of the axial load N. This
derivation is presented elsewhere.13 The following expression,
resulting from equilibrium of forces in a tooth element (sum of
moments about Point P in Fig. 5), can be used to calculate the
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006
strain in the longitudinal reinforcement accounting for the effect
of axial load
ε s = ------------------------------------ ⋅ V  x + ---------- – V cz  --- ---------- – N ⋅ z c
1 jd

E s ⋅ ρ s ⋅ bd ⋅ jd tanφ
where x = distance from the support to location considered; and
zc = distance from centroid to center of the compression zone.
A similar problem arises for calculating the depth of the
compression zone. In this case, the depth of the compression
zone near failure c may be used to obtain a conservative
estimate of the strength instead of kd.13 The evaluation of the
proposed method using results from members tested by
Morrow and Viest,23 Baldwin and Viest,24 and Diaz De
Cossio and Siess25 showed that the proposed model estimated
the measured strengths with good accuracy.13
showed that the proposed model had slightly higher scatter
than the approach proposed by Reineck,20,21 and a significantly
lower coefficient of variation than the model by Watanabe
and Kabeyasawa.11 Figure 8 and 9 show graphs of the ratio
2 kd
(43)
 3 tanφ of measured to calculated shear strength versus the effective
depth for slender members without web reinforcement.
Shear strengths in Fig. 8 and 9 were calculated according to
the proposals by Watanabe and Kabeyasawa,11 and by
Reineck,20,21 respectively. Figure 10 shows a similar plot
using the method proposed by the authors. Contrary to the
results for deep beams, the model proposed by Watanabe and
Kabeyasawa11 provided the least conservative estimates of
shear strength, with an average ratio of measured to calculated
strength of 1.08 ± 0.4% within a 95% confidence region. The
model proposed by Reineck had the highest average ratio of

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED MODEL

The proposed model was evaluated using an n-fold cross
validation with a database of experimental results reported in
the literature. The database comprised test results from
slender and deep beams with various reinforcement
configurations, structural walls, and columns. Concrete
compressive strength of the specimens in the database
ranged between 12 and 138 MPa, shear span-to-depth
ratios ranged between 0.2 and 8, and axial load ratios
between 0 and 0.25. A detailed listing of the test results
used in the evaluation is presented elsewhere.13 Results
obtained with the models proposed by Watanabe and
Kabeyasawa,11 and, if applicable, by Reineck,20,21 are
presented also for reference.
Fig. 6—Ratio of measured to calculated shear strength
Members without web reinforcement versus aspect ratio according to approach proposed by
Watanabe and Kabeyasawa.11
The shear strength of deep and slender beams without
transverse reinforcement was calculated using Eq. (10). The
contributions from arch and concrete components were
calculated using Eq. (13) and (38), respectively. Table 1 lists
the results of the evaluation for members without web
reinforcement. The performance of the proposed model for
a database comprising 50 deep beams without transverse
reinforcement13 was compared with the proposal by
Watanabe and Ichinose,7 considering the modifications by
Watanabe and Kabeyasawa for members with high-strength
concrete.11 Figure 6 shows the ratio of measured to calculated
strength versus the shear span-to-depth ratio for various
types of beams. Hollow triangles correspond to results from
deep beams without web reinforcement, solid squares
correspond to deep beams with web reinforcement, and solid
diamonds correspond to slender beams with transverse
reinforcement. All results shown in Fig. 6 were calculated
using the method by Watanabe and Kabeyasawa.11 Figure 6 Fig. 7—Ratio of measured to calculated shear strength
shows that the method by Watanabe and Kabeyasawa was versus aspect ratio according to proposed model.
less conservative for estimating the shear strength of deep
beams with web reinforcement than it was for estimating the Table 1—Evaluation of test results for deep and
strength of deep beams with web reinforcement. The ratio of slender members without web reinforcement
measured to calculated strength tended to increase with
increasing aspect ratio. Calculated strengths using the model Researcher Vmes/Vcal COV, %
proposed in this paper (Fig. 7) had less scatter and were less Proposed model 1.11 ± 0.8% 23
Deep beams
conservative in the case of deep beams. Nevertheless, the Watanabe and Kabeyasawa 11 1.52 ± 0.9% 29
proposed method provided safe estimates of the shear Proposed model 1.36 ± 0.3% 29
strength of deep beams. Slender Watanabe and Kabeyasawa11 1.08 ± 0.4% 35
Calculated shear strengths from a database comprising beams
21,22 1.55 ± 0.5% 27
395 slender members without transverse reinforcement Reineck

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006 89

measured to calculated shear strength with 1.55 ± 0.5% within
a 95% confidence interval; the model proposed in this paper
resulted in a conservative estimate of Vmes /Vcal with an average
of 1.36 ± 0.3% within a 95% confidence interval. Figure 8 and
9 show that the relationship between the ratio of measured to
Fig. 8—Ratio of measured to calculated shear strength
versus effective depth for slender beams without transverse
reinforcement according to approach proposed by
Watanabe and Kabeyasawa.11
Fig. 9—Ratio of measured to calculated shear strength
versus effective depth for slender beams without transverse
reinforcement according to approach proposed by Reineck.21
Fig. 10—Ratio of measured to calculated shear strength
versus effective depth according to proposed model.
90
calculated shear strength and the effective depth had a negative
slope for the proposal by Watanabe and Kabeyasawa,11 and, to
a smaller extent, for the proposal by Reineck.20,21
Beams tested by Podgorniak-Stanik26 and by Yoshida27 with
the goal of investigating the effect of section depth on the
nominal shear stress16 are marked by light grey circles in
Fig. 8 through 10. It can be seen that the approach proposed
by Watanabe and Kabeyasawa11 did not reflect the effect of
depth on shear strength. This result is not surprising as the
derivation of this method was not intended to account for
reductions in shear strength with increasing member depth in
slender members. The methods proposed by Reineck and the
proposed model did reflect a reduction in strength with depth
similar to that observed in these tests due to a reduction in the
component related to friction.13 The strength of this family
of beams was determined accurately by the proposed model.
Figure 11 shows the ratio of measured to calculated shear
strength versus the compressive strength of the concrete.
Data points for results from a test series by Hallgren28 are
marked by solid circles. The only parameter that was
changed in this test series was the compressive strength of
the concrete. The aspect ratio was kept constant at a/d = 3.65,
and the longitudinal reinforcement ratio was approximately
ρs = 2.2%. Results for this series of beams show that the
proposed method adequately accounted for the effect of
compressive strength of the concrete on shear strength.
Members with web reinforcement
In the calculations for the proposed model, the strength
provided by the transverse reinforcement was obtained using
Eq. (17). The strength of the arch component was reduced
using the factor Ra given by Eq. (29) to reflect the additional
demand in the strut imposed by the truss. In deep members,
the angle of inclination of the compression field with respect
to the truss was limited according to Eq. (21) and (22). The
strength provided by the compression zone and friction
components Vc was calculated using Eq. (40).
Results obtained with the proposed model were compared
with those of the method by Watanabe and Kabeyasawa.11
Table 2 summarizes the results of this evaluation for deep
beams, slender beams, and walls. With the exception of
structural walls, the proposed model had less scatter than the
approach proposed by Watanabe and Kabeyasawa.11 When
applied to the databases for deep and for slender members,
the proposed model resulted in more conservative estimates with
Fig. 11—Ratio of measured to calculated shear strength versus
concrete compressive strength according to proposed model.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006
Fig. 12—Ratio of measured to calculated shear strength versus Fig. 13—Ratio of measured to calculated shear strength versus
panel length of walls according to approach proposed by panel length of walls according to proposed model.
Watanabe and Kabeyasawa.11
Table 2—Evaluation of test results for deep
average ratios of Vmes/Vcal = 1.20 ± 0.2%, and Vmes/Vcal = members, slender members, and walls with
1.14 ± 0.2%, respectively. This is consistent with one of the web reinforcement
objectives of the calibration, which was to obtain safe Vmes/Vcal
Researcher COV, %
estimates of shear strength. Figure 6 shows results from
Proposed model 1.20 ± 0.2% 13
an evaluation of the model proposed by Watanabe and Deep beams
Kabeyasawa using test data from deep and slender beams Watanabe and Kabeyasawa11 1.04 ± 0.3% 21
with web reinforcement. These two databases included Slender Proposed model 1.14 ± 0.2% 15
146 deep beams and 168 slender beams with transverse beams Watanabe and Kabeyasawa11 1.08 ± 0.6% 24
reinforcement.13 A trend towards increasingly conservative Proposed model 1.66 ± 0.8% 30
estimates with increasing aspect ratio is apparent for the Walls
Watanabe and Kabeyasawa11 0.93 ± 0.5% 32
model proposed by Watanabe and Kabeyasawa. Figure 7
shows the results obtained with the model proposed by the
authors. In Fig. 7, 10, and 11, hollow diamonds correspond LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSED MODEL
to results from deep and slender beams with web reinforcement. While the proposed model can be used to calculate the
The ratio of measured to calculated strength obtained with shear strength of members subjected to point loads within
the proposed model did not exhibit any trends with respect to reasonable accuracy, a direct strut representing the arch
aspect ratio, concrete compressive strength, and effective component cannot be used to model the load transfer in
depth, respectively. The three specimens for which the shear members subjected to distributed loads. A possible alternative to
strength was significantly overestimated (indicated by marks address this shortcoming would be to implement a smeared
significantly below the line representing Vmes/Vcal = 1) are arch relying on ties formed by concrete in tension. Such a
beams tested by Roller and Russel29 to study lower limits for continuous arch model was proposed by Specht.14,30
the amount of transverse reinforcement for the provisions in
the ACI 318 Code.1 The calculated results confirm the need SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
for limitations on the minimum amount of transverse rein- Summarizing, the proposed model indicates that the total
forcement for the validity of the variable angle truss model shear strength of reinforced concrete members can be
adopted in the method. Considering the higher amount of calculated as a weighted superposition of contributions from
scatter observed in the results from the model proposed by arch action, truss action, friction, and a contribution from the
Watanabe and Kabeyasawa,11 the low ratios of measured to compression zone of the member, as expressed in Eq. (10).
calculated strength resulted in a significant number of
members for which the strength was overestimated. This V n = V a + V t + ( V cz + V f ) (10)
behavior is most noticeable when applying the model
proposed by Watanabe and Kabeyasawa11 to walls. The
model proposed in this paper and the approach proposed by The contribution from arch action was formulated in Eq. (13),
Watanabe and Kabeyasawa11 were evaluated using a database with the transition function ka, truss reduction factor Ra,
of 146 walls that failed in monotonic shear.13 The performance nodal reduction coefficient βs, and geometry given by Eq. (15)
of the two models is shown in Fig. 12 and 13. The coefficient or (16), (29), (14), and (11), (12), respectively.
of variation of the results obtained with the model by
Watanabe and Kabeyasawa was slightly higher than that V a = k a R a β s f c ′ ⋅ w ⋅ b ⋅ sin θ (13)
obtained with the proposed method (Table 2). The model by
Watanabe and Kabeyasawa had a lower average value of The component for truss action parallel and horizontal to the
Vmes/Vcal that resulted in a significant number of unconser- direction of the applied shear load was given by Eq. (17) and (19).
vative estimates for the shear strength of walls. This is
indicated by the trend line below Vmes/Vcal = 1. Both models V t, v = ρ w, v fwy, v b ⋅ jd ⋅ cot φ (17)
were able to represent the influence of the shear span-to-
depth ratio and concrete compressive strength on the shear 2
strength of the walls that were analyzed. V t, h = ρ w, h fwy, h b ⋅ a ⋅ tan ψ (19)

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006 91

 The sum of the compression zone and friction components
for members without web reinforcement, Vc = Vcz + Vf , was
given in Eq. (38), and in Eq. (40) for members with web
reinforcement. The respective transition functions are given
in Eq. (39) and (41).
∆w
V c = k c ⋅ 0.5 ⋅ 3 f c ′ ⋅ bd k + ( 1 – k )  1 – ---------- (38)
 ∆w u
∆w
V c = 0.4 ⋅ 3 f c ′ bd k + ( 1 – k )  1 – ---------- (40)
 ∆w u
The evaluation that was conducted showed that the
proposed model can be used to accurately determine the
shear strength of reinforced concrete members with a wide
range of configurations and concrete compressive strengths.
The method was able to reflect experimentally observed
trends for the effects of axial load, effective depth, compressive
strength, amount of flexural and transverse reinforcement,
concrete compressive strength, and shear span-to-depth ratio
on the shear strength of reinforced concrete members.
The proposed model does not reflect safety factors used for
shear analysis. Nevertheless, one objective of the respective
calibrations was to provide a certain level of conservatism.
However, the level of conservatism attributed to the various
components reflects mostly the scatter in the calculated
response of the investigated data set.
The following conclusions are drawn from the study:
1. The monotonic shear strength can be modeled by a super-
position of components related to arch action, truss action,
friction, and the shear strength of the compression zone. The
behavior of members with intermediate shear span-to-depth
ratios was modeled with similar accuracy by using transition
functions or by adopting the largest of the component related to
arch action and the sum of the components related to friction
and the strength of the compression zone;
2. The highest degree of scatter was observed for members
with intermediate shear span-to-depth ratios, between 2 and
4; and
3. The friction component in the proposed model was able
to reflect the reduction in shear strength observed in families
of similar beams with increasing effective depth.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.
2. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, “Recent Approaches to Shear
Design of Structural Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 124, No. 12, 1998, pp. 1375-1417.
3. Bažant, Z. P., and Kim, J.-K., “Size Effect in Shear Failure of Longitudi-
nally Reinforced Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No. 5, Sept.-
Oct. 1984, pp. 456-468.
4. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., “Prestressed Concrete Structures,”
Prentice Hall International Series in Civil Engineering and Engineering
Mechanics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1991, 766 pp.
5. Kotsovos, M. D., and Pavlovic, M. N., “Size Effects in Beams with
Small Shear Span-to-Depth Ratios,” Computers and Structures, Elsevier,
V. 82, No. 2-3, 2004, pp. 143-156.
6. Tompos, E. J., and Frosch, R. J., “Influence of Beam Size, Longitudinal
Reinforcement, and Stirrup Effectiveness on Concrete Shear Strength,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2002, pp. 559-567.
7. Watanabe, F., and Ichinose, T., “Strength and Ductility Design of RC
Members Subjected to Combined Bending and Shear,” Preliminary
Proceedings, International Workshop on Concrete Shear in Earthquake,
University of Houston, Houston, Tex., 1991, pp. IV4-1 to IV4-10.
8. Aoyama, H., “Design Philosophy for Shear in Earthquake Resistance
92
in Japan,” Earthquake Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Structures,
T. Okayed, ed., Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 1993, pp. 407-418.
9. Architectural Institute of Japan, “AIJ Design Guidelines for Earth-
quake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Buildings Based on Ultimate
Strength Concept, with Commentary,” 1988, 337 pp.
10. Kabeyasawa, T., and Hiraishi, H., “Tests and Analyses of High-
Strength Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls in Japan,” High-Strength
Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1998, pp. 281-310.
11. Watanabe, F., and Kabeyasawa, T., “Shear Strength of RC Members
with High-Strength Concrete,” High Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions,
SP-176, C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 1998, pp. 379-396.
12. Nielsen, M. P., “Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity,” New
Directions in Civil Engineering, 2nd Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Fla., 1999, 908 pp.
13. von Ramin, M., and Matamoros, A., “Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Members Subjected to Monotonic and Cyclic Loads, SM Report
No. 72, University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, Kans.,
June 2004, 517 pp.
14. Specht, M., “Modellstudie zur Querkrafttragfähigkeit von Stahlbe-
tonträgern ohne Schubbewehrung im Bruchzustand,” Bautechnik, Ernst &
Sohn, Berlin, Germany, V. 63, No. 10, 1986, pp. 339-350. (in German)
15. Chen, S. A., and MacGregor, J. G., “Shear-Friction Truss Model for
Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Shear,” Structural Engineering
Report No. 188, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1993, 359 pp.
16. Reineck, K.-H.; Kuchma, D. A.; Kim, K. S.; and Marx, S., “Shear
Database for Reinforced Concrete Members without Shear Reinforcement,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp. 240-249.
17. Matamoros, A. B., and Wong, K. H., “Design of Simply Supported
Deep Beams Using Strut-and-Tie Models,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2003, pp. 704-712.
18. Zararis, P. D., “Shear Strength and Minimum Shear Reinforcement
of Reinforced Concrete Slender Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp. 203-214.
19. Hwang, S.-J.; Fang, W.-H.; Lee, H.-J.; and Yu, H.-W., “Analytical
Model for Predicting Shear Strength of Squat Walls,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 1, 2001, pp. 43-50.
20. Reineck, K.-H., “Ein mechanisches Modell für den Querkraftbereich von
Stahlbetonbauteilen,” dissertation, Institut für Tragwerksentwurf und-
konstruktion, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 1990, 273 pp. (in German)
21. Reineck, K.-H., “Ultimate Shear Force of Structural Concrete
Members without Transverse Reinforcement Derived from a Mechanical
Model,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1991, pp. 592-602.
22. Schlaich, J.; Schäer, K.; and Jennewein, M., “Toward a Consistent
Design of Structural Concrete,” PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 3, 1987, pp. 74-150.
23. Morrow, J., and Viest, I. M., “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Frame Members without Web Reinforcement,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 60, Sept. 1957, pp. 833-869.
24. Baldwin, J. W., and Viest, I. M., “Effect of Axial Compression on
Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Frame Members,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 61, May 1958, pp. 635-654.
25. Diaz De Cossio, R., and Siess, C. P., “Behavior and Strength in Shear
of Beams and Frames without Web Reinforcement,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 63, Aug. 1960, pp. 695-735.
26. Podgorniak-Stanik, B. A., “The Influence of Concrete Strength,
Distribution of Longitudinal Reinforcement, Amount of Transverse
Reinforcement and Member Size on Shear Strength of Reinforcing
Concrete Members,” MASc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1998, 711 pp.
27. Yoshida, Y., “Shear Strength of Lightly Reinforced Concrete
Members,” MASc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2000, 150 pp.
28. Hallgren, M., “Flexural and Shear Capacity of Reinforced High
Strength Concrete Beams without Stirrups,” Licentiate thesis, Department
of Structural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, TRITA-BKN,
Bulletin 9, 1994.
29. 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.
30. Specht, M., “Ingenieurmodelle zur Beschreibung der Querkrafttrag-
fähigkeit von Stahlbetonträgern im Bruchzustand,” Bautechnik, Ernst &
Sohn, Berlin, Germany, V. 64, No. 11, 1987, pp. 371-378. (in German)
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006