2002 Wang Hongge

U N I V E R S I T Y OF C A L G A R Y
Reinforced Concrete Beam Design for Shear
by
Hongge (Gordon) Wang
A THESIS
S U B M I T T E D TO T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES
IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E
D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF E N G I N E E R I N G
D E P A R T M E N T OF CIVIL E N G I N E E R I N G
CALGARY, ALBERTA
N O V E M B E R , 2002
Hongge (Gordon) Wang 2002

The author of this thesis has granted the University of Calgary a non-exclusive
license to reproduce and distribute copies of this thesis to users of the University
of Calgary Archives.
Copyright remains with the author.
Theses and dissertations available in the University of Calgary Institutional

Repository are solely for the purpose of private study and research. They may
not be copied or reproduced, except as permitted by copyright laws, without
written authority of the copyright owner. Any commercial use or re-publication is
strictly prohibited.
The original Partial Copyright License attesting to these terms and signed by the
author of this thesis may be found in the original print version of the thesis, held
by the University of Calgary Archives.
Please contact the University of Calgary Archives for further information:

E-mail: uarc@ucalgary.ca
Telephone: (403) 220-7271
Website: http://archives.ucalgary.ca
ABSTRACT
The two methods for design of shear adopted by the present C S A Standard A23.3
are either too simple or too complicated. That presents the need for ongoing research to
establish a new design guideline for shear design.
Recent studies by Dr. Loov and others have shown that shear design can be based
on the shear resistance along potential inclined crack and slip planes. Because the basic
equations for this shear design method are derived from "shear friction" theories, we call
it "the shear friction method".
In this thesis an entire review of shear design methods has been given and a
method of shear design based on shear friction theories has been introduced. From
comparison calculations with present code methods it is proved that "the shear friction
method" provides a simpler and more accurate approach for shear design.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am extremely grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Robert E. Loov for his endless

patience and guidance throughout the course of this program.
I would also like to thank my current employer Kassian Dyck & Associates for
giving me the chance to finish this thesis.
Finally I wish to thank my wife Candy for her support and encouragement.
iv
T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S
Cover Page i
Approval page ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Notation xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General 1
1.2 Code Review 2
1.3 Scope of Study 3
1.4 Thesis Organization 3
C H A P T E R T W O : B A S I C S H E A R THEORIES 5
2.1 Homogeneous Beam 5
2.2 Beam Cracking Modes 9
2.3 Shear Transfer Mechanisms 10
2.4 Shear Failure Modes 12
2.4.1 Beams without Shear Reinforcement 12
2.4.2 Beams with Shear Reinforcement 16
2.5 Factors Affecting the Shear Strength 16
2.5.1 Tensile Strength of Concrete 16
2.5.2 Longitudinal Reinforcement 17
2.5.3 Shear Span-to-depth Ratio, a/d 17
2.5.4 Size of Beams 19
v
2.5.5 Axial Forces 20
2.5.6 Web Reinforcement 20
C H A P T E R T H R E E : S H E A R DESIGN - C S A S T A N D A R D A23.3-94 22
3.1 General 22
3.2 Simplified Method 22
3.2.1 Shear Supported by Concrete, V c 23
3.2.2 Shear Supported by Stirrups, V s 25

3.3 General Method 25
3.3.1 Shear Supported by Concrete, V c g 26
3.3.2 Shear Supported by Stirrups, V s g 26
C H A P T E R F O U R : S H E A R DESIGN - S H E A R FRICTION M E T H O D 27
4.1 General 27
4.2 General Equations for Beams Based on Shear Friction 27
4.2.1 Shear Friction Strength 28
4.2.2 Basic Shear Design Equations Based on Work by Loov 31
4.2.3 Approximate Shear Capacity of Concrete 36
4.2.4 Approximate Shear Capacity of Stirrups 40
4.2.5 Approximate Shear Design Equations for Beams with
T>T opl 40
4.2.6 Critical Shear Failure Angle 41

4.2.7 Beams with Longitudinal Reinforcement T<T , op 44
C H A P T E R F I V E : E X P E R I M E N T A L STUDIES A N D C O M P A R I S O N 45
5.1 Application of Shear Friction Method 45
5.2 Test Results in Literature 47
5.2.1 Yoon, Cook and Mitchell's Tests, 1996 48
5.2.2 Saram and Al-Musawi's Tests, 1992 58
vi
5.2.3 Summary of Tests from Literature 71
5.2.3.1 Beams with Shear Reinforcement 79
5.2.3.2 Beams without Shear Reinforcement 93
C H A P T E R SIX: P R O P O S E D C O D E C L A U S E S F O R S H E A R D E S I G N 106
6.1 Proposed Code Clauses for Shear Design 106
6.1.1 Required Shear Resistance 106
6.1.2 Factored Shear Resistance 106
6.1.3 Determination of V c s f 106
6.1.4 Determination of V s s f 107
6.1.5 Determination of 0 107
6.1.6 Determination of \|/ 108
6.1.7 Limiting Shear Failure Angle 108
6.2 Design Examples 108
C H A P T E R S E V E N : DISCUSSION A N D C O N C L U S I O N 111
7.1 Conclusions and Recommendations Ill
7.2 Future Research 112
BIBLIOGRAPHY 113
vii
LIST OF T A B L E S
TABLE
5.1 Details of Beam Specimens (Yoon)
5.2 Test Results and Comparison of Predictions (Yoon)
5.3 Details of Beam Specimens (Sarsam)
5.4 Details of Materials (Sarsam)
5.5 Test Results and Comparison of Predictions (Sarsam)
5.6 Details of Specimens with Stirrups
5.7 Details of Specimens without Stirrups

5.8 Comparison of Predictions for Beams with Stirrups
5.9 Comparison of Predictions for Beams without Stirrups
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
2.1 Internal Forces in Beam 5
2.2 Distribution of Flexural Shear Stresses 6
2.3 Principal Stresses 7
2.4a Stress Trajectories 8
2.4b Potential Crack Pattern 8
2.5 A Cracked Beam without Shear Reinforcement (MacGregor, 2000) 9
2.6 A Cracked Beam with Shear Reinforcement (Peng, 1999) 10
2.7 Internal Forces in a Cracked Beam 11
2.8 Effect of a/d on Shear for Beams Without Shear Reinforcement (MacGregor,
2000) 14
2.9 Shear Failure Modes (Pillai, 1983) 15
2.10 Shear Strength vs. Longitudinal Reinforcement (MacGregor, 2000) 17
2.11 Shear Strength vs. a/d (Kani, 1979) 18
2.12 Influence of Member Size on Shear Strength (CSA A23.3-94) 19
2.13 Effect of Axial Loads in Inclined Cracking Shear (MacGregor, 2000) 20
2.14 Distribution of Internal Shears of Beam with Shear Reinforcement
(MacGregor, 2000) 21
3.1 Comparison of Shear Design Methods and Test Results ( C S A A23.3-94) 24
4.1 Shear Friction Concept (CSA A23.3-94) 28

4.2 Reinforcement Inclined to Potential Failure Cracks ( C S A A23.3-94) 29
4.3 Push-off Test Results (Loov, 1998) 30
4.4 Free Body Diagram of Beam (Loov, 1998) 31
4.5 Shear Strength vs. Crack Angle (Loov, 1998) 34
ix
4.6 Three-dimensional surface of shear strength along all possible failure planes
for beam 544 (Loov, 1998) 34
4.7 Possible Critical Shear Failure Planes (Loov, 1999) 35
4.8 A Tested Beam with Critical Shear Cracks (Peng, 1999) 35
4.9 Shear Strength vs. cotO 37
4.10 Shear Strength vs. cot9 by Eq. 4-15 and Eq. 4-19 38
4.11 Shear Strength vs. Longitudinal Reinforcement of Beam 39
4.12 The Shear Contributions of Concrete and Discrete Stirrups (Loov, 1998) 42
5.1 Details of Beam Specimens and instrumentation (Yoon, 1996) 48

5.2 Effect of Concrete Strength on the Shear Friction Method (Yoon) 51
5.3 Effect of Concrete Strength on the Simplified Method (Yoon) 52
5.4 Effect of Concrete Strength on the General Method (Yoon) 52
5.5 Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the Shear Friction Method (Yoon) 53
5.6 Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the Shear Friction Method (Yoon) 54
5.7 Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the Simplified Method (Yoon) 54
5.8 Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the Simplified Method (Yoon) 55
5.9 Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the General Method (Yoon) 55
5.10 Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the General Method (Yoon) 56
5.11 Effect of Concrete Strength on the Shear Friction Method (Yoon) 57
5.12 Effect of Concrete Strength on the Simplified Method (Yoon) 57
5.13 Effect of Concrete Strength on the General Method (Yoon) 58
5.14 Details of Beam Specimens and Instrumentation (Sarsam,1992) 59
5.15 Effect of the Ratio of Shear span on the Shear Friction Method (Sarsam) 62
5.16 Effect of the Ratio of Shear span on the Simplified Method (Sarsam) 63
5.17 Effect of the Ratio of Shear span on the General Method (Sarsam) 63
5.18 Effect of Concrete Strength on the Shear Friction Method (Sarsam) 64
5.19 Effect of Concrete Strength on the Simplified Method (Sarsam) 65
5.20 Effect of Concrete Strength on the General Method (Sarsam) 65
x
5.21 Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the Shear Friction Method (Sarsam) 66
5.22 Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the Shear Friction Method (Sarsam) 67
5.23 Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the Simplified Method (Sarsam) 67
5.24 Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the Simplified Method (Sarsam) 68
5.25 Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the General Method (Sarsam) 68
5.26 Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the General Method (Sarsam) 69
5.27 Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the Shear Friction Method
(Sarsam) 70
5.28 Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the Simplified Method (Sarsam) 70
5.29 Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the General Method (Sarsam) 71
5.30 Predicted Results by the Shear Friction Method (with stirrups) 80
5.31 Predicted Results by the Simplified Method (with stirrups) 81
5.32 Predicted Results by the General Method (with stirrups) 82
5.33 Effect of the Ratio of Shear Span on the Shear Friction Method (with
stirrups) 84
5.34 Effect of the Ratio of Shear Span on the Simplified Method (with stirrups) 85
5.35 Effect of the Ratio of Shear Span on the General Method (with stirrups) 85
5.36 Effect of Concrete Strength on the Shear Friction Method (with stirrups) 86
5.37 Effect of Concrete Strength on the Simplified Method (with stirrups) 86
5.38 Effect of Concrete Strength on the General Method (with stirrups) 87
5.39 Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the Shear Friction Method (with stirrups) 87
5.40 Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the Simplified Method (with stirrups) 88
5.41 Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the General Method (with stirrups) 88
5.42 Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the Shear Friction Method (with stirrups) 89
5.43 Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the Simplified Method (with stirrups) 89
5.44 Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the General Method (with stirrups) 90
5.45 Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the Shear Friction Method (with
stirrups) 90
xi
5.46 Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the Simplified Method (with
stirrups) 91
5.47 Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the General Method (with stirrups) 91
5.48 Effect of Beam Depth on the Shear Friction Method (with stirrups) 92
5.49 Effect of Beam Depth on the Simplified Method (with stirrups) 92
5.50 Effect of Beam Depth on the General Method (with stirrups) 93
5.51 Predicted Results by the Shear Friction Method (without stirrups) 95
5.52 Predicted Results by the Simplified Method (without stirrups) 96
5.53 Predicted Results by the General Method (without stirrups) 97
5.54 Effect of the Ratio of Shear Span on the Shear Friction Method (without
stirrups) 99
5.55 Effect of the Ratio of Shear Span on the Simplified Method (without stirrups) 99
5.56 Effect of the Ratio of Shear Span on the General Method (without stirrups) 100
5.57 Effect of Concrete Strength on the Shear Friction Method (without stirrups) 100
5.58 Effect of Concrete Strength on the Simplified Method (without stirrups) 101
5.59 Effect of Concrete Strength on the General Method (without stirrups) 101
5.60 Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio on the Shear Friction Method
(without stirrups) 102
5.61 Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio on the Simplified Method
5.62 Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio on the General Method
5.63 Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement Strength on the General Method
5.64 Effect of Beam Depth on the Shear Friction Method (without stirrups) 104
5.65 Effect of Beam Depth on the Simplified Method (without stirrups) 104
5.66 Effect of Beam Depth on the General Method (without stirrups) 105
xii
NOTATION
a shear span, distance from centre of support to point load

a c clear shear span, distance between outer edge of plate for concentrated
load and inner edge of plate at support
A area of potential shear failure plane
A s area of longitudinal reinforcement in tension zone
A v area of one stirrup
b w width of beam web
c coefficient of the cohesion between a potential shear failure plane

Cb concrete cover at top of beam
c, concrete cover at bottom of beam
C concrete strength of beam
C r factored concrete strength of beam
C. O. V. coefficient of variation
d distance from the extreme compression fibre to the centroid of the
longitudinal tension reinforcement
d b diameter of a reinforcing bar
d v distance measured perpendicular to the neutral axis between the resultants
of the tensile and compressive forces due to flexure
d ev effective length of stirrup in the shear friction method
fry specified yield strength of the stirrups
fy specified yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement or stirrups
f'c specified compressive concrete strength
h overall height of member
k factor for relating shear strength and normal stress determined from
experiments
n number of stirrups crossed by a potential shear failure plane
R normal force acting on potential shear failure plane
xiii
5 spacing of stirrups
S shear force on potential shear failure plane
T longitudinal reinforcement strength of beam
T opi force in longitudinal reinforcement for peak shear strength
T r factored longitudinal reinforcement strength of beam
T v tension force in a stirrup
T vr factored tension resistance in a stirrup
v average shear stress on potential shear failure plane according to Loov's

equations
V c factored shear resistance attributed to the concrete
V cg factored shear resistance attributed to the concrete for the C S A general
method
V f CS factored shear resistance attributed to the concrete for the shear friction
method
V d dowel force in the longitudinal reinforcement
Vf factored shear force at section
V g shear resistance of beam using C S A A23.3-94 general method
V p factored transverse component of prestress of beam
V r factored shear resistance of beam
V rg factored shear resistance of beam using C S A A23.3-94 general method
V s factored shear resistance provided by the shear reinforcement
Vf s factored shear resistance for the shear friction method
V sg factored shear resistance provided by the stirrups for the C S A general
method
V sim shear resistance of beam using C S A A23.3-94 simplified method
V s shear resistance provided by one stirrup
Vf ss factored shear resistance attributed to the reinforcement for the shear
friction method
xiv
V t ultimate shear resistance of beam measured from test
V 4S shear resistance of concrete on a 45 plane
a angle between transverse reinforcement and the shear plane
a/ angle between shear friction reinforcement and longitudinal axis

(8 factor that depends on the average tensile strains in the cracked concrete
using C S A general method
j3 v calibration factor for shear friction method
6 angle between longitudinal axis and potential shear failure plane
9 min minimum shear failure angle for the shear friction method
X factor to account for low density concrete
\i coefficient of friction
p longitudinal tension reinforcement ratio
pv transverse reinforcement ratio
o average normal stress on potential shear failure plane
<j) c resistance factor for concrete
. resistance factor for reinforcement
y/ factor that depends on the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement strength to

optimum tension for the shear friction method
xv
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Failure in shear of reinforced concrete takes place under combined stresses
resulting from an applied shear force, bending moments and, where applicable, axial
loads and torsion as well. Because of the non-homogeneity of material, non-uniformity
and non-linearity in material response, presence of cracks, presence of reinforcement,
combined load effects, etc., the behavior of reinforced concrete in shear is very
complicated, and the current understanding of and design procedures for shear effects are
based on analyses of results of extensive tests and simplifying assumptions rather than on
an exact universally acceptable theory.
The best-known model for the expression of the behavior of beams with web
reinforcement failing in shear is the truss model. The truss model is a helpful tool to
visualize the nature of stresses in the stirrups and in the concrete, and to base simplified
design concepts and methods on. It may also be used to derive equations for the design of
shear reinforcement. However, it does not recognize fully the actual action of web
reinforcement and its effect on the various types of shear transfer mechanisms.
A shear-friction model has been developed to predict the shear strength of beams
( 1 7 ) ( 1 8 ) ( I 9 )
by Loov and many others O W i X W M W W W S ) . Because shear friction works well
for composite beams, it might also predict the shear strength of beams which also have
potential major cracks along which slip can occur. Stirrups and longitudinal
reinforcement provide a clamping force thereby increasing the friction force which can be
transferred across a crack along a potential failure plane. This model is based on the shear
strength after cracking so that no diagonal tension strength is included. In this thesis, the
shear friction model has been investigated and developed for the purpose of shear design
of beams.
2
1.2 Code Review

Prior to its 1984 revision, C S A Standard A23.3 recommended a method for shear
and torsion design based on the traditional method adopted by the A C I code. The
procedure is called the "V + V" approach. The term V is referred to as the "shear carried
c c
by the concrete", while the term V is referred as the "shear carried by the stirrups". A23.3
s
assumes that V is equal to the shear strength of a beam without stirrups and further
c
simplifies V to equal the shear at inclined cracking. V relies on the tensile strength of the
c s
transverse reinforcement. The stirrups and the inclined compressive struts are assumed to
act as members of a 45-degree truss and the term V is calculated based on this model.
s
The 1984 revision of the Canadian Standard, C A N 3 A23.3-M84, recommended

two alternative methods for shear design. The first of these, termed the "simplified
method" (CAN3 A23.3-M84 (11.3)) is a shortened version of the traditional method
followed by A C I and previous Canadian codes. In the simplified method, the transverse
reinforcement is designed for the combined effect of shear and axial load i f any, while the
longitudinal reinforcement is designed for the combined effect of flexural and axial load.
The second method is termed as "general method" for shear design (CAN3
A23.3-M84(l 1.4)). In this method, the truss analogy has been used in a more direct
manner to account for the influence of diagonal tension cracking on the diagonal
compressive strength of concrete, and the influence of shear on the design of longitudinal
reinforcement. The code requires that deep beams, parts of members with deep shear
span, brackets and corbels, and regions with abrupt changes in cross-section (such as
regions of web openings in beams) be designed by the general method only. But we will
find later in this thesis that the general method is not suited to the design of deep beams,
brackets and corbels.
C S A Standard A23.3-94 recommends three alternative methods for shear design.
Regions of members in which it is reasonable to assume that plane sections remain plane
shall be proportioned for shear and torsion using either the general method or the
simplified method (if member is not subjected to significant axial tension) or the strut-
3
and-tie model. Regions of members in which the plane section assumption of fiexural
theory is not applicable shall be proportioned for shear and torsion using the strut-and-tie
model.
The simplified method of shear design described in C S A Standard A23.3-94 is
not simple. The designer is required to check numerous equations and limits. On the other
hand, the general method is extremely complex so engineers rarely use it in engineering
practice.
1.3 Scope of Study

The main objective of this study is to introduce the shear-friction method for
engineering design. After reviewing shear design theories and shear design methods
which are used by recent C S A Standard A23.3-94, a method of shear design based on
shear friction theories has been applied to predict the shear capacity of reinforced
concrete beams.
A comparison of the shear-friction method and recent code methods with the test
results of beams from the literature has been presented in this thesis. Proposed code
clauses for shear design based on the shear-friction method have been developed and
design examples based on the shear friction method are also included in this thesis.
1.4 Thesis Organization

Chapter 2 contains the review of basic shear theories. The factors of shear
strength are listed and shear failure mechanisms and modes are discussed in this chapter.
In Chapter 3 C S A Standard A23.3-94 for shear design has been introduced and
the design methods have been discussed.
Chapter 4 introduced the shear friction methods by Loov and others. In Chapter 5
a modified equation of the shear friction method has been introduced and a comparison of
the shear-friction method and recent code methods with the test results of beams from the
literature has been presented in this chapter.
4
Proposed code clauses for shear design based on the shear-friction method with
design examples have been put in Chapter 6. Conclusions and recommendations are
given in Chapter 7.
5
CHAPTER 2
B A S I C S H E A R THEORIES
2.1 Homogeneous Beam

In order to gain an insight into the causes of shear failure in reinforced concrete,
the stress distribution in a homogeneous elastic beam of rectangular section will be
reviewed briefly. From the free-body diagram as shown in Fig.2-1, it can be seen that
Where
dM = the bending moment change from section to section
dx = the distance between sections
V = the shear force on the section
M+dM
Fig. 2-1, Internal Forces in Beam
By the traditional theory for homogeneous-elastic-uncracked beams, the shear
stresses, v, and the flexural stress, f , at a point in the section distant y from the neutral
x
axis are given by
(2-2)
6
(2-3)
Where
Q = the first moment about the neutral axis of the part of the cross-sectional
area above the depth y
I - the moment of inertia of the cross section
b = the width of the beam
The distribution of these stresses is as shown in Fig. 2-2. Considering an element

at depth y (Fig. 2-3), the fiexural and shear stresses can be combined using Mohr's circle
into equivalent principal stresses, f and f , acting on orthogonal planes inclined at an
2
angle a, where
i Z7 (2-4)
f u f x f x
~ 2 {2
and
tan(2) = (2-5)
Fig. 2-2, Distribution of Fiexural Shear Stresses

Fig. 2-3, Principal Stresses
The principal stress trajectories in the uncracked beam are plotted in Fig. 2-4a.
Stress trajectories are a set of orthogonal curves, whose tangent at any point is in the
direction of the principal stress at that point. The compressive stress trajectories are steep
near the bottom of the beam and flatter near the top. In concrete, which is weak in
tension, tensile cracks would occur at right angles to the tensile stresses and hence the
compressive stress trajectories indicate potential crack patterns (see Fig.2-4b). (Note that
if in fact a crack is developed, the stress distributions assumed here are no longer valid in
that region and redistribution of the internal stresses takes place.) The location of the
absolute maximum principal tensile stress will depend on the variation off and v, which
x
in turn depends on the shape of the cross section and on the span and loading.
It is seen that the general influence of shear is to induce tensile stresses on an

inclined plane. Failure of concrete beams in shear is triggered by the development of
these inclined cracks under combined stresses. To avoid a failure of the concrete in
compression, it is also necessary to ensure that the principal compressive stress,/^, is less
than the compressive strength of concrete under the biaxial state of stress.
Fig. 2-4a, Stress Trajectories
Fig. 2-4b, Potential Crack Pattern

9
Although several theories of failure have been used for concrete shear design, for
the traditional method of shear and torsion design, the principal tensile stress theory has
been followed.
2.2 Beam Cracking Modes

The cracking pattern in a test beam is shown in Fig.2-5. Two types of cracks can
be seen. The vertical cracks occurred first, due to fiexural stresses. These start at the
bottom of the beam where the fiexural stresses are the largest. The inclined cracks at the
ends of the beam are due to combined shear and flexure. These are commonly referred to
as inclined cracks or shear cracks. Such cracks must exist before a beam can fail in shear.
Several of the inclined cracks have extended along the reinforcement toward the support,
weakening the anchorage of the reinforcement.
Fig. 2-5, A Cracked Beam without Shear Reinforcement (Ref. 27)
Although there is a similarity between the planes of maximum principal tensile

stresses and the cracking pattern, fiexural cracks generally occur before the principal
tensile stresses at midheight become critical. Once such a crack has occurred, the
10
principal tensile stresses across the crack drops to zero. To maintain equilibrium, a major
redistribution of stresses is necessary. As a result, the onset of inclined cracking in a
beam cannot be predicted from the principal stresses unless shear cracking precedes
flexural cracking. This very rarely happens in reinforced concrete but does occur in some
prestressed beams (such as I-section beam).
The cracking pattern in a test beam with shear reinforcement is shown in Fig.2-6.
It is obvious that inclined cracks are almost straight lines instead of curves that we have
seen in the test beam without shear reinforcement in Fig.2-5. Another evidence we can
see is that inclined cracks bypass as many stirrups as possible. These evidences are useful
to predict possible beam shear failure planes.
Fig. 2-6, A Cracked Beam with Shear Reinforcement (Ref. 35)
2.3 Shear Transfer Mechanisms

There are several mechanisms by which shear is transmitted between two planes
in a concrete member. Fig. 2.7 shows a free body of one of the segments of a reinforced
concrete beam separated by an inclined crack. The major components contributing to the
shear resistance are:
11
(1) The shear strength, V , of the uncracked concrete;

cz
(2) The vertical component, V^, of the aggregate interlock shear, V ;a
(3) The dowel force, V , in the longitudinal reinforcement;

d
(4) The shear, V , carried by the shear reinforcement.

s
Fig. 2-7, Internal Forces in a Cracked Beam
The aggregate interlock, V , is a tangential force transmitted along the plane of the
a
crack, resulting from the resistance to relative movement (slip) between the two rough
interlocking surfaces of the crack, much like frictional resistance and transverse rebar
dowel effects. So long as the crack is not too wide, the force V may be very significant.
a
The dowel force in the longitudinal tension reinforcement is the transverse force
developed in these bars functioning as a dowel across the crack, resisting relative
transverse displacements between the two segments of the beam.
12
Each of the components of this process except V has a brittle load-deflection

s
response. So it is difficult to quantify the contributions of V , V, and V . In design,

cz ay
these are lumped together as V , referred to as "the shear carried by the concrete". Thus
c
the nominal shear strength, V , is assumed to be

n
V =V +V
n c s (2-6)
In North American design practice, V is traditionally taken equal to the failure

c
capacity of a beam without stirrups.
2.4 Shear Failure Modes

2.4.1 Beam without Shear Reinforcement
In beams without shear reinforcement, the breakdown of any of the shear transfer
mechanisms may lead to failure. In such beams there are no stirrups enclosing the
longitudinal bars and restraining them against splitting failure and the value of V is d
usually small. The component V ay also decreases progressively due to the unrestrained
opening up of the crack. The spreading of the crack into the compression zone decreases
the area of uncracked concrete section contributing to V . cz However, in relatively deep
beams (a/d < 1), tied-arch action may develop following inclined cracking (see Fig. 2-9
(b)), which in turn will transfer part or all of the shear load at the section directly to the
supports thereby the shear capacity of the beam does not totally rely on V ay and V . cz
Because of the uncertainties in all these effects, it is difficult to predict precisely the
behavior and strength beyond diagonal cracking of beams without shear reinforcement.
In beams without shear reinforcement, the shear failure load may equal or exceed
the load at which inclined cracks develop, depending on several variables such as the
ratio M/(Vd), thickness of web, influence of vertical normal stresses, concrete cover and
resistance to splitting (dowel) failure. Further, the margin of strength beyond diagonal
cracking fluctuates considerably. Hence, for beams of normal proportions (M/(Vd) >
about 2.5), as a design criterion, the shear force, V , causing the formation of the first
cr
13
inclined crack is generally considered as the usable ultimate strength for beams without
shear reinforcement.
The moments and shears at inclined cracking and failure of rectangular beams
without web reinforcement are plotted as a function of the shear span, a, to the depth, d,
in Fig.2-8. The shaded areas in this figure show the reduction in strength due to shear, so
web reinforcement has to be provided to ensure that the full fiexural capacity can be
developed.
Typical shear failure modes of reinforced concrete beams, and the influence of the
a/d ratio, are illustrated in Fig. 2-9 with reference to a simply supported rectangular beam
subjected to symmetrical two-point loading.
In very deep beams (a/d < 1) without web reinforcement, inclined cracking
transforms the beam into a tied-arch (Fig. 2-9b). The tied-arch can fail by either a
breakdown of its tension element, or by a breakdown of the concrete compression chord
by crushing.
In relatively short beams, with a/d in the range of 1 to 2.5 (Fig. 2-9c), the failure
is initiated by an inclined crack, usually a flexural-shear crack. The actual failure may
take place by crushing of the reduced concrete section above the head of the crack under
combined shear and compression, or cracking along the tension reinforcement resulting
in loss of bond and anchorage of the tension reinforcement. This type of failure usually
occurs before the fiexural strength of the section is attained.
Normal beams have a/d ratios in excess of about 2.5. Such beams may fail in
shear or in flexure. The limiting a/d ratio above which fiexural failure occurs depends on
the tension reinforcement ratio, yield strength of reinforcement and concrete strength.
V v
a a
(a) Beam.
Deep
* H Slender , y / A / e r y slender
c Very.Shorty
short 1 1
" ' V
^^
03
/ / / / ^ ^ Flexural capacity
O
^ ^ C ^ Inclined cracking
re
^ and failure
c Failure ^ s ^ ^
E
o ^*.
2 Inclined
cracking
i
1.0 2.5 6.5
a/d
(b) Moments at cracking and failure.
<T3
C>t
JO
CO Flexural capacity
nclined cracking and failure
1.0 2.5 6.5

a/d
(c) Shear at cracking and failure.
Fig. 2-8, Effect of a/d on Shear for Beams Without Shear Reinforcement (Ref. 27)
15
(a)
Shear-tension failure ( )
c la/d<2 5 Shear-compression failure
(d) 2.5 < a / d < * * 6

Diagonal tension failure
T
( e ) Web-crushing failure
Fig. 2-9, Shear Failure Modes (Ref. 36)

16
For beams with a/d ratios in the range of 2.5 to 6, fiexural tension cracks develop
early on; however, before the ultimate fiexural strength is reached the beam may fail in
shear by the development of inclined flexure-shear cracks, which, in the absence of web
reinforcement, rapidly extend right through the beam as shown in Fig. 2-9d. This type of
failure is usually sudden and without warning and is termed diagonal-tension failure.
Addition of web reinforcement in such beams leads to a shear-compression failure or a
fiexural failure.
In addition to these different modes, thin webbed members such as I-beams with
web reinforcement may fail by crushing of the concrete in the web portion between
inclined cracks under the diagonal compression forces (Fig. 2-9e).
2.4.2 Beam with Shear Reinforcement

In members with shear reinforcement the shear resistance continues to increase
even after inclined cracking until the shear reinforcement yields and V can increase no
s
more. Any further increase in applied shear force leads to increases in V , V , and V^.
cz d
With progressively widening crack width (which is no longer restrained because of

yielding of the shear reinforcement), begins to decrease forcing V and V to increase
cz d
at a faster rate until either a splitting (dowel) failure occurs, or the concrete in the
compression zone fails under the combined shear and compression forces. Thus, in
general, the failure of shear-reinforced members is more gradual (ductile).
2.5 Factors Affecting the Shear Strength

2.5.1 Tensile Strength of Concrete
The inclined cracking load is a function of the tensile strength of the concrete.
The stress state in the web of the beam involves biaxial principal tension and
compression stresses as discussed before. A similar biaxial state of stress exists in a split
cylinder tension test and the inclined cracking load is frequently related to the strength
from such test.
17
2.5.2 Longitudinal Reinforcement

Fig. 2-10 shows the shear capacities of simply supported beams without stirrups
as a function of the steel ratio, p. When the steel ratio, p, is small, flexural cracks extend
higher into the beam and open wider, as a result inclined cracking occurs earlier and the
beam shear strength tends to be lower.
2.5.3 Shear Span-to-depth Ratio, a/d

As discussed earlier, the shear span-to-depth, a/d, has effects on the inclined
cracking shears and ultimate shears of "deep" beam, while for longer shear spans with a/d
greater than 3 it has little effect on the inclined cracking shear.
0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040
Fig. 2-10, Shear Strength vs. Longitudinal Reinforcement (Ref. 27)

Fig. 2-11, Shear Strength vs. a/d (Ref. 14)
19
2.5.4 Size of Beam

As the overall depth of a beam increases, the shear stress at inclined cracking
tends to decrease for a given f' , p, and a/d. As the depth of the beam increases, the
c
crack widths at points above the main reinforcement tend to increase. This leads to a
reduction in aggregate interlock across the crack, resulting in earlier inclined cracking. In
beams with web reinforcement the web reinforcement holds the crack faces together so
that the aggregate interlock is not lost as much as that of beams without web
reinforcement.
Fig. 2-12, Influence of Member Size on Shear Strength (Ref. 7)

20
2.5.5 Axial Forces

Axial tensile forces tend to decrease the inclined cracking load, while axial
compressive forces tend to increase it. As the axial compressive force is increased, the
onset of fiexural cracking is delayed and the fiexural cracks do not penetrate as far into
the beam. So a larger shear is required to cause principal tensile stresses equal to the
tensile strength of the concrete.

Vu

^Fcbwd
Eq. 6 - 1 7 b
-/- ^**"
(ACI Eq. 11-8)
Eq. 6 - 1 7 a /
- (ACI Eq. 11-4)
1500 1000 500
Compression
A x i a l stress, NJA g (psi)
Fig. 2-13, Effect of Axial Loads in Inclined Cracking Shear (Ref. 27)
2.5.6 Web Reinforcement

Prior to inclined cracking, the strain in the stirrups is equal to the corresponding
strain of the concrete. Since concrete cracks at a very small strain, the stress in the
stirrups prior to inclined cracking will be very small. Thus stirrups do not prevent
inclined cracks from forming. They come into play only after the cracks have formed.
Following the development of inclined cracking, stirrups intercepted by the cracks
resist a portion of the shear. The web reinforcement contributes significantly to the
21
overall shear strength by the direct contribution of V to the shear strength. Secondly, web
s
reinforcement crossing the inclined cracks restricts the widening of the crack and thereby
helps maintain the aggregate interlock resistance of shear. The web reinforcement also
can improve the longitudinal tension reinforcement dowel action and provide another
dowel action of itself crossing inclined cracks.
Flexural Inclined Yield of Failure

cracking cracking stirrups
Applied shear
Fig. 2-14, Distribution of Internal Shears of Beam with Shear Reinforcement (Ref. 27)
22
CHAPTER 3
S H E A R DESIGN - C S A S T A N D A R D A23.3-94
3.1 General
The C S A Standard A23.3-94 recommends two alternative methods for shear
design. The "Simplified Method" is a short version of the traditional method followed by
A C I and previous Canadian Codes. In the Simplified Method, a 45-degree truss model
has been used and the transverse reinforcement is designed based on that.
The second method is the "general method" for shear design. In this method, the
truss analogy has been used in a more direct manner to account for the influence of
diagonal tension cracking on the diagonal compressive strength of concrete, and the
influence of shear on the design of longitudinal reinforcement.
Both simplified method and general method are sectional methods and can be
applied only to the flexural region of beams, in which it is reasonable to assume that
plane sections remain plane and that shear stresses are distributed in a reasonably uniform
manner over the depth of the beam. Because of this, both methods are not appropriate for
regions of members near static or geometric discontinuities, the code requires regions
with abrupt changes in cross-section (such as regions of web openings in beams) and
brackets and corbels, to be designed by the strut-and-tie method, which is capable of
more accurately modeling the actual flow of forces in these regions.
3.2 Simplified Method

For flexural members not subjected to significant axial tension, the Canadian code
allows shear design based on the simplified method.
Required shear resistance for beam is:
V >V,
r
(3-1)
23
Where Vf is the factored shear force at a section, and V is the sum of the
r
contribution attributed to the concrete and transverse reinforcement.
V = V + V,
r c (3-2)
But V is limited to:

r
V,iV +0.8ty JfJb d

e e w (3-3)
This upper limit is intended to ensure that the stirrups will yield prior to crushing
of the web concrete and that diagonal cracking at specified loads is limited.
3.2.1 Shear Supported by Concrete, V c
V =0.2ty Jfb d
c e w (3-4)
This equation can be used only for beams with minimum transverse reinforcement
given by Clause 11.2.8.4 i f ^exceeds 0.5 V + <j) V : c p p
A =0.06jf ^f
v c (3-5)
J V
The minimum transverse reinforcement restrains the growth of inclined cracking

and increases ductility to provide a warning of failure.
For beams without transverse reinforcement, Clause 11.3.5.2 shall be used to
account for the reduced strength of beams deeper than 300 mm.
24
260
V, At Jfb d>0.lA&4fb d
c w w
(3-6)
1000+ d
Studies have shown that the equations for V above are more appropriate for
c
beam with a/d ratios greater than three. It results in overly conservative design for beams
with a/d ratios less than 2.5 (see Fig. 3-1).
0.30
| a | |a j
0.25
610mm
//.illi.l
0.20
f
Clause 11.5: f ' = 27.2 MPa
c
Strut-and-tie model
max. agg. = 19 mm
- 0.15
bdf,
d = 538 mm
Experimental b= 155 mm
result
0.10 A, = 2277 m m 2
Clause 11.4: r = 3 7 2 MPa

y
Sectional model
A =0 v
0.05
3 4
a/d
Fig. 3-1, Comparison of Shear Design Methods and Test Results (Ref.7)
25
3.2.2 Shear Supported by Stirrups, V s
<l> Avf d
s y
(3-7)
s
Here the transverse reinforcement is assumed to be perpendicular to the

longitudinal axis of the member.
Additional maximum spacing (Clause 11.2.11) and minimum transverse
reinforcement requirement (Clause 11.2.8) have been patched onto the basic equation in
order to obtain satisfactory behavior under various conditions.
3.3 General Method

Shear resistance for beam is:
(3-8)
Where V cg is the factored shear resistance contributed by concrete at a section,
and V is the factored shear resistance contributed by transverse reinforcement.

sg
But V shall not exceed
V = 0.25
c fcfb d
w v (3-9)
Where d is the distance measured perpendicular to the neutral axis between the
v
resultants of the tensile and compressive forces due to flexure, but need not be taken less
than 0.9d.
This upper limit is intended to ensure that the stirrups will yield prior to crushing
of the web concrete and that diagonal cracking at specified loads is limited.
26
3.3.1 Shear Supported by Concrete, V cg
V =UA&ft
c 4f!b d
w v (3-10)
Where p is determined in accordance with Clause 11.4.4.
3.3.2 Shear Supported by Stirrups, V sg
Where 0is given in Clause 11.4.4. Obviously i f 0 = 45 both simplified method

and general method will have the same shear resistance contributed by transverse
reinforcement. Again assume that the transverse reinforcement is perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the member.
For members with transverse reinforcement inclined at an angle a to the
longitudinal axis, V shall be computed from
sg
_ faA f d (cot0
v y v + cota)sina
27
CHAPTER 4
S H E A R D E S I G N - S H E A R FRICTION M E T H O D
4.1 General
The Clause 11.1.3 in C S A Standard A23.3-94 states that shear friction shall be
used to design "Interfaces between elements such as webs and flanges, between
dissimilar materials, and between concrete cast at different times or at existing or
potential major cracks along which slip can occur..." Because beam shear failure
normally comes with a major crack and slip between the crack, it would seem that shear
friction can also be applied to predict the shear strength of beams. In 1997, Loov
(19)
presented the rudiments of a procedure , which applied this concept to the shear design
of beam. In recent years, Loov, Peng, Tozser, Kriski, and others, have shown that it is
possible to use a simpler method for shear design that is based on the shear friction
(16)(17)(18)(21)(23)(24){25)(26)(35)
theory. It is encouraging that some of the resulting equations
derived by Loov match those equations derived by a number of people, including
(5) (33) (45)
Braestrup , Nielsen and Zhang based on theories of plasticity.
4.2 General Equations for Beam Shear Based on Shear Friction:

The shear-friction concept for concrete-to-concrete interfaces is based on the
assumption that a crack will form and shear will be transferred across the interface
between the two parts that can slip relative to one another. If the crack faces are rough
and irregular, this slip is accompanied by separation of the crack faces. The separation
will stress the reinforcement crossing the crack until the reinforcement reaches its yield
point. Thus the reinforcement provides a clamping force across the crack interface.
28
Shear displacement
t t t 1111
Compression
in concrete = T i Shear stress
Tension in
(i) Shear Tension Causing Crack Opening reinforcement = T
(ii) Free-Body-Diagram
Fig. 4-1, Shear Friction Concept (Ref.7)
4.2.1 Shear Friction Strength:

There are many equations that have been developed for predicting shear friction
strength. Fig.4-1 illustrates the shear friction concept for the case where the
reinforcement is perpendicular to the potential failure plane. Because the interface is
rough, shear displacement will cause a widening of the crack. This crack opening will
cause tension in the reinforcement balanced by compressive stresses, a, in the concrete
across the crack. The shear resistance of the face is often assumed to be equal to the
cohesion, c, plus the coefficient of friction, ju, times the compressive stress, a, across the
face. That is,
v =&(c+Mff)
r (4-1)
If inclined reinforcement is crossing the crack, part of the shear can be directly
resisted by the component, parallel to the shear plane, of the tension force in the
reinforcement. See Fig.4-2. Clause 11.6 of C S A Standard A23.3-M94 suggests that the
factored shear stress resistance of the shear plane shall be computed as:
v =A,fc(c+fia)+p fcosa/
r v (4-2)
29
Where a is the angle between the shear friction reinforcement and the shear
f
plane.
\ \ \
Fig. 4-2, Reinforcement Inclined to Potential Failure Cracks (Ref.7)
C S A Standard A23.3-M94 also gives an alternative equation for shear friction

(20)(22)
strength, which is based on the work of Loov and P a t n a i k .
(4-3)
Where
& = 0.5 for concrete placed against hardened concrete
k = 0.6 for concrete placed monolithically.
In this method, the shear resistance is a function of both the concrete strength and
the amount of reinforcement crossing the failure crack. Fig. 4-3 shows how this equation
compares with the results from various push-off tests.
a Mattock (uncracked)
Mattock (cracked)
A Walraven (cracked)
v/0~fHMPa)
Fig. 4-3, Push-off Test Results (Ref.22)

31
Fig. 4-4 shows a free body diagram of the end portion of a simple beam with
loads applied somewhere to the right of the section. Two equilibrium equations relate the
normal force, R, and the shear force, S, to T, the force in the main tension reinforcement,
nT , the total force in the stirrups crossing the plane and V, the end reaction. The forces
v
on a potential failure plane vary with the angle 0 between the axis of the beam and the
plane. When the loads between the reaction and the plane in question are negligible, then
V is equal to the vertical shear on the inclined plane.
R = Tsin0-(V-ZT )cosd
v (4-4)
n
S = Tcos0-(V-ZT )sin0
v (4-5)
32
Where T = Af y and T = AJ^. Here A is the area of longitudinal reinforcement

v s
and f is its yield strength, while A is the total area of all legs of a stirrup and f
y v vy is the
stirrup yield strength.
Using the relationship from Eq. 4-3, the shear friction stress is
v= kjtf (4-6)
While
R
and a =
Where A is the area of the inclined failure plane,
bh w
A= (4-7)
sine?
Where b is the width of web, h is the total depth, and 6 is the angle between the
w
longitudinal reinforcement and the crack.

The shear force is therefore proportional to the square root of the normal force, R
S = k4Rf^4 (4-8)
The equations shown above (Eq. 4-4 to Eq. 4-8) can be combined to give a
general equation for the shear strength
2
V = 0.5k C 2
+ cot 2
0-cotO (1 + cot 6)-Tcot0
2
+ Yjv 4
(") 9
0.25 k C
Where
C - f'Xh (4-10)
33
( 5 ) ( 3 3 )
This equation is similar to that derived by Braestrup and by Nielsen with
plasticity theory.
For design, the factored values should be used thus
2 2
V r =0.5k C, + cot 0-cotO (1 + cot 0)-T cot0
2
r + J]T vr (4-11)
0.25k'C. n
Where
(4-12)
T
r=<t>Asfy (4-13)
T
vr = <t>s vf,y A (4-14)
A l l planes between the inside edge of the support and the edge of the load to a
maximum angle of 90 should be considered to be potential failure planes. The shear
strength on each plane is calculated and the lowest strength, when comparing all possible
failure planes, is the governing shear strength. Under some circumstances it may be
extremely unlikely that a crack will form along particular failure planes so that choosing
the absolute lowest strength without regarding to location may be excessively
( 4 5 )
conservative. This aspect has been investigated by Zhang . Fig. 4-5 shows the change
in predicted shear strength as the failure plane angle is varied. When a crack intercepts a
stirrup, the shear strength increases by T , the force that can be developed in the stirrup.
v
Fig. 4-6 shows a three-dimensional surface plot, which was obtained by analyzing
( 1 4 )
beam tests by Kani . The test beams had only one stirrup but in different locations to
determine the effects of stirrup location. The test result shows that it is not necessary to
check every potential failure plane. The planes with the lowest strength have the flattest
possible angle while intersecting a minimum number of stirrups.
Fig. 4-6, Three-dimensional surface of shear strength along all possible failure
planes for beam 544 (Rf. 18)
35
Fig. 4-7 shows a beam with possible critical shear failure planes. Fig. 4-8 is a
photograph of a beam indicating that the actual cracks correspond to the expected failure
planes.
B - 7
essala
V
T-
Fig. 4-8, A Tested Beam with Critical Shear Cracks (Ref. 35)
36
4.2.3 Approximate Shear Capacity of Concrete

If the shear failure plane bypasses the stirrups, the strength along the weakest
plane depends on the longitudinal reinforcement and the angle of the failure plane, but is
unaffected by the stirrup strength. From Eq. 4-9 we can obtain
2
V = 0.5k C 2
2
+ cot 6 -cot6 (1 + cot 2
0)-Tcot6 (4-15)
0.25k C
Beams depend on longitudinal reinforcement and the anchorage of longitudinal

reinforcement to develop shear capacity. The optimum tension in the longitudinal
reinforcement, by which the maximum shear capacity will be developed, can be obtained
by differentiating Eq. 4-15
2
dV c (l + cot 6) /
- = . ' =-cotO (4-16)
2 2
dT 4t /0.25k C +cot 0
2 2
(4-17)
T opt = 0.25k C(2 +tan 6)
Substitute Eq. 4-17 into Eq. 4-15, the shear strength of beams will be
V = 0.25k''Ctond
c (4-18)
Eq.4-18 gives the shear capacity of beams with longitudinal reinforcement tension
2 2
capacity f A
y s >T opt - 0.25k C(2+tan 9). It is assumed that anchorage for longitudinal
reinforcement to develop such tension capacity is sufficient.

Fig. 4-9 shows VjC vs.cot# for different ratios of longitudinal reinforcement. It
is clear that Eq. 4-8 represents the upper bound value of shear capacity of beams. For
e s s
beams with longitudinal reinforcement tension capacity less than T t> the ^ op the
longitudinal reinforcement tension capacity, the less the shear capacity.

37
0.50
0.40
0.30
>
0.20
0.10
0.00
Fig. 4-9, Shear Strength vs. cotO
For beams with longitudinal reinforcement tension capacity f A y s less than Jopt,
Eq. 4-15 can be substituted approximately by a simple equation as following:
n T
2
V, = 0.25k sin Ctand (4-19)
2T
\ t* J
38
Fig. 4-10, Shear Strength vs. cotO by Eq. 4-15 and Eq. 4-19
The curves from Eq. 4-15 and Eq. 4-19 have been plotted on Fig. 4-10 for
comparison. The graph shows that Eq. 4-19 is a useful approximation for the shear
capacity of concrete.
For factored design, we should use:
Vcr
2
= 0.25 k C tane
r
When T>Topt (4-20)
n T
2
V = 0.25k sin C tan6
r
When T<Tapt (4-21)
2T
V p> J
Where
(4-22)
39
T = <t> AJ s y (4-23)
2 2
T opt = 0.25k C (2 r + tan 9) (4-24)
Fig. 4-11 plots the beam shear strength of concrete vs. the beam longitudinal
reinforcement for a particular plane in the beam based on shear-friction equations of Eq.
4-18 and Eq. 4-19. It shows that the variation of the beam shear strength of concrete
increases as the beam longitudinal reinforcement increases. When the beam longitudinal
2 2
reinforcement reaches f A y s = 0.25k C(2 +tan 9), the beam shear strength of concrete
reaches its peak value and will not increase even though the beam longitudinal
reinforcement increases.
A f (kN)
s y
Fig. 4-11, Shear Strength vs. Longitudinal Reinforcement of Beam

40
4.2.4 Approximate Shear Capacity of Stirrups

The usual equations for the shear strength of stirrups are overly optimistic. Fig.4-7
shows several possible failure planes with zero, one and two stirrups crossing them. Fig.
4-8 is a photograph of a beam indicating that the actual cracks correspond to the expected
failure planes. To ensure a conservative prediction, the number of stirrups that are
considered to cross the shear plane should be the number of stirrup spaces crossed by the
( 2 8 )
crack minus one. M a r t i correctly accounted for this in his work. Therefore, because of
the nature of shear failure planes that tend to avoid stirrups the proper estimate of the
stirrup contribution may be
L cote (4-25)
For factored design, we shall use:
'd cote
ev }
V
y
- V
r
(4-26)
sr si
Where
(4-27)
vy
( 2 8 ) ( 1 8 )
Equation 4-27 is one of the most significant discoveries by M a r t i and Loov
in shear design, because this corrects a basic mistake that has been used for years in shear
design.
4.2.5 Approximate Shear Design Equations for Beams with T>T opt
Using the " V + V " approach, the approximate shear strength along a plane at an
c s
angle 0 to the beam axis is

41
'dcote
V =V tan
r 4S + Vsl -1 (4-28)
v s j
Where
2
V = 0.25k C
4} r (4-29)
Further, Eq. 4-31 can be written as:
V =WJ 4TXh
45 v (4-30)
Where
2
J3 = 0.25k 4/:
V (4-31)
The coefficients k and fi are calibration factor that can be adjusted to match the
v
equation with test results.
The shear strength of beams without stirrups is governed by the first term in
Equation (4-28), where 0 is the angle of the failure plane with the lowest slope that can
be expected to occur.
V =V tanG
r 45 (4-32)
4.2.6 Critical Shear Failure Angle

Although theoretically we have only an integer number of possible shear failure
planes such as 1, 2 and 3 in Fig. 4-7 and Fig. 4-8, it is convenient to treat Eq. 4-28 as a
continuous function of 6 when deriving the critical shear failure angle. It is notable that
the effects of stirrup spacing will be ignored and Eq. 4-28 will form a lower bound of the
shear capacity, when Eq. 4-28 is considered to be a continuous function of 0 (see Fig. 4-
12).
42
Fig. 4-12, The Shear Contributions of Concrete and Discrete Stirrups (Ref. 18)
The critical angle 0 corresponding to the minimum strength can be found by
differentiating Eq. 4-28.
V V d
ev
V = " =0 (4-33)
r 2 2
d0 cos 0 sin 0 s
IK,
tane =i^L^- (4-34)
]
v a s
Substituted Eq. 4-34 into Eq. 4-28,

43
V. = V45 +v -i (4-35)
\v 45
sl
y45 s
So
d
V =2AV V ^--V
r 45 sl s (4-36)
Eq. 4-36 is a direct solution for the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams. It
combines the contribution of the web stirrups and concrete corresponding to the
minimum strength of the combination.
From Eq. 4-36 we can solve directly to obtain the maximum stirrup spacing.
s< (4-37)
(Vf+K,) 2
Eq. 4-37 can be used for design of stirrup spacing, while Eq. 4-36 is used to
calculate the shear capacity of a beam with known stirrup spacing.
Eq. 4-36 and Eq. 4-37 do not apply in cases where the shear failure angle is not
determined by Eq. 4-34. The shear failure crack can only be formed between the beam
support and load, so the beam shear span limits the minimum shear failure angle to:
tanO> (4-38)
a..
The strength along this steeper plane can be obtained directly using Eq. 4-28.
However, Eq. 4-36 and Eq. 4-37 are conservative i f the shear failure angle becomes
steeper under the limitation of beam shear span.
44
4.2.7 Beams with Longitudinal Reinforcement T <T.opt
For beams without stirrups, the shear capacity can be derived from Equation (4-
21) as following:
K =yV tanO 45 When T<Topt (4-39)
Where
TV T
y/ - sin (4-40)
2 T
Accordingly, Eq. 4-36 and Eq. 4-37 need to be modified as follows:
V; = 2 \ V V -^-V
45 sl sl (4-41)
V s
s< (4-42)
(v +v r
f sl
It is worthy to notice that Eq. 4-41 and Eq. 4-42 may generate conservative results
for beams with short shear span.
45
CHAPTER 5
E X P E R I M E N T A L STUDIES A N D C O M P A R I S O N S
By testing the proposed shear friction method against available experimental

results from different authors, the shear friction method for shear design of beams will be
evaluated in this chapter. A comparison study of the simplified method and the general
method is also conducted in this chapter to choose a more accurate method for shear
strength prediction.
5.1 Application of Shear Friction Method

Using the "V + V" approach as discussed in Chapter 4, the total shear capacity of
c
a beam is:
V
Y
=V
y T
+V
y
(5-1)
sf csf ssf
The shear capacity of concrete, V ^ can be calculated from cs
Vcs =V tane
f 45
(5-2)
Where
(5-3)
w =i When T>T,opt (5-4)
n T
if/ = sin When T<Topt (5-5)
2T
tanO = (5-6)
V 4S s
T = *,AJy
(5-7)
T =V (2
o 45 +
2
tan 0) (5-8)
46
IT
(5-9)
The value of V / shall be computed from

ss
d., cot 6
Y
ssf y
si -I (5-10)
Eq. 5-2 is derived from the equation in Chapter 4 with some modifications. The
value of P from Eq.4-37 is:

v
P =0.25k 4fl
v
2
(5-11)
( 2 2 ) ( 3 7 )
It has been found that k becomes smaller as the concrete strength increases .
The equation found from a least-squares fit of tests is:
k=2.0(/:)- 0 4 (5-12)
Substituted Eq. 5-12 into Eq. 5-11 and get:
/ \0.30
'30^
A =0.36 (5-13)
\f'c J
To consider the effects of beam depth as discussed in Chapter 2, Eq. 5-13 needs to
( 2 5 ) ( 2 6 )
be modified. According to the researches by Tozser and Loov , the shear strength of
025
beams decreases when the depth of beams increases in proportion to h~ . Finally, the
equation for calculating fi is presented by Eq. 5-14.
v
47
0.30
/3 =0.36
V (5-14)
h
There are two limitations for the cracking angle 0. First, for beams with short
shear spans the shear cracking angle may be limited by the ci/h ratio as mentioned in
( 1 4 ) ( 4 5 )
Chapter 4. Second, from pictures of crack patterns of specimens from literature , it
is observed that when the shear span is greater than 2.5, the shear cracking angle 0 stays
at a limiting angle even with increasing shear span. Based on the analysis of the test
results from literature, the minimum shear cracking angle 9 is about 2 i f - ^ / ^ J degree.
So the two limitations for the failure angle are:
tanO> (5-15)
6>21 'fit" (5-16)

\30)
5.2 Test Results in Literature:

Experimental data from the literature were examined to verify whether the shear
friction method is a rational approach for estimating the shear capacity of beams. Tests
from two series of tests from the literature are presented and discussed in detail. The
results predicted by the shear friction method were then compared with the test results
from a total of 113 beams with stirrups and 105 beams without stirrups. A l l selected
beams were simply supported rectangular beams subjected to a symmetrical single or
two-point load. The effects of concrete strength, shear span ratios, amount of longitudinal
reinforcement and stirrup spacing are discussed. Notice that the limitation on maximum
stirrup spacing by the C S A A23.3-94 clauses 11.2.11 for the simplified method and the
general method was ignored during the analysis.
48
( 4 4 )
5.2.1 Yoon, Cook and Mitchell's Tests, 1996 :
( 4 4 )
Yoon, Cook and Mitchell investigated six full-scale beam specimens . The six
beams having different amounts of shear reinforcement at each end were tested to
provide a total of 12 shear tests. Fig. 5-1 shows the details of the 375 mm wide x 750 mm
deep specimens that were tested with a clear shear span of 2000 mm and shear span ratio
of a/d = 3.28 and a^h = 2.67. The fiexural tension reinforcement for all of the specimens
consisted of 10-No.30 bars in two layers, giving a reinforcement ratio of p = 0.028. A

symmetrical single point load had been applied at midspan. Table 5-1 lists the details of
the beam specimens.
75 2000 mm dear 150

- 1
11
1/ y
|350| 1
2150 2150^ 1
|350i
5000
ELEVATION VIEW
2-No.lO
Strain 99e
on
Stirrup fWNrafONIMflt
rwrtforoefnent
vanea r"*""""4
J a/2
LVOT
10- No 30 on
concreto
cover MOmm
I 650 J6JL
SECTION A- INSTRUMENTATION
Fig. 5-1, Details of Beam Specimens and instrumentation (Yoon, Cook and Mitchell)
49
Table. 5-1, Details of Beam Specimens
(,
Shear reinforcement
/ / . Stirrup size and spacing, b s*

MPa
w
Specimen mm MPa Comments

N-Se res:
Nl-S 0.00 No stirrups
Nl-N 36 8.0 mm diameter at 325 0.35 Min /4,, s - d/2
N2-S 9.5 mm diameter at 465 0.35 Min A,, s = 0.7d
N2-N 9.5 mm diameter at 325 0.50 > Min A,, s = d/2
M-Series:
Ml-S 0.00 No stirrups
Ml-N 8.0 mm diameter at 325 0.35 AC1 83, ACI 89,*
67 CSA 84
Min A^ s = d/2
M2-S 9.5 mm diameter at 325 0.50 CSA 94 min /1,, s = d/2
M2-N 9.5 mm diameter at 230 0.70 ACI 89t mm A,, s < d/2
H-Series:
Hl-S 0.00 No stirrups
Hl-N 8.0 mm diameter at 325 0.35 ACI 83, ACI 89,*
87 CSA 84
Min Ay, s = d/2
H2-S 9.5 mm diameter at 270 0.60 CSA 94 min A s < d/2
H2-N 9.5 mm diameter at 160 1.00 ACI 89t min A* s < d/2
Lower amount of minimum *4 provided when *jf i a/69 MPa in design.

V c
tUpper amount of minimum A provided when Jf/

v > a/69 MPa in design.
2
Noterj^. for all stirrups is 430 MPa; area of 8.0-mm-diamcter bar = 50 mm ; area of
2
9.5-mm-diameter bar = 7! mm .
The purpose of the paper was to evaluate the minimum shear reinforcement
requirements in normal, medium, and high-strength reinforced concrete beams. Therefore
the tested beams were reinforced with minimum shear reinforcement, except three
50
specimens without shear reinforcement ( N l - S , M l - S and H l - S ) . Here these test data are
used for evaluation of shear design methods under the effects of concrete strength, stirrup
spacing and shear reinforcement,
Table 5-2 gives the test results and a comparison of predicted and measured shear
capacities of specimens. The predictions using the shear friction method and the
simplified method agree well with the experimental results with value of C.O.V. 6.8%
and 12.5% respectively, while the prediction using the general method results in a higher
value of C.O.V. 23.7%.
Table. 5-2, Test Results and Comparison of Predictions
V, VfS Vsim Vg
Specimen (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vt/V,, v /v
t sim
Vt/V g
Nl-S 249 208 232 204 1.199 1.075 1.223

Nl-N 457 376 318 209 1.216 1.436 2.188
N2-S 363 354 318 208 1.025 1.143 1.741
N2-N 483 436 418 404 1.108 1.156 1.194
Ml-S 296 270 316 278 1.096 0.937 1.066
Ml-N 405 411 403 269 0.985 1.006 1.508
M2-S 552 468 525 455 1.180 1.051 1.213
M2-N 689 567 576 504 1.214 1.196 1.367
Hl-S 327 302 360 316 1.082 0.908 1.034
Hl-N 483 432 447 300 1.117 1.082 1.612
H2-S 598 534 606 526 1.119 0.986 1.136
H2-N 721 712 708 625 1.012 1.018 1.154
m 1.11 1.08 1.37
a 0.075 0.135 0.325
C.O.V. 6.8% 12.5% 23.7%
51
The analyses of the 9 beams with shear reinforcement are illustrated from Fig. 5-2
to 5-10. In Fig. 5-2, the ratios of test results to the results predicted by the shear friction
method against concrete strength, f' , are plotted to demonstrate the effect of concrete
c
strength on the shear friction method. It shows no obvious trend in the prediction of shear
capacity for beams with different concrete strength. Fig. 5-3 and Fig 5-4 present the
analysis results of the effects of concrete strength using the C S A simplified method and
general method respectively. A downward trend exists for both of methods.
2.5
V t 1.5

Vrf
-tr
1

0.5
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
f c (MPa)
Fig. 5-2, Effect of Concrete Strength on the Shear Friction Method

2.5r
V t 1.5-
Vsim
1 -B-
0.5
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
f c (MPa)
Fig. 5-3, Effect of Concrete Strength on the Simplified Method
2.5r
V 1-5 -s-
t

1
0.5
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
f c (MPa)
Fig. 5-4, Effect of Concrete Strength on the General Method

53
The ratios of test results to the results predicted by the shear friction method
against the ratios of s/d and the web reinforcement index Pyfyy are plotted in Fig. 5-5 and
Fig. 5-6 respectively. The shear friction method demonstrates a consistent accuracy of the
prediction of shear capacity for beams with different stirrup spacing and different
amounts of shear reinforcement.
In Fig. 5-7 to Fig. 5-10, the measured/calculated ratios of shear capacity versus
m e
the ratios of s/d and the web reinforcement index / V v y by C S A simplified method
and general method are plotted. There is a larger scatter for these results than the scatter
when shear strength is predicted by shear friction. Notice that the scatter gets
=
significantly larger around / V v y 0.3 ~ 0.4. The reason is that some specimens are just
under the minimum shear reinforcement requirement by the code and the application of
different equations creates inconsistent conservative results. Fig.5-9 also shows that when
the ratio of s/d increases the general method tends to be more conservative.
2.5
Vrf

1 o o
0.5
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
s
d
Fig. 5-5, Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the Shear Friction Method

2.5r 1 I : I r i r i r
V t 15

Vsf

D 1
0.5
J I I I I I I L
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
f
p - vy(MPa)
v
Fig. 5-6, Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the Shear Friction Method
2.51
V 15
t

Vs im
v
1 -a-
0.5
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
s
d
Fig. 5-7, Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the Simplified Method

55
2.5r i r
v t 1.5-
Vs im

v
0.5
J L J L J I
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
f
P - v y (MPa)
v
Fig. 5-8, Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the Simplified Method
2.5r

V t 1-5 -B-
0.5
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Fig. 5-9, Effect of Stirrup Spacing on the General Method

56
2.5r

v, 14 Q-
S

ODD 1
O.5-
_!_
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Pv-fyy (MPa)
Fig. 5-10, Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the General Method
Fig. 5-11, Fig. 5-12 and Fig 5-13 present the analysis results of the effects of
concrete strength for 3 beams without shear reinforcement using shear friction method,
the C S A simplified method and the general method respectively. The results by shear
friction method are slightly more conservative than the other methods. Both the
simplified method and the general method show a slightly larger downward trend when
f'
c increases.
2.5r
V t 1.5-
Vf
1
0.5
o' 1 1 1 1 1
90
30 40 50 60 70 80
f c (MPa)
2.5
V t 1-5
Vs im
v
0.5
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
f c (MPa)

58
2.5r
V t 1.5-
*
V
1
1
0.5"
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
f c (MPa)
(40)
5.2.2 Sarsam and Al-Musawi's Tests, 1 9 9 2 :
A total of 14 beams had been tested and all failed in shear. Fig. 5-14 shows the
details of the 180 mm wide x 270 mm deep specimens. A l l beams have the same 4 mm
diameter stirrups with different spacings. The shear span ratios of a/d = 2.5 and 4 had
been tested and different concrete strengths had been used. Different fiexural tension
reinforcement had been provided to test the effects on prediction of shear capacity. A
symmetrical two-point load had been applied at midspan. Table 5-3 and Table 5-4 list
the details of beam specimens.
The tests were designed to evaluate the effects of concrete strength, shear span
ratios, amount of longitudinal reinforcement and stirrup spacing.
59
25mm cross bars with positive
wtlding to alt As bars ( typ.)
25*100*180 mm
plat* (typ)
4 mm stirrups /d s
spacing through out

150mm j 22 $4 -2280 mm (a/d * A) , /SOmoi
4'fm//> J * / 5 / - /575 mm ( a/d :2.5 ) i (min )
25 mm cover on
for As bars:
a:
2 - 10mm
mm stirrups
for As bars:
3-20 mm
or 2.25mm
+/_ 16 mm 2 5 mm cover
on As
or 3.25mm
Section A-A
Fig. 5-14, Details of Beam Specimens and Instrumentation (Sarsam and Al-Musawi)
60
Table. 5-3, Details of Beam Specimens:
Spacing
of 4-
mm
ft* stirrups,
Specimen mm aid N/mm* mm 2
p mm N/mm 2
kN
AL2-N 235 4 40.4 943 0.0223 150 0.76 114.7
AL2-H 235 4 75.3 943 0.0223 150 0.76 122.6
AS2-N 235 2.5 39.0 943 0.0223 150 0.76 189.3
AS2-H 232 2.5 75.5 943 0.0226 150 0.76 201.0
AS3-N 235 2.5 40.2 943 0.0223 100 1.14 199.1
AS3-H 235 2.5 71.8 943 0.0223 100 1.14 199.1
BL2-II 233 4 75.7 1181 0.0282 150 0.76 138.3
BS2-H 233 2.5 73.9 1181 0.0282 150 0.76 223.5
BS3-H 233 2.5 73.4 1181 0.0282 100 1.14 228.1
BS4-H 233 2.5 80.1 1181 0.0282 75 1.53 206.9
CL2-H 233 4 70.1 1470 0.0351 150 0.76 147.2
CS2-H 233 2.5 70.2 1470 0.0351 150 0.76 247.2
CS3-H 233 2.5 74.2 1470 0.0351 100 1.14 247.2
CS4-H 233 2.5 75.7 1470 0.0351 75 1.53 220.7
Table. 5-4, Details of Materials:
Reinforccmeni
diameter, mm Description Application N/mm 2
4 High-yield, cold- Stirrups 820

drawn smooth wire
10 Hot-rolled Top 450
deformed bar reinforcement
16 Hot-rol led Tension 525
20 Hot-rolled Tension 495
25 Hot-rolled Tension 543

61
Table 5-5 shows that all methods are conservative with high values of C.O.V.
from 21.0% to 23.1%. The small scale of the specimens may cause the somewhat greater
variation. Comparing the two same size beams CS2-H and CS4-H, they have the same
ratio of a/d, the same longitudinal reinforcement, while CS4-H with higher concrete
strength and two times more shear reinforcement (half of the stirrup spacing of CS2-H),
but the test results show that CS2-H has higher shear capacity than CS4-H. The same
thing happened on beam BS2-H and BS4-H. Because of the accuracy of the tests this
group of test samples will not be included in the further analysis, even though it is a good
example for demonstrating variables of beam shear capacity.
Table. 5-5, Test Results and Comparison of Predictions:
v t Vf
s Vsim Vg
Specimen (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vt/V rf v /v
t sim
Vt/V g
AL2-N 114.7 97.1 86.1 75.5 1.182 1.331 1.520

AL2-H 122.6 104.6 105.8 92.7 1.172 1.159 1.323
AS2-N 189.3 97.3 85.2 70.5 1.945 2.222 2.685
AS2-H 201.0 106.2 104.5 90.1 1.894 1.923 2.231
AS3-N 199.1 123.5 102.2 90.3 1.613 1.948 2.204
AS3-H 199.1 132.1 120.2 106.0 1.508 1.656 1.878
BL2-H 138.3 104.7 104.9 91.8 1.321 1.319 1.506
BS2-H 223.5 106.4 104.0 86.1 2.100 2.149 2.596
BS3-H 228.1 132.4 119.8 103.7 1.723 1.905 2.199
BS4-H 206.9 157.6 139.0 124.1 1.313 1.489 1.668
CL2-H 147.2 103.7 102.1 88.2 1.419 1.442 1.669
CS2-H 247.2 105.7 102.2 84.8 2.340 2.420 2.914
CS3-H 247.2 132.6 120.1 104.0 1.865 2.058 2.377
CS4-H 220.7 156.6 136.9 122.3 1.409 1.612 1.804
m 1.63 1.76 2.04
a 0.35 0.37 0.47
C.O.V. 21.2% 21.0% 23.1%
62
In Fig. 5-15, the ratios of V/V f against the ratios of shear span a/d are plotted.
s
The figure shows the prediction of shear capacity tends to be more conservative and more
scattered when the ratios of shear span a/d = 2.5. For the specimens with a/d = 4.0 the
prediction by the shear friction method agrees well with the test results. The prediction
results by the C S A simplified method and general method are plotted in Fig. 5-16 and
Fig. 5-17 respectively for comparison. The figures also show that the predictions tend to
be more conservative and more scattered for both methods when the ratios of shear span
a/d = 2.5.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2
1

Vrf

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2

a
d
Fig. 5-15, Effect of the Ratio of Shear span on the Shear Friction Method
i 1 r i r
ft

a

sim
J L J I L J L
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2
a
d
Fig. 5-16, Effect of the Ratio of Shear span on the Simplified Method
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

il
ft

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2
a
d
Fig. 5-17, Effect of the Ratio of Shear span on the General Method
64
In Fig. 5-18, the ratios of V/V f against concrete strength, f' , are plotted to
s c
demonstrate the effect of concrete strength on the shear friction method. It shows no
obvious trend in the prediction of shear capacity for beams with different concrete
strength. The prediction results by the C S A simplified method and general method are
plotted in Fig. 5-19 and Fig. 5-20 respectively for comparison. There is also no obvious
trend.
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
f c (MPa)

l i l i 1 1 1 1 1

2 o
n

v
sim
DDO
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
f c (MPa)
1 1 1 1 1 1 b 1 1

2
o

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
f c (MPa)

66
against the ratios of s/d and the web reinforcement index pjvy are plotted in Fig. 5-21
and Fig. 5-22 respectively. The shear friction method demonstrates no obvious trend in
the prediction of shear capacity for beams with different stirrup spacing and different
amounts of shear reinforcement. The comparison results by the C S A simplified method
and general method are plotted in Fig. 5-23 to Fig. 5-26. There is no obvious trend.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1

n
D
a

't

a
V f
s
o
OD
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7
s
d

67
V.t
V f s
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

,f
Pv vy(MPa)
Fig. 5-22, Effect o f Shear Reinforcement on the Shear Friction Method
3i 1 1 1 i r
v c
sim
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7

s

68
1 1 i i i i i i

B

a

v

sim

i i i i i i i i
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
f
P - v y (MPa)
v
1 1 1 1 1 1 d
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7
s
d
69
I I I I I I I 1 I
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
f
P v ' v y (MPa)
In Fig. 5-27, the measured/calculated ratios of shear capacity versus the ratios of
beam longitudinal reinforcement p by the shear friction method are plotted. There is a
slight trend up when beams are reinforced with more bottom reinforcement. The
prediction results by the C S A simplified method and general method are plotted in Fig. 5-
28 and Fig. 5-29 respectively for comparison. There is also an up-trend shown in both
Fig. 5-28 and Fig. 5-29 when increasing beam longitudinal reinforcement.
70
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6

P (%)
Fig. 5-27, Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the Shear Friction Method
1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Vt

V c

sim

1 1 1 1 1 1 I
0
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6
P (%)
Fig. 5-28, Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the Simplified Method
71
( ) . I I 1 I I I I
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6
P (%)
Fig. 5-29, Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the General Method
5.2.3 Summary of Tests from Literature:

Test data from a total of 113 beams with stirrups and 105 beams without stirrups
are selected from literature. A l l selected beams were simply supported rectangular beams
subjected to a symmetrical single or two-point load. The selected beams had different
concrete strengths from about 20 M P a up to more than 100 M P a . The selected beams also
had different shear span ratios, different amounts of longitudinal reinforcement, different
shear reinforcement and different stirrup spacing. Table 5-6 gives the details of
specimens with stirrups and Table 5-7 gives the details of specimens without stirrups.
Table 5-6, Details of Specimens with Stirrups
h d a fc P fy fvy S
NAME SPECIMEN (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (%) (MPa)
2
(mm ) (MPa) (mm) (kN)
Rodriguez E2A1 368 152 318 274 1295 1193 25.5 1.57 320 142 346 254 130.5
et al E2A2 368 152 321 274 1295 1193 19.3 1.57 325 142 347 254 119.7
E2A3 368 156 321 274 1295 1193 20.1 1.57 331 142 351 254 128.9
C2A1 368 154 318 274 1295 1193 22.6 1.57 318 142 354 254 99.8
C2A2 368 157 321 274 1295 1193 22.1 1.57 324 142 349 254 122.8
E3H1 368 152 318 267 864 762 24.8 1.57 380 253 331 152 213.7
E3H2 368 152 311 267 864 762 27.5 1.57 377 253 316 191 189.3
C3H1 368 152 318 267 864 762 22.6 1.57 385 253 318 152 189.3
C3H2 368 152 323 267 864 762 22.8 1.57 410 253 318 191 173.9
Debaiky & Al 300 120 260 234 975 900 24.5 2.89 408 47 318 200 72.1
Eliniema Bl 300 120 260 234 775 700 24.5 2.89 408 47 318 200 67.5
CI 300 120 260 234 975 900 28.0 2.89 408 47 318 200 71.1
Dl 300 120 260 234 975 900 29.8 2.89 408 47 318 100 81.9
D2 300 120 260 224 975 900 30.6 2.89 408 100 318 200 73.5
F5 300 120 260 232 975 900 20.2 2.41 408 57 314 200 66.2
F6 300 120 260 232 975 900 20.5 1.92 408 57 314 200 61.3
Mphonde B50-3-3 337 150 298 282 1067 965 22.1 3.4 448 16 303 89 76.1
B50-7-3 337 150 298 282 1067 965 39.8 3.4 448 16 303 89 93.9
B50-11-3 337 150 298 282 1067 965 59.7 3.4 448 16 303 89 97.9
B50-15-3 337 150 298 282 1067 965 83.0 3.4 448 16 303 89 111.2
B100-3-3 337 150 298 276 1067 965 27.9 3.4 448 36 266 89 95.2
B100-7-3 337 150 298 276 1067 965 47.1 3.4 448 36 266 89 120.5
337 150 298 276 1067 965 68.6 3.4 448 36 266 89 151.7
B100-11-3
337 150 298 276 1067 965 81.9 3.4 448 36 266 89 115.7
B100-15-3
337 150 298 276 1067 965 28.7 3.4 448 51 284 89 139.0
B150-3-3
337 150 298 276 1067 965 46.6 3.4 448 51 284 89 133.4
B150-7-3
150 298 276 1067 965 69.5 3.4 448 51 284 89 161.5
B150-11-3 337
150 298 276 1067 965 82.7 3.4 448 51 284 89 149.9
B150-15-3 337
Table 5-6, Details of Specimens with Stirrups (cont.)
h b w d dev
a ac f'c P fy fvy S
NAME SPECIMEN (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) 2
(%)
Elzanaty G4 305 178 267 242 1067 967 62.7 3.3 434 63 379 191 147.2
et al G5 305 178 267 242 1067 967 40.0 2.5 434 63 379 191 113.2
G6 305 178 267 242 1067 967 20.7 2.5 434 63 379 191 77.6
Johnson No.l 610 305 539 535 1670 1505 36.4 2.5 525 63 479 133 338.5
& Ramirez No.2 610 305 539 535 1670 1505 36.4 2.5 525 63 479 267 221.9
No.4 610 305 539 535 1670 1505 72.3 2.5 525 63 479 267 315.9
No.5 610 305 539 535 1670 1505 55.8 2.5 525 63 479 133 382.7
No.7 610 305 539 535 1670 1505 51.3 2.5 525 63 479 267 280.8
No.8 610 305 539 535 1670 1505 51.3 2.5 525 63 479 267 258.1
Roller 1 635 356 559 502 1397 1194 120.1 1.65 472 63 407 216 297.3
& Russell 2 679 356 559 520 1397 1194 120.1 3.04 431 253 448 165 1097.4
3 718 356 559 547 1397 1194 120.1 4.56 431 396 458 127 1655.0
4 718 356 559 547 1397 1194 120.1 6.08 431 396 458 89 1940.0
5 743 356 559 572 1397 1194 120.1 6.97 462 396 458 64 2234.5
6 870 457 762 724 2286 2083 72.4 1.73 464 143 445 381 665.4
7 870 457 762 724 2286 2083 72.4 1.88 483 143 445 197 787.9
9 870 457 762 724 2286 2083 125.3 2.35 483 143 445 197 749.4
10 870 457 762 724 2286 2083 125.3 2.89 464 143 445 133 1172.2
Bresler & A-l 561 307 466 436 1827 1611 24.1 1.8 555 63 325 210 233.5
Scordelis A-2 559 305 464 434 2288 2072 24.3 2.28 555 63 325 210 244.7
B-l 556 231 461 431 1821 1605 24.8 2.43 555 63 325 191 222.4
B-2 561 229 466 436 2286 2070 23.2 2.43 555 63 325 191 200.2
C-l 559 155 464 434 1831 1615 29.6 1.8 555 63 325 210 155.7
C-2 559 152 464 434 2289 2073 23.8 3.66 555 63 325 210 162.4
NNW-3 254 . 127 203 185 610 508 42.9 3.2 421 63 324 102 87.1
Xie
254 127 198 185 594 492 103.4 4.54 421 63 324 99 102.4
et al NHW-3
254 127 198 185 594 492 94.7 4.54 421 63 324 76 108.2
NHW-3a
254 127 198 185 594 492 108.7 4.54 421 63 324 64 122.5
NHW-3b
254 127 198 185 792 690 104.0 4.54 421 63 324 99 93.7
NHW-4
h bw d dey a ac f'c P fy fvy S v,

NAME SPECIMEN (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) 2
(%)
Anderson Wl 406 406 343 292 914 812 29.2 2.275 434 285 544 178 458.2
& Ramirez W2 406 406 343 292 914 812 32.2 2.275 434 285 544 178 548.9
W3 406 406 343 292 914 812 32.3 2.275 434 143 544 89 504.4
Yoon NIN 750 375 655 638 2150 2000 36.0 2.85 400 100 430 325 457.0
et al N2S 750 375 655 632 2150 2000 36.0 2.85 400 142 430 465 363.0
N2N 750 375 655 632 2150 2000 36.0 2.85 400 142 430 325 483.0
MIN 750 375 655 638 2150 2000 67.0 2.85 400 100 430 325 405.0
M2S 750 375 655 632 2150 2000 67.0 2.85 400 142 430 325 552.0
M2N 750 375 655 632 2150 2000 67.0 2.85 400 142 430 230 689.0
H1N 750 375 655 638 2150 2000 87.0 2.85 400 100 430 325 483.0
H2S 750 375 655 632 2150 2000 87.0 2.85 400 142 430 270 598.0
H2N 750 375 539 632 2150 2000 87.0 2.85 400 142 430 160 721.0
Kriski 1 400 360 345 327 1050 900 28.9 2.01 433 51 600 150 249.0
3 400 360 345 327 1050 900 28.9 2.01 433 51 600 150 224.5
5 400 360 345 327 900 750 30.1 2.01 433 51 600 150 293.0
7 400 360 345 327 1050 900 74.3 2.01 433 51 600 150 304.5
8 400 360 345 327 900 750 77.8 2.01 433 51 600 150 391.0
9 400 360 345 327 1050 900 77.0 2.01 433 51 600 150 242.0
10 400 360 345 327 900 750 76.3 2.01 433 51 600 150 390.5
Peng B-l 320 280 274 247 950 848 31.3 2.7 478 51 587 355 114.0
B-2 320 280 274 247 950 848 31.8 2.7 478 51 587 300 119.0
B-3 320 280 274 247 950 848 32.7 2.7 478 51 587 250 121.0
B-4 320 280 274 247 950 848 33.0 2.7 478 51 587 195 143.0
320 280 274 225 950 848 32.4 2.7 478 200 456 355 181.0
B-5
320 280 274 225 950 848 29.3 2.7 478 200 456 300 191.0
B-6
274 225 950 848 32.2 2.7 478 200 456 250 187.0
B-7 320 280
BM100 1000 300 925 870 2700 2548 47.0 0.76 550 142 508 600 342.0
Podgorniak
1000 300 925 870 2700 2548 47.0 0.76 550 142 508 600 461.0
& Stanik BM100D
h bw d dev a ac f'c P fy A v f vy S
NAME SPECIMEN (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (%) (mm ) 2
(MPa) (MPa) (mm) (kN)
Clark Al-1 457 203 390 335 914 825 24.6 3.1 321 142 331 183 222.5
Al-2 457 203 390 335 914 825 23.6 3.1 321 142 331 183 209.2
Al-3 457 203 390 335 914 825 23.4 3.1 321 142 331 183 222.5
Al-4 457 203 390 335 914 825 24.8 3.1 321 142 331 183 244.7
Bl-1 457 203 390 335 762 673 23.4 3.1 321 142 331 191 278.9
Bl-2 457 203 390 335 762 673 25.4 3.1 321 142 331 191 256.6
Bl-3 457 203 390 335 762 673 23.7 3.1 321 142 331 191 284.8
Bl-4 457 203 390 335 762 673 23.3 3.1 321 142 331 191 268.1
Bl-5 457 203 390 335 762 673 24.6 3.1 321 142 331 191 241.4
Cl-1 457 203 390 335 610 521 25.6 2.07 321 142 331 203 277.7
Cl-2 457 203 390 335 610 521 26.3 2.07 321 142 331 203 311.1
Cl-3 457 203 390 335 610 521 24.0 2.07 321 142 331 203 245.9
Cl-4 457 203 390 335 610 521 29.0 2.07 321 142 331 203 285.9
Dl-1 457 203 390 335 457 368 26.2 1.63 335 142 331 152 301.1
Dl-2 457 203 390 335 457 368 26.1 1.63 335 142 331 152 356.7
Dl-3 457 203 390 335 457 368 24.5 1.63 335 142 331 152 256.6
Yoshida YB2000/9 2000 300 1890 1814 5400 5100 36.0 0.74 455 645 467 2700 474.0
YB2000/6 2000 300 1890 1814 5400 5100 36.0 0.74 455 284 467 1350 551.0
YB2000/4 2000 300 1890 1814 5400 5100 36.0 0.74 455 129 467 590 659.0
Angelakos DB120M 1000 300 925 860 2700 2548 21.0 1.01 550 142 508 600 282.0
DB140M 1000 300 925 860 2700 2548 38.0 1.01 550 71 508 300 277.0
DB165M 1000 300 925 860 2700 2548 65.0 1.01 550 71 508 300 452.0
DB180M 1000 300 925 860 2700 2548 80.0 1.01 550 71 508 300 395.0
DB0.530M 1000 300 925 860 2700 2548 32.0 0.50 550 71 508 300 263.0
SE100A-M-69 1000 295 920 896 4600 4448 71.0 1.03 483 200 522 440 516.0
Collins
SE100B-M-69 1000 295 920 896 4600 4448 75.0 1.03 483 200 522 440 583.0
& Kuchma
SE50A-M-69 500 169 459 447 2500 2424 74.0 1.03 475 51 593 276 139.0
500 169 459 447 2500 2424 74.0 1.03 475 51 593 276 152.0
SE50B-M-69
76
Table 5-7, Details of Specimens without Stirrups
h bw d a ac fc P fy v t
NAME SPECIMEN (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (kN)
(%)
Kani et al 24 305 152 271 407 305 27.9 1.88 396 181.9
25 305 152 271 543 441 24.5 1.88 396 104.1
26 305 152 271 543 441 27.1 1.88 396 78.1
85 305 154 274 272 170 25.5 2.80 381 233.5
87 305 154 269 272 170 27.2 2.80 366 239.5
94 305 153 273 543 441 25.3 2.80 352 110.5
100 305 153 270 544 442 27.2 2.80 366 111.9
27 305 152 271 678 577 29.8 1.88 396 51.4
28 305 152 271 678 577 29.2 1.88 396 54.3
29 305 152 271 1221 1119 24.5 1.88 350 42.9
30 305 152 271 1221 1119 25.2 1.88 350 46.3
35 305 155 269 953 851 26.1 1.88 491 44.9
36 305 153 273 953 851 26.1 1.88 491 51.6
81 305 153 274 1628 1526 27.5 2.80 343 51.2
83 305 156 271 814 712 27.4 2.80 343 64.9
84 305 151 271 1085 983 27.4 2.80 342 55.4
91 305 154 269 1628 1526 27.4 2.80 364 51.0
93 305 155 273 1763 1662 30.3 2.80 372 53.8
95 305 153 275 678 577 25.3 2.80 338 72.7
96 305 153 275 1085 983 25.3 2.80 335 56.3
97 305 152 276 815 714 27.2 2.80 366 62.5
99 305 152 272 679 578 26.2 2.80 366 77.2
Leonhardt 1 320 190 270 270 155 29.6 2.07 465 388.3
& Walther 2 320 190 270 400 285 29.6 2.07 465 259.9
3 320 190 270 540 425 29.6 2.07 465 147.1
4 320 190 270 670 555 29.6 2.07 465 81.6
5 320 190 270 810 695 29.6 2.07 465 60.3
6 320 190 270 1100 985 29.6 2.07 465 60.8
7 320 190 278 1350 1235 31.0 2.01 465 62.3
8 320 190 278 1620 1505 31.0 2.01 465 65.7
Moody et al Al-A 305 178 262 800 699 30.3 2.17 313 60.1
A2-A 305 178 267 800 699 31.0 2.15 313 66.7
A3-A 305 178 268 800 699 31.0 2.22 313 75.6
A4-A 305 178 270 800 699 31.5 2.37 313 71.2
Bl-A 305 178 267 800 699 21.2 1.62 313 56.3
B2-A 305 178 268 800 699 21.6 1.63 313 60.1
Bl-B 305 152 268 914 762 36.7 1.89 313 57.8
B3-B 305 152 268 914 762 25.8 1.89 313 52.3
B5-B 305 152 268 914 762 30.7 1.89 313 52.0
B7-B 305 152 268 914 762 30.9 1.89 313 51.2
77
Table 5-7, Details of Specimens without Stirrups (cont.)
h bw d a a c fc P fy v t
NAME SPECIMEN (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) ( M P a ) (%) (MPa) (kN)
Van Den Berg A4-1 419 229 359 991 889 43.6 4.53 310 177.9
A4-2 419 229 359 1372 1270 38.9 4.53 310 133.4
A4-3 419 229 359 1448 1346 41.8 4.53 310 134.3
A4-4 419 229 359 1524 1422 38.9 4.53 310 135.0
A4-5 419 229 359 1257 1156 39.6 4.53 310 133.4
A4-6 419 229 359 1524 1422 44.9 4.53 310 142.3
A4-7 419 229 359 1257 1156 50.3 4.53 310 142.3
A4-8 . 419 229 359 1600 1499 42.8 4.53 310 124.5
A4-9 419 229 359 1676 1575 47.6 4.53 310 131.2
A4-10 419 229 359 1753 1651 35.4 4.53 310 122.3
A4-12 419 229 359 991 889 44.0 4.53 310 177.9
Dl 419 229 359 1257 1156 49.8 4.53 310 151.2
D2 419 229 359 1257 1156 43.0 4.53 310 131.2
D3 419 229 359 1257 1156 36.1 4.53 310 129.0
D4 419 229 359 1257 1156 35.5 4.53 310 144.6
D5 419 229 359 1257 1156 43.0 4.53 310 131.2
D6 419 229 359 1257 1156 41.3 4.53 310 140.1
D7 419 229 359 1257 1156 32.2 4.53 310 140.1
D8 419 229 359 1257 1156 25.5 4.53 310 117.9
DIO 419 229 359 1257 1156 26.7 4.53 310 126.8
DU 419 229 359 1257 1156 19.1 4.53 310 109.0
D12 419 229 359 1257 1156 23.3 4.53 310 106.8
D13 419 229 359 1257 1156 20.8 4.53 310 99.2
D14 419 229 359 1257 1156 23.9 4.53 310 106.8
D15 419 229 359 1257 1156 22.3 4.53 310 102.3
D16 419 229 359 1257 1156 25.9 4.53 310 111.2
D17 419 229 359 1257 1156 22.2 4.53 310 104.5
D18 419 229 359 1257 1156 24.4 4.53 310 104.5
D19 419 229 359 1257 1156 27.4 4.53 310 115.7
D20 419 229 359 1257 1156 24.2 4.53 310 106.8
Mphonde AO-3-3b 337 152 298 1074 973 20.8 3.36 414 64.6
& Frantz AO-3-3c 337 152 298 1074 973 27.1 2.32 414 66.8
AO-7-3a 337 152 298 1074 973 37.7 3.36 414 82.2
AO-7-3b 337 152 298 1074 973 41.6 3.36 414 82.8
AO-11-3a 337 152 298 1074 973 74.9 3.36 414 89.7
AO-11-3b 337 152 298 1074 973 74.6 3.36 414 89.4
AO-15-3a 337 152 298 1074 973 81.3 3.36 414 93.5
AO-15-3b 337 152 298 1074 973 93.7 3.36 414 100.0
AO-15-3c 337 152 298 1074 973 91.8 3.36 414 97.9
Table 5-7, Details of Specimens without Stirrups (cont.)
h K d a a c fc P fy v t
NAME SPECIMEN (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (kN)
(%)
Ahmad et al Al 254 127 203 813 711 60.8 3.93 414 57.8
A2 254 127 203 610 508 60.8 3.93 414 68.9
A3 254 127 203 549 447 60.8 3.93 414 68.9
A7 254 127 208 832 731 60.8 1.77 414 46.7
A8 254 127 208 624 522 60.8 1.77 414 48.9
A9 254 127 208 562 460 60.8 1.77 414 80.1
Bl 254 127 202 807 705 67.0 5.04 414 51.2
B2 254 127 202 605 503 67.0 5.04 414 68.9
B3 254 127 202 545 443 67.0 5.04 414 100.1
B7 254 127 208 832 731 67.0 2.25 414 44.6
B8 254 127 208 624 522 67.0 2.25 414 46.7
B9 254 127 208 562 460 67.0 2.25 414 80.1
Cl 254 127 184 737 635 64.3 6.64 414 54.3
C2 254 127 184 552 451 64.3 6.64 414 75.6
C3 254 127 184 497 396 64.3 6.64 414 68.9
C7 254 127 207 826 724 64.3 3.26 414 45.4
C8 254 127 207 620 518 64.3 3.26 414 44.5
C9 254 127 207 558 456 64.3 3.26 414 45.4
Bresler OA-1 556 310 461 1829 1613 22.5 1.81 555 166.8
& Scordelis OA-2 561 305 466 2286 2070 23.7 2.27 555 177.9
OA-3 556 307 462 3200 2985 37.6 2.74 555 189.0
Xie et al NNN-3 254 127 216 648 546 39.7 2.07 421 36.7
NHN-3 254 127 216 648 546 104.2 2.07 421 45.7
Yoon et al N1S 750 375 655 2150 2000 36.0 2.80 400 249.0
MIS 750 375 655 2150 2000 67.0 2.80 400 296.0
HIS 750 375 655 2150 2000 87.0 2.80 400 327.0
79
5.2.3.1 Beams with Shear reinforcement:

Table 5-6 gives the details of specimens with stirrups. Table 5-8 gives the
summary of the comparison of predictions by three different methods for beams with
stirrups. The predictions by the shear friction method are slightly conservative. The
average value of V/V fis s 1.09 and the coefficient of variation (C.O.V.) is 16.6%. The
predictions by the simplified method have a larger scatter. The average value of V/V sim is
1.16 and the coefficient of variation (C.O.V.) is 20.4%. The most conservative
predictions with the largest scatter are obtained by the general method. The average value
of V/V is 1.35 and the coefficient of variation (C.O.V.) is 24.6%.
g
Table. 5-8, Comparison of Predictions for Beams with Stirrups
v /v
t sf vwt sim v /vt e
NAME No. m a C.O.V m a C.O.V m a C.O.V

Rodriguez 9 1.18 0.098 8.3% 1.04 0.112 10.7% 1.05 0.160 15.2%
Debaiky 7 1.07 0.113 10.6% 1.24 0.143 11.6% 1.39 0.195 14.0%
Mphonde 12 1.09 0.106 9.7% 1.23 0.116 9.4% 1.47 0.184 12.5%
Elzanaty 3 1.11 0.223 20.0% 1.19 0.140 11.8% 1.37 0.172 12.6%
Johnson 6 0.94 0.081 8.6% 1.02 0.076 7.5% 1.16 0.130 11.2%
Roller 9 1.13 0.208 18.3% 1.07 0.228 21.4% 1.26 0.314 25.0%
Bresler 6 1.12 0.047 4.2% 1.33 0.070 5.2% 1.61 0.079 4.9%
Xie 5 0.96 0.035 3.7% 1.08 0.053 4.9% 1.20 0.049 4.1%
Anderson 3 1.09 0.115 10.5% 1.11 0.074 6.7% 1.12 0.078 6.9%
Yoon 9 1.11 0.081 7.3% 1.12 0.130 11.6% 1.46 0.326 22.4%
Kriski 7 1.10 0.189 17.1% 1.20 0.190 15.9% 1.39 0.230 16.5%
Peng 7 1.16 0.170 14.7% 1.07 0.058 5.4% 1.17 0.980 8.4%
Podgorniak 2 0.99 0.147 14.8% 1.09 0.162 14.8% 1.75 0.260 14.8%
Clark 16 1.29 0.152 11.7% 1.49 0.184 12.4% 1.57 0.252 16.0%
Yoshida 3 0.86 0.021 2.4% 0.94 0.298 31.7% 1.74 0.814 46.7%
Angelakos 5 0.78 0.128 16.3% 0.80 0.180 22.7% 1.09 0.410 37.7%
Collins 4 0.90 0.049 5.5% 0.80 0.039 4.9% 0.91 0.045 4.9%
Total 113 1.09 0.182 16.6% 1.16 0.236 20.4% 1.35 0.331 24.6%
80
Fig. 5-30 to Fig. 5-32 illustrate the results of predictions by the shear friction
method, the C S A simplified method and the C S A general method respectively.
Comparing the figures it is clear that the shear friction method gives the best prediction
of the three methods.
2500
(kN)
V r f 1250
oo
0
1250 2500
V (kN)
t
Fig. 5-30, Predicted Results by the Shear Friction Method

81
2500
(kN)
simi250

o >
1250 2500
V t (kN)
Fig. 5-31, Predicted Results by the Simplified Method

82
2500
(kN)
V
g 1250
o
1250 2500
v. (kN)
Fig. 5-32, Predicted Results by the General Method

83
In Fig. 5-33, the ratios of V/V f against the ratios of shear span a/d are plotted.
s
Generally speaking, the prediction by the shear friction method agrees well with the test
results.
In Fig. 5-34 and Fig. 5-35, the measured/calculated ratios of shear capacity versus
the ratios of shear span a/d by the C S A simplified method and general method are plotted
respectively. There is a larger scatter of the results predicted by the general method
compared to that predicted by shear friction.
In Fig. 5-36, the ratios of V/V j- against concrete strength, f' , are plotted to
s c
obvious trend in the prediction of shear capacity for beams with different concrete
strength. The predicted results by the simplified method and the general method against
concrete strength, f' , are plotted in Fig. 5-37 and Fig. 5-38 respectively.
c
against the ratios of s/d and the web reinforcement index f\f y V are plotted in Fig. 5-39
and Fig. 5-42 respectively. The shear friction method demonstrates no obvious trend in
the prediction of shear capacity for beams with different stirrup spacing and different
amounts of shear reinforcement. Fig. 5-40 and Fig. 5-43 give the results by the simplified
method against the ratios of s/d and the web reinforcement index / V y y - The results by the
general method against the ratios of s/d and the web reinforcement index Pyf y are shown
V
t 0 a
in Fig. 5-41 and Fig. 5-44. It is notable that the lowest ratios occur with small / V v y ^
three methods.
In Fig. 5-45, Fig. 5-46 and Fig. 5-47, the measured/calculated ratios of shear
capacity versus the ratios of beam longitudinal reinforcement p by the shear friction
method, the simplified method and the general method are plotted respectively. When p >
1.2%, all three methods show that there is no obvious trend in the predictions of shear
capacity for beams with different amounts of longitudinal reinforcement. But, when p <
1.2%, the lowest ratios occur to all three methods while the general method has a larger
scatter in this range.

84
Fig. 5-48 to Fig. 5-50 illustrate the effects of beam depth to predictions of shear
capacity by the three methods. There is no obvious trend in the predictions of shear
capacity for beams with different beam depth for all three methods.
Fig. 5-33, Effect of the Ratio of Shear Span on the Shear Friction Method
85
Fig. 5-34, Effect of the Ratio of Shear Span on the Simplified Method

a
li B

S UP

o
B S m

Q
a

1.5 2.5 3 3.5 4.5 5.5

a
d
Fig. 5-35, Effect of the Ratio of Shear Span on the General Method
86
60 80 100
f c (MPa)
1 1 1 1 1 1
V
B
t
_ O g-

sim 1 0 0^ n
B Q D
% m g3 ft
^

1 i i i
i i
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
f c (MPa)

87
1 1 1 1 1 1
B
n
u
Dn
rfio
D

OnD 0

V
g k
a
a o D
o a
an * D
D
g a n
i 1=1 u

rj 11
OO
D

1 1 1 1 1 1
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
f c (MPa)

88
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
sim
1
f g !
1 Bn a
1 n
LP U U
n D
Bo

1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
s
d

89
31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rn
v t
" 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pv-fvy(MPa)
Fig. 5-42, Effect of Shear Reinforcement on the Shear Friction Method
31 I I I I 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
f
p - v y (MPa)
v

a

M 1
OD J
-O B-

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
f
P - v y (MPa)
v
Fig. 5-45, Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the Shear Friction Method

91
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 D
D
13

sim j

a
3
D
s
s Ha3l
u PS i

a
1 i i i i i
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 p (%)
Fig. 5-46, Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the Simplified Method

-Q- u
B
v D

t
Beg

B-O
a

2 3 4
P (%)
Fig. 5-47, Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement on the General Method

92
i r
v
t
Vsf B
B
1 -cr
a l

J L J L J L
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
h (mm)
Fig. 5-48, Effect of Beam Depth on the Shear Friction Method
i r
v sim
c
E B D

-B- a
J L J I
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
h (mm)
Fig. 5-49, Effect of Beam Depth on the Simplified Method

93
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 HfitWmnmnrrrn U "
n B D D
a
n o
B b n
on

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
h (mm)
Fig. 5-50, Effect of Beam Depth on the General Method
5.2.3.2 Beams without Shear reinforcement:

Table 5-9 gives the summary of the comparison of predictions by three different
methods for beams without stirrups. The predictions by the shear friction method are
conservative. The average value of the measured/calculated ratios of shear capacity,
V/V A is 1.41 and the coefficient of variation (C.O.V.) is 15.9%. The predictions by the
S
simplified method and by the general method are more conservative than the shear
friction method and have much larger scatters. The average value of the
measured/calculated ratios of shear capacity by the simplified method, V/V , is 1.58 sim
and the coefficient of variation (C.O.V.) is 59.2%. The average value of the
measured/calculated ratios of shear capacity by the general method, V/V , is 1.80 and the g
coefficient of variation (C.O.V.) is 62.1%.

94
Table. 5-9, Comparison of Predictions for Beams without Stirrups
V,/V sf V,/V sim v,/v e
NAME No. m a C.O.V m a C.O.V m a C.O.V

Kani 22 1.35 0.193 14.3% 2.01 1.328 66.2% 2.26 1.500 66.4%
Leonhardt 8 1.29 0.226 17.6% 2.51 2.049 81.7% 3.13 2.523 80.5%
Moody 10 1.26 0.082 6.5% 1.26 0.090 7.2% 1.39 0.096 6.9%
Van Den Berg 30 1.58 0.101 6.4% 1.40 0.124 8.8% 1.50 0.132 8.8%
Mphonde 9 1.55 0.142 9.2% 1.29 0.168 13.1% 1.69 0.185 10.9%
Ahmad 18 1.35 0.265 19.6% 1.49 0.399 26.7% 1.62 0.449 27.8%
Bresler 3 1.47 0.080 5.4% 1.35 0.096 7.1% 1.90 0.133 7.0%
Xie 2 0.96 0.030 3.1% 0.94 0.123 13.1% 1.09 0.076 7.0%
Yoon 3 1.13 0.052 4.6% 0.97 0.073 7.5% 1.11 0.083 7.5%
Total 105 1.41 0.225 15.9% 1.58 0.936 59.2% 1.80 1.119 62.1%
Fig. 5-51 to Fig. 5-53 illustrate the results of predictions by the shear friction
method, the C S A simplified method and the C S A general method respectively.
Comparing the figures it is clear that the shear friction method gives the best prediction
of the three methods.
95
200 400
V t
(kN)
Fig. 5-51, Predicted Results by the Shear Friction Method

96
400
(kNJ

V s i m 200

a
poo en
200 400
v. (kN)
Fig. 5-52, Predicted Results by the Simplified Method

97
400
(kN)
V 200
g
na
200 400
(kN)
Fig. 5-53, Predicted Results by the General Method

98
In Fig. 5-54, the ratios of V/V s against the ratios of shear span a/d are plotted.
s
The figure shows that the predictions of shear capacity by the shear friction method are
within a very narrow range to the test results. Notice that the ratios of V/V f does nots
change significantly even when the ratios of shear span, a/d, are less than 2.5.
The measured/calculated ratios of shear capacity versus the ratios of shear span,
a/d, by the C S A simplified method and the C S A general method are plotted in Fig. 5-55
and Fig. 5-56. There are larger scatters of the results than the scatter predicted by the
shear friction method. Notice that the ratios of V/V sim a n V/V get significant larger
g
when the ratios of shear span, a/d, are less than 2.5.
In Fig. 5-57, the ratios of V/V f against concrete strength, f' , are plotted to
s c
obvious trend in the prediction o f shear capacity for beams with different concrete
strength. The predicted results by the simplified method and the general method against
concrete strength, f' , are plotted in Fig. 5-58 and Fig. 5-59 respectively. There is no
c
obvious trend in the prediction of shear capacity for both of the methods.
The ratios of test results to the results predicted by the shear friction method, the
simplified method and the general method against the ratios of longitudinal reinforcement
ratio, p, are plotted in Fig. 5-60, Fig. 5-61 and Fig. 5-62 respectively. N o obvious trend
can be found in any of the figures.
In Fig. 5-63, the ratios of V/V j- against the ratios of longitudinal reinforcement
s
strength, T/T , are plotted. The figure shows that the predictions of shear capacity by
opt
the shear friction method are within a very narrow range to the test results and there is no
obvious trend against T/T . opt
Fig. 5-64 to Fig. 5-66 show the effects of beam depth to predictions o f shear
capacity by the three methods. There is no obvious trend in the predictions of shear
capacity for beams with different beam depth for all three methods.
9
6
v.i 5
Vrf 4

3
2 co D A
O 3 4
a
Fig. 5-54, Effect of the Ratio of Shear span on the Shear Friction Method
7 -o-
6
h 5
^sim 4

3
00 1 2 3 4 5 6 '
a
d"
Fig. 5-55, Effect of the Ratio of Shear span on the Simplified Method
100
6
5
4

3 TO
2 -B B-
a
i faff D t n
jp fln
1
0
0
a
7
Fig. 5-56, Effect of the Ratio of Shear span on the General Method
9
i r 1 r
8
6
v t 5
Vrf 4
a
3
2
-EL o
1 -tr
J L J I
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
f c (MPa)
101
5
_ L
^sim 4

3 dpo
2 o
fea a l i _Q
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
f c (MPa)
7
-QCL
6
v
t 5
4
D
3
-on
2 o r
in
1 -|J
_L _L
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
f c (MPa)

102
6
v t 5
Vrf 4
on
3
2 -B-

1
1
_L
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
P (%)
Fig. 5-60, Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio on the Shear Friction Method
7 -B-
5
Vs im
v
4
ODD
3

2 -cr

s 9 | DCL
1
0 J
4
P (%)
Fig. 5-61, Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio on the Simplified Method

103
4

3 n

2 -rJ3 qj -e-
"XT "ET
-R-
1 _D_
Fig. 5-62, Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio on the General Method
6
V.1 5
Vrf 4

3
2 cP 1 an IB

a ^
1
Q
0.5 1.5 2 2.5 3.5
T
opt
Fig. 5-63, Effect of Longitudinal Reinforcement Strength on the Shear Friction Method
1
%0 300 400 500 600 700 800

h (mm)
Fig. 5-64, Effect of Beam Depth on the Shear Friction Method
-B-
I
-B-
JL
>00 300 400 500 600 700 800

h (mm)
Fig. 5-65, Effect of Beam Depth on the Simplified Method

105
~o
-B-
-fl-
%0 300 400 500 600 700 800

h (mm)
Fig. 5-66, Effect of Beam Depth on the General Method

106
CHAPTER 6
PROPOSED C O D E C L A U S E S FOR S H E A R D E S I G N
6.1 Proposed Code Clauses for shear design

6.1.1 Required Shear Resistance
Member subjected to shear shall be proportioned so that
V >V
sf f (6-1)
6.1.2 Factored Shear Resistance:

The factored shear resistance shall be determined by
r -V +V++V,
t (6-2)
But V shall not exceed

sf
Kr=^JXh +V p (6-3)
6.1.3 Determination of V csf :
The value of V shall be computed from

csf
V^=y/V tane 45 (6-4)
Where #is given in Clause 6.1.5, i//is given in Clause 6.1.6 and
(6-5)
107
/ \ 0.30 , 0.25
i 30) (500^
P =0.36
v
(6-6)
\fc J
6.1.4 Determination of V : ssf
To determine V.
ss/
(a) For members with transverse reinforcement perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis, the value o f V ssf shall be computed from
(dcote
V =V -1 (6-7)
y r
ssf si
Where #is given in Clause 6.1.5 and
Ki = AAAvy (6-8)
(b) For members with transverse reinforcement inclined at an angle a to the
longitudinal axis, the value of V ssf shall be computed from
d (cot 0 + cot a)
ev
sina (6-9)
6.1.5 Determination o f &.
The value o f 0 for each design section of a member shall be computed from
K d e v
tan 6 (6-10)
V 4i s
108
Where a is the distance from the face of the support to the applied concentrated
c
load location, or from the face of the support to the design section for uniform load.
6.1.6 Determination of yr.
The value of y/for each design section of a member shall be computed from
1// = 1 When T>T opi (6-11)
f - \
y/ = sin n T When T<T opt (6-12)

2 T
Where
T = AA f s y (6-13)
2
T =V (2 + tan 0)
opl 4S (6-14)
6.1.7 Limiting Shear Failure Angle:

The failure angle 0 shall satisfy the following conditions:
tan6> (6-15)
a,.
6>2l IL (6-16)
K 30j
6.2 Design Examples

Design a simply supported beam for shear to span 4 m. The beam carries one 300
k N concentrated live load at midspan. Use 25 M P a concrete and 400 M P a steel. The
beam will have 6-No.25 longitudinal reinforcing bars at bottom and will use No. 10
stirrups.
109
(1) Factored shear force:

Vf = 1.5x300/2 = 225 k N
(2) Beam size:

Choose beam size b x h = 400 mm x 600 mm
/ \ OJO , . n 25
(
30 ^30^ 500^
3 =0.36
V 0.36 x = 0.36
V n ) y 25 y \600 j
V 45 = ^c3v^TcbJi = 1.0x0.6x0.36x425x400x600x 3
10~ =259 k N
(3) Check maximum shear capacity:
3
Ka* = -<Pcf'cKh = -x0.6x25x400x600x 10~ = 900 k N
4 4
>V =
f 225 k N , ok!
(4) Stirrup spacing:
Assume T > T opt
dev = h-(c,+c b +4d ) = 600-(40 + 40 + 4x11.3) = 475 mm

b
Ki =<> AJ = s vy 0.85 x 100 x2x 400 xlO' 3

=68 m
4V
s 4sV d sl ev 4x259x68x475 3 f n
s< , = ; - = 390 mm
2
(Vf+Vsi) (225 + 68)
Choose stirrup spacing at 350 mm.
(5) Calculate shear angle 6 :
tanO x = 0.60
V 45 s 259 350
6 = 31.0
(6) Calculate yr.
3
T = fcAJ =0.85x6 x 500x400 xl0~
y =1020 k N
2 2
T opl =V (2 + tan 0) = 259x(2 + tan (31.0)) = 612 k N
45
r>r o p S o i// = i
(7) Check shear failure angle:
68 475 h 600
tan0 = ' " V ev
x =o.60>
^ 5 \ 1x259 350 a, 7600
1 5
2f]
0 = 31.0 >21 27 x = 20.3
v 50 y K 30j
(8) Check shear capacity of beam:
v =v
sf csf + v +v ssf p
(d cot0
ev ^
y/V tan0 + Vsi
45 i
4 7 5 x 1 6 7
= 1x259 x 0.60 + 68x1 - ?
I 350
= 155.4 + 86.1 = 241.5 k N > V, = 225 kN, ok!

Ill
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS A N D RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations were made based on the

analyses of the test data from a total of 113 beams with stirrups and 105 beams without
stirrups from the literature. A l l selected beams were simply supported rectangular beams
subjected to a symmetrical single or two point load. The selected beams had different
concrete strengths from about 20 MPa up to more than 120 MPa. The selected beams also
had different shear span ratios from about 1 up to 7, different amounts of longitudinal
reinforcement, different shear reinforcement and different stirrup spacing.
7.1 Conclusions and Recommendations:

1. The shear friction method changes the way of beam shear design by
simplifying design procedure and increasing accuracy. The results of the
comparison show that the predictions by the shear friction method had less
scatter with test results compared to the predictions by the C S A simplified
method and general method.
2. The simplified method and the general method are only suitable for beams
with shear span, a/d, greater than 2.5. But the shear friction method may be
used for short shear span situations, such as deep beams.
3. According to the analysis in Chapter 5, stirrup spacing of beams has no
obvious effects on the predictions of the shear capacity of beams by all three
methods. Notice that the limitation on maximum stirrup spacing by the C S A
A23.3-94 clauses 11.2.11 for the simplified method and the general method
was ignored during the analysis. Further investigation should be conducted to
determine whether the limitation on maximum stirrup spacing needs to be
revised.
112
4. The calibration factor, f3 , accurately predicts the effects of concrete strength

v
for the ranges of 20 M P a to 125 M P a and beam height for the ranges of 250
mm to 2000 mm.
5. The shear capacity of beams relies on not only the longitudinal reinforcement
of beams, but also the anchorage of such reinforcement. So any excessive bar
cut offs near beam supports shall be avoided.
6. The equation for calculating minimum shear failure angle, 0 , mm is appropriate
in the prediction of the shear capacity of beams without stirrups. It is not
necessary for shear calculations for beams with the usual amounts of shear
reinforcement.
7.2 Future Research:

1. Different types of beams should be included in the analysis to determine the
range of applicability of the shear friction method, including such beams as
continuous beams, T-beams, prestressed beams and cantilevered beams.
2. The beams with longitudinal reinforcement ratio from 0.5% to 1.5% are very
popular in practice. But there is a lack of test data in that reinforcement range
and more beams in that reinforcement range should be included in the
analysis..
3. Because distributed loads are very common in beam design, it is important to
include tests with distributed loads in the analysis to determine the
applicability of the shear design methods.
113
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[I] A C I 318-M95, 1995, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete,

American Concrete Institute, Detroit Michigan.
[2] Ahmad, S.H., A . R . Khaloo & A . Poveda, Shear Capacity of reinforced High Strength
Concrete Beams, A C I Journal, Proceedings V . 83, No. 2, March-April 1986, pp. 297-
305.
[3] Anderson, N.S. & J.A. Ramirez, Detailing of Stirrup Reinforcement, A C I Structural
Journal, V . 86, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1989, pp. 507-515.
[4] Bresler, B . & A . C . Scordelis, Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams, A C I
Journal, Proceedings V . 60, No. 1, Jan. 1963, pp.51-74.
[5] Braestrup, M . W . , 1974, Plastic Analysis of Shear in Reinforced Concrete, Magazine
of Concrete Research, 26(89), pp. 221-228.
[6] Clark, A . P . , Diagonal Tension in Reinforced Concrete Beams, A C I Journal,
Proceedings V . 48, No. 10, October 1951, pp. 145-156.
[7] C S A Standard A23.3-94, 1994, Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings,
Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.

[8] Debaiky, S.Y. & E.I. Elniema, Behavior and Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Haunched Beams in Shear, A C I Journal, Proceedings V . 79, N o . 3, May-June 1982,
pp. 184-194.
[9] de Paiva, H . A . R. and Siess C P . , 1965, Strength and Behavior of Deep Beams in
Shear, A C I Journal, Proceedings, V o l . 91, No. ST5, pp. 19-41.
[10] Elzanaty, A . H . , A . H . Nilson & F.O. Slate, Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Using High Strength Concrete, A C I Journal, Proceedings V . 83, No. 2,
March-April 1986, pp. 290-296.
[II] Hermansen, B . R. & J. Cowan, 1974, Modified Shear-Friction Theory for Bracket
Design, A C I Journal, Proceedings V . 71, No. 2, Feb. 1974, pp. 55-60.
[12] Hsiung, W. & C.C. Frantz, Transverse Stirrup Spacing in RJC Beams, ASCE Journal
o/Structural Engineering, A S C E , V . 111, No. 2, Feb. 1985, pp. 353-362.
114
[13] Johnson, M . K . , J.A. Ramirez, Minimum Shear Reinforcement in Beams with Higher
Strength Concrete, A C I Structural Journal, V . 86, No. 4 July-Aug. 1989, pp. 376-382.
[14] Kani, W . M . , M . W . Huggins & R.R. Wittkopp, 1979, Kani on Shear in Reinforced
Concrete, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada,
225 pp.
[15] Kong, F.K., Robins, P.J. and Cole, D.F., 1970, Web Reinforcement Effects on Deep
Beam, A C I Journal, Proceedings, V o l . 67, No. 12, pp. 1010-1017.
[16] Kriski, W., 1996, Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams, M.Sc. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
[17] Loov, R. E., 2000, Shear Strength of Concrete, A Simpler Way, Annual Conference
of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, London, Ontario, Canada, pp.49-56.
[18] Loov, R.E., 1998, Review ofA23.3-94 Simplified Method of Shear Design and
Comparison with Results Using Shear Friction, Can. J. Eng., V o l . 25, N o . 3, pp 437-
450.
[19] Loov, R.E., 1997, The Direct Computation of Stirrup Spacing Based on Shear
Friction, Symposium on Advanced Design Concrete Structures, Chalmers, University
of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, pp. 223-230.
[20] Loov, R.E., 1978, Design of Precast Connections, Paper presented at a seminar
organized by Compa International Pte, Ltd., Sep. 25-27,1978, Singapore.
[21] Loov, R.E. and Kriski, W., 1996, Strength of Beams Based on Shear Friction, First
Structural Specialty Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,
Edmonton, Alta., V o l . lia, pp. 537-547.
[22] Loov, R.E. and Patnaik, A . K . , 1994, Horizontal Shear Strength of Composite
Concrete Beams with a Rough Interface, PCI Journal Jan.-Feb. 1994, pp. 48-69.
[23] Loov, R. E., and Peng, L . , 1999, Shear Strength of High Strength Concrete - ACI
318-95 vs. Shear Friction, High-Performance Concrete: Research to Practice, A C I
International SP-189. pp. 411-430.
115
[24] Loov, R. E., and Peng, L., 1998, The Influence of Concrete Strength on Shear
Friction Based Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams, International Conference on
High Performance I High Strength Concrete, (HPHSC), Perth, Australia, pp. 505-519.
[25] Loov, R. E., and Tozser, 0., 1999, Shear Design of Prestressed Beams Using Shear
Friction, 27th Annual Conference of The Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,
Regina, Saskatchewan, pp. 195-204.
[26] Loov, R. E., and Tozser, 0., 1999, Shear-Friction - A Simpler Approach to Shear
Design, The Transportation Research Board Conference, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
[27] MacGregor, J.G. and Bartlett, 2000, Reinforced Concrete - Mechanics and Design,
First Canadian Edition, Prentice Hall Inc.
[28] Marti, P., 1986, Staggered Shear Design of Concrete Bridge Girders, Second
International Conference in Short and Medium Span Bridges, Ottawa, Canada, V o l . 1,
pp. 139-149.
[29] Mattock, A . H . , N . M . Hawkin, 1972, Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete -Recent
Research, PCI Journal March-April 1972, pp. 55-75.
[30] Moody, K . G . , I . M . Viest, R.C. Elstner & E. Hognestad, Shear Strength of Rein-
forced Concrete Beams Part 1 - Tests of Simple Beams, A C I Journal, Proceedings
V . 51, No. 12, Dec. 1954, pp. 317-332.
[31] Mphonde, A . G . , 1989, Use of Stirrup Effectiveness in Shear Design of Concrete
Beams, A C I Structural Journal, V . 86, No. 5, Sep.-Oct. 1989, pp. 541-545.

[32] Mphonde, A . G . & C.C. Frantz, 1984, Shear Tests of High- and Low-Strength Con-
crete Beams Without Stirrups, A C I Journal, Proceedings V . 81, No. 4, July August,
1984, pp. 350-357.
n d
[33] Nielsen, M.P., 1999, Limit Analysis of Concrete Plasticity, 2 Edition, C R C Press,
Washington D.C.
[34] Park, R. and Paulay T., 1975, Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley and Sons.
[35] Peng, L., 1999, Shear Strength of Beams by Shear-Friction, M.Sc. Thesis,
Department of C i v i l Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
116
[36] Pillai, S. U . and Kirk, D. W., 1983, Reinforced Concrete Design in Canada,
McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited.
[37] Polak, M . A., and Dubas, J.J., 1996, Shear Design of High Strength Concrete Beams
- Canadian Code Perspective, Canada Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 4,
pp. 809-819.
[38] Rodriguez, J.J., A . C . Bianchini, I.M. Viest & C E . Kesler, 1959, Shear Strength of
Two-span Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams, A C I Journal, Proceedings V . 56,
No. 4, April 1959, pp. 1089-1130.
[39] Roller, J.J. and H . G . Russell, 1990, Shear Strength of High-Strength Concrete
Beams with Web Reinforcement, A C I Structural Journal, V . 87, No. 2, March-April,
1990, pp. 191-198.
[40] Sarsam, K . F . and Al-Musawi, J.M.S., 1992, Shear Design of High- and Normal
Strength Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement, A C I Structural Journal, Vol. 89,
No. 6, pp. 658-664.
[41] Shahawy, M . A . and Batchelor, B.D., 1996, Shear Behavior of Full-Scale

Prestressed Concrete Girders: Comparison Between AASHTO Specification and
LRFD Code, PCI Journal, pp. 48-62.
[42] Van Den Berg, F.J., 1962, Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams without
Web Reinforcement Part 2 - Factors Affecting Load at diagonal Cracking, A C I Jour-
nal, Proceedings V . 59, No. 11, Nov. 1962, pp. 1587-1599.
[43] Xie, Y . , S.H. Ahmad, T. Y u , S. Hion & W. Chung, 1994, Shear Ductility of Rein-
forced Concrete Beams of Normal and High-Strength Concrete, A C I Structural
Journal, V . 91, No. 2, March-April 1994, pp. 140-149.
[44] Yoon, Y.S., W . D . Cook & D. Mitchell, 1996, Minimum Shear Reinforcement in
Normal, Medium, and High-Strength Concrete Beams, A C I Structural Journal, V . 93,
No. 5, Sep.-Oct. 1996, pp. 576-584.
[45] Zhang, J.P., 1997, Diagonal Cracking and Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Beams, Magazine of Concrete Research March 1997, pp. 55-65.

2002 Wang Hongge

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2002 Wang Hongge

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

U N I V E R S I T Y OF C A L G A R Y

Reinforced Concrete Beam Design for Shear

Hongge (Gordon) Wang

Hongge (Gordon) Wang 2002

Copyright remains with the author.

Theses and dissertations available in the University of Calgary Institutional

Please contact the University of Calgary Archives for further information:

I am extremely grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Robert E. Loov for his endless

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

3.2.2 Shear Supported by Stirrups, V s 25

3.3.2 Shear Supported by Stirrups, V s g 26

4.2.5 Approximate Shear Design Equations for Beams with

4.2.6 Critical Shear Failure Angle 41

5.2.2 Saram and Al-Musawi's Tests, 1992 58

6.1.4 Determination of V s s f 107

6.1.5 Determination of 0 107

6.1.6 Determination of \|/ 108

6.1.7 Limiting Shear Failure Angle 108

6.2 Design Examples 108

5.7 Details of Specimens without Stirrups

3.1 Comparison of Shear Design Methods and Test Results ( C S A A23.3-94) 24

4.1 Shear Friction Concept (CSA A23.3-94) 28

4.9 Shear Strength vs. cotO 37

5.1 Details of Beam Specimens and instrumentation (Yoon, 1996) 48

a shear span, distance from centre of support to point load

b w width of beam web

c coefficient of the cohesion between a potential shear failure plane

fy specified yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement or stirrups

f'c specified compressive concrete strength

h overall height of member

T vr factored tension resistance in a stirrup

v average shear stress on potential shear failure plane according to Loov's

V cg factored shear resistance attributed to the concrete for the C S A general

V d dowel force in the longitudinal reinforcement

Vf factored shear force at section

V g shear resistance of beam using C S A A23.3-94 general method

V p factored transverse component of prestress of beam

V r factored shear resistance of beam

V rg factored shear resistance of beam using C S A A23.3-94 general method

V s factored shear resistance provided by the shear reinforcement

Vf s factored shear resistance for the shear friction method

V sg factored shear resistance provided by the stirrups for the C S A general

V sim shear resistance of beam using C S A A23.3-94 simplified method

V s shear resistance provided by one stirrup

Vf ss factored shear resistance attributed to the reinforcement for the shear

V 4S shear resistance of concrete on a 45 plane

a angle between transverse reinforcement and the shear plane

a/ angle between shear friction reinforcement and longitudinal axis

j3 v calibration factor for shear friction method

6 angle between longitudinal axis and potential shear failure plane

X factor to account for low density concrete

p longitudinal tension reinforcement ratio

pv transverse reinforcement ratio

o average normal stress on potential shear failure plane

<j) c resistance factor for concrete

. resistance factor for reinforcement

y/ factor that depends on the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement strength to

1.2 Code Review

The 1984 revision of the Canadian Standard, C A N 3 A23.3-M84, recommended

1.3 Scope of Study

1.4 Thesis Organization

2.1 Homogeneous Beam

Fig. 2-1, Internal Forces in Beam

By the traditional theory for homogeneous-elastic-uncracked beams, the shear