ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 95-S29

High-Strength Reinforced Concrete Deep and Short

Beams: Shear Design Equations in North American
and UK Practice

by Kang-Hai Tan, Fung-Kew Kong, and Li-Wei Weng

The use of high-strength concrete deep beams in tall building constructions
is gaining rapid popularity and has begun to outpace the development of
appropriate design equations. This paper reviews the shear strength equa-
tions as given in the ACI Building Code, the Canadian Code, and the UK’s
CIRIA Guide, and shows that the existing CIRIA predictions may be uncon-
servative for high-strength concrete deep beams. A modified form of the
CIRIA equation is studied, and its predicted values are compared with
experimental values, and those calculated from the ACI Building Code, the
Canadian Code, and the current CIRIA. The comparison involves a total of
233 deep beams, out of which 57 specimens were tested in-house. The study
shows that the modified CIRIA equation gives the smallest coefficient of
variation and standard deviation among the methods considered. The
equation is also applicable for a comparatively wide range of shear span-
to-depth ratios, concrete strengths, main steel ratios, and web-reinforce-
ment types.
Keywords: construction; deep beams; high-strength concrete; shear
strength; span-depth ratio; standards; web reinforcement.
INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete deep beams find useful applications
in tall building construction, offshore structures, and com-
plex foundation systems. In contrast to an ordinary shallow
beam, the depth of a deep beam is comparable to its span
length. In fact, ACI-ASCE Committee 426 1 classified a
beam with shear span-to-depth ratio a/d less than 1.0 as a
deep beam, and a beam with a/d exceeding 2.5 as an ordi-
nary shallow beam. Any beam in between these two limits
is categorized as a short beam. Despite wide structural ap-
plications of deep beams, only a few national codes include
their design. For example, the British Standards BS81102
for structural use of concrete explicitly states that “for the
design of deep beams, reference should be made to the spe-
cialist literature.” Similarly, the Eurocode EC23 for design
of concrete structures, states that “it does not apply, howev-
er, to deep beams.” There was also no specific design provi-
sion for short beams in these two codes. Currently, the main
design documents for deep beams are the ACI Code4
ACI318-95, the Canadian Code 5 CAN-A23.3-M84, and the
CIRIA Guide6 of the UK.
Among the three design documents, the CIRIA Guide6 is
the most comprehensive document on the subject. The perti-
nent shear design equation in the CIRIA Guide was based on
the earlier work by Kong et al.7-10 using normal strength con-
crete test specimens. With high-strength concretes gaining
popularity, it is timely to reassess the CIRIA equation. Be-
sides, according to the CIRIA Guide, the applicability of the
equation is restricted to within the range of clear shear span-
to-height ratio xe /h ≤ 0.70. This corresponds approximately
to shear span-to-depth ratio a/d ≤ 0.90, i.e., in the deep beam
domain.1 Thus, the objective of this paper is to propose some
modifications to the CIRIA equation in the light of addition-
al high-strength deep beam data now available, and to extend
the range of applicability to encompass the design of both
deep and short beams.
A total of 233 single-span top-loaded deep and short
beams were compiled and compared with code predictions
based on the ACI Code, the Canadian Code and the CIRIA
Guide. Out of these, 57 specimens were tested in-house; 11-14
the other 176 published beam data were obtained from Ref.
15 to 27. All the beam data were classified into three con-
crete strength categories based on the concrete cylinder
strength fc′: the first category comprised 133 low strength
concrete beams with fc ′< 40 MPa; the second category had
32 medium strength concrete beams with 40 MPa ≤ fc ′ ≤
55MPa; and the last category of 68 high-strength concrete
beams had fc ′ > 55 MPa. It is noteworthy that this classifica-
tion is necessarily arbitrary and, to date, different codes have
different definitions for high-strength concrete. The compar-
isons reported in this paper will provide an assurance to de-
signers that the proposed modified CIRIA equation gives the
ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 3, May-June 1998.
Received June 24, 1996, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right  1998, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent dis-
cussion will be published in the March-April 1999 ACI Structural Journal if received
by November 1, 1998.

318 ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998

Kang-Hai Tan ia a senior lecturer in the Division of Structures and Construction,
Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. He obtained his BSc and PhD
from the University of Manchester in England. After employment with Ove Arup &
Partners in England, he joined NTU in 1990. His research interests include concrete
structures and thin-walled steel structures.

Fung-Kew Kong is a professor and head of the Division of Structures and Construc-
tion at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Formerly professor of struc-
tural engineering at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in England, he was a
member of the British National Committee for Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of
the Royal Society, London. Currently, he is the alternate chairman of Singapore’s
newly formed Structural Engineering Practice Technical Committee, which oversees
the drafting of all future structural engineering standards and codes of practice in
Singapore.

Li-Wei Weng is a practicing structural engineer in Singapore. He graduated from

Shanghai Jiao-Tong University, Department of Engineering Mechanics, in 1991. After
two years as a structural analyst in China’s Zhongnan Building Institute, he per-
formed research on concrete deep beams at Nanyang Technological University, Sin-
gapore, and received his MEng in February, 1996.

smallest coefficient of variation among the design methods

considered. It is also shown that the ACI Code predictions
are rather conservative and that the Canadian Code gives rea-
sonable accuracy. The unmodified CIRIA equation, on the
Fig. 1—Meanings of symbols in the ACI Code
other hand, yields considerable scatter and would seem to be
unsuitable for high-strength concrete.
 l
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE  V n < 8 fc ′bd when ---n < 2
This paper presents an alternative design method for the  d
 (1)
determination of shear strength in deep beams. The proposed  V < 2--  10 + ---
l n l
f ′bd when 2 ≤ ---n ≤ 5
formula adequately predicts the ultimate strength of deep  n 3 d c d

beams of different strength categories, shear span-to-depth
ratios, main reinforcement, and horizontal and vertical web (after ACI Eq. [11-27])
reinforcement. The prediction accuracy compares very fa- where
vorably with the ACI, the CSA, and the UK CIRIA Guide fc′ = the cylinder compressive strength of concrete, psi
values. A total of 233 deep beams of various parameters b = the beam width, in.
were used in this extensive code comparison study. d = the effective depth, in.
ln = the clear span of the beam measured face to face of
AMERICAN CODE, CANADIAN CODE, the supports, in.
AND UK CIRIA GUIDE
Experimental failure loads for the 233 top-loaded test For design purposes, the ultimate shear strength of the sec-
beams11-27 are compared with predictions using the ACI tion Vu is given by:
Building Code,4 the Canadian Building Code5 , the CIRIA V u ≤ φV n (2)
Guide’s recommendation,6 and the proposed formula. The
relevant equations are listed in the following as Eq. (1) (after ACI Eq. [11-1])
through Eq. (10). ACI’s equations, and those of CIRIA and
the proposed formula, impose an artificial separation in the in which φ = 0.85 is a strength reduction factor for shear.
shear strength of reinforced beams by splitting the shear con- Shear strength provided by concrete Vc shall be computed by:
tribution into two parts, namely Vc (concrete contribution)
V c =  3.5 – 2.5---------
and V s (shear reinforcement contribution). However, in the Mu  Vu d 
1.9 f c ′ + 2500ρ --------- bd (3)
Canadian approach, a strut-and-tie model is used instead,  Vu d  Mu 
with certain restrictions imposed on the stress limits. (after ACI Eq. [11-29])
where
ACI Building Code (ACI 318-95) ρ = the main longitudinal reinforcement ratio, A s /(bd)
The ACI Code4 is only applicable to deep beams subjected Mu= the factored moment at the critical section, lb-in.
to top loading; deep beams in this context refer to beams with Vu = the factored shear force at the critical section, lb
clear span to effective depth ratio ln /d less than five. It is
noteworthy that the ACI equations are in Imperial Units. The In the ACI Code, for beams subjected to concentrated top
nominal shear strength V n is computed from the nominal loading, the critical section for shear is taken at half the shear
shear strength provided by concrete Vc , and that provided by span a (Fig. 1), but not greater than d. The multiplier term in
shear reinforcement Vs . Depending on the ln /d ratio, the final Eq. (3), viz. [3.5–2.5 Mu/(Vud)], takes account of the shear-
value of Vn is limited by the following expressions: strength reserve of deep beams after diagonal cracking has
ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998 319
Fig. 2—Meanings of symbols in the Canadian Code
occurred and this term shall not exceed 2.5. The calculated
value of Vc cannot exceed 6 fc ′bd .
Shear strength provided by shear reinforcement Vs may be
computed from:
A v 1 + ln ⁄ d A h 11 – ln ⁄ d
V s = -----  -------------------- + -----  -----------------------  fy d
sv 12 sh
(after ACI Eq. 11-30)
where
Av = the area of vertical web reinforcement within a dis-
tance s v , in.2
Ah = the area of horizontal web reinforcement within a dis-
tance s h , in.2
fy = the specified yield strength of shear reinforcement, psi
From Eq. (4), it is observed that at ln /d = 5, both horizontal
and vertical web reinforcements are equally effective. Be-
yond this critical threshold, the importance of vertical web
reinforcement grows and for l n /d less than 5, horizontal web
reinforcement dominates. For a beam subjected to central
point load, this value of ln /d corresponds to a/d of 2.5, which
is also the upper limit of short beams. 1
Canadian CSA Code (CAN3-A23.3-M84)
Unlike the ACI Code, the 1984 Canadian CSA Code5 uses
the concept of a/d ratio rather than the ln /d ratio for deep
beam design. The shear provisions for deep beams in this
document apply to those structural members in which:
(i) the distance from the point of zero shear to the face of
the support is less than 2d; or
320
(ii) a load causing more than 50 percent of the shear at a
support is located at less than 2d from the face of the sup-
port.
The Canadian Code permits two alternative design methods
for shear: the simplified method and the general method. The lat-
ter is based primarily on the compression field theory developed
(4)
12 by Collins et al.28 Only the general method is presented here as
it enables researchers and engineers to analyze a top-loaded deep
beam by a strut-and-tie approach (Fig. 2). The regions of high
unidirectional compressive stress in the concrete are modeled as
compressive struts while the main longitudinal reinforcement is
represented by a tie member; the regions of concrete subjected to
multidirectional stresses, where struts or ties meet each other, are
modeled as nodal zones. The compressive struts which transfer
the applied loads directly from the upper loading nodal zone to
the lower support nodal zone, are inclined at an angle αs to the
horizontal tie member (Fig. 2). The compressive force of the in-
clined concrete strut is balanced at the lower nodal zone by the
support reaction and the tension force T in the tie; at the upper
nodal zone by the external load and the horizontal thrust C. The
Canadian Code stipulates that the concrete compressive stresses
in the nodal zones may not exceed:
• 0.85φc fc ′ in nodal zones bounded by compression
struts and bearing areas,
• 0.75φc fc′ in nodal zones anchoring only one tension tie,
• 0.60φc fc ′ in nodal zones anchoring tension ties in more
than one direction,
where φc is a material resistance factor (= 0.6 for concrete).
From the equilibrium of forces, Eq. (5) is obtained:
ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998
Fig. 3—Meanings of symbols in the CIRIA Guide-2
C = T
where
T = 0.75φc fc ′ e'b (from stress limit of the lower support
nodal zone)
C = 0.85φc fc ′ eb (from stress limit of the upper loading
nodal zone)
e′ = depth of the lower support nodal zone
e = depth of the upper loading nodal zone
Therefore, based on Eq. (5), the vertical dimension e' is giv-
en by 1.13e.
The equilibrium condition together with the imposed
stress limits on the nodal zones determine the geometry
and the magnitudes of forces in the strut-and-tie model. In
addition, the compressive stress f2 (Fig. 2) in the inclined
concrete strut should not exceed the maximum allowable
compressive stress f2max given by the following equa-
tion:28
λφc fc ′
f2max = ---------------------------- ≤ λφc fc ′
0.8 + 170ε1
(after CAN3-A23.3-M84: Eq.11-19)
where
f 2max = the diagonal crushing strength of concrete
λ = set to unity for normal weight concrete
ε1
= the principal tensile strain crossing the inclined
concrete strut and is defined by ε1 = εs + (εs +
0.002) / tan2 α s , where α s = the angle between the
strut and the tie
ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998
(5) Equation (6) shows that if a tie member crosses the in-
clined compressive strut, transverse tensile strain will con-
siderably reduce the capacity of the concrete to resist
compressive stresses. Since no tension tie crosses the top re-
gion of the inclined concrete strut, the allowable f2max in that
local region is normally taken as λφc fc ′. However, the bot-
tom region of the concrete strut is intersected by the longitu-
dinal tension reinforcement, and thus, the value of f2max has
to be reduced in accordance with Eq. (6).
CIRIA Guide
The CIRIA Guide6 applies to single-span deep beams with
an effective span to overall depth ratio le /h of less than 2.0
(Fig. 3). The Guide defines the active height h a of a deep
beam as the lesser of le and h, i.e., for a very deep beam, the
value of h a is limited to a depth equal to the effective span.
It gives two sets of design recommendations for deep beams,
viz. the “Simple Rules” intended for the simpler case of uni-
formly loaded deep beams, and the “Supplementary Rules”
covering design aspects outside the scope of the “Simple
(6) Rules.” This paper focuses on the shear design equation in
the “Supplementary Rules.” That CIRIA equation, repro-
duced as Eq. (8) in this paper, also covers deep beams with
holes; it is essentially the Kong et al. equation:7-10
Vn = Vc + Vs = C1  1 – 0.35----e ft b h
x
(7)
 h
2
100A i y i sin α i
+ C2 ∑n ----------------------------------
h
321
where V n < 1.3λ 1 f cu bha (9)
C1 = an empirical coefficient equal to 1.4 for normal weight
concrete and 1.0 for lightweight concrete
According to CIRIA’s “Supplementary Rules,” therefore,
C2 = an empirical coefficient equal to 130 MPa for plain
the top-load shear capacity Vn is given by the lesser of
bars and 300 MPa for deformed bars
Eq.(8) and Eq. (9).
ft = the cylinder splitting tensile strength of concrete
xe = the clear shear span measured from inside edge of the
Design example for CIRIA
bearing block at support to outside edge of the bearing Design the reinforcement and the beam thickness for the
block at loading point (see Fig. 3) normal weight concrete deep beam shown in Fig. 3, given
Ai = the area of a web bar which includes the main longitu- f cu = 40 MPa, fy = 410 MPa, shear span a = 1750 mm, shear
dinal reinforcement force V = 4025 kN, overall-height h = 4200 mm, support
yi = the depth at which a typical web bar intersects the crit- width c = 520 mm, and effective span le = 5250 mm.
ical diagonal crack, which is represented by the line Y-
Y in Fig. 3 Geometry and loading
αi = the angle between the bar being considered and the • Span/depth ratio le /h = 5250/4200 = 1.25 < 2, hence
line Y-Y in Fig. 3 CIRIA Guide is applicable.
n = the total number of web bars which cross the line Y-Y • Active height h a = h or le whichever is the lesser; in this
in Fig. 3 case h a = 4200 mm
• Design moment M = 1.4 × 4025 × 1.75 = 9861 kNm
To introduce safety factors for design use, CIRIA replaced • Design shear force V = 1.4 × 4025 = 5635 kN
the coefficients C1 and C2 in Eq. (7) by the new coefficients
λ1 and λ2 to give Eq. (8) below: Strength in bending
• Lever arm z = 0.2 le + 0.4 h a = 2730 mm
2
x 100Ai yi sin α i 9861 × 10
6
Vn = λ 1  1 – 0.35-----e  fc ubh a + λ2 ∑n ---------------------------------- (8a) •
M
A s ≥ ----------------- = -------------------------------------------- = 1 0,1 3 0 m m
2
h a ha 0.87fy z 0.87 × 410× 2730
• Provide 21 No. 25 mm deformed bars (10,311 mm2 ) in
where 7 layers of 3 bars each over a depth of 0.2 h a = 840 mm.
λ1 = (0.75 × 0.52 × C1) / γ mc
= 0.44 for normal weight aggregates Shear capacity
= (0.75 × 0.52 × C1) / γ mc • From CIRIA Guide Table 4, νx = 5.68 MPa
= 0.32 for lightweight aggregates • Assume a beam thickness b = 400 mm, main steel ratio
1 0,3 1 1
λ2 = [(0.75 × C2) / γ ms ] / 100 ρ = --------------------------- = 0.61 percent
400 × 4200
= 1.95 MPa for deformed bars
= [(0.75 × C2) / γ ms ] / 100 • From CIRIA Guide Table 6, νms = 1.07 MPa
= 0.85 MPa for plain round bars • Try nominal web reinforcement of 0.25 percent
horizontally and vertically.
For a beam with an orthogonal web reinforcement, CIRIA • From CIRIA Guide Tables 7 and 8, νwh = 0.22 MPa and
further simplifies Eq. (8a) in a more convenient form for use νwh = 0.
in design: • Total shear capacity is (0.44 × 5.68 + 1.07 + 0.22 + 0)
× 400 × 4200 × 10 -3 = 6366 kN > 5635 kN (O.K.)
V n = [ λ 1 υ x + ( β1 vm s + β2 vw h + β 3 v w v ) ]bh a (8b) • From Eq. (9),
3
V 5635 × 10
-------- = --------------------------- < 1.3 × 0.44 4 0
where bh a 400 × 4200
λ1 = λ 1 in Eq. (8a); ß1 = ß2= ß 3 =1.0 for deformed bars, and
0.4 for plain bars; νx is the shear strength contribution of the 3.35 < 3.62 (O.K.)
concrete; νms , νwh , and νwv are the contribution of main re-
inforcement, horizontal and vertical web reinforcements, Bearing capacity
respectively. • Actual support length c = 520 mm, thus bearing stress
In the expressions for λ 1 and λ2 , CIRIA used a statistical is given by
3
factor of 0.75 to convert the mean test values to characteristic V 5630 × 10
------ < 0.6fcu ⇒ -------------------------- < 0.6 × 4 0 ⇒ b > 451 mm
values consistent with British design codes; it used the factor bc b × 520
of 0.52 to convert the cylinder splitting strength ft to fcu .
The material partial safety factors for concrete and steel • Revise beam thickness b to 460 mm.
(γ mc and γ ms ) were given the standard values of 1.25 and
1.15, respectively. In addition, the CIRIA Guide stipulates THE PROPOSED FORMULA
that the ultimate shear capacity of top-loaded deep beams is Since the coefficients C1 and C2 in Eq. (7) (and therefore λ1
subject to the following condition: and λ2 in Eq. [8]) were derived from test results on low-strength

322 ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998

concrete deep beams, mostly with fc′ ≤ 30 MPa, it is timely to
recalibrate the coefficients in the light of new high-strength-
concrete test results that are now available. The aim is that the
same formula, with newly calibrated coefficients, can then be
used for predicting the ultimate capacity of deep beams made
from a wide range of concrete strengths, without compromising
the accuracy of predictions. In the comparison study (Appen-
dix,* Table 1 to Table 3), the cylinder compressive strengths of
the specimens ranged between 12 MPa and 120 MPa. Based on
a total of 233 test data, out of which 57 were tested in-house, the
C2 coefficient for high strength deformed bars is found to be
200 MPa; for low-strength mild steel bars the value of C2 re-
mains at 130 MPa. It turns out that with this new C2 coefficient,
the values of C1, which relate to the concrete contribution to
shear strength, need not be adjusted.
It should be noted that the CIRIA equation (Eq. [8]) is
intended to apply within the range of xe /h a < 0.70 (broadly
equivalent to a/d < 0.90), which designers may feel is a
rather severe restriction on its applicability. ACI-ASCE
Committee 4261 classified all beams into three categories
in terms of their a/d ratios, i.e., ordinary shallow beams
with a/d exceeding 2.5, deep beams with a/d less than 1.0,
and short beams with a/d in between the two limits. In the
new proposed formula, that range has been extended to a/d
≤ 2.50, i.e., the shear design equation covers both deep and
short beams. This is a relaxation of the original restriction,
thus extending the usefulness of the proposed formula. In
conjunction to this, the term xe /h a is replaced by the a/d ra-
tio, where it is assumed that the effective depth d = 0.9 h a
and the clear shear span xe = 0.9a. This change is rational
as the actual value of xe may not always be available in the
design stage. Besides, in the literature about concrete deep
beams, most often, it is the a/d ratio that is given rather than
the xe /h ratio. With a/d, designer can classify a beam as
deep, short or shallow.1 By incorporating the a/d ratio into
Eq. (8), a modified CIRIA equation is obtained:
Vn = Vc + Vs = β 1  1 – 0.28a--  ft b d
 d
2 mens were made of normal weight-aggregate concrete and
Ai yi sin α i
+ β2 ∑n ------------------------
ha
where
ß 1 = (0.75C1/0.9)/ γmc
= 0.93 for normal weight aggregates
= (0.75C1/0.9)/ γmc
= 0.67 for lightweight aggregates
ß 2 = (0.75C2/ γms )/ 100
= 1.30 MPa for deformed bars
= (0.75C2/ γms )/ 100
= 0.85 MPa for plain round bars
In Eq.(10), ft is the cylinder splitting tensile strength of con-
crete, and if ft is obtained experimentally, the actual value
* The Appendix is available in xerographic or similar form from ACI headquarters,
where it will be kept permanently on file, at a charge equal to the cost of reproduction
plus handling at time of request.
ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998
used should not exceed 0.52 fcu , as specified in the CIRIA
Guide.
Another modification is the replacement of the term
0.52 fcu in CIRIA (Eq. [8]) by the concrete cylinder tensile
splitting strength ft, which appears in the original Kong et al.
equation (Eq. [7]). The replacement is necessary because the
relation ft = 0.52 f cu , as used in the CIRIA Guide, only
works well for low or medium strength concrete, but not for
high-strength concrete. Thus, eliminating 0.52 fcu from
Eq.(8) also eliminates a built-in unconservatism due to the
unrealistically high estimates of ft. This also explains why
the C1 coefficient need not be adjusted. Besides, the pro-
posed replacement maintains the original spirit of the equa-
tion when it was first proposed by Kong et al.,7-10 i.e., the
quantity (C1 ft b h) in Eq. (7) is a measure of the load-carry-
ing capacity of the “concrete strut” between the loading and
support points. Since the strut failure is usually initiated by
diagonal splitting mode, the term ft should be used in an ex-
plicit form, as in Eq.(10).
COMPARISON OF TEST RESULTS WITH SHEAR
DESIGN EQUATIONS
A FOR TRAN program was written to give the ultimate shear
strength predictions of deep and short beams based on the
ACI Code, the Canadian Code, the CIRIA Guide-2, and the
proposed formula. In the comparison study, partial safety
factors of materials (φ in ACI Code, φc in Canadian Code,
γmc and γms in CIRIA Guide) in different methods were set
to unity. For comparison purposes, a total of 57 in-house test
results is combined with 176 published data. The beams
were broadly classified into three strength categories:
• high-strength concrete with fc ′ > 55 MPa (Appendix
Table 1);
• medium strength concrete with 40 MPa ≤ fc′ ≤ 55 MPa
(Appendix Table 2); and
• low-strength concrete with fc ′ < 40 Mpa (Appendix
Table 3).
Details of the specimens and the source of reference are in-
(10)
dicated in the Appendix Tables 1 through 3. All the speci-
subjected to two (or one) symmetrical concentrated top loads
when tested. Only specimens with a/d ratio less than 2.5 were
investigated. (However, three beams tested in-house with a/d
greater than 2.5 but less than 3.0, were included in the exer-
cise). All the tested specimens failed in shear; those beams
that failed in modes other than the shear mode were excluded
from this study. Based on the classification of concrete
Table 1—Shear strength predictions of 68 high-
strength concrete specimens by different methods
Vn /Vexp*
Different Canadian Proposed
methods ACI Code Code CIRIA Guide formula
Mean 0.58 0.79 0.98 0.72
Standard
deviation 0.29 0.35 0.44 0.28
Coefficient 0.49 0.44 0.45 0.38
of variation
*V n = predicted strength; Vexp = measured strength
323
Fig. 4—Effect of concrete strength on shear strength predictions

Table 2—Shear strength predictions of 32 medium- Table 3—Shear strength predictions of 133 low-
strength concrete specimens by different methods strength concrete specimens by different methods
Vn /Vexp* Vn /Vexp*
Different Canadian Proposed Different Canadian Proposed
methods ACI Code Code CIRIA Guide formula methods ACI Code Code CIRIA Guide formula
Mean 0.63 0.64 0.91 0.73 Mean 0.65 0.64 0.89 0.75
Standard Standard
0.20 0.27 0.25 0.16 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.16
deviation deviation
Coefficient Coefficient
0.31 0.42 0.28 0.21 0.31 0.36 0.28 0.21
of variation of variation
*V n = predicted strength; Vexp = measured strength *V n = predicted strength; Vexp = measured strength

strength, the statistical properties of Vn /Vexp for different de-
sign methods are shown in Tables 1 through 3.
In both the ACI and the CSA Building Codes, cylinder
compressive strength of concrete fc ′ is required. Where fc ′
was not directly available from the literature, a conversion
formula proposed by Neville 29 was employed:
f c ′ = [0.76 + 0.2 log10 (fcu / 19.59)] fcu
in which fc ′ and fcu are in MPa.
Also, the proposed formula (Eq. [10]) requires the value of
cylinder splitting tensile strength of concrete ft . Where this
was not available, the value of ft was calculated from the cyl-
inder compressive strength 30 fc ′, instead of from 0.52 fcu :
2
--
ft = 0.32 ( fc ′ )
3
where f t and fc ′ are in MPa.
324
Effect of concrete strength f c′
Figures 4(a) through (d) show the effect of concrete
strength fc′ on the shear capacity predictions of the ACI
Code, the CSA Code, the CIRIA, and the proposed formula,
respectively. In general, the ACI Code predictions are con-
servative for all concrete strengths (Fig. 4[a]). But both the
(11) Canadian Code and the CIRIA slightly overestimate the ef-
fect of fc ′ (Fig. 4[b] and Fig. 4[c], respectively). With in-
creasing concrete strength, both sets of predictions become
less conservative. Comparing Fig. 4(d) to Fig. 4(c), it is clear
that the estimations from the proposed formula have relative-
ly lesser scatter with increasing fc ′. In other words, the for-
mula can be safely used for the range of 12 MPa ≤ fc ′ ≤
90MPa.
(12) The ratio of Vn/Vexp for the ACI method lies in the range
0.58 to 0.65 (Tables 1, 2, and 3), making it the most conser-
vative method. A closer agreement is observed in the Cana-
ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998
Fig. 5—Effect of shear span-to-depth ratio on shear strength predictions
dian Code, where Vn /Vexp lies in the range 0.64 to 0.79. As
for the CIRIA design equation, V n /Vexp lies in between 0.89
and 0.98. This is also accompanied with very high standard
deviation (abbreviated as “SD” in the following) and high
coefficient of variation (abbreviated as “COV” in the follow-
ing) for high- strength category. This means that the factor of
safety in CIRIA can only come from the material partial
safety factors, i.e., γmc and γms . It is interesting to note that
the value of Vn /Vexp in CIRIA is close to unity despite the ap-
plication of a statistical-cum-safety factor of 0.75 to C1 and
C2 in Eq.(7), thus, revealing the need for revision.
The proposed formula gives the lowest SD and the lowest
COV in all three strength categories. The mean of agreement
Vn /Vexp is in the range 0.72-0.75. This is not surprising as
both the coefficients ß1 and ß2 in Eq. (10) incorporate the sta-
tistical factor of 0.75. If this factor were removed, Vn /Vexp
would be in the range 0.96-1.00, a reasonable fit to the ex-
perimental data. The performance of the proposed formula is
also better than the existing CIRIA for all three strength cat-
egories (Table 1-Table 3). This shows that the predictions of
the proposed formula are very consistent and safe for a broad
range of concrete strengths.
A general comment on all four comparisons is that the
SD increases with fc′ . The greater scatter can possibly be
due to the abrupt shear failure mechanism of high-strength
concrete beams. Examination of the failure surfaces of the
57 in-house test specimens 11-14 shows that the crack surfac-
es of high-strength concrete are distinctively smoother, that
is, the propagation of micro-cracks are no longer restricted
to the interface of the aggregate and cement-matrix. Ap-
proaching failure, the micro-cracks can also initiate within
ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998
the aggregates, cutting through them and thus giving a
smooth failure surface. This experimental observation was
also confirmed by Nilson.31
Effect of shear span-to-depth ratio a/d
Figures 5(a) through (d) show the effect of a/d ratio on the
shear strength predictions by various methods. On the whole,
with increasing a/d, the ultimate strength predictions by the
ACI Code tend to be unconservative12 (Fig. 5[a]). The Cana-
dian Code is not intended for deep beams with a/d exceeding
2.0. However, if this restriction were waived, it is found that
with a/d increasing beyond 2.0, the ultimate strength predic-
tions become more conservative (Fig. 5[b]), especially for a/
d in between 2.5 and 3.0. This is due to the inclined angle αs
used in Eq. (6); a greater ratio of a/d corresponds to a shal-
lower angle of αs . Thus, a greater principal tensile strain ε1
is obtained at the lower support nodal zone, which leads to a
greater reduction in the maximum allowable stress f2max in
the inclined concrete strut.
For CIRIA Guide, the conservatism of the predictions
decreases rapidly with increasing a/d (Fig. 5[c]). This is
expected as the equation is originally intended for clear
shear span-to-height ratio xe /h less than 0.70 7-10 (or equiv-
alent to a/d less than 0.90). This investigation suggests that
the CIRIA equation is not suitable for the design of short
beams. On the other hand, the proposed formula (Fig. 5[d])
gives conservative predictions for specimens with a/d up
to 1.5. In the range 1.5 ≤ a/d ≤ 2.5, the original scatter in
CIRIA predictions is also reduced significantly.
325
Fig. 6—Effect of main longitudinal reinforcement ratio on shear strength predictions
Effect of main longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρ
The ACI Code predictions (Fig. 6[a]) are conservative
for a practical range of main longitudinal reinforcement ra-
tios ρ ≤ 4 percent. For ρ exceeding 4 percent, the estima-
tions are very conservative, suggesting that the ACI Code
underestimates the influence of ρ. Unlike the ACI Code,
the Canadian predictions tend to give greater scatter as ρ
increases (Fig.6[b]). But the greatest scatter is found in the
CIRIA predictions, with some beam strengths overestimat-
ed by more than 100 percent (Fig. 6[c]). This is due to the
high value of λ2 used in Eq. (8). With ß2 in place of λ2 in
Eq. (10), the unconservatism is significantly reduced, as
shown in Fig. 6(d).
Effect of horizontal web reinforcement ρh
The values of Vn /V exp for beams without any horizontal
web reinforcement, are plotted in the ordinate corresponding
to ρh = 0 percent. That the ACI Code tends to overestimate
the shear strength contribution from horizontal web rein-
forcement can be inferred from Fig. 7(a). The reason for the
discrepancy is that in ACI Eq. (11-31) (Eq. [4] in this paper)
for web steel contribution, the threshold value for ln/d at
which both horizontal and vertical web steel are equally ef-
fective, is unrealistic. 13 In the Code, that critical threshold is
assumed to be at ln /d equal to 5. For a single-span deep beam
subjected to central loading, this corresponds to a/d of 2.5. It
has been found experimentally that this critical threshold
should be at a/d of 1.25.13
It is not surprising that the Canadian Code gives conserva-
tive predictions for ρh > 0 percent, as the method does not
326
take the horizontal web steel contribution into account (Fig.
7[b]). On the other hand, the UK CIRIA Guide-2 gives un-
conservative predictions for specimens with high percentage
of horizontal web reinforcement (Fig. 7[c]). This trend is
rectified in the proposed formula (Fig. 7[d]).
Effect of vertical web reinforcement ρv
The values of V n /Vexp for beams without any vertical web
reinforcement, are plotted in the ordinate corresponding to
ρv = 0 percent. The ACI Code gives conservative predictions
(Fig. 8[a]) for a wide range of vertical web reinforcement ra-
tios. That the Canadian Code predictions are safe is obvious
since the method does not take ρv into account (Fig. 8[b]).
Again, the greatest scatter can be found in the CIRIA predic-
tions (Fig. 8[c]). This is due to the unrealistically high value
of λ2 in Eq. (8). With the proposed formula, the scatter in
CIRIA predictions is reduced significantly (Fig. 8[d]).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the test results and their comparison with the de-
sign equations, the following conclusions can be made:
The proposed formula:
1. The proposed equation gives the lowest standard devia-
tion for all three strength categories, with a mean of agree-
ment with test results Vn /Vexp lying in the range of 0.72 to
0.75. Without the statistical factor of 0.75 in Eq. (10), the
values of V n /Vexp would lie in the range 0.96 to 1.00, a rea-
sonable fit for the 233 experimental data. The COV and the
ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998
Fig. 7—Effect of horizontal web reinforcement on shear strength predictions

Fig. 8—Effect of vertical web reinforcement on shear strength predictions

ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998 327

SD are also the smallest among the four design methods con- fy = mean yield strength of main longitudinal reinforcement
sidered, indicating the consistency of the formula. fyv = mean yield strength of vertical web reinforcement
2. In addition, the validity of the equation has been extend- fyh = mean yield strength of horizontal web reinforcement

ed from 0.00 ≤ a/d ≤ 0.90 to 0.00 ≤ a/d ≤ 2.50, i.e., it now f2 = compressive stress in the inclined strut (see Fig. 2)
h = overall height of beam section
covers both deep and short beam design. The equation can
ha = active height of beam (the lesser of h or le) (see Fig. 3)
also be used for designing deep beams with concrete
le = effective span of beam as measured from center-to-center of
strengths f c ′ in the range of 12 to 90 MPa. support points (see Fig. 1)
ln = clear span measured face-to-face of supports (see Fig. 1)
The UK CIRIA Guide-2: Mu = factored moment at the critical section (Eq. [3])
3. CIRIA’s predictions are not conservative for high- sh = spacing of horizontal web reinforcement
strength concrete deep beams and for a/d exceeding 0.9. The sv = spacing of vertical web reinforcement
Guide tends to overestimate the beneficial effect of main Vc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete
longitudinal steel, horizontal and vertical web reinforcement Vexp = measured ultimate strength
on shear strength. The equation is in need of revision to ex- Vn = nominal shear strength, taken as Vc + V s
tend its usefulness. Vs = nominal shear strength provided by horizontal and vertical web
reinforcement
Vu = factored shear force at the critical section
The ACI Code:
xe = clear shear span measured from inside edge of bearing block at
4. Among the three national codes considered, the ACI
support to outside edge of bearing block at loading point (after
Code’s strength predictions give the most conservative esti- CIRIA Guide-2: Section 3.4.2; see also Fig. 3)
mates of shear strength of deep beams. The predictions can yi = depth at which a typical bar intersects the critical diagonal
be very conservative at the low end of a/d ratio and this con- crack, which is represented by the line Y-Y in Fig. 3.
servatism reduces with increasing a/d. αs = angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses to the
5. The effect of ρ ratio on the ultimate shear strength of longitudinal axis of the member (after CAN3-A23.3-M84:
Clause 11.4.2.4; see also Fig. 2)
high-strength concrete deep beams is also underestimated by
ß1 = coefficient in the proposed formula (Eq. [10])
the Code. ß2 = coefficient in the proposed formula (Eq. [10])
6. The beneficial effect of horizontal web reinforcement ε1 = principal tensile strain crossing the inclined concrete strut
on ultimate shear strength is overestimated. This is due to the (Eq. [6])
critical threshold being set at l n /d = 5. It has been shown that εs = strain of the main longitudinal steel (Eq.[6])
with the threshold fixed at l n /d = 2.5, the unconservatism is φ = strength reduction factor, taken as 0.6 (after ACI 318-89:
removed.13 Clause 9.3)
φc = material resistance factor for concrete, taken as 0.6 (after
CAN3-A23.3-M84: Clause 9.3.2)
The Canadian Code: γmc = material safety factor for concrete, taken as 1.25 in CIRIA
7. The conservatism of the Canadian Code increases with Guide (Eq. [8])
increasing a/d ratio. As for the effect of concrete strength, it γms = material safety factor for steel, taken as 1.15 in CIRIA Guide
is slightly overestimated by the Code. (Eq. [8])
8. Since the Canadian Code does not take the contribu- λ = unity for normal weight aggregate (Eq. [6])
λ1 = coefficient in CIRIA equation (Eq. [8])
tions from web reinforcement into account, the method is
λ2 = coefficient in CIRIA equation (Eq. [8])
safe for beam specimens with horizontal and vertical web
ρ = ratio of main longitudinal reinforcement A s /(bd)
reinforcements.
ρh = ratio of horizontal web reinforcement Ah /(bsh)
ρv = ratio of vertical web reinforcement Av /(bs v )
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The funding for this research was provided by the Nanyang Technologi-
cal University, Singapore, through the Applied Research Project No. 9/91. CONVERSION FACTORS
1 mm = 0.039 in.
1 mm2 = 0.00152 in.2
NOTATION 1 kN = 0.2248 kips
a = shear span measured from center of bearing block to center of
1 MPa = 145 psi
loading point (see Fig. 1)
Ah = area of horizontal web reinforcement within a distance sh
Ai = area of web bar which includes the main longitudinal steel REFERENCES
1. ACI-ASCE Committee 426, “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
(Eq. [7] and Eq. [8])
Members,” Proceedings , ASCE, V. 99, ST6, June 1973, pp. 1091-187
As = area of main longitudinal reinforcement
(Reaffirmed in 1980 and published by ACI as publication No. 426R-74).
Av = area of vertical web reinforcement within a distance sv 2. Structural Use of Concrete—Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and
b = beam thickness Construction, BS 8110: 1985, British Standards Institution, London, 1985.
C1 = empirical coefficient in Kong’s equation (Eq. [7]) 3. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1, General Rules and
C2 = empirical coefficient in Kong’s equation (Eq. [7]) Regulations for Buildings, English Edition, British Standards Institution,
Ci = compression force of a concrete compressive strut (see Fig. 2) London, 1992.
4. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
d = effective depth of beam section, measured from extreme com-
Concrete (318-95) and Commentary—(318R-95), American Concrete
pression fiber to centroid of main longitudinal reinforcement
Institute, Farmington Hills, 1995.
e = depth of the upper loading nodal zone
5. Canadian Standards Association, “Design of Concrete Structures for
e' = depth of the lower support nodal zone
Buildings (CAN3-A23.3-M84),” CSA, Rexdale, Ontario, Dec. 1984, 281
fc ' = cylinder compressive strength of concrete
pp.
fcu = cube compressive strength of concrete 6. CIRIA, “CIRIA Guide 2: The Design of Deep Beams in Reinforced
ft = cylinder splitting tensile strength of concrete Concrete,” Ove Arup and Partners, Construction Industry Research and

328 ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998

Information Association, London, 1977 (Reprinted with amendments,
1984).
7. Kong, F. K., and Chemrouk, M., “Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams,”
in Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams , edited by Kong, F. K., Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, 1990, pp. 1-20.
8. Kong, F. K.; Robins, P. J.; Singh, A.; and Sharp, G. R., “Shear Analy-
sis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams,” The Structural Engi-
neer , V. 50, No. 10, Oct. 1972, pp. 405-409.
9. Kong, F. K., and Sharp, G. R., “Shear Strength of Lightweight
Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams with Web Openings,” The Structural
Engineer, V. 51, No.8, Aug. 1973, pp. 267-275.
10. Kong, F. K.; Robins, P. J.; and Sharp, G. R., “Design of R. C. Deep
Beams in Current Practice,” The Structural Engineer, V. 53, No. 4, Apr.
1975, pp. 173-180.
11. Tan, K. H., and Kong, F. K., “Design of Single-span Medium-to-
High-Strength Concrete Deep Beams,” Applied Research Project RP9 /91,
School of Civil and Structural Engineering, Nanyang Technological Uni-
versity, Singapore, Dec. 1994.
12. Tan, K. H.; Kong, F. K.; Teng, S.; and Guan, L., “High-Strength Con-
crete Deep Beams with Effective Span and Shear Span Variations,” ACI
Structural Journal , V. 92, No. 4, July-Aug. 1995, pp 395-405.
13. Tan, K. H.; Kong, F. K.; Teng, S.; and Weng, L. W., “Effect of Web
Reinforcement on High-Strength Concrete Deep Beams,” accepted for
publication in ACI Structural Journal.
14. Tan, K. H.; Kong, F. K.; Teng, S.; and Weng, L. W., “Tests and Shear
Strength Predictions of High-strength Concrete Deep Beams,” Proceedings
of the International Conference on Mechanics of Solids & Materials Engi-
neering , Vol. B, Singapore, June 1995, pp. 693-698.
15. Kong, F. K.; Teng, S.; Maimba, P. P.; Tan, K. H.; and Guan, L. W.,
“Single-span, Continuous and Slender Deep Beams Made of High-Strength
Concrete,” High Performance Concrete, SP-149, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Farmington Hills, 1994, pp. 413-432.
16. Mphonde, A. G., and Frantz, G. C., “Shear Tests of High- and Low-
Strength Concrete Beams without Stirrups,” ACI J OURNAL, Proceedings V.
81, No. 4, July-Aug. 1984, pp. 350-357.
17. Ahmad, S. H.; Khaloo, A. R.; and Poveda, A., “Shear Capacity of
Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings
V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 297-305.
18. Roller, J. J., and Russell, H. G., “Shear Strength of High-Strength
ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1998
Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement,” ACI JOU RNA L, Proceedings V.
87, No. 2, Mar. Apr. 1990, pp. 191-198.
19. Sarsam, K. F., and Al-Musawi, J. M. S., “Shear Design of High- and
Normal Strength Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, Vol. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992, pp. 658-664.
20. Rogowsky, D. M.; MacGregor, J. G.; and Ong, S. Y., “Tests of Rein-
forced Concrete Deep Beams,” ACI JO URN AL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 4,
July-Aug. 1986, pp. 614-623.
21. Subedi, N. K., “Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams: A Method of Anal-
ysis,” Proceedings of ICE Journal, Part 2, V. 85, Mar. 1988, pp. 1-30.
22. Kong, F. K.; Robins, P. J.; and Cole, D. F., “Web Reinforcement
Effects on Deep Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 67, No. 12, Dec.
1970, pp. 1010-1017.
23. Smith, K. N., and Vantsiotis, A. S., “Shear Strength of Deep Beams,”
ACI JOU RNA L, Proceedings V. 79, No. 3, May-June 1982, pp. 201-213.
24. de Paiva, H. A. R., and Siess, C. P., “Strength and Behaviour of Deep
Beams in Shear,” Journal of The Structural Division, Proceedings of
ASCE, V. 91, No. ST5, Oct. 1965, pp. 19-41.
25. Ramakrishnan, V., and Ananthanarayana, Y., “Ultimate Strength of
Deep Beams in Shear,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 65, No. 2, Feb.
1968, pp. 87-98.
26. Suter, G. T., and Manuel, R. F., “Diagonal Crack Width Control in
Short Beams,” ACI JOU RNA L, Proceedings V. 68, No. 6, June 1971, pp.
451-455.
27. Manuel, R. F.; Slight, B. W.; and Suter, G. T., “Deep Beam Behav-
iour Affected by Length and Shear Span Variations,” ACI JOURNAL, Pro-
ceedings V. 68, No. 12, Dec. 1971, pp. 954-958.
28. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., “A Rational Approach to Shear
Design—The 1984 Canadian Code Provisions,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceed-
ings V. 83, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1986, pp. 925-933.
29. Neville, A. M., “General Relation for Strengths of Concrete Speci-
mens of Different Shapes and Sizes,” ACI J OURNAL, Proceedings V. 63,
No. 10, Oct. 1966, pp. 1095-1109.
30. Raphael, J. M., “Tensile Strength of Concrete,” ACI JOU RNA L, Pro-
ceedings V. 81, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1984, pp. 158-165.
31. Nilson, A. H., “Design Implications of Current Practice on High-
Strength Concrete,” High-Strength Concrete, SP-87, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, 1985, pp. 85-118.
329