Shear Strength Analysis and Prediction for Reinforced

Concrete Beams without Stirrups

Gaetano Russo, M.ASCE1; Giuliana Somma2; and Denis Mitri3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 03/11/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The analysis of shear strength of longitudinally reinforced concrete beams, in which a constant shear force acts throughout the
shear span, is performed. The shear mechanism is found to be governed by a second order differential equation linking the internal lever
arm with the distance from the support. The solution of the shear governing equation is provided, and then the corresponding shear
expression is parametrically defined by means of a mechanical analysis. The empirical parameters are determined from more than 900 test
data and results found in the literature. The proposed shear strength formula predicts the experimental behavior in a more accurate and
uniform way than most known expressions. It is also proposed a design formula, which is more consistent and reliable than the Eurocode
one and even than the laborious procedures suggested by ACI Code and AASHTO Standards, since it exhibits a minor number of unsafe
predictions.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:1(66)
CE Database subject headings: Beams; High strength concrete; Flexure; Reinforcement; Shear strength.

Introduction
Several theoretical and experimental studies (Bresler and Scord-
elis 1963; Zsutty 1968; Angelakos et al. 2001) have been carried
out to analyze the phenomenon of the shear failure of reinforced
concrete (RC) beams. This failure is due to the combined action
of shear and flexure, and may happen in a brittle way and without
warning signs. Due to shear, beam flexural strength may be
greatly reduced compared with the case of pure flexure.
Failure under flexure and shear interaction may happen in very
different modes, and the parameters affecting the failure type and
the beam capacity are several, including the web reinforcement
(Rajagopalan and Ferguson 1968; Yoon et al. 1996; Russo and
Puleri 1997). For this reason a lot of researchers (Bazant and Kim
1984; Mphonde and Frantz 1984; Russo et al. 1991; Hallgren
1994; Kim and Park 1994) have concentrated their attention on
the behavior of only longitudinally reinforced beams, also be-
cause their strength constitutes the so-called “concrete contribu-
tion” of beams with web reinforcement. Despite numerous studies
carried out on this subject over the last 50 years by researchers
from every part of the world, shear failure of longitudinally rein-
forced concrete beams still remains unresolved, and so of great
interest, as it is demonstrated by the great number of recent stud-
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Udine, Via delle
Scienze, 208, 33100 Udine, Italy.
2
PhD Eng., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Udine, Via delle
Scienze, 208, 33100 Udine, Italy.
3
PhD Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Udine, Via delle
Scienze, 208, 33100 Udine, Italy.
Note. Associate Editor: Dat Duthinh. Discussion open until June 1,
2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on August 13, 2002; approved on
March 18, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 131, No. 1, January 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2005/1-66–74/$25.00.
ies in this field (Kim and White 1999b; Pendyala and Mendis
2000; Kwak et al. 2002).
By means of an analytical approach and a mechanical study of
shear strength and previous experimental results, in this paper a
semirational and accurate equation is provided for predicting
shear strength of RC beams without web reinforcement, as far as
a design formula.
Analytical Model for Shear Strength
The typical loading arrangement of test beams is shown in Fig.
1(a). Throughout the shear span a, a constant shear force V acts,
and the bending moment M共x兲, for a constant depth beam, is
given by M共x兲 = T共x兲j共x兲d, where x⫽horizontal coordinate start-
ing from the support; T共x兲⫽tensile force on the longitudinal rein-
forcement; d⫽effective beam depth; and j共x兲⫽internal lever arm
to effective depth ratio, defining the location of the compression
resultant C [Fig. 1(d)]. By deriving the bending moment, the
shear force V is obtained
dT dj
V= j共x兲d + T共x兲 d 共1兲
dx dx
By assuming the bond force to be constant in the shear span, it
follows a linear variation of T共x兲 in the reinforcement
T共x兲 = tx + T1 共2兲
where t = dt / dx and T1 are constant with respect to x.
By means of Eq. (2), Eq. (1) may be written as
dj
V = tj共x兲d + 共tx + T1兲 d 共3兲
dx
Since the external shear force V does not depend on x into the
shear span, the internal shear force provided by Eq. (3) must
satisfy the following shear governing equation:

66 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(1): 66-74

 Nevertheless, it can be observed that bond strength increases
with cover-to-bar diameter ratio (Gambarova and Rosati 1997). It
follows that bond strength inversely depends on bar diameter, and
hence is proportional to ␳−p, with p⫽constant exponent. Conse-
quently
t = c4␳1/2−p f ⬘c q 共7兲

Tensile Force at the Support, T1

The constant T1, appearing in Eq. (2), evidently represents the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 03/11/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

value of the tensile force in the longitudinal reinforcement at the

support. This horizontal force is different from zero because it
must satisfy equilibrium at the node support, with the inclined
force in the compressive concrete and the vertical support reac-
tion. It may be expressed as
Fig. 1. Simply supported beam with no web reinforcement:
(a) loading scheme; (b) shear force diagram; (c) moment diagram; T1 = ␴s0␳bd 共8兲
and (d) actions in the shear span
where ␴s0⫽steel stress at the support; and b⫽beam width.
Bazant and Kim (1984) assume the steel stress ␴s0 is constant,
for the arch-action shear, for all beams and values of steel rein-
d2 j dj forcement. By contrast in this paper ␴s0 is assumed to be depen-
共tx + T1兲 + 2t = 0 共4兲
dx2 dx dent on ␳, on shear span-to-effective depth ratio a / d, and on
yielding strength of the longitudinal reinforcement f yl. It follows
whose general solution is j共x兲 = c1 / 关t共t x + T1兲兴 + c2. The constants
c1 and c2 are determined by imposing the conditions j共0兲 = 0 and ␴s0 = f共␳兲g共a/d兲f yl 共9兲
j共a兲 = j0, where j 0⫽internal lever arm-to-effective depth ratio
under flexure only. Therefore the particular solution of Eq. (4) where f共␳兲 and g共a / d兲⫽positive functions to be determined; and
results a linear dependence on f yl is assumed so that f共␳兲g共a / d兲 directly
yields the ␴s0 to f yl ratio.

j共x兲 =
j0
ta
冉
共ta + T1兲 1 −
T1
tx + T1
冊 共5兲
For f共␳兲 an inverse relationship is chosen because ␴s0 is ex-
pected to decrease by increasing the reinforcement area and con-
sequently ␳. Hence
According to the classical bending theory of RC beams with
f共␳兲 = c5␳−z 共10兲
only flexural tensile reinforcement and with a negligible tensile
capacity of concrete, j0 = 1 − 共冑共n␳兲2 + 2n␳ − n␳兲 / 3, where n where c5⫽positive constant; and z⫽constant exponent. It is well
= Es / Ec, with Es and Ec⫽elastic moduli of steel and concrete; and known that a beam can exhibit flexural overstrength due to steel
␳⫽geometric percentage of longitudinal reinforcement. For j 0 Ba- strain hardening when the tensile reinforcement is low (Russo
zant and Kim (1984) proposed the simpler expression j0 = k0␳−m, 1990; Paulay and Priestley 1992). In this case, the increase in
in which k0 and m⫽certain constants. steel stress beyond yielding strength, in the middle span, obvi-
By utilizing for j共x兲 the expression provided by Eq. (5), Eq. ously provides an increase of the tensile stress ␴s0 at the support.
(3) gives By taking into account an actual to specified yield strength ratio
equal to 1.15, and a potential strength increase resulting from
j 0d strain hardening equal to 1.25 (Paulay and Priestley 1992), the
V = 共ta + T1兲 共6兲 maximum value for ␴s0 is taken as 1.4 f yl.
a
The attainment of this value is assumed to occur for the ␳
which evidently does not depend on x, because j共x兲 [Eq. (5)] value just equal to the minimum provided by ACI Code (2002),
satisfies the governing equation (4). ␳min = 1.4/ f yl, with f yl expressed in MPa. Hence Eqs. (9) and (10)
For the sake of comparison with other previous formulas, it give
can be observed that the first addendum of Eq. (6) represents the
beam action, while the second one the arch action. 1
c5 = 1.4z+1 f −z
yl 共11兲
g共a/d兲
Rate of Change of Tensile Force, t Finally Eq. (10), by means of Eq. (11) and for g共a / d兲 = 1, yields
The rate of change of tensile force t may be expressed in terms of f共␳兲 = 1.4z+1␳−z f −z 共12兲
yl
the bond stress ␶b transmitted by concrete to the steel bars (Bazant
and Kim 1984), as t = c3共␲ 兺 Db␶b兲, in which c3⫽constant; and To find the g共a / d兲 function, T1 and V versus a / d variation
兺Db⫽sum of the diameters of all bars in the transverse section. must be evaluated, because of Eqs. (9), (8), and (6). Therefore
The beam section being constant, 兺Db is proportional to 冑␳. from Eq. (6) it is obtained
Moreover, bond stress in the ultimate condition is proportional to
f c⬘q, where f ⬘c ⫽cylindrical concrete compressive strength and q is
a constant exponent. By taking into account these considerations
⳵V
=
⳵ T1
j0
⳵ 共a/d兲 ⳵ 共a/d兲 d
a
冉冊 −1
− T1 j 0 冉冊
a
d
−2
共13兲

Bazant and Kim (1984) expressed t as t = c4␳1/2 f ⬘c q, in which since t does not depend on a / d. As the shear decreases with a / d
c4⫽constant. (Kani 1967), ⳵V / ⳵共a / d兲 ⬍ 0, and hence Eq. (13) provides

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 67

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(1): 66-74

 冋
vuc = k0k1 ␳1/2−p−m f ⬘c q + k2␳1−m−z f 1−z
yl 冉冊 册
a
d
−s−1
共21兲

The foregoing analysis has not yet taken into account the size
effect, which is appropriate for brittle fracture due to concrete
cracking. In fact fracture mechanics indicates that the nominal
stress at failure decreases as the structure size increases, for a
given maximum aggregate size da (Bazant and Kim 1984). This
size effect may be described by the simple size-effect function
(Bazant and Sun 1987)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 03/11/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 + 冑5.08/da
␰= 共22兲
冑1 + d/共25da兲
Fig. 2. Plots of g共a / d兲 function versus a / d, for c6 = 1
According to Bazant and Kim (1984), Eq. (21) has to be mul-
tiplied for ␰.
⳵ T1 a
⳵ 共a/d兲 d
− T1 ⬍ 0

Eq. (14), by means of Eqs. (8) and (9), yields

共14兲
冋
vuc = k0k1␰ ␳1/2−p−m f ⬘c q + k2␳1−m−z f 1−z
yl 冉冊 册
a
d
−s−1
共23兲

冉冊
The parameters k1, k2, p, q, z, s0, and s1 should be determined
dg a on the basis of experimental shear strength results. By contrast k0
−g⬍0 共15兲
d共a/d兲 d and m are not affected by shear strength results, but only depend
on the equilibrium in flexure, without shear. They must be chosen
which is always verified for dg / d共a / d兲 ⬍ 0. Consequently, g共a / d兲
so that the j 0 values given by the classical bending theory and
must be a decreasing function, as the following hyperbola
Bazant and Kim are almost indistinguishable. It follows that k0

g共a/d兲 = c6 冉冊
a
d
−s
共16兲
and m will be determined on the basis of n and ␳ values of the
considered tested beams.

with c6⫽positive constant. For s it is chosen

a
s = s0 + s1
d With the purpose of identifying in the best way the unknown
with s0 and s1⫽positive constants, to allow for the T1 versus a / d
relation a variability greater than in the case of s constant. By
utilizing Eq. (16) for g, and Eq. (17) for s, dg / d共a / d兲 ⬍ 0 is
verified when
s0 ⬎ 0.135 s1
The relation g共a / d兲 versus a / d is shown in Fig. 2 for c6 = 1,
s0 = 1.5, and s1 equal to 1, 0.5, or 0, the last value leading to a
constant exponent. It has to be stressed that, for s0 and s1 values
satisfying Eq. (18), the assumed function g共a / d兲 [Eq. (16) with
Eq. (17)] verifies the differential inequality (14), and hence cor-
rectly describes the dependence of the tensile force at the support
on a / d.
Finally, Eqs. (8), (9), (12), and (16) provide
Considered Beam Test Specimen
共17兲
parameters, 917 beams, all with only longitudinal reinforcement,
have been taken into consideration. This collection is the most
numerous ever collected for shear, in the literature.
The test data specimens, here considered, have been collected
from 67 papers (Clark 1951; Moody et al. 1954; Morrow and
共18兲 Viest 1957; Watstein and Mathey 1958; Diaz de Cossio and Siess
1960; Taylor 1960; Taub and Neville 1960; Van Den Berg 1962;
Bresler and Scordelis 1963; Mathey and Watstein 1963; Acharya
and Kemp 1965; Kani 1966; Krefeld and Thurston 1966; Kani
1967; Rajagopalan and Ferguson 1968; Mattock 1969; Swamy et
al. 1970; Placas and Regan 1971; Suter and Manuel 1971; Taylor
1972; Mphonde and Frantz 1984; Elzanaty et al. 1986; Ahmad
and Lue 1987; Chana 1987; Lim et al. 1987; Narayanan and Dar-
wish 1987; Johnson and Ramirez 1989; Lambotte and Taerwe
1990; Thorenfeldt and Drangsholdt 1990; Bazant and Kazemi

冉冊 −s 1991; Hallgren 1994; Kim and Park 1994; Xie et al. 1994; Ahmad
a
T1 = c61.4z+1␳1−z f 1−z
yl bd 共19兲 et al. 1995; Desai 1995; Adebar and Collins 1996; Yoon et al.
d 1996; Tan et al. 1997; Foster and Gilbert 1998; Islam et al. 1998;
Kulkarni and Shah 1998; Muller and Reid 1998; Collins and
Kuchma 1999; Jelic et al. 1999; Kim et al. 1999; Kim and White
1999a,b; Russo et al. 1999; Shin et al. 1999; Tan and Lu 1999;
Parametric Shear Strength Expression
Gale and Ibell 2000; Pendyala and Mendis 2000; Teng et al.
Eqs. (6), (7), and (19) provide 2000; Angelakos et al. 2001; Oh and Shin 2001; Somma and
Russo 2001; Cladera and Marì 2002; Fujita et al. 2002; Hayashi

冋
V = k0k1bd ␳1/2−p−m f ⬘c q + k2␳1−m−z f 1−z
yl 冉冊 册a
d
−s−1
共20兲
et al. 2002; Kwak et al. 2002; Matsuo et al. 2002; Pellegrino et al.
2002; Rahal and El-Hawary 2002; Takaki et al. 2002; Tompos
and Frosch 2002; Tureyen and Frosch 2002; Cho 2003).
where k1 and k2⫽positive constants. By calculating the nominal Among the considered beams, 250 are made with high
shear stress at failure as vuc = V / 共bd兲, from Eq. (20) it is obtained strength concrete (HSC), with f ⬘c from 50 up to 143.7 MPa.

68 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(1): 66-74

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 03/11/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Comparison between two j0共␳兲 approximating functions and Fig. 4. Plots of: (a) j共x兲d; (b) T共x兲; and (c) M共x兲, relevant to three
917 j0 flexural values (each computed for its own n) Kani (1966) beams (3.8-1.88-12P)

Mean Internal Lever Arm to Effective Depth Ratio Internal Bending Moment Based on Shear Strength
under Flexure Only, j0
As a consequence of the ␰ function introduction in Eq. (23), Eqs.
To obtain reliable values for the parameters k0 and m that appear (7) and (19), respectively, result in
in Bazant and Kim’s expression, j0 = k0␳−m, the following approxi-
t = 1.67␰␳0.46 f ⬘c 0.39b 共26兲
mate procedure is utilized: (1) calculate the mean value nmean of

冉冊
the 917 n values relevant to all the beams under consideration,
each obtained with Es = 200,000 MPa, and Ec = 4,700冑 f c⬘ (ACI
−0.2–0.45 a/d
a
T1 = 0.83␰␳0.89 f 0.89
yl bd 共27兲
Code 2002); and (2) find k0 and m so that the j 0 values given by d
the classical bending theory, computed for nmean, and by j0 The j共x兲d and T共x兲 functions, respectively, provided by Eqs.
= k0␳−m, are almost indistinguishable. (5), (24), (26), and (27), and by Eqs. (2), (26), and (27), are
It is obtained nmean = 7.3, and the interpolating function results plotted along the shear span in Figs. 4(a and b), for three Kani
j0 = 0.68␳−0.06 共24兲 (1966) beams, which differ only for a / d value. By means of Eqs.
(2) and (5), the bending moment results
The functions provided by Eq. (24) and that relevant to the
flexural theory with n = 7.3 are plotted in Fig. 3. The 9.17 j0 val- j 0d
M共x兲 = 共ta + T1兲x 共28兲
ues relevant to the flexural theory, each corresponding to its own a
n value, are shown in Fig. 3 with points. The average value
with j0 provided by Eq. (24). The moment provided by Eq. (28),
(AVG) of the ratios between these j0 values and the correspond-
by means of Eqs. (24), (26), and (27), is plotted in Fig. 4(c) for
ing ones provided by Eq. (24), is 1.00, while the coefficient of
the three Kani beams considered above. According to the linear
variation (COV), given by the ratio between the standard devia-
variation of the external moment, the internal moment [Eq. (28)]
tion (STD) and AVG, is 0.02.
is linear with x along the overall shear span, in spite of the very
nonlinear j共x兲 expression (5) [Fig. 4(a)]. This important result,
obtained for the first time, is a consequence of having imposed
Shear Strength Formula
the analytical condition of constancy of the internal shear force
[Eq. (4)].
On the basis of the analysis of the 917 beams considered, the
values of the parameters k1, k2, p, q, z, s0, and s1, appearing in Eq.
(23), have been iteratively changed, with the aim to attain the best
prediction uniformity of shear strength. This aim has been pur-
Model Reliability
sued by minimizing the coefficient of variation (COV) relevant to
To evaluate the proposed model, five well-known expressions for
the measured to calculated shear strength ratios. These ratios have
computing the ultimate beam shear strength have been selected
been calculated for each beam by means of Eq. (23) computed for
for comparison with respect to the overall number (917) of
the trial values k1i, k2i, pi, qi, zi, s0i, and s1i assumed in the ith
beams.
iteration. At the end of the iterations the minimum COV is 0.21,
1. Zsutty (1968)
which corresponds to the following parameter values: k1 = 1.67,
k2 = 0.5, p = 0.04, q = 0.39, z = 0.11, s0 = 0.2, and s1 = 0.45. It can be
observed that the last two parameters verify the analytically ob-
tained inequality (18).
冉 冊
vuc = 2.2 f ⬘c ␳
d
a
1/3
共29兲

Hence the shear strength formula for beams with no transverse Eq. (29) must be multiplied by 2.5共d / a兲, for a / d ⬍ 2.5.
reinforcement is 2. Bazant and Sun (1987)

冋 冉冊
vuc = 1.13␰ ␳0.4 f ⬘c 0.39 + 0.5␳0.83 f 0.89
yl
a
d
−1.2–0.45 a/d
册 共25兲 vuc = 0.54␰␳1/3 冋冑 f ⬘c + 249 冑 册 ␳
共a/d兲5
共30兲

where ␰ is expressed by Eq. (22). where ␰ is expressed by Eq. (22).

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 69

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(1): 66-74

 3. Kim and Park (1996)

冉
vuc = 3.5␭f c⬘␣/3␳3/8 0.4 +
d
a
冊 共31兲

where ␭ = 共1 + 0.008 d兲−1/2 + 0.18, ␣ = 1 for a / d 艌 3, or ␣ = 2

− a / 共3d兲 for a / d ⬍ 3.
4. Nielsen (1998)
a. First expression

vuc = 0.5f ⬘c
d
冋冑4⌽共1 − ⌽兲 + 冉冊 册a 2
−
a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 03/11/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

h h h

As f yl
for ⌽ = 艋 0.5 共32兲
bhf c⬘
where h⫽beam depth. For ⌽ ⬎ 0.5, 4⌽共1 − ⌽兲 is re-
placed by 1.
Nielsen has also introduced in Eq. (32) an effectiveness
factor, keff, which should better fit the experimental re-
sults, hence providing
b. Second expression

vuc = 0.5keff f ⬘c
d
h
冋冑 冉 冊 冉 冊 册
4
⌽
keff
1−
⌽
keff
+
a
h
2
−
a
h
for ⌽ 艋 0.5keff 共33兲
where Fig. 5. Measured to calculated shear strength ratios versus a / d, for
917 tested beams

keff =
0.76
冑 f ⬘c 冉 冑 冊冉
1+
1
h
d
0.15␳ + 0.58
h
冊 共34兲
the 631 beams on which Eq. (33) is applicable, Eq. (25) exhibits
with 5 ⬍ f ⬘c ⬍ 60 MPa, 0.08⬍ h ⬍ 0.7 m, and AVG= 1.01 and COV= 0.18, while Nielsen’s expression provides
␳d / h ⬍ 4.5% with ␳ in %. For ⌽ ⬎ 0.5 keff, 4⌽共1 AVG= 1.42 and COV= 0.30.
− ⌽ / keff兲 / keff is replaced by 1. The three conditions de-
fining Eq. (34) are respected only by 631 of the 917
considered beams. Proposed Design Formula for Shear Strength
5. Rebeiz (1999) and Its Reliability

vuc = 0.4 + 冑 d
f ⬘c ␳ 共10 – 3Ad兲
a
共35兲
where Ad = a / d for a / d ⬍ 2.5, and Ad = 2.5 for a / d 艌 2.5.
In Fig. 5 the ratio between the measured shear strength value
and the calculated one by means of each of the five above-
mentioned expressions [Eqs. (29)–(32) and (35)] and the pro-
posed formula [Eq. (25)] is plotted versus the shear span-to-
effective depth ratio a / d for the 917 beams. The horizontal bold
lines represent the perfect correspondence between experimental
and computed shear strength values. So, the closer to this line the
points are, the more accurate the shear strength prediction is. The
thinner the width of the strip including the points is, the greater
Eq. (25) cannot be used for design without a safety factor because
it corresponds to the average value of the measured to computed
shear strength ratio equal to 1. The AVG value may be modified
by multiplying by a factor the right member of Eq. (25), and this
modification does not change the COV value. Since the COV
value provided by Eq. (25) is the lowest one, this formula is
suitable for design for the shear strength.
A characteristic expression is chosen as the design formula.
The multiplying factor is obtained on statistical bases, and it is
chosen so that there is a 95-in-100 probability that the computed
design shear strength results on the favorable side. This factor, on
the basis of 917 beams, results 0.64. Therefore the proposed de-
sign formula for shear strength is

冋 冉冊 册
the prediction uniformity. The AVG and COV values are also
−1.2–0.45 a/d
reported in Fig. 5. AVG is the index of the mean accuracy of the a
considered formula, and the closer to one its value is, the more vuc,d = 0.72␰ ␳0.4 f c⬘0.39 + 0.5␳0.83 f 0.89
yl 共36兲
d
accurate the expression. COV is the index of the uniformity in the
prediction, with variation in beam geometrical and mechanical To check the proposed design formula reliability and safety in
characteristics or the loading position, and the lower it is, the the shear strength prediction, Eq. (36) has been compared with
better the prediction capability of the experimental results. From three Code shear strength computing models.
Fig. 5 it is apparent that the proposed formula for computing 1. Eurocode (CEN 1992)
shear strength of beams without stirrups is better than the other
vuc,d = ␶Rdk␤共1.2 + 40␳兲 共37兲
ones, in terms of accuracy and uniformity of prediction.
It must be observed that the proposed expression [Eq. (25)] is where k = 1.6− d 艌 1 (d in m), ␤ = 1 fora / d 艌 2.5 or ␤
also better than the second one provided by Nielsen [Eq. (33)]: of = 2.5d / a 艋 5 for a / d ⬍ 2.5, ␳ = min关As / 共bd兲 ; 0.02兴, and ␶Rd

70 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(1): 66-74

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 03/11/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Measured to design shear strength ratios versus a / d, for 779
tested beams.
= 0.25f ctk0.05 / ␥c, with ␥c = 1.5, f ctk0.05 = 0.7f ctm, and f ctm
= 0.3f ⬘c 2/3.
2. AASHTO Standards (1999)
These standards are based on the modified compression field
theory (Collins et al. 1996) for slender beams 共a / d ⬎ 2兲, and
the strut-and-tie model with special provisions for deep
beams 共a / d 艋 2兲.
3. ACI Code (2002)
vuc,d =
1
7
冋冑 f ⬘c + 120␳
V ud
Mu
册艋 0.3冑 f ⬘c
For beams with a / d 艋 2, the shear strength has been computed
with the strut-and-tie model described in Appendix A of this
Code.
The diagrams representing vuc,meas / vuc,d versus a / d, relative to
AASHTO and ACI Code shear strength computing models and
the proposed design formula [Eq. (36)] are shown in Fig. 6, to-
gether with AVG and COV values, and the number of unsafe
predictions. AASHTO, ACI Code, and Eq. (36) have been evalu-
ated only for 779 beams because the strut-and-tie model, recom-
mended by the two Standards, requires the bearing plate dimen-
sion, which is not always provided by the experimenters. From
Fig. 6, it is apparent that the proposed design formula is better
than the other ones, since it leads to more uniform prediction and
to the lowest number of unconservative predictions.
To highlight the consistency of MCFT and strut-and-tie mod-
els slender and deep beams have been considered separately. By
considering only the 711 slender beams with a / d ⬎ 2 AASHTO
(based on MCFT) gives AVG= 1.43 and COV= 0.27, while the
proposed design formula [Eq. (36)] provides AVG= 1.56 and
COV= 0.19. Instead, by considering only the 68 deep beams with
a / d 艋 2 and bearing plate dimension known, AASHTO (based on
strut-and-tie model) gives AVG= 1.96 and COV= 0.28, while Eq.
(36) provides AVG= 1.60 and COV= 0.29. These results evidence
that the proposed formula [Eq. (36)] is much more consistent than
AASHTO both considering the overall number of beams (31% of
COV reduction) and the slender ones (30% of COV reduction). It
must be stressed that AASHTO MCFT and strut-and-tie models
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(1): 66-74
Fig. 7. Measured to design shear strength ratios (with a = l / 4) versus
l / d, for 56 uniformly loaded tested beams.
do not provide direct equations for computing shear strength and
hence are difficult to use in practice, while Eq. (36) is an explicit
expression.
The comparison of 917 tested beams between the proposed
design formula [Eq. (36)] and Eurocode [Eq. (37)] has shown a
better consistency for Eq. (36), which exhibits AVG= 1.57,
COV= 0.21, and 26 unconservative predictions, while Eurocode
provides AVG= 1.75, COV= 0.41, and 80 unconservative predic-
tions.
Applicablity of the Proposed Model to Uniform
Loading
Kani (1966) showed that a uniformly distributed load compares
共38兲
best with a point loading arrangement of two point loads at the
quarter points. Consequently, the shear arm of a beam with uni-
formly distributed load has been defined by a = l / 4, with l the
beam length.
On the basis of Kani’s (1966) conclusion, the greatest number
of researchers have tested beams under point loads. As a proof of
this there has been found in literature 917 beams tested with point
loading and only 56 beams uniformly loaded. For these reasons
almost all the shear strength expressions proposed by various
writers and Codes are functions of a / d, and accordingly the
model proposed here is referred to as a loading arrangement with
pointing loads.
Moreover, among the shear strength models here taken into
account, only ACI Code and AASHTO are applicable to every
loading type, as the first depends on M u / 共Vud兲, and the second on
M u and Vu.
To verify Kani’s assumption and hence the applicability of the
proposed formula to the case of uniformly distributed load, test
results of 56 beams were collected from two papers (Diaz de
Cossio and Siess 1960; Krefeld and Thurston 1966).
The proposed design formula has been compared with the ACI
Code and AASHTO. By considering a / d = l / 共4d兲 the proposed
equation [Eq. (39)] gives AVG= 2.03 and COV= 0.14, while ACI
Code [Eq. (38)] provides AVG= 3.75 and COV= 0.44 (Fig. 7).
For M u and Vu referred to a distance d from face of support Eq.
(38) exhibits AVG= 3.63 and COV= 0.46, while AASHTO gives
AVG= 3.14 and COV= 0.48.
It results that the proposed formula is consistent and reliable
not only for point loading but also for uniformly distributed load
arrangement. It follows that the here proposed expression is ap-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 71
 plicable also to a beam with uniformly distributed load, simply Db ⫽ diameter of longitudinal bar;
putting a / d = l / 共4d兲. d ⫽ effective beam depth;
da ⫽ maximum aggregate size;
E c, E s ⫽ elastic moduli of concrete and steel;
Conclusions f ⬘c ⫽ cylindrical concrete compressive strength;
f yl ⫽ yielding strength of longitudinal reinforcement;
From the above provided analysis and considerations relevant to f共␳兲 ⫽ function given by Eq. (12);
RC beams with only longitudinal reinforcement, it can be con- g共a / d兲 ⫽ function given by Eq. (16);
cluded that: h ⫽ beam depth;
1. A shear strength analysis can be performed on the basis that j共x兲 ⫽ internal lever arm-to-effective depth ratio;
in the shear span: (1) the tensile force in the longitudinal j0 ⫽ internal lever arm-to-effective depth ratio,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 03/11/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

reinforcement is linearly increasing with the distance from under flexure only;
the support, and (2) the internal shear force must have the keff ⫽ effectiveness factor [Eq. (34)];
same value whatever the distance from the support. l ⫽ beam length;
2. The failure under flexure and shear is governed by a differ- M共x兲 ⫽ bending moment;
ential equation in the internal lever arm. m, p, q, z ⫽ constant exponents;
3. The internal lever arm expression obtained from the govern- n ⫽ ratio of elastic moduli of steel and concrete
ing equation is to be used for computing beam and arch 共Es / Ec兲;
action shear contributions, since it yields an internal shear s ⫽ exponent, function of a / d [Eq. (17)];
force constant along the shear span. T共x兲 ⫽ tensile force on the longitudinal reinforcement;
4. The shear expression analytically obtained may be trans- T1 ⫽ tensile force at the support;
formed in a parametric expression, by means of a mechanical t ⫽ rate of change of tensile force T共x兲;
analysis. The unknown coefficients and exponents appearing V ⫽ shear force;
in the corresponding shear strength expression have been de- vuc ⫽ concrete contribution to shear strength;
termined, in this paper, on the basis of the shear strength of x ⫽ horizontal coordinate starting from the
already tested 917 beams (the largest statistical sample con- support;
sidered in the literature until now). By contrast the param- ␰ ⫽ size-effect function [Eq. (22)];
eters relevant to the mean internal lever arm-to-effective ␳ ⫽ geometric percentage of longitudinal
depth ratio under flexure only, must be determined on the reinforcement [As / 共bd兲, with As area of steel in
basis of the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the tension];
beams considered. ␴s0 ⫽ steel stress at the support; and
5. A consistent expression of the internal bending moment ␶b ⫽ bond stress.
based on shear strength must be linear, consistent with the
Subscripts
linear variation of external moment, as the one obtained.
6. The proposed semirational shear strength expression is the calc ⫽ calculated;
most uniform in the prediction, with respect to the expres- d ⫽ design;
sions provided by various writers. Moreover, it has the value mean ⫽ mean;
to be continuous in the overall shear span-to-effective depth meas ⫽ measured; and
ratio range. min ⫽ minimum.
7. On the basis of the above derived shear strength formula, a
design (conservative) formula has been proposed, which is
more consistent than Eurocode, AASHTO, and ACI Code, References
and exhibits the fewest unconservative predictions.
8. On the basis of 56 uniformly loaded beams found in the
Acharya, D. N., and Kemp, K. O. (1965). “Significance of dowel forces
literature, the proposed expression may be applied to the case on the shear failure of rectangular reinforced concrete beams without
of uniformly loaded beams by considering the conventional web reinforcement.” ACI J., 62(10), 1265–1279.
shear span proposed by Kani, equal to a quarter of beam Adebar, P., and Collins, M. P. (1996). “Shear strength of members with-
length. out transverse reinforcement.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 23(1), 30–41.
Ahmad, S. H., and Lue, D. M. (1987). “Flexure-shear interaction of re-
inforced high-strength concrete beams.” ACI Struct. J., 84(4), 330–
Acknowledgment
341.
Ahmad, S. H., Park, F., and El-Dash, K. (1995). “Web reinforcement
Support of this research by the Ministero dell’Istruzione, effects on shear capacity of reinforced high-strength concrete beams.”
dell’Università e della Ricerca is gratefully acknowledged. Mag. Concrete Res., 47(172), 227–233.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Notation (AASHTO). (1999). AASHTO LRFD bridge specification, 2nd Ed.,
Washington, D.C.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2002). “Building code requirements
The following symbols are used in this paper:
for structural concrete (ACI 318-02) and commentary (ACI 318R-
a ⫽ shear span length; 02).” ACI 318-02, Farmington Hills, Mich.
b ⫽ beam width; Angelakos, D., Bentz, E. C., and Collins, M. P. (2001). “Effect of con-
C ⫽ compression resultant; crete strength and minimum stirrups on shear strength of large mem-
ci共i=1,2,3,4,5,6兲, ki共i=0,1,2兲, si共i=0,1兲 bers.” ACI Struct. J., 98(3), 290–300.
⫽ constants; Bazant, Z. P., and Kazemi, M. T. (1991). “Size effect on diagonal shear

72 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(1): 66-74

 failure of beams without stirrups.” ACI Struct. J., 88(3), 268–276.
Bazant, Z. P., and Kim, J. K. (1984). “Size effect in shear failure of
longitudinally reinforced beams.” ACI J., 81(5), 456–468.
Bazant, Z. P., and Sun, H. H. (1987). “Size effect in diagonal shear
failure: Influence of aggregate size and stirrups.” ACI Mater. J.,
84(4), 259–271.
Bresler, B., and Scordelis, A. C. (1963). “Shear strength of reinforced
concrete beams.” ACI J., 60(1), 51–74.
Chana, P. S. (1987). “Investigation of the mechanism of shear failure of
reinforced concrete beams.” Mag. Concrete Res., 39(141), 196–204.
Cho, S. H. (2003). “Shear strength prediction by modified plasticity
theory for short beams.” ACI Struct. J., 100(1), 105–112.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 03/11/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Cladera, A., and Marì, A. R. (2002). “Shear strength of reinforced high-
strength concrete beams.” Proc., 6th Int. Symposium on “Utilization
of High Strength/High Performance Concrete,” Leipzig, Germany,
Gert König and Frank Dehn (Leipzig University), Thorsten Faust,
König Heunisch und Partner (Consulting Engineers, Frankfurt), 205–
219.
Clark, A. P. (1951). “Diagonal tension in reinforced concrete beams.”
ACI J., 48(10), 145–156.
Collins, M. P., and Kuchma, D. (1999). “How safe are our large, lightly
reinforced concrete beams, slabs, and footings?” ACI Struct. J., 96(4),
482–490.
Collins, M. P., Mitchell, D., Adebar, P., and Vecchio, F. J. (1996). “A
general shear design method.” ACI Struct. J., 93(1), 36–45.
Comité Européen de Normalization (CEN). (1992). “Eurocode
2—Design of concrete structures—Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings.” ENV 1992-1-1.
Desai, S. B. (1995). “Horizontal web steel as shear reinforcement.” Mag.
Concrete Res., 47(171), 143–152.
Diaz de Cossio, R., and Siess, C. P. (1960). “Behavior and strength in
shear of beams and frames without web reinforcement.” ACI J.,
56(8), 695–735.
Elzanaty, A. H., Nilson, A. H., and Slate, F. O. (1986). “Shear capacity of
reinforced concrete beams using high-strength concrete.” ACI Struct.
J., 83(2), 290–296.
Foster, S. J., and Gilbert, R. I. (1998). “Experimental studies on high-
strength concrete deep beams.” ACI Struct. J., 95(4), 382–390.
Fujita, M., Sato, R., Matsumoto, K., and Takaki, Y. (2002). “Size effect
on shear capacity of RC beams using HSC without shear reinforce-
ment.” Proc., 6th Int. Symposium on “Utilization of High Strength/
High Performance Concrete,” Leipzig, Germany, Gert König and
Frank Dehn (Leipzig University), Thorsten Faust, König Heunisch
und Partner (Consulting Engineers, Frankfurt), 235–245.
Gale, L., and Ibell, T. J. (2000). “Effect of compression reinforcement on
the shear strength of reinforced concrete bridge beams.” Mag. Con-
crete Res., 52(4), 275–285.
Gambarova, P. G., and Rosati, G. P. (1997). “Bond and splitting in bar
pull-out: Behavioural laws and concrete cover role.” Mag. Concrete
Res., 49(179), 99–110.
Hallgren, M. (1994). “Flexural and shear capacity of reinforced high
strength concrete beams without stirrups.” Licentiate thesis, Depart-
ment of Structural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stock-
holm, Sweden, 49.
Hayashi, K., Oriji, K., Yamaguchi, T. and Ikeda, S. (2002). “The mecha-
nism of size effect on the shear strength of reinforced concrete mem-
bers.” Proc., 1st fib Congress on “Concrete Structures in the 21st
Century,” Osaka, Japan, 69–78.
Islam, M. S., Pam, H. J., and Kwan, A. K. H. (1998). “Shear capacity of
high-strength concrete beams with their point of inflection within the
shear span.” J. Struct. Build., 128, 91–99.
Jelic, I., Pavlovic, M. N., and Kotsovos, M. D. (1999). “A study of dowel
action in reinforced concrete beams.” Mag. Concrete Res., 51(2),
131–141.
Johnson, M. K., and Ramirez, J. A. (1989). “Minimum shear reinforce-
ment in beams with higher strength concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 86(4),
376–382.
Kani, G. N. J. (1966). “Basic facts concerning shear failure.” ACI J.,
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 73
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(1): 66-74
63(6), 675–692.
Kani, G. N. J. (1967). “How safe are our large reinforced concrete
beams?” ACI J., 64(3), 128–141.
Kim, D., Kim, W., and White, R. N. (1999). “Arch action in reinforced
concrete beams—A rational prediction of shear strength.” ACI Struct.
J., 96(4), 586–593.
Kim, J. K., and Park, Y. D. (1994). “Shear strength of reinforced high
strength concrete beams without web reinforcement.” Mag. Concrete
Res., 46(166), 7–16.
Kim, J. K., and Park, Y. D. (1996). “Prediction of shear strength of
reinforced concrete beams without web reinforcement.” ACI Mater. J.,
93(3), 213–222.
Kim, W., and White, R. N. (1999a). “Shear-critical cracking in slender
reinforced concrete beams.” ACI Struct. J., 96(5), 757–765.
Kim, W., and White, R. N. (1999b). “Hypothesis for localized horizontal
shearing failure mechanism of slender RC beams.” J. Struct. Eng.,
125(10), 1126–1135.
Krefeld, W. J., and Thurston, C. W. (1966). “Studies of the shear and
diagonal tension strength of simply supported reinforced concrete
beams.” ACI J., 63(4), 451–476.
Kulkarni, S. M., and Shah, S. P. (1998). “Response of reinforced concrete
beams at high strain.” ACI Struct. J., 95(6), 705–715.
Kwak, Y. K., Eberhard, M. O., Kim, W. S., and Jubum, K. (2002). “Shear
strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams without stirrups.”
ACI Struct. J., 99(4), 530–538.
Lambotte, H., and Taerwe, L. R. (1990). “Deflection and cracking of
high-strength concrete beams and slabs.” Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on
High-Strength Concrete, Berkely, Calif. [ACI SP-121(11.)]
Lim, T. Y., Paramasivam, P., and Lee, S. L. (1987). “Shear and moment
capacity of reinforced steel-fibre-concrete beams.” Mag. Concrete
Res., 39(140), 148–160.
Mathey, R. G., and Watstein, D. (1963). “Shear strength of beams without
web reinforcement containing deformed bars of different yield
strengths.” ACI J., 60(2), 183–208.
Matsuo, M., Lertsrisakulrat, T., Yanagawa, A., and Niwa, J. (2002). “Ef-
fect of shear reinforcement on mechanical behavior of RC deep
beams.” Proc., 1st fib Congress on “Concrete Structures in the 21st
Century,” Osaka, Japan, Japan Prestessed Concrete Engineering As-
sociation, Japan Concrete Institute, 199–206.
Mattock, A. H. (1969). “Diagonal tension cracking in concrete beams
with axial forces.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 95(9), 1887–1900.
Moody, K. G., Viest, I. M., Elstner, R. C., and Hognestad, E. (1954).
“Shear strength of reinforced concrete beams, Part 1—Tests of simple
beams.” ACI J., 51(4), 317–332.
Morrow, J., and Viest, I. M. (1957). “Shear strength of reinforced con-
crete frame members without web reinforcement.” ACI J., 53(9),
833–870.
Mphonde, A. G., and Frantz, G. C. (1984). “Shear tests of high- and
low-strength concrete beams without stirrups.” ACI J., 81(4), 350–
357.
Müller, G., and Reid, R. (1998). “Shear resistance of beams with shallow-
angle bent-up bars.” J. Struct. Build., 128, 385–393.
Narayanan, R., and Darwish, I. Y. S. (1987). “Use of steel fibers as shear
reinforcement.” ACI Struct. J., 84(3), 216–227.
Nielsen, M. P. (1998). Limit analysis and concrete plasticity, 2nd Ed.,
CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., 908.
Oh, J. K., and Shin, S. W. (2001). “Shear strength of reinforced high-
strength concrete deep beams.” ACI Struct. J., 98(2), 164–173.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. M. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings, Wiley, New York.
Pellegrino, C., Bernardini, A., and Modena, C. (2002). “Shear failure of
HSC beams with variable shear span-to-depth ratios.” Proc., 6th Int.
Symposium on “Utilization of High Strength/High Performance Con-
crete,” Leipzig, Germany, Gert König and Frank Dehn (Leipzig Uni-
versity), Thorsten Faust, König Heunisch und Partner (Consulting En-
gineers, Frankfurt), 473–484.
Pendyala, R. S., and Mendis, P. (2000). “Experimental study on shear
 strength of high-strength concrete beams.” ACI Struct. J., 97(4), 564–
571.
Placas, A., and Regan, P. E. (1971). “Shear failure of reinforced concrete
beams.” ACI J., 68(10), 763–773.
Rahal, K. N., and El-Hawary, M. M. (2002). “Experimental investigation
of shear strength of epoxy-modified longitudinally reinforced concrete
beams.” ACI Struct. J., 99(1), 90–97.
Rajagopalan, K. S., and Ferguson, P. M. (1968). “Exploratory shear tests
emphasizing percentage of longitudinal steel.” ACI J., 65(8), 634–
638.
Rebeiz, K. S. (1999). “Shear strength prediction for concrete members.”
J. Struct. Eng., 125(3), 301–308.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 03/11/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Russo, G. (1990). “Beam strength enhancement at design ductility factor
demands.” J. Struct. Eng., 116(12), 3402–3416.
Russo, G., Biolzi, L., and De Cillia, F. (1999). “Resistenza a flessione-
taglio di travi in c.a. ordinario e ad alta resistenza.” Industria Italiana
del Cemento, 744, 498–507.
Russo, G., and Puleri, G. (1997). “Stirrup effectiveness in reinforced
concrete beams under flexure and shear.” ACI Struct. J., 94(3), 451–
476.
Russo, G., Zingone, G., and Puleri, G. (1991). “Flexure-shear interaction
model for longitudinally reinforced beams.” ACI Struct. J., 88(1),
60–68.
Shin, S. W., Lee, K. S., Moon, J., and Ghosh, S. K. (1999). “Shear
strength of reinforced high-strength concrete beams with shear span-
to-depth ratios between 1.5 and 2.5.” ACI Struct. J., 96(4), 549–556.
Somma, G., and Russo, G. (2001). “Shear tests of high-performance con-
crete beams without stirrups.” Proc., 7th European Conf. on Advanced
Materials and Processes, Rimini, Italy.
Suter, G. T., and Manuel, R. F. (1971). “Diagonal crack control in short
beams.” ACI J., 68(6), 451–455.
Swamy, R. N., Andriopoulos, A., and Adepegba, D. (1970). “Arch action
and bond in concrete shear failures.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 96(6),
1069–1091.
Takaki, Y., Fujita, M., and Matsumoto, K. (2002). “Diagonal tension
failure of reinforced concrete beam without shear reinforcement.”
Proc., 1st fib Congress on “Concrete Structures in the 21st Century,”
Osaka, Japan, Japan Prestressed Concrete Engineering Association,
74 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(1): 66-74
Japan Concrete Institute, 217–224.
Tan, K. H., Kong, F. K., Teng, S., and Weng, L. W. (1997). “Effect of web
reinforcement on high-strength concrete deep beams.” ACI Struct. J.,
94(5), 572–582.
Tan, K. H., and Lu, H. Y. (1999). “Shear behavior of large reinforced
concrete deep beams and code comparisons.” ACI Struct. J., 96(5),
836–845.
Taub, J., and Neville, A. M. (1960). “Resistance to shear of reinforced
concrete beams. Part 1—Beams without web reinforcement.” ACI J.,
57(11), 193–220.
Taylor, H. P. J. (1972). “Shear strength of large beams.” J. Struct. Div.
ASCE, 98(11), 2473–2490.
Taylor, R. (1960). “Some shear tests on reinforced concrete beams with-
out web reinforcement.” Mag. Concrete Res., 12(36), 145–154.
Teng, S., Ma, W., and Wang, F. (2000). “Shear strength of concrete deep
beams under fatigue loading.” ACI Struct. J., 97(4), 572–580.
Thorenfeldt, E., and Drangsholdt, G. (1990). “Shear capacity of rein-
forced high-strength concrete beams.” Proc., 2nd Int. Symposium on
High-Strength Concrete, Berkeley, Calif. [ACI SP-121(11), 129–154].
Tompos, E. J., and Frosch, R. J. (2002). “Influence of beam size, longi-
tudinal reinforcement, and stirrup effectiveness on concrete shear
strength.” ACI Struct. J., 99(5), 559–567.
Tureyen, A. K., and Frosch, R. J. (2002). “Shear tests of FRP-reinforced
beams without stirrups.” ACI Struct. J., 99(4), 427–434.
Van Den Berg, F. J. (1962). “Shear strength of reinforced concrete beams
without web reinforcement, Part 2—Factors affecting load at diagonal
cracking.” ACI J., 59(11), 1587–1600.
Watstein, D., and Mathey, R. G. (1958). “Strains in beams having diag-
onal cracks.” ACI Struct. J., 55(6), 717–728.
Xie, Y., Ahmad, S. H., Yu, T., Hino, S., and Chung, W. (1994). “Shear
ductility of reinforced concrete beams of normal and high-strength
concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 91(2), 140–149.
Yoon, Y., Cook, W. D., and Mitchell, D. (1996). “Minimum shear rein-
forcement in normal, medium, and high-strength concrete beams.”
ACI Struct. J., 93(5), 576–584.
Zsutty, T. C. (1968). “Beam shear strength prediction by analysis of ex-
isting data.” ACI J., 65(11), 943–951.