Minutes approved by committee on March 27, 2006

ACI-ASCE Committee 445Shear and Torsion

Fall 2005 Meeting Minutes
2:00 p.m.6:00 p.m., Monday, November 7, 2005
Kansas City Convention CenterRoom 2202
1. Welcome of visitors and Introductions (Sanders)Agenda attached
Voting members present: Neal Anderson, Mark Aschheim, Robert Barnes, Oguzhan Bayrak, Zdenek
Baant, John Bonacci, Michael Collins, Robert Frosch, Neil Hawkins, Gary Klein, Dan Kuchma,
Adolfo Matamoros, Y.L. Mo, Marianna Polak, Julio Ramirez, Karl-Heinz Reineck, David
Sanders, Raj Valluvan
Voting members not present: Adebar, Darwin, Dilger, Duthinh, French, Gogate, Krauthammer, Ma,
MacGregor, Mitchell, Oesterle, Pantazopoulou, Stojadinovic, Wight
Informed Absence by Voting Members: DJ Belarbi, Marc Eberhard, Tom Hsu, Robert Loov
Associate members present: Evan Bentz, Hakim Bouadi, Tim Bradberry, Sergio Brea, Michael
Brown, Gary Greene, Neil Hammill, Paul Kourajian, Andres Lepage, Ghilherme Melo, Carlos
Ospina, Jose Pincheira, Halil Sezen, Koray Tureyen, Asif Wahidi, Alan Wiley, Paul Zia
Visitors: Esteban Anzola, Gerardo Aguilar, JoAnn Browning, Ken Elwood, Luis Farzier, Salem Faza,
Luis Garcia, Maurizio Guadagnini, Riyadh Hindi, Shyh-Jiann Huang, Dominic Kelly, Johnny
Kwok, Kelly Levy, Mark Moore, Gustavo Parra, Stephen Pessiki, Randall Poston, Malte von
Ramin, Dan Reider, Sami Rizkalla, Carin Roberts-Wollmann, Alaa Sherif, Ted Sherwood, Lesley
Sneed, Dustin Swart, John Tessem, Mike Tholem, Fernando Torrrealvo, John Wallace, David
Wan, Jeff West
2. General Announcements (Sanders)
The committee sponsored two technical sessions on punching shear, which occurred on Sunday,
November 6. The 445-C subcommittee organized the sessions and produced a companion special
publication (SP). Approximately 30 copies have sold so far. Chairman Sanders extended
congratulations to subcommittee.
Agenda attached
3. Approval of minutes of Spring 2005 ACI-ASCE 445 Meeting held in New York (Sanders)
Minutes approved as submitted.
4. Review of Agenda (Sanders)
See attached.
5. Unification of Slender Beam Shear Equations in 318-08 in ACI 318
Five proposals for unification of slender beam shear equations in ACI 318 were submitted during the
summer of 2005. The author(s) of each proposal presented a 15-minute description of the proposed
method. Ten minutes were allotted for questions and discussion after each presentation. Prior to the
first presentation, Sanders announced that the committee would assess life-safety concerns with ACI
318-05 by means of a straw poll after this portion of the meeting.
Baant presented the proposal of Baant and Yu. The proposal (and resulting discussion) can be
found at http://aci.infopop.net/3/OpenTopic?a=frm&s=281294747&f=123105603.

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2005

Page 1

Minutes approved by committee on March 27, 2006

Related Discussion
Bentz disagreed with the numerical modeling results presented by noting that compressive strains
measured in experiments do not agree with those of Baants model in the ligament. The
experimental strains never exceed strains at the elastic limit. Baant replied that the strains were
improperly measured in the experiments.
Kuchma asked if the size effect should be addressed in members without stirrups and members with
stirrups. Baant indicated that the size effect should be addressed in both cases, and more tests are
needed; finite-element analyses indicate that stirrups mitigate, but do not eliminate, the size effect.
Valluvan asked about w, and Baant clarified that this represented the longitudinal reinforcement.
Tureyen asked if the size effect term could be applied to any proposal. Baant replied that it could,
within the scatter of the results.
Bayrak asked if Baant and Yu were extrapolating the size effect. Baant replied negatively, citing
two test series (Baant & Kazemi, Toronto) as well as the 1996 Palau bridge collapse. Bayrak asked if
there are actual test data to verify the size effect (at actual depths); Baant responded affirmatively.
Collins presented the proposal of Bentz and Collins. The proposal (and resulting discussion) can be
found at http://aci.infopop.net/3/OpenTopic?a=frm&s=281294747&f=123105603.
Related Discussion
Baant commented on a shear test described by Collins. Collins maintained that instrumentation and
acoustic emissions monitoring indicated no microcracking in the region where it would be predicted
by Baants analysis.
Matamoros asked how to explain the fs term to students when we traditionally teach that the steel
needs to yield. Collins pointed out that there is a check of longitudinal steel yielding. In response to a
further question of how to treat prestressed members, Collins responded that fs corresponds to the
stress that would be present in nonprestressed reinforcement at the depth of the prestressed
reinforcement; it is actually strain (rather than stress) that is critical.
Bayrak asked if the comparison example came from a real structure. Collins replied negatively, but
added that there are many similar structures.
Bayrak asked if the Air Force warehouse failures were due to axial tension. Collins responded that
was the PCA opinion, but size effect could account for it. (The warehouse girders plot on the same
curve as the Japanese test results). Bayrak asked if the proposal adequately handles axial tension.
Kuchma commented that the range of possible values is flatter than the 45 degrees inherent in
ACI 318: how should we interpret relative to crack angles in experiments? Collins responded that
is not necessarily the angle of the crack and cited the case of axial tension. One should look at the
secondary, inclined cracks at loads close to failure. is the angle just after yield of the stirrups.
Valluvan noted that this method could result in a larger Vs from minimum stirrups than is obtained
using the current ACI 318.
Brown presented the proposal of Brown and Bayrak. The proposal (and resulting discussion) can be
found at http://aci.infopop.net/3/OpenTopic?a=frm&s=281294747&f=123105603.
Related Discussion
There was an unresolved disagreement with Collins on details of the Japanese tests (involving
longitudinal reinforcement, bar cutoffs, and whether the specimens were designable according to

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2005

Page 2

Minutes approved by committee on March 27, 2006

the 1.4D load combination of ACI 318). There was also an unresolved disagreement on tests that
exhibited shear strengths less than 2 roots when minimum stirrups were included.
Baant asked why it is unacceptable to extrapolate from a series of test results that confirms fracture
mechanics theory. Bayrak responded that only Shioya (also referred to as Japanese tests elsewhere
in these minutes) gives experimental shear strengths below 2 roots for distributed loads. Brown and
Bayrak stated that the details of the Shioya specimens do not reflect current ACI 318 practice. A
discussion ensued about safety margins and scatter of test results.
Reineck presented his proposal. The proposal (and resulting discussion) can be found at
http://aci.infopop.net/3/OpenTopic?a=frm&s=281294747&f=123105603.
Related Discussion
Baant stated that strut-and-tie models (STM) are inadequate for large members because they
experience nonductile compression failures. A disagreement resulted about whether or not there are
test results that indicate size effect in members with stirrups.
Baant stated that the 1/3 exponent is a consequence of the size distribution of the test database.
Fracture mechanics theory supports an exponent of 1/2; therefore, he cannot accept an exponent of
1/3. Reineck responded that he based his proposed method on an empirical approach because there
are competing theories.
Kuchma asked how serviceability (crack widths under service loads) is handled under this proposal.
Reineck replied that crack widths should be checked. Collins indicated that the new limits correspond
approximately with limits in the old code. Kuchma noted that some entities (DOTs) want to have
designs that do not experience shear cracks under service loads. Additional guidance on how to
satisfy this condition may be justified.
Tureyen and Frosch presented their proposal. The proposal (and resulting discussion) can be found
at http://aci.infopop.net/3/OpenTopic?a=frm&s=281294747&f=123105603.
Related Discussion
Valluvan noted that this proposal disagrees with other proposals (e.g. Bentz and Collins) that indicate
that the compression zone does not carry the majority of shear. The proposers responded that the
proposal matches the test data well.
Hawkins asked if compression steel decreases the shear strength. Response was not recorded.
Baant asked if they were not worried about the size effect. Tureyen indicated that the lower bound of
the data does not indicate a size effect.
Frosch noted that the test database does not represent the consensus of ACI 445. More agreement is
needed about some items, particularly the effects of self-weight shear.
After a related question from Bentz, an unresolved disagreement ensued about the practicality of the
Bentz & Collins transfer slab example.
General Discussion of the Issue
Dominic Kelly (member of ACI 318-E) advised that any design method that is proposed for ACI 318
should exhibit back of the envelope simplicity.
Sanders asked Ramirez (Chair, ACI 318-E) what input the subcommittee desired from ACI 445.
Ramirez noted that the agenda was full, but there was one critical, relevant item: is this a life-safety
issue? Any resulting proposal needs to be simple. We should be wary of making a change now that

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2005

Page 3

Minutes approved by committee on March 27, 2006

will require another change later. Change proposals need to reflect the applicability of the building
code to practical design.
Ramirez noted that 318-E is also addressing shear reinforcement in slabs and shear-friction. Input is
welcome on these topics.
Sanders stated that ACI 445 needed to issue an opinion on the question of life safety. Is there a lifesafety issue in the current code? If so, under what circumstances?
After a 10-minute recess, Sanders conducted an informal poll of ACI 445 voting members.
QuestionIs there currently (ACI 318-05) a life-safety issue for shear in one-way slabs and
beams?
Result11 Yes, 0 No, 10 Abstain
Sanders then requested supporting reasons.
Bayrak reported seeing several girders in the last few years that exhibit very wide cracks under
service loads.
Kuchma noted that the problem is critical for members with depths of 18 in. or more.
Bentz noted that ACI 318 is unsafe for reinforcement with yield strength greater than 80,000 psi
Matamoros noted that, for the sake of simplicity, changes should be limited to the particular types of
structures for which the committee thinks there is a problem.
Sanders asked a more specific question: without qualifications, is there a life-safety problem?
Frosch noted that there is an issue with FRP-reinforced members (which ACI 318 does not address).
For these and steel-reinforced members with little longitudinal reinforcement (low ), failures are
being averted primarily due to load factors and resistance factors.
Collins noted that practical continuous members often have regions with little longitudinal
reinforcement (low ).
Klein stated that most failures are attributable to mistakes and oversights in details, as well as
nonductile response to unexpected loads (e.g. settlement or volume changes).
Kuchma noted that life-safety shortcomings are most obvious in the laboratory, when the design
capacity is not attained. This removes the extra margin of apparent safety that results from load
factors.
Klein agreed with Kuchma and clarified that he was simply noting the source of actual failures.
Hawkins explained the reason for his abstention. There is no life-safety issue for 9095 percent of
members because of the beneficial combination of excess concrete strength, strength reduction
factors, and excess reinforcement. However, he is concerned for the future, as changes in other parts
of the code result in changes in our basic implicit assumptions, e.g. increased use of high-strength
concrete.
Polak agreed that we need to extend design methods to incorporate new materials and strength levels.
Ospina summarized a case study from practice. There were two issues with the design of an
underground structure: (1) the minimum shear reinforcement trigger, and (2) size effect. Much of
the design load was permanent (earth). The designers were not comfortable with the current code, and
therefore employed Japanese code provisions instead.
Reineck stated that the best thing we could do for the future would be to provide models (like truss
models) to the engineer.

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2005

Page 4

Minutes approved by committee on March 27, 2006

Bayrak pointed out that in Ospinas example, good engineers were thoughtful enough to realize the
limitations of the current code and to exceed these minimum requirements. Is ACI 318 applicable to
tunnels? Ospina responded that it was specified for the project.
Sanders stated that the committee had three options:
1) do nothing
2) consider life-safety issue as severe (suggest a change for ACI 318-08)
3) focus on a longer-term solution (ACI 318-11).
In a second informal poll of voting members, Option 1 received zero votes, Option 2 received 5
votes, and Option 3 received 17 votes.
Zia noted that the committee had another option: production of a technical report outlining the special
cases for which current provisions may not be adequate. This report could be cited in ACI 318 as a
reference. Hawkins stated that such a report would be like a commentary that discusses the limitation
of the current code expressions.
Sanders stated that he would contemplate the committees next course of action.
6. Presentation and Discussion of Issues Related to Continued Joint Committee Status
(ACI/ASCE) (Ramirez)
Ramirez presented a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) about joint ACI/SEI committees.
The committee needs to be polled on three options:
1) operate under the MOU
2) not operate under the MOU
3) entertain suggestions for changes to the MOU.
Sanders summarized the draft MOU (attached to the minutes). The committee unanimously agreed to
operate under the MOU once enacted.
7. Subcommittee Reports
a) 445-A Strut and Tie (Reineck)

Subcommittee met on Sunday; minutes are attached.

A follow-up special publication (SP) on further design with STM continues to be a focus of the
subcommittee. Seven examples have been proposed thus far. The subcommittee decided that they
will accept new proposals until the end of the year. They could be finished with the SP and
accompanying session(s) in 1.5 years. The subcommittee plans to proceed toward this ambitious
goal.
Hawkins stated that there have been many questions at ACI 318 seminars concerning design of
foundations with STM (particularly regarding three-dimensional models). Reineck noted that the
subcommittee would be grateful for input from these seminars.
The subcommittee discussed ACI 318 Appendix A change proposal ideas:
Change of strength reduction factorsThere is some uncertainty about whether 445-A is the best
group to address this issue. Sanders will check on that.
Minimum distributed steel requirementsDo these requirements extend to deep beams designed
using Appendix A?
Hanging-up reinforcementSP example may be sufficient, or a change proposal may be needed.

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2005

Page 5

Minutes approved by committee on March 27, 2006

Triaxially-stressed CCC nodeThe benefit cannot be employed under the current provisions.
Reineck is looking for co-workers for developing a change proposal.
One technical session has been approved for Spring 2006 (Charlotte) on the topic of STM for
earthquake design.
b) 445-B Seismic Shear

Eberhard could not attend the convention. There was no meeting and no report.
c)

445-C Slab Shear (Polak)

The subcommittee sponsored two successful sessions on punching shear at this convention. A
summary of the companion SP is attached. Because of the sponsored technical sessions, there was
no formal subcommittee meeting at this convention.
Polak discussed the assembly and maintenance of a punching shear database with Ospina. Such a
database would be a good source of information, but many issues about such a database remain
for committee discussion. Ospina noted that database assembly has already started; 445-C simply
needs to give it a home and make it available. The subcommittee can work out the details later.
Hawkins advised that the committee congratulate Polak on coordinating the sessions and SP.
They are a credit to this committee. The committee congratulated Polak.
Hawkins noted a recent proliferation of slab shear provisions. ACI 318 needs basic information.
Specific information for the various reinforcement systems should be in a separate document. The
work of 318-E would be greatly streamlined if 445 would develop such a document. Polak agreed
that slab shear reinforcement is not well served by the confusion inherent in the current code.

d) 445-D Torsion (Belarbi)

The subcommittee met Sunday and worked to resolve review comments for the draft report on the
state of the art. The goal is to ballot the report in Jan. 2006.
e)

Ad hoc committee on prestressed concrete shear issues (Matamoros)

Subcommittee met earlier on Monday. Minutes are attached. Kuchma gave a good presentation.

f)

445-F Beam Database (Reineck)

A report is being written on the shear databases. Reineck briefly described the outline. The report
should be available in March 2006 (in German).

g) Scheduling of subcommittee meetings for Spring 2006 (Charlotte)

No subcommittees requested a change of meeting times.

8. Technical Sessions
445Denver (Fall 2006), Spicy Shear Issues, moderated by M. Criswell & A. Lepage
445-ACharlotte (Spring 2006), Applications of Strut-and-Tie Modeling for Seismic Design,
moderated by L. Lowes and S. Sritharan, has received final approval
ASCE/SEI Structures Congress, St. Louis, May 1821, 2006
445 & 446 (Fracture Mechanics)Denver (Fall 2006), technical session on size effects, D. Kuchma
ASCE/SEI Structures Congress, Long Beach, May 1620, 2007, Paper requests due June 1, 2006
9. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Robert Barnes on March 5, 2006.

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2005

Page 6

Minutes approved by committee on March 27, 2006

AGENDA FALL 2005 MEETING
ACI 445 SHEAR AND TORSION
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
NOVEMBER 6-7, 2005
445 Shear & Torsion; Monday 2p-6p; Convention Center-2202
445-A -Strut & Tie; Sunday 10a-1p; Convention Center-2214
445-B -Seismic Shear; Sunday 11:30a-2:30p; Convention Center-2207
(445-B Meeting is being cancelled since they are continuing to work on the database and
model comparison. Marc Eberhard will not be able to attend.)
445-C -Punching Shear; Sunday 1p-3p; Convention Center-2210 (Attend the Session!)
445-E - SOA Torsion; Sunday 2p-5p; Convention Center-2209
423-445 Adhoc Group Shear in Prestressed Concrete; Monday 11:30a-1p; Conv. Center2205
318-E Code-Shear & Torsion; Tuesday 2p-6:30p; Convention Center-2204
TG1 Code-TG-Min. Torsional Reinforcement; Tuesday 10a-11:30a Convention Center-2202
Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Part I
Sunday from 9:00 AM NOON, Session Moderator: Polak, Maria-Anna
Conference Center C4202A
Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Part II
Sunday 2:00 PM - 5:00 PM, Session Moderator: Polak, Maria-Anna
Conference Center C4202A
Congratulations to the subcommittee for preparing an SP!!!
SP232: Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete Slabs
Editor: Maria-Anna Polak
1. Introductions (Sanders)
2. Welcome to visitors (Sanders)
3. Approval of the Minutes - Spring 2005 ACI Meeting held in New York (Sanders)
4. Unification of Slender Beam Shear Equations in 318-08 in ACI 318
(15 minute limit for presentation) Presentations will start shortly after 2 pm.
We have had 5 proposal submitted as part of our effort to bring forth proposal to 318E
for the Unification of Slender Beam Shear Equations in 318. The forum has also
provided an opportunity for dialog. Each presenter will be allowed 15 minutes. This will
be closely enforced. We will then allow for 10 minutes for discussion. At the end if
there is time, we will open the flow for additional questions.
Zdenek Bazant and Qiang Yu
Evan Bentz and Michael Collins
Michael Brown and Oguzhan Bayrak
Karl-Heinz Reineck
A. Koray Tureyen and Robert Frosch

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2005

Page 7

Minutes approved by committee on March 27, 2006

5. ACI 318-E Actions (Ramirez)
445 assistance to 318E
6. Memo of Understanding between ACI and ASCE (Sanders)
7. Subcommittee reports
445-A Strut and Tie (Reineck) Proposed Changes to Appendix A for 318E
445-B Seismic Shear (Eberhard)
445-C Slab Shear (Polak)
445-E Torsion (Belarbi)
445-F Beam Database (Reineck) Presentation on Database by Reineck.
Ad hoc committee on prestressed concrete shear issues (Matamoros)
8. Technical Sessions
Application of Strut-and-Tie Modeling for Seismic Design (Final Form Submitted)
Convention: Spring 2006 Session Moderators: Laura Lowes and Sri Sritharan
General Session (Denver) Marvin Criswell and Andres Lepage
ASCE/SEI Structures Congress, St. Louis, May 1821, 2006 Halil Sezen: "Shear
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Members"
445 & 446 (Fracture Mechanics)Denver (Fall 2006), technical session on size
effects, D. Kuchma
445-F RC beam database with no transverse reinforcement TBD
445-F RC beam database with transverse reinforcement. TBD
Future Conventions
ASCE/SEI Structures Congress, Long Beach, May 1620, 2007??
Session/Paper Requests Due: June 1, 2006
Spring 2006 - Charlotte, NC, Fast Track Innovations, March 26-March 30
Fall 2006 - Denver, CO, November 5-November 8
Spring 2007 - Atlanta, GA, Hardscape April 22-April 26
Fall 2007 - Puerto Rico, Bridges the Americas October 14-October 18
Spring 2008 - Los Angeles, Design & Construction Compatibility, March 30-April 3

9. Technical Presentations (10 Minutes)

Paul Zia and Salem Faza, Shear Capacity of Beams and Decks using MMFX Steel

Please note two subcommittee meetings (A, E and Adhoc) are scheduled prior to the 445
main committee meeting. All members are welcome and encouraged to attend.
Subcommittees B and C will not be meeting at this convention.

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2005

Page 8

Minutes approved by committee on March 27, 2006

Title: SP232: Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete Slabs
Year of Publication: 2005; Number of Pages: 302;
Nonmember Price: $65.50; ACI Member Price: $40.00
Order Code: SP232; Abstract: Editor: Maria Anna Polak
PREFACE
The development of high-performance materials and advanced computational tools has
allowed the building of relatively thin concrete slabs supported on columns. The simple
appearance of such structural systems and ease of their construction make them
economically attractive and popular. However, these structures develop complex threedimensional stresses in the slab, at the columns, which can eventually lead to a potentially
catastrophic brittle punching shear failure. Although structural failures are rare, in part due
to high safety factors, understanding punching shear phenomenon is crucial for safe and
rational design of flat reinforced concrete slabs supported on columns.
As part of the activities of the ACI/ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion, members of
Subcommittee 445-C, Punching Shear, organized a symposium in conjunction with this
special publication devoted to the state of the art on punching shear. The symposium will be
held during the ACI Fall 2005 Convention under the sponsorship of ACI/ASCE Committee
445.
The last significant and comprehensive overviews on this topic were completed several
years ago by the fdration internationale du bton (fib) in their state-of-the-art report on
punching shear (2001)1 and in the Proceedings of the International Workshop on Punching
Shear Capacity of RC Slabs (2000)2 published by the Royal Institute of Technology in
Sweden. Subcommittee 445-C has compiled a series of papers that present updated
developments in the state of the art and research regarding behavior, rational design, and
evaluation of code provisions related to punching shear. The papers are grouped into two
parts. The first part contains a report, coauthored by members of Subcommittee 445-C, on
issues related to design philosophy, code provisions, contributions of flexural and shear
reinforcements, and seismic and blast loads. The second part includes papers on new
developments obtained from different research centers from around the world. The aim is to
present comprehensive and objective information on the topic of punching shear.
It is hoped that this publication will be important for the engineering design community in
its efforts to improve long-term strength and ductility of slab-column structural systems.
Contents:
Part I
SP-2321: ACI 318-05, CSA A23.3-04, Eurocode 2 (2003), DIN 1045-1 (2001), BS 811097 and CEB-FIP MC 90 Provisions for Punching Shear of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs
by N.J. Gardner
SP-2322: ACI 318 Moment Transfer Strength and Stiffness Considerations
by N.M. Hawkins
SP-2323: Effects of Size, Geometry and Material Properties on
Punching Shear Resistance
by D. Mitchell, W.D. Cook, and W. Dilger
SP-2324: Effect of Flexural Reinforcement on Punching Shear Resistance

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2005

Page 9

Minutes approved by committee on March 27, 2006

by W. Dilger, G. Birkle, and D. Mitchell
SP-2325: Shear Reinforcement for Concrete Flat Slabs
by M.A. Polak, E. El-Salakawy, and N.L. Hammill
SP-2326: A Design Perspective on Punching Shear
by S.D.B. Alexander and N.M. Hawkins
SP-2327: Reinforced Concrete Slabs Subjected to Blast or Localized Impact
by T. Krauthammer
SP-2328: Slab-Column Connections Under Seismic Actions
by W.H. Dilger, D.C. Dechka, and S.J. Brown
Part II
SP-2329: Interior Slab-Rectangular Column Connections Under Biaxial
Lateral Loadings
by Y. Tan and S. Teng
SP-23210: Effect of the Column Dimensions on the Punching Shear Strength
of Edge Column-Slab Connections
by A.G. Sherif, M.B. Emara, A. Hassanein, and S.A. Magd
SP-23211: Punching Shear Strength of Post-Tensioned Concrete Flat Plates
by N.J. Gardner
SP-23212: Punching of Reinforced Concrete Flat SlabsACI and German Guidelines
by J. Hegger, A. Sherif, and R. Beutel
SP-23213: Punching Research at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
in Stockholm
by H. Sundquist
SP-23214: Eurocodes and North American Codes Predictions of Punching Shear Capacity
in View of Experimental Evidence
by A. Pisanty
SP-23215: Effect of HPC and FRHPC Precast Heads on Punching Shear Resistance
of Flat Plates
by A.B. Ajdukiewicz and J.S. Hulimka

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2005

Page 10

DRAFT
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)
Technical Committees that are Jointly Sponsored by the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) and the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of
Civil Engineers (SEI), for which ACI acts as the Lead Sponsor
ACI and SEI agree to jointly sponsor technical committees with the following
understanding:
Committee Name and Logo Use:
The name of the committees will reflect the joint nature of the committees and will
include the abbreviation ACI-SEI in all appropriate printed materials. The logos of
both ACI and SEI will appear on all published works of the committees.
Committee Operations:
The committees shall follow the operating procedures of the ACI Technical
Committee Manual (TCM.) In addition:
1.
Proposals to organize sessions at SEI Structures Congresses shall be
submitted according to SEI requirements (Technical Activities Divisions
Policy and Procedures Manual).
2.
Documents produced by the committees will be concurrently reviewed by
ACI and SEI oversight technical committees. ACI will send such
committee documents to SEI at least five weeks before the ACI review
session, and SEI will provide any review comments in the requested
format at least one week before the ACI review session. SEI may send
representatives to the review session to support their comments.
3.
ACI will provide meeting space at ACI conventions, will maintain an
official web page, and perform committee mailings upon request. SEI will
provide meeting space at SEI functions
Standardization:
When a committee develops a new standard or a revision to an existing standard, a
public review shall be conducted in accordance with ACIs TCM and with SEI/ASCE
Rules of Standards Committees. For revised standards, all proposed changes shall be
clearly identified. ACI shall attest to SEI/ASCE that all relevant requirements of the
TCM, including ACIs balloting and balance rules, have been met.
Chair Appointments:
Approximately six months before the end of a chairs term ACI will request that SEI
submit nominations for chair. SEI will submit any nominations at least six weeks
before the relevant ACI meeting. ACI will appoint the chair from the submitted
nominees and others that ACI might identify. After all action is final, ACI will notify
SEI of the result.

October 14, 2005

Intellectual Property:
The work and intellectual property developed by the committees is owned jointly by
both ACI and SEI.
Publications:
1. ACI shall publish the documents created by committees covered under this MOU,
and will maintain the source computer files. SEI identified errata shall be
transmitted to ACI for verification and incorporation in future printings.
2. ACI will sell printed committee documents to SEI or ASCE (not less than 10 per
order) at 25% of the ACI non-member price, plus postage. SEI or ASCE shall not
print individual copies, but resell those purchased from ACI.
3. Both ACI and SEI have the right to sell the committee documents, and may
advertise as they see fit, each bearing their respective marketing and selling costs.
4. Committee documents may be packaged and sold with other publications by both
societies.
5. If either ACI or SEI has an agreement to license a third party to market the
societys publications, documents created by committees covered under this MOU
can be included. Each organization will notify the other if they wish to pursue
selling the published works of a committee through a third party.
6. Without written permission from both SEI and ACI, no other entity may
incorporate significant portions of a committee document into another publication
(printed or electronic).
7. Committee requests to publish their document in an SEI Journal shall accompany
the document when submitted for technical review. If SEI agrees to publish a
committees document in an SEI Journal, then ACI shall deliver the source file to
SEI for this purpose.
Appendices
The benefits and opportunities provided to the committees and the required oversight and
expectations of ACI and SEI are listed in Appendix A. This MOU applies to the
committees listed in Appendix B
Termination of MOU
This Memorandum of Understanding will remain in force until subsequently amended,
renewed or terminated. This MOU will be terminated ninety days after official written
notification of termination from either ACI or SEI.

William Tolley, Executive Vice-President of ACI

Date

James Rossberg, Director of SEI

Date

October 14, 2005

Appendix A
Society

ACI

SEI

Opportunities
provided to
Committees

Each Society
Expectations of
Committees

1. Meeting space at
ACI Conventions;
2. Home web page
on ACI web site;
3. TAC Contact and
ACI staff provide
support to chair;
4. ACI logo appears
on committee
documents.

1. Technical sessions at
ACI Conventions and
related symposium
publications;
2. Committee reports
may be published in the
ACI Manual of Concrete
Practice and separately.

1. Meet regularly
and work to
fulfill

1. Meeting space at
SEI Structures
Congress;
2. SEI staff provide
support to chair;
3. SEI logo appears
on committee
documents.
4. Access to
Technical Activities
Division Executive
Committee
(TAD/EXCOM)
through assigned
contact member

1. Technical sessions at
Structures Congress and
related
congress/symposium
publications;
2. Committee reports
may be published in the
Journal of Structural
Engineering or the
Journal of Bridge
Engineering.

Benefits to
Committees

Committees
mission;
2. Submit ACI
report of
committee
activity.
3. Procedures and
activities should
conform to the
ACI Technical
Committee
Manual
1. Meet regularly
and work to
fulfill

Committees
mission;
2. Have access to
annual report of
committee
activity and plans
from ACI.
3. Organize
sessions
periodically at
Structures
Congresses.

Sponsor
Society
Required
Oversight
1. TAC assigns
the mission;
2. TAC
appoints the
chair;
3. TAC
approves
sessions at ACI
Conventions
and related
symposium
publications.
4. TAC hears
appeals;
5. TAC reviews
all documents.
1. Chair
responds to
TAD EXCOM
contact
member
requests;
2. TAD
EXCOM
reviews
documents and
provides input
to TAC.

Appendix B
Committees Jointly Sponsored by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and the
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI) for
which ACI acts as the Lead Sponsor:
334 - Concrete Shell Design and Construction; 343 - Concrete Bridge Design; 352 Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures; 421 - Reinforced Slabs; 423 Prestressed Concrete; 441 - Reinforced Concrete Columns; 445 - Shear and Torsion; 447
- Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures; 550 - Precast Concrete
Structures
October 14, 2005

Minutes of the meeting in Kansas City of ACI 445-A: Strut-and-tie models

Sunday 17 April 2005, 10.30 - 13.30 h

Attendants: 13 members; 12 guests

Members:

Sergio Alcocer, Robert Anderson; Robert Barnes; Ozughan Bayrak;

Hakim Bouadi; Daniel Kuchma; Laura Lowes; Lawrence Novak;
Karl -H. Reineck (Ch.); Mario Rodriguez; Sri Sritharan; Jennifer Tanner;
Fernando Ynez

Visitors:

Gerardo Aguilar; Sergio Brena; Michael Brown; Wael Hassan;

Dominic Kelly; Richard Klingner; Mark Moore; Carlos Ospina;
Jose Pincheira; Malte von Ramin; Guillermo Santana; Jim Wight

Agenda
1 Approval of agenda: the approval was given.
2 Approval of minutes of the meeting in New York: the approval was given.

3 Further examples for the use of strut-and-tie models

3.1 List of examples and assignments
Karl Reineck presented the state of the list of contents for the examples:
1 Diaphragm for Segmental Box Girder, Bob Anderson
2 Diaphragm for Extradosed Cable Stayed Bridge, Bob Anderson
3 End-regions of pretensioned members, Dan Kuchma
4 Propped cantilever, Dan Kuchma
5 Link beam - coupling beam (normal case), Asif Wahidi, Hakim Bouadi
6 Link beam with upper shear limit of ch. 11 exceeded, Hakim Bouadi, Asif Wahidi
7 Hammerhead bent cap / Hammerhead Pier, Michael Brown, Oguzhan Bayrak

In the discussions, it was suggested to contact Joe Salvadore of Michael Baker regarding the
strut-and-tie modeling of the tower for the Ironton Russell Bridge. Furthermore, comparisons
with other codes were recommended. The PCA Examples Publication and AASHTO LRFD
Code Provisions were discussed.
It was felt that a few more examples should be added and some more co-workers should be
looked for.

ACI 445-A "Strut-and-tie models": Minutes of the meeting in Kansas City, 6 November 2005

3.2 Database for deep beams

The task force was formed and consists now of Hakim Bouadi, Oguzhan Bayrak and Karl
Reineck.
3.3 General topics None

4 Changes and amendments to Appendix A of ACI 318-02

4.1 Should the -factor remain constant?
Karl Reineck briefly summarized the topic and proposed to hand it over to Comm. 445 and
318-E, because it is not an item only related to strut-and-tie models; the Subcommittee
agreed.
4.2 Minimum steel requirement of App. A
Hakom Bouadi presented the report of a task force (Hakim Bouadi, Dan Kuchma, Asif
Wahidi), see Attachment. The item was forwarded to Comm. 445 for possible transfer to
Comm. 318-E.
4.3 Maximum limits for shear in App. A may exceed that defined in Ch. 11
This topic should be further followed up by the task force formed (Dan Kuchma; Karl
Reineck; Lawrence Novak), and it could possibly be taken up by an example.
4.4 STM for point load near support; hanging-up reinforcement
Karl Reineck had sent around a change proposal for Appendix A of ACI 318 before the
meeting, see attachment. The proposal was discussed and different proposals were made. Jim
Wight doubted that such an extensive amendment of App. A would have chances to survive in
ACI 318 and suggested, to concentrate on urgent code changes and to deal with the other
topics in other documents.
4.5 Triaxially stressed CCC-node and bearing stress acc. to ACI 318, 10.17
Karl Reineck summarized the topic which was brought up by Mike Hemstad, Minneapolis
based on his experience with the design of a pile cap. It appears that in App. A there is no
definition of a node which would allow to utilize the strength increase allowed in section
10.17 of ACI 318. The Subcommittee agreed that a corresponding proposal for App. A should
be made.
4.6 Curved ties
Some time ago Gary Klein had pointed out that curved ties and radial struts should be treated
in App. A, but the topic was not followed up further. The Subcommittee agreed that a
corresponding proposal for App. A should be made.

K. - H. Reineck

17.01.2006

ACI 445-A "Strut-and-tie models": Minutes of the meeting in Kansas City, 6 November 2005

5 Strut-and-tie models for earthquake design

5.1 Session at the Spring Convention 2006 in Charlotte, NC
Laura Lowes briefly reported on the state of the preparations of the session, where she and Sri
Sritharan are session Co-moderators
5.2 Other items

None

6 Membership

No discussion

7 Next meeting
It was agreed that the chair of 445 should apply for Sunday from 10.00 to 13.00 h.

8 Research Presentations
The following presentations were given:
- Dan Kuchma: Further development of CAST.
- Malte von Ramin: Capacity of struts

9 Other items

Karl - Heinz Reineck

None

30 January 2005

Attachments: Draft proposal: Modifications to the minimum steel requirements of deep beams

K. - H. Reineck

17.01.2006

Draft Proposal:
Modifications to the Minimum Steel Requirements of Deep Beams
By: Hakim Bouadi1, Asif Wahidi2,, and Dan Kuchma,3
1

Walter P. Moore and Associates / Structural Diagnostics Service Group, 3131 Eastside Street, Houston,
TX 77098; ph: 713 630-7300. email: hbouadi@walterpmoore.com
2
Walter P. Moore and Associates / Structural Engineering Service Group, 3131 Eastside Street, Houston,
TX 77098; ph: 713 630-7300. email: awahidi@walterpmoore.com
3
University of Illinois, 2106 NCEL, 205 N Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL 61801-2350, ph.217 333-1571; email: kuchma@uiuc.edu

1. Proposal
Remove the following paragraph from Chapter 11:
11.8.6 It shall be permitted to provide reinforcement satisfying A.3.3 instead of the
minimum horizontal and vertical reinforcements specified in 11.8.4 and 11.8.5
2. Review of Current Requirements
The shear design of deep beams, covered in Section 11.8 of the ACI 318 code allows deep beams
to be designed using either a nonlinear analysis or the Strut-and-Tie provisions of Appendix A.
Paragraphs 11.8.4 and 11.8.5 specify the minimum web reinforcement as two perpendicular mats,
one in the horizontal direction and one on the vertical direction. This requirement is however
waived (paragraph 11.8.6) if a deep beam is designed according to Appendix A and the
requirements of A.3.3 are followed.
Appendix A presents the use of a Strut and Tie Model for the design of Discontinuity(D) regions
in structural concrete. A D-region is the portion of a structure for which there is a complex
variation in strain such that plane sections theory is not applicable. A deep beam, as defined in
11.8.1, is a D-region. The minimum reinforcement requirements of Appendix A can be
categorized as follow:

No implicit minimum amount of reinforcement is required for struts of uniform cross section
(A3.2.1)

No web reinforcement is required for bottle-shape struts designed with an efficiency factor,
s = 0.60.

Minimum web reinforcement in accordance with A3.3 is required for struts designed with a
higher efficiency factor (0.75). The minimum reinforcement in A3.3 relates to the combined
vertical and horizontal reinforcement and not to the reinforcement in each direction. This
criterion can be satisfied for a deep beam by providing horizontal web reinforcement and no
vertical web reinforcement provided that the angle from the reinforcement to the axis of the
strut is greater than 40 degrees.

Modifications to the Minimum Steel Requirements in Deep Beams

Page 1

3. Comparisons to Other Codes

3.1. Canadian code
Clause 11.5.5 of the CSA (1994) code requires the use of an orthogonal grid of reinforcing bars
near each face with the ratio in each direction not less than 0.002 and with a maximum spacing
of 300 mm (about 12 inches).
3.2. EuroCode
Section 9.7 on deep beams of the Eurocode 2 (CEN, 1992) recommends the use of an orthogonal
reinforcement mesh near each face with a minimum ratio of 0.001 in each direction and in each
face and with a maximum spacing of 300 mm (about 12 inches).
3.3. Main Body of ACI 318-05 Code
Paragraph 10.6.7 of ACI 318-05 requires a minimum horizontal reinforcement for a distance of
d/2 near the tension reinforcement on each face of a beam having a depth in excess of 36 inches.
In practice and in order to ease construction, designers tend to locate this face reinforcement
along the full depth of a member rather than along d/2 only. In deep beams, which most often
have a depth of more than 36, this minimum reinforcement may end up satisfying A3.3.1 and no
additional vertical reinforcement will be required. In other cases, this minimum horizontal
reinforcement contributes greatly to the minimum requirement of A3.3.1 and only a low ratio of
vertical web reinforcement will be required.
Sections 11.8.4 and 11.8.5 for deep beams requires the use of a minimum vertical shear
reinforcement ratio of 0.0025 and a minimum horizontal shear ratio of 0.0015. The commentary
section of the code indicates that larger amount of vertical reinforcement is required since tests
have shown than vertical shear reinforcement is more effective than horizontal shear
reinforcement.
4. Evaluation with Relevant Experimental Work
4.1. Need for minimum reinforcement
The strut-and-tie model is derived from the lower-bound theorem of plasticity, therefore a
member designed using this model requires sufficient amount of reinforcement to ensure a ductile
behavior and a re-distribution of the internal forces in the cracked state (Marti, 1985). Appendix
A by implying that a bottle-shaped strut can be designed without any reinforcement provided a
lower efficiency factor is utilized (A3.2.2 a), appears to contradict the general assumptions of the
strut-ant-tie model.
In addition to allowing force re-distribution, web reinforcement controls cracking at service and
permits a more ductile behavior (Smith and Vantsiotis, 1982; Rogoswky et. all, 1986, Tan et al.,
1977)
4.2. Web Reinforcement Effectiveness
Smith and Vantsiotis (1982) tested 52 deep beams to investigate the effects of shear to span ratio
and of the effectiveness of vertical and horizontal reinforcement. Their research showed that a
minimum amount of web reinforcement was needed to control cracking. The addition of vertical
web reinforcement improved the ultimate shear strength of deep beams while the addition of
horizontal web reinforcement had no or little influence on the ultimate strength. Their research
Modifications to the Minimum Steel Requirements in Deep Beams

Page 2

has also showed that for beams with a/d (shear span to depth) ratio less than 1.0 effect of vertical
web reinforcement diminishes while the effect of horizontal steel is more noticeable.
Tests of 7 simply supported beams and 17 two span deep beams were conducted by
Rogoswky et. al. (986) to investigate the effect of web reinforcement. Their research showed that
beams with vertical web reinforcement had a higher shear strength and failed in a ductile manner
while beams without or with very limited amount of ties failed in a sudden manner. Horizontal
web reinforcement was found not to have a significant effect on capacity.
Tan et al. (1997) investigated the effect of the web reinforcement on 18 high-strength concrete
deep beams. The study concluded that orthogonal web reinforcement was the most effective in
controlling cracks and increasing the ultimate shear strength. In addition vertical web
reinforcement was found to be more effective than horizontal web reinforcement.
Kong et al. (1970) tested to failure 35 simply supported deep beams with different span to depth
ratios and with varying types of web reinforcement. Their research indicated that for span to
depth ratio less than 1.0, horizontal reinforcement near the tension face of the beam is the most
effective type of web reinforcement at controlling cracks and increasing strength. However for
other span to depth ratio, the use of vertical reinforcement is clearly the most effective.
5. Conclusions
The current requirements of the ACI code allows the design of struts without any amount of web
reinforcement for uniform struts or for struts designed with a lower efficiency factor. The code
requires minimum web reinforcement expressed a combination of vertical and horizontal
reinforcement for struts designed with a higher efficiency factor. This formulation allows for the
use of only horizontal reinforcement or for the use of a higher reinforcement ratio in the
horizontal direction.
In contract both the Canadian and the Euro code require the use of web reinforcement in both
directions.
Research has shown that the use of web reinforcement controls cracking, allows for force
redistribution and helps to prevent brittle failures. The use of web reinforcement was found to be
more effective if used in both directions. In addition, vertical web reinforcement was found to be
more effective than the horizontal web reinforcement in most beam configurations. The
horizontal web reinforcement was found effective only when located near the tension
reinforcement in beams with span to depth ratio of less than 1.0. In the case of such very deep
beams, the load is transmitted directly to the support with a compression strut (ASCE-ACI
Committee 445, 1998) and the horizontal reinforcement near the tension face increases the
tension tie capacity.
The lack of web reinforcement or the use an orthogonal web reinforcement mesh with a higher
ratio in the horizontal direction is inappropriate for the design of deep beams by Appendix A.
Therefore ACI 318 code provisions for deep beams should be modified to require the use of
minimum web reinforcement in both directions with a higher steel ratio in the vertical direction.
Minimum distributed reinforcement requirements should be considered for all planar structures
designed by Appendix A.

Modifications to the Minimum Steel Requirements in Deep Beams

Page 3

6. References
ACI Committee 318 (2005), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05)
and Commentary (ACI 318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on Shear and Torsion (1998), Recent Approaches to Shear Design of
Structural Concrete ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 124, No 12, December
1998, pp. 1375-1417.
Canadian Standards Association, CSA (1994), A23.3-94, Design of Concrete Structures,
Canadian Standards Association, Rexdalle.
Commit Europen du Bton, CEN (1992), Eurocode 2 Design of Concrete Structures Part 1.1:
General rules and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
Belgium.
Kong, F.K., Robin P. J., and Dole D. F. (1970) Web reinforcement effects on deep beams ACI
Journal 12, 1010-1017.
Marti, P. (1985), Basic Tools for Reinforced Concrete Beam Design, ACI Journal, Volume 82,
No 4, January-February 1985, pp. 46-56.
Rogowsky, D. M., MacGregor, J, G., and Ong S. Y. (1986), Tests of Reinforced Concrete Deep
Beams, ACI Journal, Volume 83, No 55, July-August 1986, pp. 614-623.
Smith K.,N. and Vantsiotis, A. S. (1982), Shear Strength of Deep Beams, ACI Journal, Volume
79, No22, May-June 1982, pp. 201- 213.
Tan K. H., Kong, F. K. , Teng S., and Wang L.W. (1997). Effect of web reinforcement on high
strength concrete deep beams ACI Structural Journal Volume 94, No 5, 572-582.

Modifications to the Minimum Steel Requirements in Deep Beams

Page 4

MINUTES Fall 2005 MEETING

423-445 Adhoc Group on Shear in Prestress Concrete
Monday November 7, 11:30am to 1:00 pm
Convention Center 2202
Kansas City
Attendance:
Committee Members:
Dan Kuchma, David Sanders, Adolfo Matamoros, Bruce Russell, Carin RobertsWollman, Karl-Heinz Reineck,
Visitors:
Paul Kourasian, Justing Norvell, Larry Kahn, Neil Hawkins, Dan Reider, Halil Sezen.
1. Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 11:45 am.
2. Presentations
Presentation by Dan Kuchma, NCHRP Project Presentation
The presentation focused on the results obtained from a dense sensor array used in tests
of precast beams with high-strength concrete. Dan has developed a visualization tool to
interpret the results from the sensors and infer the fraction of the total shear force that is
carried by the concrete at different stages of loading. The students working in the project
are still in the process of reducing and interpreting the data and developing design
recommendations.
One of the observations from the project is that when shear cracks propagate through the
development length of debonded strands, there was significant slip.
Presentation by Adolfo Matamoros, detailing of end regions
The presentation discussed the interaction between horizontal, vertical reinforcement, and
the strength of struts in end regions.
3. Discussion on different alternatives for detailing of end-regions.
It was proposed that the committee address two different action items related to the code
provision. The first action item has to do with the amount of transverse reinforcement
that can be added for shear strength. The second will focus on development length
provisions for strand.

Item 1. Additional transverse reinforcement, horizontal or vertical

The consensus of the committee was to prepare a code change proposal on the basis of
equilibrium of the end region, allowing designers to account for the reduced strand stress
at the intersection of the prestressing reinforcement and the inclined crack.
It was discussed that this model has two main drawbacks, as implemented in the
AASHTO Code
The first is related to the angle of inclination of the crack. In the AASHTO procedure the
angle of inclination of the inclined crack is determined based on theory intended for B
regions. The relationship between reinforcement strain and angle of inclination of the
crack in the AASHTO Code may lead to relatively flat inclined cracks, which leads to
higher demands on the longitudinal reinforcement at the point of intersection with the
inclined crack. It was expressed by members of the committee that the angle of
inclination of the critical shear crack observed experimentally in these types of members
is closer to that estimated on the basis of elastic theory.
The second limitation is related to the fact that the AASHTO Code allows the design of
these regions without the use of horizontal (mild) transverse reinforcement. It was
expressed that this may present safety concerns in particular for members without
transverse reinforcement in which there may be deficiencies related to construction or the
quality of the materials. One of the alternatives suggested to address this problem is to
preserve the limit of Vc/2 as the maximum for members without transverse
reinforcement.
Adolfo Matamoros will prepare a code change proposal and circulate that between
committee members.
An additional proposal will be prepared addressing anchorage requirements for the
strand. One of the alternatives suggested was placing limits on the percentage of
debonding allowed by the code.
4. Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held at the same time slot (Monday 11:30 am to 1:00 pm)
during the next convention in Charlotte.