Structures 56 (2023) 104976

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Shear strength model for steel shape-reinforced concrete girders

considering compatible steel–concrete interaction
Yicong Xue a, b, *, Xu Zhang a, Chongxin Shang a, Yong Yang a, b, Yunlong Yu a, b
a
School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710055, China
b
Key Lab of Structural Engineering and Earthquake Resistance of the Ministry of Education, Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710055,
China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Steel shape-reinforced concrete (SRC), also known as concrete-encased steel, offers numerous benefits compared
Steel shape-reinforced concrete (SRC) with conventional reinforced concrete (RC) or bare steel due to its combination of RC and structural steel sec­
Steel–concrete interaction tions; therefore, SRC members find extensive use as transfer elements or girders in engineering applications.
Shear behavior and strength
When evaluating SRC girders’ shear resistance, the direct strength superposition of RC and structural steel is
Stress decomposition
Design codes
basically used in most design codes, ignoring the steel–concrete interaction under shear, which has proven
unreasonable because of the brittle shear behavior of RC. This paper suggests a novel method for assessing SRC
girders’ shear resistance mechanism. The proposed method involves modeling the RC portion by a hybrid truss-
arch analogy; in addition, based on the strain compatibility condition, the steel profile’s contribution is deter­
mined by applying the yielding criterion. Finally, the rationality of the proposed model is validated through a
comprehensive comparison with previously published models and a set of 45 experimental test data samples
available in the existing literature, and the results show that the proposed model can reasonably predict the
maximum load-carrying capacity of SRC girders and is superior to existing shear strength models and code-based
equations.

1. Introduction and bending moment.

Steel shape-reinforced concrete (SRC), also known as concrete-
encased steel (CES), offers numerous benefits compared with conven­
tional reinforced concrete (RC) or bare steel due to its combination of RC
and structural steel sections. By introducing the concrete encasement,
local buckling and fire resistance can be effectively enhanced in steel
profiles; meanwhile, applying the encased steel profile leads to favorable
energy dissipation. Therefore, SRC members are widely applied in
heavily-loaded structures, such as bridge girders and columns of super-
tall buildings [1–5]. In bridge engineering, for short-span bridges, the
utilization of rolled H-shaped steel with RC decks in girder construction
is a cost-effective and competitive solution, primarily because of the low
expenses associated with materials and fabrication; however, the
applicable span length will be limited when a bridge has continuous
composite girders due to the more critical intermediate supports. To
solve this problem, as shown in Fig. 1, Nakamura et al. [6,7] proposed a
novel hybrid girder configuration, in which the bare steel is used at the
mid-span and the SRC at the supports to bear the significant shear force
As an important branch of steel–concrete composite structures, many
design standards for SRC components/structures have been launched by
different countries/regions [8–10]. In the ULS (ultimate states) design,
accurately predicting the shear, bending, and torsion strengths is crucial
to prevent structural components from experiencing failure. Unlike the
prediction of bending strengths, which can be easily obtained on the
basis of the plane section assumption and plastic analysis, the accurate
and rational shear strength prediction for SRC members is still under
investigation. For the code-based shear equations, all the design codes
apply the simple strength superposition, namely that the direct sum­
mation of the shear strengths of RC and steel web can be regarded as the
overall shear strength of SRC members. As indicated by current design
codes, design considerations for RC members are applicable to SRC
members due to the similarities in the materials used, such as reinforcing
bars and concrete. For example, in the US, the design guideline adopted
for SRC members in ANSI/AISC 360–16 [9] uses the shear equations in
ACI 318 [11] for the RC part and in ANSI/AISC 360–16 [9] for the steel
profile. Although the code-based shear equations are secured by

* Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710055, China.
E-mail address: xueyicong@xauat.edu.cn (Y. Xue).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.104976
Received 5 May 2023; Received in revised form 25 July 2023; Accepted 26 July 2023
Available online 30 July 2023
2352-0124/© 2023 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Xue et al.
introducing partial factors and strength reduction factors, the rationality
of the direct strength superposition is doubtful because it ignores the
steel–concrete interaction, which strongly affects the structural perfor­
mance of SRC members.
Chen et al. [12] explored the composite action in the shear-critical
SRC beams by conducting an experimental test. In their test, thirteen
specimens were designed, including two RC and eleven SRC members.
Among these test samples, the concrete strength, steel ratio, and geo­
metric dimensions were kept consistent, while varying the thickness and
cross-sectional height to achieve an identical nominal shear strength for
the steel shape Vsw. According to the design codes, the maximum load of
these SRC specimens should be the same; however, the maximum dif­
ference in load reached up to 50%, indicating that the steel–concrete
interaction must be considered to explore the shear mechanism. To solve
this problem, Lu [13] and Chen et al. [12] proposed shear models based
on the famous softened strut-and-tie (SST) model, which is adopted for
traditional RC members proposed by Hwang et al. [14]. It is worth
noting that Lu [13] assumed that the encased steel profile contributed to
the overall shear strength by reinforcing the diagonal concrete strut
(increasing the strut depth), which is inconsistent with the test results
that the steel web was subjected to vertical shear directly. Chen et al.
[12] supposed that the steel web served as a compressive strut, whose
ultimate strength is controlled by the yield strength of the steel web.
However, FE evidence shows that both the principle stresses of the steel
web are striking (the principal tensile stress is even higher in most
cases), indicating that the steel web cannot be regarded as a compressive
strut only [15].
Apart from the shear models mentioned before, many researchers
have tried to establish mechanics-based models to illustrate the shear
contributions of RC and steel profiles in recent years. Deng et al. [16]
proposed a modified direct strut-and-tie model (DSTM), in which the
steel profile is assumed as longitudinal or transverse ties. In contrast to
stirrups in RC members, which only become active after concrete
cracking, the steel profile in SRC members can contribute its strength
and stiffness from the beginning of the service period, indicating that the
steel profile cannot be directly simplified as reinforcements in conven­
tional RC members. Ke et al. [17] and Chen et al. [18] utilized the well-
known modified compression field theory in their research on SRC
members; in their theories, the steel profile’s contribution was analyzed
elastically, namely, Vsw = Gsγ (Gs is the shear modulus; γ is the shear
strain). However, the validity of this approach is questionable since the
steel shape does not experience pure shear, and the normal stress caused
by the bending moment during the loading process can decrease the
shear capacity according to the yield criterion.
In SRC members, two major anti-shear components co-work to resist
the applied shear, i.e., steel profile (flanges and vertical web) and RC
(concrete, longitudinal rebar, stirrups). In SRC members, H-shaped steel
with the solid web is usually applied to enhance the flexural and shear
Fig. 1. SRC bridge [7].
2
Structures 56 (2023) 104976
performance simultaneously; however, the contribution of the H-shaped
steel to the overall resistance is different in bare steel and in SRC. In bare
steel, the normal and shear stresses within the vertical web are directly
caused by the applied load; therefore, the strain and stress distribution
can be obtained by elastic/plastic analysis and the steel constitutive law.
In contrast, in SRC members, the load carried by the encased steel is
transmitted from the adjacent concrete, making the decomposition of
the applied load complex to determine the individual shear contribution
of RC and steel. In addition, the encased steel exists at a composite cross-
section, and there is no unique solution for the stress distribution based
solely on the shear force and bending moment at that specific section
[19]. On the other hand, due to the similarities in crack and failure
patterns, the shear mechanism in the RC part of SRC members seems
similar to that of conventional RC members; however, the encased steel
can be regarded as additional reinforcements, which may change the
stress re-distribution after the concrete cracking. To conclude, the SRC
members’ shear mechanism is still implicit due to the difficulty in
considering the interaction between the steel profile and outer concrete
encasement.
This paper presents an innovative approach to investigate the shear
mechanism of SRC members. The proposed method involves simulating
the RC portion by a hybrid truss-arch analogy; in addition, based on the
strain compatibility condition, the steel profile’s contribution is deter­
mined by applying the yielding criterion. Finally, the proposed model’s
accuracy is evaluated through a comprehensive comparison with exist­
ing shear strength models and experimental samples in the existing
literature.
2. Research significance
For simplification, the direct strength superposition based on plastic
analysis is widely used in code-based shear equations for SRC members,
which neglects the steel–concrete interaction and may obtain unsafe
shear strength predictions due to the brittle feature of RC shear failure.
With the aim of exploring the SRC members’ shear mechanism further
and proposing a rational shear strength model considering the com­
posite action, this paper establishes a hybrid truss-arch model, in which
the shear characteristics of the RC part are clearly evaluated. Mean­
while, the steel profile’s contribution is determined on the basis of the
compatibility condition of normal strain. The research output can help
engineers determine the physical significance of different design pa­
rameters in SRC members.
3. Proposed model
3.1. General information
Consider an SRC girder loaded on the top and simply supported at the
Y. Xue et al.
bottom, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The failure patterns of SRC girders could
be the shear tension failure controlled by the stirrup yielding and the
diagonal compression failure controlled by the concrete crushing [20].
In the established model, multiple anti-shear mechanisms consisting of a
hybrid truss-arch and a vertical steel web exist to resist the applied load
P. The hybrid truss-arch is composed of longitudinal rebar, stirrups, the
two steel flanges of H-shaped steel, and diagonally-compressive con­
crete; meanwhile, the solid steel web directly bears the moment and
vertical shear force caused by the applied load. The global shear strength
Vu is calculated by combining and adding the shear resistance from both
of these mechanisms (Vct for the hybrid truss-arch analogy and Vsw for
the vertical web), and their contact is evaluated through strain
compatibility. Furthermore, within the established model, the two
flanges and the vertical web of H-shaped steel function in different anti-
shear mechanisms, but they operate as a single integral component in
the H-shaped steel. Hence, strain compatibility is crucial to ensure
consistency and coordination between the two flanges and the vertical
web, and it can be utilized to assess their contact. The modeling pro­
cedure is as follows.
Fig. 2. Modeling procedure.
3
Structures 56 (2023) 104976
3.2. Hybrid truss-arch analogy Vct
As previously mentioned, the explicit crack pattern and failure pro­
cess of SRC and RC members exhibit similarities, namely that the
development of diagonal cracking (truss action) governs the shear ten­
sion failure, and the concrete crushing (arch action) causes the diagonal
compression failure. Actually, the truss and arch actions co-exist during
the loading process, and the detailed load-sharing of these two mecha­
nisms is based on their stiffness; therefore, to take these two actions into
account, the hybrid truss in SRC girders can be evaluated using truss-
arch modeling, which is widely applied in RC shear-critical members
[21]. In the truss-arch model, the truss action is associated with the
shear resistance provided by the transverse reinforcements, and the arch
action is associated with the shear resistance provided by a diagonal
concrete strut that follows the principle load path between the support
and the loading point. It should be noted that P is the applied load in
Fig. 2, while Pa and Pt are the loads carried by the arch action and truss
action, respectively.
Y. Xue et al. Structures 56 (2023) 104976

3.2.1. Truss action sectional area.

The constant angle truss modeling (CATM) is applied here to eval­ The shear contribution of the truss action Vt is determined following
uate the stiffness of the truss action Kt [22]. As illustrated in Fig. 2, in the simplified modified compression field theory (MCFT) [23], which
CATM, the transverse reinforcements are smeared along the shear span can be expressed as:
uniformly, and the global truss action can be divided into differential √̅̅̅̅ fyv Asv
trusses composed of diagonal struts and vertical ties. Therefore, Kt can Vt = βbh0 fc + h0 cotθt (3)
s
be obtained by analyzing each differential compound truss using virtual
work analysis and then integrating the differential shear stiffness over 0.40 1300
the length of the shear module [22], as: β= ⋅ (4)
1 + 1500εcx 1000 + sze
nEc Av ρsv cot2 θt
Kt = (1) Vt a
+ 0.5Vt cotθt
(5)
h0
1 + nρsv csc4 θt εcx =
2Es Asl
⎛ ⎞0.25
ρ A where h0 is the effective depth of the cross-section; fc is the compressive
⎜ ρsvsl ⋅Avg ⎟
θt = tan− 1 ⎜
⎝0.61⎠
⎟ (2) strength of concrete; fyv is the yield strength of stirrups; Asv is the cross-
sectional area of the stirrup hoop; s is the stirrup spacing; εcx is the
longitudinal strain at the mid-depth of the cross-section; a is the length
where n = Es/Ec; Es and Ec are the modulus of elasticity of steel and of the shear span; Asl is the cross-sectional area of tensile rebar; sze is the
concrete, respectively; Av is the shear area of the concrete section, Av = effective crack spacing, sze = 300 mm [24]. To conclude, Vt can be
bdv; b is the cross-sectional width; dv is the center-to-center hoop depth; determined by solving Eqs. (2)-(5) simultaneously.
ρsv is the volumetric ratio of stirrups; θt is the crack angle in CATM using
the principle of minimum potential energy; Ag is the gross cross-

’ ’

Fig. 3. Virtual work analysis on arch model.

4
Y. Xue et al.
3.2.2. Arch action
In Fig. 2, the arch action is represented by the dotted line connecting
the support and the adjacent loading point. In the proposed model, a
determinate strut-and-tie model (STM) is established to calculate the
shear contribution of the arch action Va. Due to the symmetrical di­
mensions and boundaries, a one-half model is based. The proposed STM
is composed of a diagonally-compressive strut (AE), a horizontally-
compressive strut (DE), and two horizontally-tensile struts (AB and
BC). In Fig. 3, all the compression struts are highlighted in red, the
tension struts in purple, and the dummy elements in black. In a deter­
minate truss, the forces acting on the struts and ties can be readily
determined through force equilibrium under the applied load Pa. This
suggests that Va can be determined if a single strut reaches its strength,
and the strength limit of each strut can be found in Fig. 3.
As indicated in Fig. 3, the limits of struts AB and BC are constant,
which can be determined by the yield strength of steel and reinforce­
ment dimensions. However, the limits of struts AE and DE are varied by
the loading process. The reason is that the cross-sectional depth of the
neutral axis at the loading section c varies when the applied load P in­
creases, and the concrete of the diagonally-compressive strut will be
softened due to the increase of the transverse tensile strain. As shown in
Fig. 2, c can be calculated using sectional analysis, in which the plane
section assumption is applied, and the concrete stress distribution fol­
lows an inverted triangle, indicating that the concrete in flexure (at the
loading section) is still primarily in the elastic range [25]. In addition, it
should be noted that the strut AE is modeled as a prismatic element with
an average depth ccosα, even though it has a variable depth in reality. As
previously stated, when a shear load is applied to concrete, fce (effective
concrete strength) can be expressed as a function of the transverse
tensile strain εt, as shown in Eq. (6). This indicates that the strength of
the diagonal compression strut diminishes with the increase of εt [26].
fc
fce = ⩽fc (6)
0.8 + 0.34 εεcot
where εco is the compressive strain of concrete at the maximum strength,
εco = 0.002 + 0.001(fc-20)/100 (fc in MPa).
As shown in Fig. 2, εt can be calculated according to Mohr’s circle, as:
εt + εc = εx + εy (7)
where εt and εc are the tensile and compressive strains of the diagonal
compression strut, respectively; εx and εy are the normal strains of the
diagonally-compressive strut, which can be calculated from the four
nodal displacements of the shear panel (A, B, E, F), as [27]:
εx =
(uB − uA ) − (uE − uF )
(8)
2a
(υF − υA ) − (υE − υB )
εy = (9)
2h0
where uA, uB, uE, and uF are the displacements in the horizontal direction
of the four points A, B, E, and F, respectively; νA, νB, νE, and νF are the
displacements in the vertical direction of the four points A, B, E, and F,
respectively. As illustrated in Fig. 3, the aforementioned nodal dis­
∑
placements can be obtained by virtual work analysis (u or ν= pPl/EA).
To conclude, the arch action’s contribution Va needs an iterative
procedure to determine. After the STM has been established, the applied
load shared by the STM, Pa, will be increased until any struts reach the
corresponding strength limit, and at this time, Va equals Pa. Then, the
shear stiffness of the arch action Ka can be obtained by Va/νE, where νE is
the vertical displacement of node E when Va is reached.
According to existing knowledge, in shear-critical RC members,
along with increasing the load, the truss and arch actions will function
simultaneously, and the contribution of each mechanism is related to its
stiffness. Therefore, the deformation of the truss and arch actions should
be compatible within a truss-arch model, but one of these two mecha­
5
Structures 56 (2023) 104976
nisms governs the final failure [21]. When the truss action controls the
global shear strength, only Vt can be fully achieved when the maximum
load is reached, and the contribution of the arch action should be
calculated according to the stiffness relationship. In contrast, when the
arch action governs the global shear strength, only Va can be fully
achieved when the maximum load is reached, and the contribution of
the truss action should be deduced accordingly. For simplification, the
global shear strength of the hybrid truss Vct can be the lower value of the
two cases mentioned above, as:
{ }
Ka Kt
Vct = min Vt + Vt , Va + Va (10)
Kt Ka
As mentioned before, the concrete softening and the arch action can
be evaluated based on virtual work analysis; however, it is worth noting
that the modulus of concrete in Fig. 3 is time-dependent during the
loading process due to the nonlinear material property of concrete,
which may lead to an overestimation in stiffness of compression struts
DE and AE at the peak load level. In addition, part of the concrete in strut
DE is confined by the top steel flange, and the lateral confinement can
further improve the concrete strength and deformability, making the
performance evaluation more complex. The aforementioned problems
will be addressed in the future by experiments and refined FE modeling.
3.3. Steel profile Vsw
As previously stated, in an SRC girder with H-shaped steel, the two
steel flanges serve as compressive and tensile struts when modeling the
truss part. In the meantime, the vertical web is directly exposed to the
applied shear force to increase the overall shear resistance. Based on the
available test records [17,18], structural steel was entirely yielded when
the maximum strength was achieved. Thus, in this case, the develop­
ment of shear and normal stresses of the steel must obey the von Mises
yielding law:
σ (x)2 + 3τ(x)2 ⩽fyw
2
(11)
In contrast to bare steel members, it is crucial to notice that the load-
carrying capacity of the steel profile in SRC members relies on the
interaction with the surrounding concrete. However, to date, the load-
sharing mechanisms between the steel profile and the concrete lack
sufficient test results and reliable FE evidence. Consequently, deter­
mining the stress distribution solely based on the shear force and
bending moment at a given section does not lead to a unique solution,
indicating that reasonable assumptions are needed for the stress
decomposition of the steel web [19].
According to previous test results [17,18], a strong bond could be
formed between the surrounding concrete encasement and the steel
shape when a stiff concrete cover was provided (the cover thickness was
sufficient). If so, strain monitoring revealed that the steel web and the
RC part exhibited compatible behavior, and their normal strains adhered
to the plane section assumption, namely that a linear distribution of
normal strain can be assumed with the H-shaped steel [28]. Therefore,
as illustrated in Fig. 2, the normal stress σx of the steel web can be
calculated by σ x=Esεx ≤ fyw, and the shear resistance provided by the
vertical web of H-shaped steel can be obtained by integrating the shear
stress (τx in Eq. (11)) along the section. In a three-point or four-point
bending test, the section at the loading point experiences the highest
moment and shear force, indicating that both bending and shear stresses
can be critical. Therefore, Vsw can be taken as the shear resistance in this
section:
Vsw = Vsu + Vsb (12)
Y. Xue et al. Structures 56 (2023) 104976

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∫ c− a′ss ∫ c− a′ss
action Ka can be calculated by dividing Va by the corresponding
f 2yw − σ2x
Vsu = tw τ(x)dx = tw dx vertical displacement of the loading point.
3
0
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
0 4. The fourth step is to determine the shear contribution offered by the
√ ( )2
∫ c√ 2 ε x hybrid truss-arch Vct by Eq. (10).
√f yw − Es c− cfa′
= tw ss
dx (13) 5. The fifth step is to determine the shear contribution offered by the
0 3 vertical steel web Vsw using Eqs. (15) and (16).
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ 6. The final step is to obtain the global shear strength Vu by Vct plus Vsw.
∫ ∫
h− c− ass h− c− ass f 2yw − σ2x
Vsb = tw τ(x)dx = tw dx 4. Verification
0 0 3
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ ( )
∫ h− c−
√ 2 − E εtf x 2
ass √f 4.1. Information of database
yw s h− c− ass
= tw dx (14)
3
The predictions obtained from the proposed method are compared
0

where Vsu and Vsb are the shear resistances above and below the neutral
axis, respectively; tw is the steel web’s thickness; c, εcf, and εtf are the
cross-sectional depth of the neutral axis and the normal strains of the top
and bottom edges at the loading point section, which can be obtained
from the sectional analysis under the load Pa (Fig. 2); h is the cross-
sectional depth of the gross section; fyw is the yield strength of the
steel web; ass and a’ss are the cover thickness of the tensile and
compressive steel flanges.
It should be noted that the normal stress of the steel web σx cannot
exceed the yield strength fyw, whereas the steel web is regarded as being
yielded in the normal direction, and the integration of the shear stress
can be only conducted in the elastic zone of the steel web. Due to the
difficulty in obtaining closed-form solutions for Vsu and Vsb, it is rec­
ommended to employ an appropriate numerical integration method.
This research uses the two-point Gauss truss quadrature for calculation,
and Eqs. (15) and (16) can be re-written as follows:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ [ ) ]2
√ 2 (
Es εcf c− a′ss c− a′ss
∑ 2
c − ass √f yw − c− a′ss 2 + 2 ti
′
Vsu = tw ωi (15)
i=1
2 3
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ { [( h− c− ass ) ( h− c− ass ) ] }2
√ 2 Es εtf
∑2
h − c − ass √f yw − h− c− ass + ti
(16)
2 2
Vsb = tw ωi
i=1
2 3
where ti is the normalized coordinate of ith numerical point, t1 =
-0.55735 and t2 = 0.55735; ωi is the weight factor, ω1 = ω2 = 1.0.
To conclude, the shear resistance of the steel web is compatible with
the RC part because the determination of Vsw is based on the sectional
analysis under the load Pa that leads to arch failure. When the shear
contribution of the arch action varies, the normal strains of the steel
flanges change accordingly, resulting in a new stress distribution in the
steel web. Therefore, all of the shear mechanisms, namely, the truss and
arch actions of the RC part and the vertical steel web, are assembled
together to behave as a composite structure.
3.4. Modeling procedure
The calculation procedure is outlined in the following steps, as
depicted in Fig. 4.
1. The first step involves inputting the geometries and material prop­
erties of the specimen: a, ass, b, dv, h, h0, l0, s, tw, Asf, Asl, Asv, Ec, Es, fc,
fyl, fyf, fyw, fyv.
2. The second step involves calculating the shear strength and stiffness
of the truss action (Vt and Kt) by Eqs. (1)-(5).
3. The third step involves analyzing the shear contribution of the arch
action Va according to Fig. 3. Firstly, an initial load Pa is given to
conduct the sectional analysis at the loading section to obtain the
current c, εcf and εtf; then the internal force of each strut will be
checked to determine whether the arch action has been broken. After
several rounds of trial calculation (by increasing Pa), Va can be ob­
tained when any strut fails at the load Pa, and the stiffness of the arch
with the 45 available test data points from the existing literature
[12,16,17,28–32]. The following criteria screen all girder specimens: (1)
The test specimens should be non-prestressed girders with rectangle
cross-sections and normal-weight concrete; meanwhile, SRC girders
with T-shaped cross-sections are excluded. (2) The steel shape in the test
specimens was placed at the section center, indicating that ass = a’ss.
Table 1 summarizes the references used for comparison.
4.2. Comparison between test and calculated results
Table 2 and Fig. 5 compare the calculated shear strengths by the
proposed model and the test results. The average strength ratio (AVG)
Vc,p/Ve of the proposed model is 0.93 with a coefficient of variation
(CoV) of 0.11, indicating that the proposed model can accurately
calculate the shear strength of SRC girders. In Table 2, the predicted
failure mode (crushing of the diagonally-compressive strut, yielding of
the horizontally-tensile strut, or yielding of the stirrups) of the test
specimens was consistent with the reported failure observations;
therefore, the validity of the proposed hybrid truss analogy is well-
supported.
The experimental assessment of the shear resistance from the steel
shape and the hybrid truss was conducted on the specimens referenced
in Ref. [12] (specimens No. 1–10). As indicated in Table 2, the shear
strengths of specimens BRC-1 and BRC-2 are well predicted (AVG =
0.94). It is worth noting that these two girders were RC specimens
without stirrups, whose shear strengths are obtained following the arch
procedure that is introduced in Section 3.2.2, indicating that the shear
contribution of the arch action Va is reasonable. Apart from BRC-1 and
BRC-2, the rest specimens in Ref. [12] are all SRC girders with the same
geometric dimensions as BRC-1 and BRC-2, and the accuracy of pre­
dicted shear strength of these specimens is also satisfactory (AVG =
0.96, CoV = 0.07), indicating that both Va and Vsw of the proposed
model are reasonable. In addition, the comparison between the test and
calculated shear strengths shows that the truss action must be included
even it is usually regarded as a dummy component in deep members (λ
< 1.5). If the truss action Vt is neglected, the average strength ratio Vc,p/
Ve of the deep members (λ < 1.5) in the test database will be 0.88 with a
CoV of 0.14, indicating that this approach yields inferior results
compared with the complete procedure.
As mentioned before, the rationality of the hybrid truss-arch has
been verified, and the shear contribution of the steel shape based on the
steel–concrete interaction is discussed in this part. In Fig. 5, a compar­
ison is presented between the calculated results obtained from the
established model and the conventional strength superposition method.
The strength superposition, commonly utilized in code-based shear
equations, involves Vu = Vct + Vsw,p, where Vct is determined using the
proposed truss-arch analogy, and Vsw,p represents the plastic shear
resistance of the steel web (Vsw,p = 0.6fywtwhw, where hw is the cross-
sectional height of the steel web). As indicated in Fig. 5, the proposed
model predicted the test results with higher precision, showing the
average ratio of predicted and tested results based on the strength su­
perposition is 1.08 with a CoV of 0.14. In contrast, those of the proposed
model are 0.93 and 0.11. The comparison mentioned above shows the

6
Y. Xue et al. Structures 56 (2023) 104976

f f f f f E E
aa l bd t hh sA
A A

P =P + P

K
F F F F c

K K K K V
Yes

f f

No

V P

K P/a

V V V K K V VK K

V V V

V V V

Fig. 4. Calculation procedure.

7
Y. Xue et al. Structures 56 (2023) 104976

Table 1
Design parameters of 45 specimens.
Ref. ID b /mm h /mm a /mm ρsl ρsv ρss Steel shape fc /MPa fyw /MPa fyv /MPa λ Ve /kN
/% /% /%

[12] BRC-1 450 550 460 2.6 / / / 40.1 317.0 / 0.84 1300
BRC-2 450 550 460 2.6 / / / 40.1 317.0 / 0.84 1432
B-H1 450 550 460 2.6 / 3.80 H 450 × 200 × 9 × 14 40.1 312.0 / 0.84 2423
B-H2 450 550 460 2.6 / 4.03 H 390 × 200 × 10 × 16 40.1 330.0 / 0.84 2399
B-H3 450 550 460 2.6 / 3.84 H 300 × 200 × 13 × 15 40.1 312.8 / 0.84 2109
B-H4 450 550 460 2.6 / 3.36 H 200 × 200 × 20 × 12 40.1 279.6 / 0.84 1766
BI-H1 450 550 460 2.6 / 3.80 H 450 × 200 × 9 × 14 40.1 312.0 / 0.84 2256
BW-H2 450 550 460 2.6 / 4.03 H 390 × 200 × 10 × 16 40.1 330.0 / 0.84 2399
BW-H2A 450 550 460 2.6 / 4.76 H 390 × 200 × 15 × 16 40.1 312.0 / 0.84 2281
BW-H2B 450 550 460 2.6 / 5.48 H 390 × 200 × 20 × 16 40.1 302.5 / 0.84 2605

[16] B1-1.0 200 260 260 2.4 0.28 5.02 I16 27.1 312.3 298 1.00 509
B1-1.5 200 260 390 2.4 0.28 5.02 I16 27.1 312.3 298 1.50 304
B1-2.0 200 260 520 2.4 0.28 5.02 I16 27.1 312.3 298 2.00 330
B2-1.0 200 260 260 2.4 0.28 5.02 I16 34.2 312.3 298 1.00 495
B2-1.5 200 260 390 2.4 0.28 5.02 I16 34.2 312.3 298 1.50 342
B2-2.0 200 260 520 2.4 0.28 5.02 I16 34.2 312.3 298 2.00 255
B3-1.0 200 260 260 2.4 0.28 5.02 I16 45.0 312.3 298 1.00 467
B3-1.5 200 260 390 2.4 0.28 5.02 I16 45.0 312.3 298 1.50 373

[17] SRRAC-1 150 300 342 2.3 0.05 5.80 I16 30.0 265.2 393.4 1.14 379
SRRAC-2 150 300 342 2.3 0.05 5.80 I16 26.4 265.2 393.4 1.14 366
SRRAC-4 150 300 342 2.3 0.05 5.80 I16 27.6 265.2 393.4 1.14 371
SRRAC-5 150 300 342 2.3 0.05 5.80 I16 27.6 265.2 393.4 1.52 280
SRRAC-6 150 300 342 2.3 0.05 4.78 I14 27.6 282.7 393.4 1.14 339

[28] PPSRC1 450 650 650 1.7 0.16 3.37 H 500 × 200 × 9 × 14 24.3 317.0 393 1.00 2170
PPSRC2 450 650 650 1.7 0.16 3.37 H 500 × 200 × 9 × 14 24.3 317.0 393 1.50 1600

[29] SRRC1 180 240 240 2.4 0.31 4.98 I14 34.3 327.0 339 1.00 419
SRRC2 180 240 336 2.4 0.31 4.98 I14 34.3 327.0 339 1.40 370
SRRC3 180 240 432 2.4 0.31 4.98 I14 34.3 327.0 339 1.80 316
SRRC4 180 240 240 2.4 0.31 4.98 I14 35.3 327.0 339 1.00 423
SRRC5 180 240 336 2.4 0.31 4.98 I14 35.3 327.0 339 1.40 373
SRRC6 180 240 432 2.4 0.31 4.98 I14 35.3 327.0 339 1.80 319
SRRC7 180 240 240 2.4 0.31 4.98 I14 36.0 327.0 339 1.00 426
SRRC8 180 240 336 2.4 0.31 4.98 I14 36.0 327.0 339 1.40 376
SRRC9 180 240 432 2.4 0.31 4.98 I14 36.0 327.0 339 1.80 322

[30] SRC1-50 350 600 975 2.9 0.09 2.16 H 300 × 150 × 6.5 × 9 27.7 332.0 380 1.63 861
SRC1-25 350 600 975 2.9 0.18 2.16 H 300 × 150 × 6.5 × 9 32.2 332.0 380 1.63 877
SRC1-17 350 600 975 2.9 0.26 2.16 H 300 × 150 × 6.5 × 9 28.9 332.0 380 1.63 923

[31] D1-N 200 350 338 0.7 0.52 2.87 H 198 × 99 × 4.5 × 7 24.5 325.0 407 0.96 408
D2-FS 200 350 338 0.7 0.52 2.87 H 198 × 99 × 4.5 × 7 23.9 325.0 407 0.96 415
D3-WS 200 350 338 0.7 0.52 2.87 H 198 × 99 × 4.5 × 7 23.9 325.0 407 0.96 395

[32] DB1-15-NS 200 350 338 0.7 0.52 2.87 H 198 × 99 × 4.5 ×7 23.3 325.0 407 0.96 391
DB2-15-NS 200 350 338 0.7 0.52 2.87 H 198 × 99 × 4.5 ×7 24.5 325.0 407 0.96 409
DB3-NTNS 200 350 338 0.7 / 2.87 H 198 × 99 × 4.5 ×7 23.7 325.0 / 0.96 396
DB4-15-FS 200 350 338 0.7 0.52 2.87 H 198 × 99 × 4.5 ×7 23.9 325.0 407 0.96 414
DB5-15-WS 200 350 338 0.7 0.52 2.87 H 198 × 99 × 4.5 ×7 23.9 325.0 407 0.96 398

Note: ρss is the steel shape ratio; Ve is the shear strength recorded in the test.

questionable nature of the code-based strength superposition, in which
the steel web is assumed in full plasticity under pure shear conditions.
The observed overestimation of shear strengths indicates that the
normal stress resulting from bending diminishes the steel web’s shear
resistance. Therefore, the compatibility of normal strain within the steel
shape proves to be effective in accurately predicting Vsw.
Fig. 6 shows how the different components in SRC girders work as a
composite member. As indicated in Fig. 6, the arch action Va contributes
the most to the global shear strength in most cases, and Vt and Vsw are
comparative. As recorded in Table 1, the steel shape ratio in the database
ranges from 2.87% to 5.80%, indicating that the global shear strength of
SRC girders can be further enhanced by increasing the steel content
without enlarging the overall geometric dimensions. In addition, the
detailed shear strength contribution in Fig. 6 indicates that the steel
flanges and the vertical web of H-shaped steel contribute to the overall
shear strength differently. The presence of two flanges that contribute to
the hybrid truss action can enhance Va by increasing the depth of the
diagonally-compressive strut. In contrast, the steel web directly carries a
portion of the applied load.
4.3. Comparison between proposed and existing shear models or
equations
Fig. 7 and Table 2 compare test results with various shear models.
The existing calculation methods for shear strength prediction of SRC
girders can be divided into two categories: (1) code-based shear

8
Y. Xue et al. Structures 56 (2023) 104976

Table 2
Comparison between test results and shear equations.
No. Ref. ID Ve /kN Mode Vct /kN Vsw /kN Vc,p /kN Vc,p/Ve Vc,JGJ/Ve Vc,AISC/Ve Vc,EC/Ve Vc, Chen /Ve Vc, Lu /Ve Vc, Deng /Ve

1 [12] BRC-1 1300 C 1276 / 1276 0.98 / / / 1.14 0.79 0.84

2 BRC-2 1432 C 1276 / 1276 0.89 / / / 1.03 0.72 0.77
3 B-H1 2423 C 1682 513 2195 0.91 0.59 0.44 0.41 0.71 0.81 0.74
4 B-H2 2399 C 1680 476 2156 0.90 0.60 0.44 0.42 0.74 0.82 0.78
5 B-H3 2109 C 1635 325 1960 0.93 0.65 0.48 0.45 0.87 0.95 0.84
6 B-H4 1766 C 1572 115 1687 0.96 0.74 0.52 0.49 1.07 1.20 0.89
7 BI-H1 2256 C 1696 644 2340 1.04 0.64 0.47 0.44 0.77 0.87 0.80
8 BW-H2 2399 C 1680 476 2156 0.90 0.60 0.44 0.42 0.74 0.82 0.78
9 BW-H2A 2281 C 1715 677 2391 1.05 0.78 0.62 0.59 0.79 0.94 0.84
10 BW-H2B 2605 C 1742 886 2628 1.01 0.81 0.68 0.64 0.70 0.88 0.76

11 [16] B1-1.0 509 Y 287 111 397 0.78 0.57 0.46 0.49 0.68 0.59 0.68
12 B1-1.5 304 Y 172 103 274 0.90 0.72 0.60 0.74 1.28 0.73 0.89
13 B1-2.0 330 Y 135 100 234 0.71 0.55 0.47 0.69 1.23 0.52 0.70
14 B2-1.0 495 Y 313 99 412 0.83 0.61 0.48 0.51 0.87 0.74 0.73
15 B2-1.5 342 Y 184 92 276 0.81 0.67 0.54 0.67 1.41 0.79 0.82
16 B2-2.0 255 Y 142 89 232 0.91 0.74 0.63 0.90 1.98 0.83 0.92
17 B3-1.0 467 Y 347 95 442 0.95 0.72 0.56 0.58 1.14 1.01 0.82
18 B3-1.5 373 Y 199 94 293 0.79 0.68 0.54 0.65 1.59 0.92 0.80

19 [17] SRRAC-1 379 Y 254 131 385 1.02 0.89 0.78 0.93 0.83 0.76 0.89
20 SRRAC-2 366 Y 238 138 376 1.03 0.90 0.80 0.96 0.77 0.71 0.89
21 SRRAC-4 371 Y 244 135 379 1.02 0.89 0.79 0.95 0.79 0.73 0.89
22 SRRAC-5 280 Y 125 135 260 0.93 1.00 0.90 1.29 1.11 0.76 1.03
23 SRRAC-6 339 Y 225 130 355 1.05 0.95 0.85 1.02 0.86 0.73 0.94

24 [28] PPSRC1 2170 Y 1464 624 2087 0.96 0.71 0.56 0.54 0.65 0.67 0.66
25 PPSRC2 1600 Y 862 568 1430 0.89 0.73 0.59 0.63 1.00 0.68 0.72

26 [29] SRRC1 419 Y 193 77 270 0.85 0.82 0.65 0.71 0.87 0.88 0.86
27 SRRC2 370 Y 148 75 223 0.93 0.88 0.71 0.88 1.28 0.90 0.95
28 SRRC3 316 Y 122 74 196 1.06 0.97 0.81 1.16 1.73 0.95 1.08
29 SRRC4 423 Y 195 76 270 0.79 0.77 0.61 0.66 0.83 0.83 0.81
30 SRRC5 373 Y 149 74 223 0.91 0.86 0.69 0.86 1.27 0.90 0.93
31 SRRC6 319 Y 123 72 195 1.13 1.04 0.87 1.25 1.91 1.04 1.16
32 SRRC7 426 Y 196 75 271 0.83 0.81 0.64 0.69 0.89 0.89 0.86
33 SRRC8 376 Y 150 73 223 0.91 0.86 0.70 0.86 1.30 0.92 0.94
34 SRRC9 322 Y 123 71 194 1.10 1.01 0.84 1.21 1.89 1.03 1.12

35 [30] SRC1-50 861 Y 484 176 660 0.77 0.69 0.52 0.58 1.35 0.79 0.96
36 SRC1-25 877 Y 522 161 683 0.78 0.77 0.59 0.74 1.50 0.88 0.96
37 SRC1-17 923 Y 548 172 720 0.78 0.77 0.61 0.84 1.30 0.76 0.90
38 [31] D1-N 408 T 326 84 410 1.00 1.04 0.85 0.92 0.99 0.83 0.69
39 D2-FS 415 T 326 84 410 0.99 1.02 0.84 0.91 0.95 0.82 0.68
40 D3-WS 395 T 326 84 410 1.04 1.07 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.86 0.71

41 [32] DB1-15-NS 391 T 325 85 411 1.05 1.08 0.89 0.96 0.99 0.86 0.72
42 DB2-15-NS 409 T 326 84 410 1.00 1.04 0.85 0.92 0.98 0.83 0.69
43 DB3-NTNS 396 T 243 85 328 0.83 0.74 0.55 0.50 0.99 0.86 0.71
44 DB4-15-FS 414 T 326 84 410 0.99 1.02 0.84 0.91 0.95 0.82 0.68
45 DB5-15-WS 398 T 326 84 410 1.03 1.06 0.87 0.94 0.99 0.85 0.71
Average (AVG) 0.93 0.82 0.66 0.76 1.08 0.83 0.83
Coefficient of variation (CoV) 0.11 0.20 0.23 0.31 0.31 0.14 0.15

Note: “C” denotes the failure controlled by concrete crushing; “T” denotes the failure controlled by longitudinal reinforcement yielding; “Y” denotes the failure
controlled by stirrup yielding; Vc,p is the calculated shear strength from the model in this paper; Vc, JGJ, Vc, AISC, Vc, EC, Vc, Chen, Vc, Lu, Vc, Deng are the calculated shear
strengths using the shear equations of Chinese, American, European codes and the shear models proposed by Chen et al. [12], Lu [13], and Deng et al. [16].

equations; (2) mechanics-based shear models. In the first category, when
neither partial nor strength reduction coefficients are considered, the
average ratio of predicted-to-tested shear strength and its CoV are as
follows: 0.82 and 0.20 for JGJ 138 (P.R.China) [8], 0.66 and 0.22 for
AISC 360 (the US) [9], and 0.76 and 0.31 for Eurocode 4 (Europe) [10].
The comparative analysis demonstrates that the code-based shear
equations exhibit a notable level of underestimation and considerable
variation, which seems rational considering the requirement for higher
reliability in predicting shear strength for SRC girders, which are prone
to brittle failure and have complex shear mechanisms. Nevertheless, the
excessive underestimation of strength predictions leads to substantial
material wastage, contradicting sustainability principles. Therefore, a
comprehensive investigation of the shear mechanisms in SRC girders
becomes urgent to address these concerns.
In the second category, the average ratio of predicted-to-tested shear
strength and its CoV are as follows: 1.08 and 0.31 for the model by Chen
et al. [12], 0.83 and 0.14 for the model by Lu [13], and 0.83 and 0.15 for
the model by Deng et al. [16]. The comparison indicates that the pro­
posed model is superior to the existing shear strength models. Although
the model by Chen et al. [12] could also obtain a favorable average
strength ratio (Vc, Chen /Ve = 1.08), the results are too scattered to be
applied in engineering practices, and the shear strength predictions by

9
Y. Xue et al. Structures 56 (2023) 104976

Fig. 5. Comparison between tested and calculated results.

Fig. 6. Ratio of different shear mechanisms.

Lu and Deng et al. are also unsatisfactory. It is worth noting that all these
models are mechanics-based, and the difference exists in the load-
sharing mechanisms of the multiple anti-shear components. Based on
the comparison above, the proposed model seems reliable in decom­
posing the shear contribution of each element.
5. Conclusions
A novel method was suggested for assessing the shear resistance
mechanism of SRC girders in this paper. The characteristics and ad­
vantages of the proposed shear strength model are summarized as
follows:
(1) The proposed model established multiple anit-shear mechanisms
consisting of a hybrid truss-arch and a vertical steel web to carry
the applied load. The hybrid truss-arch is composed of the top and
bottom flanges of H-shaped steel, longitudinal rebar, stirrups, and
diagonally-compressive concrete; meanwhile, the solid steel web
directly bears the moment and vertical shear force caused by the
applied load. The global shear strength Vu is obtained by
combining and adding Vct from the hybrid truss-arch analogy and
Vsw from the vertical web, and their contact is evaluated through
strain compatibility.
(2) The proposed model was verified using 45 existing test results of
SRC girders. The predictions of the proposed model (AVG = 0.93,
CoV = 0.11) gave better agreement with the test results than
those of the existing shear equations or models (AVG = 0.82 and
CoV = 0.20 for JGJ 138, AVG = 0.66 and CoV = 0.22 for AISC
360, AVG = 0.76 and CoV = 0.31 for Eurocode 4, AVG = 1.08 and
CoV = 0.31 for the model by Chen et al., AVG = 0.83 and CoV =

10
Y. Xue et al.
Fig. 7. Comparison between different shear models or equations.
0.14 for the model by Lu, and AVG = 0.83 and CoV = 0.15 for the
model by Deng et al.). To conclude, the novel shear model
established in this paper can accurately calculate the shear
strength of SRC girders. Although an iterative procedure is
needed during the arch action analysis, all the calculation steps
can be achieved manually without employing the numerical
tools, which can be applied in engineering practices.
(3) Based on the test database, the shear contribution of each shear
component (i.e., truss action, arch action, and steel web) was
evaluated and verified. The results indicated that the traditional
strength superposition under the assumption that the steel web is
plastic under pure shear is questionable, and the normal stress
caused by bending reduces the steel web’s resistance. Therefore,
the steel–concrete interaction is necessary to determine the shear
contribution of the steel web, and the proposed strain compati­
bility seems reliable.
(4) In this work, the behavior of the arch action and the effect of
concrete softening were evaluated based on virtual work analysis;
however, the modulus of concrete is not constant during the
loading process due to the nonlinear material property of con­
crete, making the performance evaluation complex. Meanwhile,
the stress transfer mechanism between concrete and steel shape is
unclear. The problems above will be addressed in the future by
experiments and refined FE modeling.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their sincere gratitude for the financial support
received from the Key R&D Program of Shaanxi Province (Grant No.
2022SF-433), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 52108172), and the Young Talent Fund of the University Associa­
tion for Science and Technology in Shaanxi, China (Grant No.
11
Structures 56 (2023) 104976
20230436).
References
[1] Hajjar JF. Composite steel and concrete structural systems for seismic engineering.
J Constr Steel Res 2002;58(5–8):703–23.
[2] Lai B-L, Zhang M-Y, Zheng X-F, Chen Z-P, Zheng Y-Y. Experimental study on the
axial compressive behaviour of steel reinforced concrete composite columns with
stay-in-place ECC jacket. Journal of Building Engineering 2023;68:106174.
[3] Lai B-L, Yang L, Xiong M-X. Numerical simulation and data-driven analysis on the
flexural performance of steel reinforced concrete composite members. Eng Struct
2021;247:113200.
[4] Lai B-L, Tan W-K, Feng Q-T, Venkateshwaran A. Numerical parametric study on the
uniaxial and biaxial compressive behavior of H-shaped steel reinforced concrete
composite beam-columns. Adv Struct Eng 2022;25(13):2641–61.
[5] Mostafa MMA, Wu T, Liu Xi, Fu Bo. The composite steel reinforced concrete
column under axial and seismic loads: a review. International Journal of Steel
Structures 2019;19(6):1969–87.
[6] Nakamura S-I, Momiyama Y, Hosaka T, Homma K. New technologies of steel/
concrete composite bridges. J Constr Steel Res 2002;58(1):99–130.
[7] Elmy MH, Nakamura S. Static and seismic behaviours of innovative hybrid steel
reinforced concrete bridge. J Constr Steel Res 2017;138:701–13.
[8] Jgj 138–2016.. Code for design of composite structures. Beijing: China Architecture
& Building Press; 2016.
[9] ANSI/AISC 360-16. Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago: American
Institute of Steel Construction, 2016.
[10] BS EN 1994-1-1:2004. Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete
structures- Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels: European
Committee for standardization, 2004.
[11] ACI 318-19. Building code requirements for structural concrete. Farmington Hills:
American Concrete Institute, 2019.
[12] Chen CC, Lin KT, Chen YJ. Behavior and shear strength of steel shape reinforced
concrete deep beams. Eng Struct 2018;175:425–35.
[13] Lu WY. Shear strength prediction for steel reinforced concrete deep beams.
J Constr Steel Res 2006;62(10):933–42.
[14] Hwang SJ, Lee HJ. Strength prediction for discontinuity regions by softened strut-
and-tie model. J Struct Eng 2002;128(12):1519–26.
[15] Xue Y, Chen Y, Shang C, Yang Y, Yu Y. Maximum shear strength of concrete-
encased steel composite beams: A novel strength model and FE verification. Eng
Struct 2023;291:116490.
[16] Deng M, Ma F, Li B, et al. Analysis on shear capacity of SRC deep beams based on
modified strut-and-tie model. Engineering Mechanics 2017;34(12):95–103.
[17] Ke X, Tang Z, Yang C. Shear bearing capacity of steel-reinforced recycled aggregate
concrete short beams based on modified compression field theory. Structures 2022;
45:645–58.
[18] Chen BQ, Zeng L, Liu CJ, et al. Study on shear behavior and bearing capacity of
steel reinforced concrte deep beams. Engineering Mechanics 2022;39(9):215–24.
[19] Horne MR. Plastic Theory of Structures. Surrey: Pergamon Press; 1979.
[20] Weng CC, Yen SI, Chen CC. Shear strength of concrete-encased composite
structural members. J Struct Eng 2001;127(10):1190–7.
[21] Pan Z, Li B. Truss-arch model for shear strength of shear-critical reinforced
concrete columns. J Struct Eng 2013;139(4):548–60.
[22] Kim JH, Mander JB. Influence of transverse reinforcement on elastic shear stiffness
of cracked concrete elements. Eng Struct 2007;29(8):1798–807.
[23] Bentz EC, Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Simplified modified compression field theory for
calculating shear strength of reinforced concrete elements. ACI Struct J 2006;103
(4):614–24.
[24] CSA A23.3-04. Design of concrete structures. Ontario: Canadian Standards
Association; 2004.
[25] Lim E, Hwang SJ. Modeling of the strut-and-tie parameters of deep beams for shear
strength prediction. Eng Struct 2016;108:104–12.
[26] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression-field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Struct J 1986;83(2):219–31.
[27] Park H, Eom T. Truss model for nonlinear analysis of RC members subject to cyclic
loading. J Struct Eng 2007;133(10):1351–63.
[28] Yang Y, Xue Y, Yu Y. Theoretical and experimental study on shear strength of
precast steel reinforced concrete beam. Steel Compos Struct 2019;32(4):443–54.
[29] Xue J, Wang X, Ma H, et al. Experimental study on shear performance of steel
reinforced recycled aggregate concrete beams. Building Structure 2013;43(7):
69–72.
[30] Chen CC, Chang TP, Fang CK. Experimental shear behavior of steel reinforced
concrete short beams. J Chin Inst Civil Hydraul Eng 2000;12(3):511–20.
[31] Weng CC, Jiang MH, Chen CC, et al. Influence of shear stud on mechanical
behavior of SRC beam. J Chin Inst Civil Hydraul Eng 2001;13(1):181–92.
[32] Weng CC, Wang HS. Shear strength of steel reinforced concrete (SRC) deep beams.
J Chin Inst Civil Hydraul Eng 2004;16(3):403–14.