Maximum Shear Strength of Slender RC Beams with

Rectangular Cross Sections

Kyoung-Kyu Choi 1; Woo-Chang Sim 2; Jong-Chan Kim 3; and Hong-Gun Park 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: In the present study, the maximum shear strength of simply supported reinforced concrete beams with rectangular cross section
was investigated. In beams with heavy shear reinforcement exceeding a certain limit, concrete crushing failure of the compression zone occurs
before the yielding of the shear reinforcement. Thus, the maximum shear strength of such members is limited by the concrete crushing failure.
In the present study, considering the shear-compression failure mechanism of the compression zone, the maximum shear strength was defined
by material failure criteria of the concrete subjected to the combined compressive and shear stresses. The proposed model was applied to
specimens tested in the previous studies. The results showed that the proposed method predicted the maximum shear strengths of the spec-
imens with a reasonable precision. Furthermore, a design equation for the maximum shear strength was proposed to secure the ductile flexural
behavior of beams without early shear failure. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001156. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Maximum shear strength; Reinforced concrete beams; Shear compression failure; Shear reinforcement; Concrete and
masonry structures.

Introduction
In reinforced concrete members, transverse reinforcing bars are
used to enhance the shear strength. In current design codes such
as EC 2 (2004), ACI 318-11 (ACI 2011), and CSA (2004), truss
models are used for the shear design of concrete members with
shear reinforcement, and the overall shear strength of the members
is defined as the sum of the contributions of the concrete (V c ) and
the shear reinforcement (V s ). However, according to the existing
test results (Hwang et al. 2009; Lee and Hwang 2010; Rahal
2000), when a large amount of shear reinforcement is used, con-
crete failure (mostly concrete crushing) can occur prior to the yield-
ing of the shear reinforcement (Fig. 1). In such case, the shear
strength of the member is limited by concrete failure, regardless
of the yield strength of the shear reinforcement. For this reason,
the maximum shear strength (or the maximum shear reinforcement
ratio) of RC flexural members is limited in current design codes
(EC 2 2004; ACI 318-11 2011; CSA 2004).
Table 1 compares the maximum shear strength used in existing
design provisions. The provisions of EC 2 (2004) and CSA (2004)
are based on the truss model and modified compression field theory
(Collins and Mitchell 1991; Bentz and Collins 2006; Vecchio and
Collins 1986), respectively. On the other hand, ACI 426 (ACI
1973) uses empirical equations based on existing test results:
the maximum shear strength is limited to the restrain of the shear
1
Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, Soongsil Univ., 369
Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 153-743, Korea (corresponding author).
E-mail: kkchoi@ssu.ac.kr
2
Graduate Student, School of Architecture, Soongsil Univ., 369
Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 153-743, Korea.
3
Graduate Student, School of Architecture, Soongsil Univ., 369
Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 153-743, Korea.
4
Professor, Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Seoul
National Univ., 599 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-744, Korea.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 1, 2013; approved
on July 16, 2014; published online on August 20, 2014. Discussion period
open until January 20, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/04014184(9)/$25.00.
pffiffiffiffiffi
crack width to an allowable value [V max ¼ 5=6 fc0 bd (f c0 in
MPa)], or to prevent the shear-compression failure of the horizontal
or inclined concrete struts [V max ¼ 0.2f c0 bd]. In ACI 318-11 (ACI
pffiffiffiffiffithe maximum shear strength is limited by V max ¼
2011),
5=6 f c0 bd (fc0 in MPa), as suggested by ACI 426.
Various experimental and theoretical studies (Carpenter and
Hanson 1969; Rahal 2000; Lee and Hwang 2010; Kim et al. 2011;
Choi et al. 2012) have been performed to investigate the maximum
shear strength of concrete beams. The test results showed that in
concrete beams with heavy shear reinforcement, the shear strength
is limited by the failure of the concrete. Furthermore, the location
and mode of concrete failure could be also affected by the shape
and loading condition of the test specimens. In the case of deep
beams or I-shaped beams with thin webs, concrete failure occurs
within the web. After inclined cracking, concrete crushing occurs in
the inclined struts in the web [see the inclined strut crushing in
Fig. 2(a)]. This mechanism can be predicted by the modified com-
pression field theory (Collins and Mitchell 1991; Bentz and Collins
2006; Vecchio and Collins 1986) and the rotating-angle softened-
truss model (Hsu 1993; Pang and Hsu 1995), which were both de-
veloped on the basis of concrete shear panel tests.
On the other hand, in the case of slender beams with rectan-
gular cross section, after flexure-shear cracking, concrete failure
(i.e., shear-compression failure) occurs in the compression zone
near the loading point [see the compression zone crushing in
Figs. 2(a) and 1] (Rahal 2000; Hwang et al. 2009; Lee and Hwang
2010; Kim et al. 2011; Heo and Kunnath 2013). In the vicinity of
the loading point, also known as a disturbance region, many
flexure-shear cracks with various orientations are concentrated
(MacGregor and Wight 2005). Apparently, the force-equilibrium
should be satisfied in all potential critical sections formed by
the cracks. Along the inclined crack sections with 45° angles, the
transverse reinforcement can provide shear-resistance [Fig. 2(b)].
On the other hand, as the orientation of the flexure-shear crack be-
comes close to the transverse direction of the beam in the vicinity of
the loading point, the contribution of the transverse reinforcement
decreases (MacGregor and Wight 2005). In the transverse crack
section, an extreme case, the transverse reinforcement cannot
provide shear resistance [Fig. 2(c)]. In this case, the concrete

© ASCE 04014184-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(7): 04014184

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Failure modes of beams with rectangular cross sections and
heavy shear reinforcement (data from Lee and Hwang 2010):
(a) Lee and Hwang’s specimen F20-1; (b) Lee and Hwang’s specimen
F80-4
Table 1. Existing Design Provisions for Maximum Shear Strength of
Concrete Beams
Design codes Maximum shear strength
Eurocode 2 (2004) V max ¼ 0.5bdf c0 ν
ν ¼ 0.6ð1 − f c0 =250Þ, fc0 in MPa
pffiffiffiffiffi
ACI Committee 318 (ACI 2011) V max ¼ 56 f c0 bd, f c0 in MPa
f c0 ≤ 70, MPa
CSA A23.3-M04 V max ¼ 0.25fc0 bd
Technical Committee (2004)
ACI Task Committee 426 (ACI 1973) V max ¼ 0.2f c0 bd
Note: f c0= compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days; ν =
strength reduction factor for concrete with shear cracking.
compression zone should resist the majority of the applied
shear force.
The present study focused on the shear-compression failure
mechanism of the compression zone, predicting the maximum
shear strength of slender beams with rectangular cross sections.
The maximum shear strength of the compression zone subjected
to combined compressive and shear stresses was defined using con-
crete material failure criterion. Based on the results, a design equa-
tion for the maximum shear strength of concrete beams with
rectangular sections was proposed to secure the ductile flexural
behavior of beams without early shear failure.
Shear Resistance in the Vicinity of Loading Point
In the “B” region (EC 2 2004; Schlaich et al. 1987) of flexural
concrete beams with shear reinforcement, the shear strength is de-
fined as the sum of the contributions of concrete (V c ) and shear
reinforcement (V s )
Vn ¼ Vc þ Vs ð1Þ
For the evaluation of V s , for simplicity, the 45° truss model (ACI
318-11 2011) in Fig. 2(b) was used. Thus, the contributions of the
transverse rebars placed in the inclined crack are defined as
V s ¼ ρv bdf yt , where ρv ½¼ Av =ðbsÞ
is the shear reinforcement ra-
tio, f yt is the yield strength of shear reinforcement, Av is the area of
shear reinforcement, b is the beam width, d is the effective depth,
and s is the spacing of shear reinforcement.
On the other hand, in the vicinity of the loading point
considered as a disturbance region (“D” region) (EC 2 2004;
© ASCE 04014184-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(7): 04014184
Fig. 2. Concrete failure mechanisms in RC beams with heavy shear
reinforcement: (a) truss model and compression failure mechanism;
(b) inclined cracks with 45° angle; (c) transverse cracks near the load-
ing point
Schlaich et al. 1987), flexural and flexure-shear cracks with vari-
ous inclined angles are concentrated [Figs. 1 and 2(a)]. Thus, the
force-equilibrium should be evaluated in all the potential critical
sections formed by the cracks. Particularly, in the transverse crack
section in the vicinity of the loading [Fig. 2(c)], the number of
transverse reinforcement or stirrups crossing the cracks is limited.
Thus, the contribution of the transverse reinforcement or stirrups
to the shear strength of the cross section is significantly decreased.
Due to this reason, the majority of the shear force applied to the
cross section is resisted by the compression zone without the aid
from the shear reinforcement. Generally, aggregate interlock and
rebar dowel action developed by shear-slip are considered for
the shear resistance of beams. However, in the transverse crack
section, such shear-slip can occur only after the shear failure of
the intact concrete in the compression zone. In other words, in the
transverse crack section, before the compression zone fails, the
aggregate interlock and dowel action cannot provide a significant
shear resistance. For such reasons, the present study focused on
the shear resistance of the compression zone in the vicinity of the
loading point.
As mentioned, in the case of short beams or I-shaped beams
with thin webs, concrete crushing failure can occur in the inclined
struts in the web, opposed to the compression zone. Such failure
mechanism was not considered in this study, as the application
of the proposed method is limited to slender beams with rectangular
cross sections.
Derivation of Maximum Shear Strength
As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, the compression zone is subjected to the
combined compressive stress (σu ) and shear stress (vu ). In order to
consider the effect of the combined stresses, assessing the material
failure criteria of concrete was necessary. According to the Rankine
failure criteria (Chen 1982), material failure occurs when the prin-
cipal stresses (σ1 and σ2 ) reach either the concrete’s compressive
strength f c0 or tensile strength ft0
J. Struct. Eng.
 curvature (or compressive strain). Fig. 4 schematically shows the
variations of the shear stress capacities. Figs. 4(a and b) show the
distributions of the normal strain and stress in a cross section, re-
spectively. Figs. 4(c and d) show the shear stress capacity con-
trolled by compression [Eq. (3a)], and that controlled by tension
[Eq. (3b)], respectively. As shown in these figures, the values
and distributions of the shear stress capacities are affected by
the compressive strain of the cross section. Similarly, the effect
of the compressive strain of the cross section on the shear stress
capacity was also described in detail by Choi et al. (2007).
In the “D” region near the loading point, where shear-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

compression failure is considered in the transverse crack section

[Fig. 2(c)], two aspects need to be considered to evaluate the shear
capacity of the compression zone. First, as mentioned, the contri-
Fig. 3. Stresses at failure of concrete compression zone subjected to
bution of shear reinforcement should be neglected. Second, in the
shear-compression
compression zone at the location of the loading point, no space is
allowed for tensile cracking, as shown in Fig. 2(a). To develop the
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 ffi second branch of a critical crack along the principal tensile axis,
σ σu sufficient space is required in the compression zone. Due to the
σ1 ¼ u þ þ v2u ≥ f c0 geometrical constraints, the compression zone is failed by concrete
2 2
crushing rather than tensile cracking. Thus, near the loading point,
for failure controlled by compression ð2aÞ the shear capacity of the compression zone is defined by concrete
crushing.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 ffi The shear capacity controlled by concrete crushing can be
σ σu estimated by integrating vuc in Eq. (3a)
σ2 ¼ u − þ v2u ≤ −f t0
2 2 Z c
u

for failure controlled by tension ð2bÞ V cc ¼ b vuc ðzÞdz for α ≤ 1ðαε0 ≤ ε0 Þ ð5aÞ
0
pffiffiffiffiffi
where ft0 is defined as 0.292 f c0 (fc0 in MPa), as proposed by Z cu =α
MacGregor et al. (1960). V cc ¼ b vuc ðzÞdz for α > 1ðαε0 > ε0 Þ ð5bÞ
From Eq. (2), when the material failure occurs in compression 0
or tension, the permissible maximum shear stresses can be defined
as functions of the compressive normal stress σu (>0) developed in
the compression zone (Choi et al. 2007) In Eq. (5b), only the compression zone ð0 ≤ z ≤ cu =αÞ not
experiencing compressive softening can provide shear resistance.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vuc ðzÞ ¼ f c0 ½fc0 − σu ðzÞ
for failure controlled by compression From Eqs. (3a), (4), and (5), V cc can be redefined as follows:
ð3aÞ V cc ¼ ð1 − 0.5αÞf c0 cu b for α ≤ 1ðαε0 ≤ ε0 Þ ð6aÞ

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vut ðzÞ ¼ ft0 ½ft0 þ σu ðzÞ
for failure controlled by tension V cc ¼ 0.5f c0 cu b=α for α > 1ðαε0 > ε0 Þ ð6bÞ
ð3bÞ

where vuc and vut indicate the shear stress capacities controlled by On the other hand, the shear capacity of a concrete cross section
compression and tension, respectively. in the “B” region is calculated by integrating the shear stress capac-
The compressive stress in Eq. (3) can be defined as a parabolic ity controlled by tension [Eq. (3b)]
function of the distance (z) from the neutral axis Z c
u

      V ct ¼ b vut ðzÞdz for α ≤ 1ðαε0 ≤ ε0 Þ ð7aÞ

εðzÞ εðzÞ 2
σu ðzÞ ¼ f c0 2 − ð4Þ
ε0 ε0
where εðzÞ is the compressive strain at each location of the distance
(z) from the neutral axis; and ε0 ð¼ 0.002Þ is the compressive strain
corresponding to the compressive strength of concrete. εðzÞ is de-
fined as εðzÞ ¼ αε0 · z=cu considering the deformation compatibil-
ity of the cross section, where αε0 is the compressive strain at the
extreme compression fiber of the concrete compression zone, and
cu is the depth of the concrete compression zone (see the
Appendix).
In Eq. (3), the shear stress capacity at each location in the com-
pression zone is affected by the compressive stress. The distribution
and magnitude of the compressive normal stress are affected by the
flexural curvature (or compressive strain) of the cross section, as
well as the tensile strength of flexural reinforcement in the tension
zone. Therefore, the shear stress capacities vary with the flexural
0
Z cu =α
V ct ¼ b vut ðzÞdz for α > 1ðαε0 > ε0 Þ ð7bÞ
0
Fig. 4(e) shows the variations of the shear capacity V cc and V ct
according to αε0 . As mentioned, theoretically, two failure modes of
the compression zone should be considered at the loading point:
(1) inclined cracking developed from the flexure-shear cracks,
and (2) concrete crushing in the transverse crack section. The shear
capacity based on the inclined cracking is defined as V n ¼ V ct þ
V s using the 45° truss model in ACI 318-11 (ACI 2011), where
V s ¼ ρv bdf yt , and hence, V n can be increased by using shear
reinforcement. On the other hand, the shear capacity based on con-
crete crushing is defined as V n ¼ V cc , regardless of the amount of
shear reinforcement. Thus, the increased shear capacity cannot

© ASCE 04014184-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(7): 04014184

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Determination of maximum shear strength at loading point

exceed the shear capacity based on the compression zone crushing

in the transverse crack section: V n ¼ V ct þ V s ≤ V cc .
As presented in Eqs. (5) and (6), the shear capacity V cc is de-
fined as a function of αε0 (i.e., the compressive strain of the cross
section). Thus, as shown in Fig. 5, the maximum shear strength
V max of a concrete member can be determined at the intersection
of the maximum shear capacity curve V cc and the shear demand
curve V u (i.e., shear demand developed by the flexural moment).
The shear strength V n ð¼ V ct þ V s Þ is based on the assumption of
the inclined cracking not exceeding V cc .
The shear demand force (V u ¼ M u =a) at the loading point,
which is developed by the flexural action of the beam, is calculated
as follows:
V u ¼ σ̄c bcu jd=a ð8Þ

where σ̄c = average compressive stress in the compression zone

(Choi et al. 2007), jd = length of moment arm, and a = length
of shear span
Z c
u
σ̄c ¼ σu ðzÞdz=cu ð9Þ
0

R cu
zσ ðzÞdz ð1=3Þα − ð1=12Þα2
jd ¼ R0cu u þ d − cu ¼ d − cu ð10Þ
0 σu ðzÞdz α − ð1=3Þα2

Verification of the Proposed Method

For verification, the proposed method and the current design meth-
ods (EC 2 2004; ACI 318-11 2011; ACI 426 1973) were applied to
existing test results of shear-reinforced concrete beams (Lee and
Hwang 2010; Smith and Vantsiotis 1982; Mau and Hsu 1989;
Rodriguez et al. 1959; Clark 1951; Shin et al. 1994; Foster and
Gilbert 1998). From comparison, test specimens with high shear
reinforcement ratios comparable to the maximum shear reinforce-
ment ratio of ACI 318-11 (ACI 2011) were used. Although many
concrete shear tests have been performed for conventional ranges of
design parameters, the number of test specimens with such high
shear reinforcement is very limited. All test specimens used in this
study were reported to fail in shear; specimens that failed in flexure
were excluded. The ranges of the material properties and geom-
etries of the test specimens were 125 ≤ d ≤ 383 mm, 16.2 ≤ fc0 ≤
Fig. 4. Variations of shear capacity according to compressive strain in a
84.6 MPa, 1.44 ≤ ρ ≤ 6.92 (%), and 0.2 ≤ ρv ≤ 3.02 (%), as
cross section: (a) curvature (strain); (b) normal stress; (c) allowable
presented in Table 2.
shear stress controlled by compression; (d) allowable shear stress con-
Fig. 6 shows the proposed method to determine the shear
trolled by tension; (e) variation of shear capacity with maximum com-
strengths of the specimens. In Figs. 6(a–c), the shear strength based
pressive strain
on inclined cracking [Eqs. (1) and (7)] was less than the strength

© ASCE 04014184-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(7): 04014184

 Table 2. Dimensions and Properties of Existing Test Specimens, and Predictions of Maximum Shear Strength
V max by V max by
Effective V max by V max by V max by proposed proposed Predicted
a Width b depth d f c0 a f yt ρ ρv V test EC2-02 ACI 318 ACI 426 methodc methodd failure
Investigators Specimens (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (%) (kN) αb (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) modee
Smith and 24 409 102 305 19.6 437 1.94 0.77 147 0.8 169 115 122 129 110 IC
Vantsiotis 25 409 102 305 18.5 437 1.94 0.77 153 0.85 160 112 115 128 106 IC
(1982) 28 409 102 305 19.3 437 1.94 0.77 152 0.8 166 114 120 128 109 IC
Mau and 10 305 102 305 18.4 437 1.94 1.25 161 0.8 158 111 114 163 105 CC
Hsu (1989) 11 305 102 305 19.2 437 1.94 1.25 173 0.8 165 113 119 168 108 CC
12 305 102 305 20.8 437 1.94 1.25 179 0.8 177 118 129 177 115 CC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

13 305 102 305 19.9 437 1.94 1.25 168 0.8 170 115 123 172 111 CC
23 368 102 305 16.2 437 1.94 0.63 131 0.7 141 104 100 110 95 IC
24 368 102 305 20.4 437 1.94 0.77 159 0.75 174 117 126 135 113 IC
25 368 102 305 19.0 437 1.94 0.77 158 0.75 163 112 118 130 107 IC
26 368 102 305 19.2 437 1.94 0.77 155 0.75 165 113 119 131 108 IC
28 368 102 305 17.1 437 1.94 1.25 153 0.9 148 107 106 144 99 CC
42 457 102 305 19.6 437 1.94 0.77 147 0.9 168 114 121 126 110 IC
44 457 102 305 19.2 437 1.94 0.77 152 0.9 165 113 119 125 108 IC
45 457 102 305 18.5 437 1.94 0.77 152 0.9 159 111 115 123 105 IC
51 254 76.2 216 21.6 280 1.73 2.45 89 0.95 98 64 71 88 62 CC
Lee and F20-1 1,149 350 383 26.8 508 1.44 0.20 189 0.9 962 578 719 312 289 IC
Hwang F20-2 1,149 350 383 26.8 508 2.40 0.40 422 1 962 578 719 436 457 IC
(2010) F20-3 1,149 350 383 26.8 508 3.35 0.60 625 1.05 962 578 719 560 559 IC
F20-4 1,149 350 383 26.8 508 3.83 0.80 667 1.2 962 578 719 652 569 IC
F20-5 1,149 350 383 26.8 508 4.79 1.03 836 1.25 962 578 719 784 644 CC
F40-1 756 200 252 37.2 510 2.52 0.59 217 1.05 479 256 375 227 239 IC
F40-3 756 200 252 37.2 510 2.52 1.02 262 1.45 479 256 375 286 239 CC
F40-5 756 200 252 37.2 510 3.78 1.43 345 1.3 479 256 375 336 292 CC
F60-1 756 200 252 63 508 2.55 0.51 242 1.05 713 333 635 288 269 IC
F60-2 756 200 252 63 508 2.55 1.06 354 1.55 713 333 635 361 269 IC
F60-3 756 200 252 63 508 3.82 1.41 437 1.65 713 333 635 443 313 IC
F60-4 756 200 252 63 508 5.54 1.95 491 1.55 713 333 635 521 363 CC
F80-1 756 200 252 84.6 508 2.55 0.98 358 1.3 762 351 706 410 307 IC
F80-2 756 200 252 84.6 508 3.82 1.49 531 1.6 762 351 706 518 376 IC
F80-3 756 200 252 84.6 508 5.10 2.01 600 1.65 762 351 706 609 428 CC
F80-4 756 200 252 84.6 508 5.54 2.53 633 1.45 762 351 706 649 472 CC
F80-5 756 200 252 84.6 508 6.92 3.02 760 1.4 762 351 706 709 523 CC
Rodriguez 12 762 152 305 24.8 331 2.66 1.13 214 1.3 311 192 230 199 162 IC
et al. (1959) 13 780 152 305 28.8 318 2.66 0.90 190 1.1 354 207 267 187 163 IC
14 762 152 305 22.6 318 2.66 1.13 190 1.3 286 184 210 188 161 IC
15 750 152 305 22.8 318 2.66 0.90 174 1.1 288 184 211 170 163 IC
Clark (1951) D1-1 457 203 389 26.2 331 1.63 0.46 346 0.45 556 337 414 243 318 IC
D2-1 457 203 389 23.9 331 1.63 0.61 334 0.6 515 323 379 288 310 IC
D3-1 457 203 389 28.2 331 2.44 0.92 462 0.6 594 350 446 392 389 IC
D4-1 457 203 389 23.1 331 1.63 1.22 361 0.9 497 317 365 378 302 IC
Shin et al. 311 323 125 215 52 414 3.77 1.81 257 1.05 332 161 280 272 233 IC
(1994) 315 430 125 215 52 414 3.77 1.29 193 1.15 332 161 280 217 175 IC
323 323 125 215 73 414 3.77 1.81 280 0.8 406 187 376 292 246 IC
Foster and 419 675 125 624 57.3 590 2.42 1.36 950 0.7 1,034 492 894 798 628 IC
Gilbert 423 925 125 624 58.7 590 2.42 1.51 775 1.1 1,051 498 915 821 506 CC
(1998)
a
Compressive cylinder strength of concrete.
b
Strain ratio at shear failure predicted by the proposed method [Eqs. (1), (6)–(8)].
c
Strength predicted by the proposed method [Eqs. (1), (6)–(8)].
d
Strength predicted by the proposed method [Eq. (11)].
e
CC = concrete compressive crushing failure predicted by the proposed method when V u [Eq. (8)] first meets V cc [Eq. (6)], and IC = inclined cracking failure
predicted by the proposed method when V u [Eq. (8)] first meets V n [Eqs. (1) and (7)].

based on concrete crushing [Eq. (6)]. Thus, the specimens were
predicted to fail due to inclined cracking. It should be noted that
the inclined cracking failure mode should be evaluated at all loca-
tions along the beam length, particularly for beams without shear
reinforcement. However, from the comparison, the inclined crack-
ing failure mode was evaluated only at the loading point. The
details of the procedure were presented by Choi et al. (2007).
The inclined cracking failure mode occurred when the shear
reinforcement ratio was relatively low (0.6 ≤ ρv ≤ 0.77%). On
the other hand, in Figs. 6(d–f), the specimens were predicted to
fail due to concrete crushing of the compression zone as the shear
reinforcement ratio was relatively high (1.25 ≤ ρv ≤ 1.95). The
prediction results for the test specimens are presented in Table 2.
Fig. 7 compares the test results V test and the predictions V max
by current design codes (Table 1) and the proposed method
[Eqs. (1), (6)–(8)]. As shown in Fig. 7, as the shear reinforcement

© ASCE 04014184-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(7): 04014184

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Strength predictions of existing test specimens by the proposed method: (a) Mau and Hsu (1989) specimen 25; (b) Smith and Vantsiotis (1982)
specimen 24; (c) Lee and Hwang (2010) specimen F20-3; (d) Mau and Hsu (1989) specimen 10; (e) Lee and Hwang (2010) specimen F40-5; (f) Lee
and Hwang (2010) specimen F60-4

ratio ρv increased, the shear strengths of the specimens were limited
to the maximum shear strength predicted by current design codes
and the proposed method. In the case of the proposed method, as
the shear reinforcement ratio ρv increased, the V test =V max ratios con-
verged to 1.0, indicating the proposed method has accurately pre-
dicted the maximum shear strength of the test specimens. On the
other hand, EC 2 (2004) and ACI 318-11 (ACI 2011) overestimated
and underestimated the maximum shear strength, respectively, with
increasing shear reinforcement ratio ρv . Furthermore, it was found
that the current design codes showed relatively large deviation from
test results in the cases of high strength transverse reinforcement
(f yt > 500 MPa) (Fig. 7). The mean value of the ratios of the test
results (in cases of ρv > ρv max;ACI318 ) to the prediction by the pro-
posed method was 0.98, with a coefficient of variation (COV) of
7.8%. The mean values of the strength ratios by the EC 2, ACI
318-11, and ACI 426 were 0.82, 1.41, and 1.06, with COVs of
18.4, 16.8, and 24.7%, respectively. As mentioned, all test speci-
mens used in this study were reported to fail in shear.
Proposed Design Equation
In Eq. (6), the maximum shear strength V max ð¼ V cc Þ is defined as a
function of αε0 (i.e., flexural deformation of the member). Thus, to
define a specific design value of V max , αε0 should be given. In the
applications of the proposed method to the test specimens in Figs. 6
and 7, αε0 corresponding to the maximum shear strength was pre-
dicted as 0.0009 ∼ 0.0033 (α ¼ 0.45 ∼ 1.65). Carrasquillo et al.
(1981) and Slate et al. (1986) reported that when concrete beams
with heavy shear reinforcement failed in shear, the compressive

© ASCE 04014184-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(7): 04014184

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Comparisons of test results and predictions for maximum shear strength (data from Lee and Hwang 2010; Smith and Vantsiotis 1982; Mau and
Hsu 1989; Rodriguez et al. 1959; Clark 1951; Shin et al. 1994; Foster and Gilbert 1998): (a) proposed method; (b) Eurocode 2 (2004); (c) ACI
Committee 318 (ACI 2011); (d) ACI Task Committee 426 (1973)
strain αε0 of the concrete cross section ranged from 0.002 to
0.003 (α ¼ 1.0 ∼ 1.5).
Generally in experimental studies, heavy flexural reinforcement
is used to ensure shear failure before flexural yielding (see part A in
Fig. 8). In this case, the αε0 values at shear failure are significantly
less than the concrete crushing strain of 0.003. However, in the ac-
tual design of concrete members, the design requirements of both
flexure and shear should be satisfied. In the flexural design, post-
yield ductile behavior should be secured, and the design flexural
strength M n is calculated using the concrete crushing strain of
0.003. This means that shear failure must be prevented until αε0
reaches 0.003. Thus, to satisfy the strength and deformation re-
quirements of flexural design, the design value αε0 for V max should
be determined as 0.003. In this case, the maximum shear capacity
V max ¼ V cc is determined after flexural yielding (see part B in
Fig. 8). By inserting α ¼ 1.5 (αε0 ¼ 0.003) into Eq. (6b), the pro-
posed design value of permissible maximum shear strength is
defined as follows:
Fig. 8. Proposed design equation for the maximum shear strength
© ASCE 04014184-7
J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(7): 04014184
1
V max ¼ f c0 cu b ≤ V f ð11Þ
3
where V f = shear corresponding to the flexural strength of the
member (ACI 318-11 2011), and cu = depth of the concrete com-
pression zone determined by using the force-equilibrium and the
compressive strain αε0 ¼ 0.003 (see the Appendix). For simplicity,
cu can be calculated using the equivalent rectangular stress block of
ACI 318-11 (ACI 2011)
ðρf s − ρ 0 fs0 Þd
cu ¼ ð12Þ
0.85fc0 β 1
where fs ð≤ f y Þ = stress of the tension reinforcement, fs0 ð≤ fy Þ =
stress of the compression reinforcement, and β 1 = ratio of the
equivalent rectangular compressive stress block depth to the neutral
axis depth.
To compare the proposed design method and existing design
codes, a parametric study was performed for concrete beams, using
typical design parameter values: b ¼ 300 mm, h ¼ 600 mm,
d ¼ 550 mm, f c0 ¼ 30 MPa, f yt ¼ 400 MPa, ρ ¼ 0.025 (ρ 0 ¼
0.00625) or ρ ¼ 0.06 (ρ 0 ¼ 0.015). And in order to investigate
the influence of concrete compressive strength, f c0 was varied from
20 to 80 MPa.
Fig. 9 shows the variations of the maximum shear strength
according to the concrete compressive strength. In the figure, the
maximum shear strengths defined by the proposed method and cur-
rent design codes show an increasing trend with the concrete com-
pressive strength. However, the current design equations show a
significant difference in the maximum shear strength. The CSA
(2004) design method represents the upper limit, and the ACI
318-11 (ACI 2011) design method represents the lower limit.
On the other hand, the proposed method can describe the tendency
of maximum shear strength increasing with the tension reinforce-
ment ratio (it is well known that shear strength of beams increases
with the tension reinforcement ratio, similar to the maximum
shear strength). In the proposed method [Eq. (11)], the depth of
J. Struct. Eng.
 Fig. 10. Depth of compression zone
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Thus, it is suggested to use the proposed model within the lim-

ited ranges of design parameters.

Fig. 9. Comparisons of the proposed design equation and existing de-

sign codes Appendix. Depth of Compression Zone

In the proposed method [Eqs. (6)–(8)], the depth of the compres-

sion zone is an important factor to evaluate the maximum shear
the compression zone and the maximum shear strength vary strength of beams. The depth of the compression zone varies ac-
according to the tension reinforcement ratio as well as concrete com- cording to the curvature of the cross section (Fig. 4). In the present
pressive strength. For the lower tension reinforcement ratio study, the distribution of the compressive normal stress in the com-
(ρ ¼ 0.025), the proposed maximum shear strength is almost uni- pression zone was defined as a parabolic curve [Eq. (4)]. In a cross
form, regardless of the concrete strength, and is close to that of section with tension and compression rebars, the force-equilibrium
ACI 318-11 (ACI 2011). For the higher tension reinforcement ratio is expressed as follows (Fig. 10):
(ρ ¼ 0.06), the proposed maximum shear strength significantly in- Z c
creases with the concrete strength, and approaches those of EC2 ρ 0 bdf s0 þ
u
σu ðzÞbdz ¼ ρbdf s ð13Þ
(2004) or ACI 426 (ACI 1973). However, it should be noted that ρ ¼ 0
0.06 is not in the practical range of ductile flexural design. Thus, to
secure ductile flexural yielding, the maximum shear strength should cu − d 0
be determined using the maximum flexural reinforcement ratio f s0 ¼ αε0 Es ≤ fy ð14Þ
cu
specified by the current design codes. The result was close to that
of ACI 318-11 (ACI 2011). In comparison, inclined crack angle θ ¼ where
38.5° and shear resistance factor β ¼ 0.18 were used for EC 2
d − cu
(2004) and CSA (2004), following Lee and Hwang (2010). fs ¼ αε0 Es ≤ fy ð15Þ
cu

Conclusions
The permissible maximum shear strength of slender beams with
shear reinforcement was defined on the basis of the material failure
mechanism of the concrete compression zone. The concrete
strength was defined by the Rankine failure criteria to consider the
interaction between compressive and shear stresses acting on the
concrete compression zone. For verification, the proposed method
was applied to existing test specimens. The significances and lim-
itations of this study can be summarized as follows:
1. In this study, a theoretical background for the maximum shear
strength of concrete beams was provided, and a design equa-
tion was developed to evaluate the maximum shear strength.
The design equation was defined such that the shear failure
is prevented to secure flexural strength and ductile flexural
deformation;
2. The proposed model predicted the maximum shear strength of
existing test specimens, with reasonable precision;
3. Unlike other design methods, the proposed model addressed
the effects of the tension reinforcement ratio as well as con-
crete compressive strength. It was found that the proposed
method can describe the tendency of maximum shear strength
increasing with the tension reinforcement ratio, and is applic-
able to the cases of high strength transverse reinforcement; and
4. The proposed model was verified by existing test results in
the following ranges of design parameters: 16.2 ≤ f c0 ≤
84.6 MPa, 279.7 ≤ f yt ≤ 590.0 MPa, and 0.20 ≤ ρv ≤ 3.02ð%Þ.
In Eq. (13), for a given value of αε0 , the depth of the compres-
sion zone cu can be calculated.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant (13AUDP-B066083-01)
from Architecture & Urban Development Research Program
funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Korean
government.
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318. (2011). “Building code
requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-11) and commentary.”
ACI 318 R-11, Detroit.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Task Committee 426. (1973). “The
shear strength of reinforced concrete members.” J. Struct. Div.,
99(6), 1091–1187.
Bentz, E. C., and Collins, M. P. (2006). “Development of the 2004
Canadian standards association (CSA) A23.3 shear provisions for
reinforced concrete.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 33(5), 521–534.
Carpenter, J. E., and Hanson, N. W. (1969). “Tests for reinforced concrete
beams with large openings in thin webs.” Proc. Am. Concr. Inst., 65(9),
756–766.
Carrasquillo, R. L., Nilson, A. H., and Slate, F. O. (1981). “Properties of
high-strength concrete subject to short term loads.” ACI Struct. J., 78(3),
171–178.

© ASCE 04014184-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(7): 04014184

 Chen, W. F. (1982). Plasticity in reinforced concrete, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 204–205.
Choi, K.-K., Park, H.-G., and Wight, J. K. (2007). “Unified shear strength
model for reinforced concrete beams—Part I: Development.” ACI
Struct. J., 104(2), 142–152.
Choi, Y. W., Lee, H. K., Chu, S. B., Cheong, S. H., and Jung, W. Y. (2012).
“Shear behavior and performance of deep beams made with self-
compacting concrete.” Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater., 6(2), 65–78.
Clark, A. P. (1951). “Diagonal tension in reinforced concrete beams.” ACI
J. Proc., 48(10), 145–156.
Collins, M. P., and Michell, D. (1991). Prestressed concrete structures,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
CSA A23.3-M04 Technical Committee. (2004). “Design of concrete
structures.” Canadian Standards Associations, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Eurocode 2. (2004). “Design of concrete structures Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings.” CEN, EN 1992-1-1, Brussels, Belgium.
Foster, S. J., and Gilbert, R. I. (1998). “Experimental studies on
high-strength concrete deep beams.” ACI Struct. J., 95(4), 382–390.
Heo, Y. A., and Kunnath, S. K. (2013). “Damage-based seismic perfor-
mance evaluation of reinforced concrete frames.” Int. J. Concr. Struct.
Mater., 7(3), 175–182.
Hsu, T. T. C. (1993). Unified theory of reinforced concrete, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Hwang, H.-B., Moon, C.-H., and Lee, J.-Y. (2009). “Evaluations of the
maximum shear reinforcement of reinforced concrete beams.” J. Korea
Concr. Inst., 21(6), 719–727.
Kim, K.-S., Lee, D.-H., and Ju, H.-J. (2011). “Minimum and maximum
shear reinforcement ratio of reinforced concrete members.” J. Architect.
Inst. Korea, 27(2), 63–72.
Lee, J.-Y., and Hwang, H.-B. (2010). “Maximum shear reinforcement of
reinforced concrete beams.” ACI Struct. J., 107(5), 580–588.
© ASCE 04014184-9
J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(7): 04014184
MacGregor, J. G., Sozen, M. A., and Siess, C. P. (1960). “Strength and
behavior of prestressed concrete beams with web reinforcement.” Struc-
tural Research Series 210, Univ. of Illinois Civil Engineering Studies,
Urbana, IL.
MacGregor, J. G., and Wight, J. K. (2005). Reinforced concrete-mechanics
and design, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Mau, S. T., and Hsu, C. T. (1989). “Formula for shear strength of deep
beams.” ACI Struct. J., 86(5), 516–523.
Pang, X. B. D., and Hsu, T. T. C. (1995). “Behavior of reinforced concrete
membrane elements in shear.” ACI Struct. J., 92(6), 665–679.
Rahal, K. N. (2000). “Shear strength of reinforced concrete: Part1-
membrane elements subjected to pure shear.” ACI Struct. J., 97(1),
86–94.
Rodriguez, J. J., Bianchini, A. C., Viest, I. M., and Kesler, C. E. (1959).
“Shear strength of two-span continuous reinforced concrete beams.”
ACI J. Proc., 55(4), 1089–1130.
Schlaich, J., Schafer, K., and Jennewein, M. (1987). “Toward a consistent
design of structural concrete.” PCI J., 32(3), 75–149.
Shin, S. W., Oh, J., and Ghosh, S. K. (1994). “Shear behavior of laboratory-
sized high-strength concrete beams reinforced with bars and steel fibers,
fiber reinforced concrete: Developments and innovations.” SP-142, J. I.
Daniel and S. P. Shah, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 181–200.
Slate, F. O., Nilson, A. H., and Martinez, S. (1986). “Mechanical properties
of high-strength lightweight concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 83(4), 606–613.
Smith, K. M., and Vantsiotis, A. S. (1982). “Shear strength of deep beams.”
ACI Struct. J., 79(3), 201–213.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1986). “Modified compression field
theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear.” ACI Struct.
J., 83(2), 219–231.
J. Struct. Eng.