Australian Journal of Structural Engineering

ISSN: 1328-7982 (Print) 2204-2261 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsen20

Shear strength of RC beams without web

reinforcement

Tao Zhang, Phillip Visintin & Deric J. Oehlers

To cite this article: Tao Zhang, Phillip Visintin & Deric J. Oehlers (2016) Shear strength of RC
beams without web reinforcement, Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 17:1, 87-96, DOI:
10.1080/13287982.2015.1122502

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2015.1122502

Published online: 29 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 575

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsen20

Download by: [101.98.62.29] Date: 13 August 2017, At: 20:39

 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016
VOL. 17, NO. 1, 8796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2015.1122502

Shear strength of RC beams without web reinforcement

Tao Zhang, Phillip Visintin and Deric J. Oehlers
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Due to the complexities of the mechanics of shear failure in reinforced concrete (RC) members, Received 18 February 2015
most current approaches for predicting shear strength are mainly empirical. Being empirical, Accepted 20 May 2015
these approaches do not physically explain the shear failure mechanism seen in practice and KEYWORDS
consequently should only be used within the bounds of the testing regimes from which they were Shear strength; beams and
derived; this restricts their application to innovative materials such as fibre-reinforced polymer girders; concrete structures
RC beams or those with high-performance concrete. In this paper, a numerical mechanics-
based segmental approach for the shear failure of RC beams with any type of reinforcement and
concrete is developed; from the mechanics of the segmental approach, simplifications are made
to develop closed form solutions and the resulting design equations are compared to a database
of 626 steel-reinforced specimens. Further comparisons to the predictions made by the ACI, AS
3600 and FIB Model Code 2010 approaches show that the proposed approach offers improved
accuracy and a reduction in scatter.
Downloaded by [101.98.62.29] at 20:39 13 August 2017

1.Introduction without stirrups can shed light on the shear design of

Due to the complexity of the shear transfer mechanism,
the shear strength of reinforced concrete (RC) members
has been difficult to predict and numerous approaches
have been proposed (Birkeland and Birkeland 1966;
Regan 1969, 1993; Nielsen et al. 1978; Hamadi and
Regan 1980; Vecchio and Collins 1986, 1988; Walraven,
Frenay, and Pruijssers 1987; Zhang 1997; Foster 1998;
Hoang and Nielsen 1998; Teng, Kong, and POH 1998;
Hwang and Lee 2002; Russo, Somma, and Mitri 2005;
Bentz, Vecchio, and Collins 2006; Choi, Park, and Wight
2007; Park and Kuchma 2007; Arslan 2010; Balzs 2010;
Bentz 2010; Wei, Gong, and Che 2011; Xu, Zhang, and
Reinhardt 2012; Kang and Choi 2013; Sigrist et al. 2013).
Most current approaches for quantifying the shear capac-
ity of beams without stirrups Vc are empirically based.
Consequently, these empirical approaches, although
effective in identifying the important variables that affect
shear strength, do not simulate the actual shear failure
mechanism and often are over conservative. Moreover,
they cannot be directly applied for new technologies
such as the use of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) or
high-strength concrete which fall outside the bounds
of the testing regimes from which they were derived.
A generic method is desired for the treatment of shear
rather than the various disparate empirical equations
developed each time to accommodate some particular
groups of data. It is generally recognised that rational
understanding on the shear failure mechanism of beams
concrete structures. Hence, in this paper, a rational
approach for predicting the shear failure of conventional
concrete beams without web reinforcement is proposed.
For RC beams and slabs, herein referred to as beams,
without stirrups, shear failure generally occurs in associ-
ation with the formation of one or more diagonal cracks.
According to Zhang (1997), for the diagonal plane AD
in Figure 1(c), the cracking load VcrD in Figure 1(a) is
smaller than the sliding strength of the diagonal plane
VslD; thus, VslD controls shear failure that is the shear
capacity along the sliding plane AD. Furthermore, for
the diagonal plane AA* in Figure 1(c), the cracking load
VcrA* in Figure 1(a) is larger than the sliding strength
VslA*; thus, VcrA* controls shear failure. Since Vcr gen-
erally increases with shallower planes while Vsl decreases
as shown in Figure 1(a), there must be a failure plane,
AC in this case in Figure 1(c) that is located between
AE and AA*, where the corresponding Vcr equals to
Vsl which gives the shear capacity of the member Vcap.
Hence, according to Zhang (1997), if the shear load to
form a diagonal crack at an angle is Vcr and the shear
load to cause interface sliding along the diagonal crack
is Vsl, then the shear capacity of the beam Vcap is at the
inclination of the diagonal crack where Vcr is equal to
Vsl that is at the minimum point F in Figure 1(a).
In this paper, the variation of Vsl with in Figure 1(a),
that is the sliding strength for any given inclination of
diagonal crack, is determined through a mechanics-based

CONTACT Phillip Visintin phillip.visintin@adelaide.edu.au

2016 Engineers Australia
 88 T. ZHANG ET AL.
(a)
Downloaded by [101.98.62.29] at 20:39 13 August 2017
(b)
Figure 1.Reinforced concrete beam segment.
numerical segmental analysis proposed by Zhang et al.
(2013c, 2013d) for the analysis of prestressed concrete
beams. However, a mechanics-based formulation for the
variation of Vcr with in Figure 1(a) that is required to
quantify Vcap and CDC in Figure 1(a) is not available and
currently remains defined empirically (Zhang 1997). As
a mechanics-based approach for determining Vcr is not
available, in this paper, an alternative approach is taken
in which the inclination of the critical diagonal crack
CDC along which failure occurs is determined semi-em-
pirically through the analysis of 112 shear tests using
the numerical solution to the segmental approach which
is outlined in (2013c). The variation of CDC with the
span/depth ratio is found to have a remarkably small
scatter and, consequently, the semi-empirical quantifi-
cation of CDC is useful for design. Having described
a general expression for the angle at which the criti-
cal diagonal crack forms CDC, the shear capacity of RC
beams without stirrups Vc can be determined directly
from the mechanics of the sliding resistance Vsl and,
consequently, a closed form solutions to define Vsl is
derived. This closed form solution for Vsl is generic in
that they can in theory be applied to any beam with any
type of reinforcement and concrete given the required
material models were available.
In this paper, the segmental approach is first out-
lined in its complete form and the reader is referred to
Zhang et al. 2013c, 2013d for full details of a numerical
(c)
solution. This numerical procedure is then used to
develop a semi-empirical expression for the variation
in CDC with the shear span. It is then shown how, from
the mechanics of equilibrium and compatibility, a closed
form expression for sliding resistance Vsl can be devel-
oped. Finally, material models and assumptions required
in order to solve the mechanics solution are introduced
and the approach is used to predict the shear capacity
of 626 steel-reinforced concrete beams.
It should be emphasised that the expression for
Vsl developed is considered a closed form mechanics
solution given that it is based only on the mechanics
of equilibrium and compatibility; however, in order to
solve the expression, empirically based material models
and assumptions are required. Those presented here are
intended only to serve as an example and can be replaced
with any which the reader considers more appropriate
or with mechanics models as they become available with
further research.
2. The segmental approach numerical
solution technique
The RC beam in Figure 1 is subjected to a shear load Va,
where, due to symmetry, half of the member is shown
in Figure 1(c). With increasing shear loading Va, flexural
cracks form with a spacing of Scr from which potential
diagonal cracks initiate and extend towards loading point

(a)
Figure 2.Shear capacity along inclined plane.
as shown. While in practice, the path of the diagonal
Downloaded by [101.98.62.29] at 20:39 13 August 2017
crack is non-linear as in AA* and AC in Figure 1(c),
for ease of analysis, the shear cracks are assumed to be
linear as in AD. Knowing that the cracks tend towards
the loading point in the compression region, the incli-
nation of the potential diagonal crack depends on the
tensile crack spacing Scr which can be determined from
the mechanics of partial interaction theory (Haskett,
Oehlers, and Mohamed Ali 2008; Oehlers et al. 2011;
Muhamad et al. 2012).
Consider a segment with a diagonal crack AA* as
in Figure 2(b) in which a shear load Va and moment
Ma are applied as shown. For the diagonal plane AA*
to resist the vertical load Va and to maintain vertical
equilibrium, a shear force S must be developed along
the cracked diagonal plane (Lucas 2011; Lucas, Oehlers,
and Ali 2011). It is now simply a matter of rotating the
section end from AA* to A1A1* by and adjusting the
neutral axis depth dNA until force and rotational equi-
librium is achieved (Zhang et al. 2013c). In Figure 2(b),
the inclined sliding plane is first rotated from AA* to
A1A1* by and then dNA is adjusted to maintain force
equilibrium; the region above the neutral axis depth is
in compression as in Figure 2(a), so the diagonal crack
forms in the tension region below dNA and does not go
through the full depth of the beam. From this, flexural
analysis can be derived the forces within the segment,
that is the concrete compressive force Pconc, concrete
tensile force Pcont, forces developed in the compression
reinforcement Prc, and in the tension reinforcement Prt.
Then by taking moments for the whole segment about
point A in Figure 2(b), the rotation is adjusted until
rotational equilibrium is satisfied. The analysis above
can be done for any combination loading of Va and Ma.
Prior to flexural cracking, a full interaction analysis
can be applied to determine all the forces in Figure 2(b)
including that in the tension reinforcement. Following
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 89
(b)
flexural cracking and once the crack crosses the level of
the reinforcement, partial interaction theory (Visintin
et al. 2012; Knight et al. 2013) is used to accommodate
the slip between longitudinal reinforcement and the
adjacent concrete that is rt in Figure 2(b); the partial
interaction theory can also be used to derive the spacing
of the multiple cracks shown in Figure 2(b) and the force
in the tension reinforcement.
It is well recognised that most of the shear is resisted
by the uncracked region along the diagonal plane
AA* in Figure 2(a) as compared to the cracked region
(Tureyen and Frosch 2003; Park, Choi, and Wight 2006;
Choi, Park, and Wight 2007; Lucas 2011). Hence, for the
cracked section with a compression zone over dNA in
Figure 2(a), the shear resistance is taken to be only pro-
vided by the compression region within dNA. Knowing
the internal forces from the segmental analysis, the slid-
ing strength Vsl depends on the concrete compressive
force Pconc acting on the inclined plane and the corre-
sponding shear friction strength of the concrete over the
compressive zone. It is worth noting that the component
of Pconc normal to the sliding plane that is Pconcsin in
effect confines the sliding plane, that is Pconcsin acts
across the sliding plane to enhance its sliding capacity
and, consequently, dominates the shear strength of RC
beams without confinement (Lucas 2011).
2.1. Quantification of CDC using numerical model
To derive an expression for the angle at which the crit-
ical diagonal crack occurs that is CDC in Figure 1(a),
the segmental approach has been applied numerically
to simulate the behaviour of a test specimen to calcu-
late Vsl for inclined planes forming at various angles .
Substituting the test result Vfailure into this variation gives
the angle of the critical diagonal plane CDC for that test
specimen. This analysis was performed for a total of
 90 T. ZHANG ET AL.
Figure 3.Derivation of CDC in terms of a/d.
Downloaded by [101.98.62.29] at 20:39 13 August 2017
Figure 4.Variation of force in tensile steel with a/d.
112 specimens (Bresler and Scordelis 1963; Mathey and
Watstein 1963; Kani 1967; Chana 1981; Mphonde and
Frantz 1984) whose detailed properties are collated in
Zhang (2013a). The beams analysed have a broad range
of design properties: shear span to effective depth ratio,
a/d, from 1.5 to 8; concrete compressive strength, fco,
from 20.6 to 51.2MPa; the effective depth of the speci-
men, d, from 42 to 556mm; the longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio, t, from 0.47 to 3.36%. The results of these
analyses shown in Figure 3 have been used to quantify
the relationship between CDC and the shear span a/d,
where a is Ma/Va and d is the effective depth of the mem-
ber as shown in Figure 2(a). Curve fits to the data points
are given by Equations (1) and (2). It is worth noting
that for a/d smaller than 3.14, CDC increases signifi-
cantly with decrease in a/d and this coincides with the
well-established shear enhancement of arch action in
short beams (CSA (Canadian Standards Association)
2012; EN 1992-1-1 2004; Khuntia and Stojadinovic 2001;
Standards Australia 2009), while for a/d greater than
3.14, CDC decreases slightly with the increase in a/d,
which shows the relatively weak effect of a/d for slender
beams (Rebeiz, Fente, and Frabizzio 2001). Furthermore,
CDC calculated from Equations (1) and (2) intersects
at a/d of 3.14 as shown by the dashed line in Figure 3.
( )0.6
a a
CDC = 87.1 ; 3.14 (1)
d d
a a
( )
CDC = 0.81 + 46.4; > 3.14 (2)
d d
2.2. Force in the tensile steel
From the numerical analyses mentioned above, the force
in the tension reinforcement at the shear failure point
can also be determined. Figure 4 shows the force devel-
oped in the tensile reinforcement Prt as a proportion
of the yield force of the reinforcement Pry for the same
112 beams. It can be seen that in general, the tensile
reinforcement does not yield prior to shear failure, sup-
porting the observation by Mathey and Watstein (1963)
that the shear strengths of RC beams without shear rein-
forcement are not influenced by the yield strength of the
longitudinal reinforcement.
3. The segmental approach closed form
solution
Based on the mechanics of the segmental approach
illustrated in Figure 2, a closed form solution to predict
the shear strength of RC beams without stirrups can be
developed.
3.1. Derivation of closed form solution
The equilibrium of forces in a segment is shown in Figure
2. To simplify the derivation of a closed form solution,
the concrete is assumed to have zero tensile capacity
so that Pcont is zero. Furthermore, as it has been shown
that the compression reinforcement provides a negligible
shear strength increase for RC beams without stirrups,
the compression reinforcement will be ignored such that
Prc will be assumed to be zero (Placas and Regan 1971;
Gale and Ibell 2000). With this in mind, equilibrium of
a segment at the critical sliding plane at CDC is shown
in Figure 5.
Considering vertical force equilibrium
Va = S sin (CDC ) (3)
Similarly, considering horizontal force equilibrium
(4)
( )
Prt = S cos CDC + Pconc
Combining Equations (3) and (4) and rearranging to
obtain an expression for the force developed in the con-
crete compression region yields
Va
Pconc = Prt (5)
tan(CDC )
Considering rotational equilibrium by taking moments
about point A
Scr
Prt d Pconc dconc = Ma Va
2 (6)
 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 91

At the onset of shear sliding, the applied shear load Va

is the shear capacity at sliding Vsl
Va = Vsl (11)

Equations (7), (10) and (11) can be substituted into

Equation (3) to give the sliding capacity that is the max-
imum capacity prior to the onset of sliding
[ ]
dNA
(12)
( )
Vsl = b Pconc cos CDC sin(CDC )
sin () N

Combining Equations (12), (8) and (9) gives

Figure 5.Simplified RC beam segment for shear strength. [ ( )]

Vsl = bdNA A + Bsin(CDC ) cos CDC sin(CDC )Pconc
(13)
The following sliding capacity of the compression region
Substituting
Zcap is simply the product of the cross-sectional area of
the sliding plane in compression and the shear capacity
(14)
[ ( )]
C = B sin(CDC ) cos CDC sin(CDC )
N
d
Zcap = NA bN (7) into Equation (13) gives
sin ()
Downloaded by [101.98.62.29] at 20:39 13 August 2017

Vsl = bdNA A + CPconc (15)

where b is the width of the member as in Figure 2(a),
and the shear capacity N can be written in the following
form proposed by Regan and Yu (1973)
N = A + BN
in which the coefficients A and B are shear friction
material properties, that is the cohesive and frictional
constants. Furthermore, N is the direct normal stress
on the failure plane which in this model is taken to be
the following mean normal stress by assuming the con-
which shows the effect of the concrete compressive force
Pconc in Figure 5 and whose components along and nor-
mal to the sliding plane govern the shear capacity.
(8) Substituting Equation (5) into Equation (15) gives
the second form of the sliding capacity in terms of the
tensile reinforcement force
bdNA A + CPrt
Vsl = C (16)
1+
tan (CDC )

crete compressive force is uniformly distributed over the

Now, combining Equations (5), (6) and (16) gives the
compressive region
third form of the sliding capacity, which eliminates the
Pconc sin(CDC ) need to directly calculate the magnitude of the internal
N = forces
dNA
b (9)
sin (CDC )
bdNA A
Vsl =
where Pconcsin(CDC) is the normal component of Pconc Scr
(17)
( d
)
Ma Va tan
2 (CDC )
acting on the inclined plane providing confinement for 1C jd
the compression region as shown in Figure 5. The first
where jd is the lever arm as shown in Figure 5 and is
component on the right-hand side of Equation (8) that
equal to (ddconc).
is the coefficient A is the maximum shear that can be
In Equation (17), it is worth noting that the shear
resisted along the sliding plane when there is no con-
failure criteria C given by Equation (14) is a function
finement to the sliding plane, whereas the coefficient
of CDC. This is significant because, as shown in Figure
B is the increase in the shear stress capacity due to the
3, CDC strongly correlated with a/d and hence Ma/
confinement N.
(Vad). Thus, Equation (17) shows the great influence of
It is essential to emphasise that in order to maintain
Ma/Va on shear strength of RC beams without stirrups.
equilibrium, the sliding capacity Zcap in Equation (7)
Furthermore, since the dimension Scr/2 is generally
must resist the shear force S along the inclined plane
much smaller than the length of the shear span Ma/Va,
in Figure 5 as well the shear component of Pconc that is
it can be safely ignored from Equation (17).
parallel to the inclined plane, that is Pconccos (Lucas
It needs to be emphasised that Equation (17) is a
2011; Lucas, Oehlers, and Ali 2011). Thus, the maximum
generic closed form solution as it can be applied in
shear force S denoted by Smax that can be developed along
theory to any RC cross-section with any type of con-
the inclined plane is
crete and with any type of reinforcement just as long
as the parameters in the equation can be quantified
( )
Smax = Zcap Pconc cos CDC (10)
 92 T. ZHANG ET AL.
Figure 6.Position of concrete compressive force with a/d.
such as through material testing. In the following sec-
tion, Equation (17) has been applied to RC beams and
slabs with steel longitudinal reinforcement. However, it
may be worth noting that in other research (Zhang et
al. 2013b), it has been applied to FRP RC beams with
good correlation.
Downloaded by [101.98.62.29] at 20:39 13 August 2017
3.2. Application of closed form solution
The mechanics-based model in Equation (17) depends
on the following parameters: the depth of the neutral
axis dNA; the shear friction material failure properties
incorporated in A and C; the lever arm jd; and the crack
spacing Scr. The following values have been used in the
ensuing validation of the model for steel RC beams.
However, as research progresses, better values of these
parameters may become available. These values have
then been used in Equation (17) to compare the closed
form solution with 626 test results.
3.2.1. Parameters for closed form solution
To solve Equation (17), it is required that the depth of
the neutral axis, the shear friction failure criteria and the
crack spacing be known. In order to show the application
of Equation (17), the models used are outlined below.
Those presented here are intended only to serve as an
example and can be replaced with any which the reader
considers more appropriate or with mechanics models
as they become available with further research.
Depth of neutral axis dNA: The neutral axis depth is
determined using the classic cracked transformed sec-
tion analysis
( )
2
dNA = (n) + 2n n d (18)
where: is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, that is
= As/(bd); and n is ratio of steel to concrete elastic
modulus, that is n=Es/Ec, in which the concrete modu-
lus (in MPa) can be taken as (ACI (American Concrete
Institute) 1992)
Ec = 3320fco0.5 + 6900 (19)
and the steel modulus Es can be taken as 200 GPa.
SF failure stress coefficients A and B: The following
sliding shear friction failure properties (Zhang, Oehlers,
and Visintin 2013b) have been adopted.
A = 0.347fco0.665 (20a)
0.400fco 0.370 0.347fco0.665
B= (20b)
0.250fco
where the units are in MPa.
It is worth noting that the coefficient A in Equation
(20a), that is A in Equation (8), is in a similar form to
the axial tensile strength of concrete in the Eurocode
(EN 1992-1-1 2004). Hence, it could be replaced by
some portion of the tensile strength which makes this
first component dimensionally correct. The first compo-
nent A is also included in the coefficient of the second
component on the right-hand side of Equation (20b)
that is B in Equation (8). This could also be replaced by
some portion of the tensile strength. Furthermore, the
constant 0.37 must be a stress to ensure that the coeffi-
cient has no dimensions. Alternatively, A and B can be
simplified by regression analysis (Zhang, Oehlers, and
Visintin 2013b) as follows:
A = 1.15fct (21a)
0.389fco 1.15fct
B= (22b)
0.250fco
where fct is the following axial tensile strength of con-
crete in Eurocode (EN 1992-1-1 2004)
fct = 0.300fco0.667 (23)
which ensures that A and B are both dimensionally
correct.
Lever arm jd: From the numerical analyses of the
112 tests already mentioned, besides the value of shear
strength, the position of the concrete compressive force
Pconc at failure point, that is dconc in Figure 2, was also
determined relative to the neutral axis depth dNA as
shown in Figure 6. The parameter dconc/dNA in Figure
6 varies between 0.30 and 0.34 most likely due to the
non-linear profile of the concrete strain over the com-
pression region in the segmental approach (Zhang,
Oehlers, and Visintin 2013b, 2013c). Hence, dconc can
be taken as dNA/3 and then the lever arm is
dNA
jd = d (24)
3
Primary crack spacing Scr: Since the magnitude of Scr
has only a very small influence on Equation (17), for

simplicity it can be approximately obtained using the
equation from CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (CEB 1992).
s2 1 Tang, Yen, and Chen 2009; Taylor 1972; Walraven 1978;
Scr = s (25)
2bk 1 + n
where s2 is the steel stress at the crack from a flexural
analysis, bk is the lower value of the average bond stress
(=1.8fctm(t) for short-term loading, in which fctm(t) is the
mean value of the tensile strength of the concrete at the
time t when the crack appeared), s is the diameter of the
steel bar or the equivalent diameter of bundled bars. As
mentioned previously, this parameter could however be
omitted from Equation (17) with little loss of accuracy.
3.2.2. Validation of closed form solution
With the above parameters, 626 tests (Bhal 1968; Bresler
and Scordelis 1963; Chana 1981; Chang and Kesler 1958;
Collins and Kuchma 1999; Diaz de Cossio 1962; Diaz
de Cossio and Seiss 1960; Kani 1966, 1967; Kim and
White 1999; Kotsovos 1987; Krefeld and Thurston 1966;
Downloaded by [101.98.62.29] at 20:39 13 August 2017
Leonhardt and Walther 1962; Mathey and Watstein
1963; Mattock 1969; Moody et al. 1954; Morrow and
Figure 7.Comparison between measured and calculated strength for different approaches.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 93
Viest 1957; Mphonde and Frantz 1984; Papadakis 1996;
Placas and Regan 1971; Sozen, Zwoyer, and Siess 1959;
Watstein and Mathey 1958; Yost, Gross, and Dinehart
2001) have been analysed. The specimens covered a
wide range of beam parameters: shear span to effective
depth ratio, a/d, from 1.4 to 8.5; concrete compressive
strength, fco, from 6.1 to 53.8MPa; the effective depth of
the specimen, d, from 40 to 1200mm; the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, t, from 0.1% to 5.1%. Full details
of the test specimens are provided in Zhang (2013a).
The shear strength determined from the closed
form solution given by Equation (17), as well as from
the ACI code (ACI (American Concrete Institute)
2008), Australian Standard AS 3600 2009 (Standards
Australia 2009) and FIB Model Code 2010 (Fdration
International du Bton 2012 2012) approaches are com-
pared with all the experimental data in Figure 7 and
corresponding statistics describing the fit are contained
in Table 1. It can be seen in Figure 7(a) that the shear
strength from the closed form solution is in good agree-
ment with the test results and shows a consistent fit with
 94 T. ZHANG ET AL.
Table 1.Comparison of measured and calculated shear strengths with various approaches.
ACI Equation (ACI
Closed form solution (American Concrete
Vtest/Vcal Equation (17) Institute) 2008)
Mean 0.96 1.67
Std 0.23 0.69
COV 0.24 0.41
95%CL 0.59 0.53
Min 0.46 0.46
Max 1.92 4.45
experimental data over the full range of a/d. The com-
parison to code approaches in Figure 7(b)(e) shows
varying levels of fitness with the experimental data;
however, it can be seen that the current state of the art,
that is the FIB Model Code 2010 Level II approximation,
displays a considerably better fit compared to other code
approaches. When compared to the segmental approach,
the FIB Model Code 2010 Level II approximation shows
a larger mean predicted to experimental ratio of 1.1 com-
pared to 0.96 and shows more scatter with a CoV of 31%
compared to 24%.
Downloaded by [101.98.62.29] at 20:39 13 August 2017
Given that a significant proportion of the test results
compared to in Figure 7 contained compression rein-
forcement, it can be noted that the assumption of
ignoring the influence of compression reinforcement
in Equation (17) does not appear to strongly influence
the accuracy of the approach. Furthermore, the mean of
the test to theoretical result is 0.96 shown in Table 1. If
compression reinforcement increased the strength, then
the mean would be expected to increase to above 1, that
is, making the approach more conservative which does
not appear to occur.
It may also be worth noting that given that the a/d
ratio varies from as low as 1.4, it can be expected that a
proportion of the beams tested failed without the prior
formation of an initial crack. The assumption that the
neutral axis depth can be taken as that which occurs
under elastic conditions also does not appear to signifi-
cantly influence the accuracy of the approach.
4.Conclusion
From a mechanics-based segmental approach, a generic
closed form solution to determine the shear sliding
capacity of RC beams without stirrups is derived. To
apply the closed form solution, the angle of the criti-
cal diagonal crack at failure CDC was obtained using
the numerical solution of the segmental approach and
was found to be strongly correlated with the shear span
depth ratio Ma/(Vad). With this expression of CDC, the
closed form solution was applied to a large shear fail-
ure database and the results compared with those from
different code approaches, namely the ACI code (ACI
2008), Australian Standard AS 3600 2009 (Standards
Australia 2009) and FIB Model Code 2010 (Fdration
International du Bton 2012 2012) and was found to
give the most accurate and consistent results and was
FIB Model Code FIB Model Code 2010
2010 Level I approx- Level II approxima-
AS 36002009 imation tion
2.05 2.27 1.10
0.52 0.89 0.34
0.25 0.39 0.31
1.03 0.53 0.44
0.54 0.57 0.51
4.31 7.39 2.86
shown to be applicable over the full range of shear span
to depth ratios.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of
the Australian Research Council ARC Discovery Project
DP140103525 A new generic approach for assessing blast
effects on reinforced concrete members. The first author also
thanks the China Scholarship Council for financial support.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council
ARC Discovery [Project DP140103525].
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 1992. ACI 363R92:
State of the Art Report on High-strength Concrete. Detroit,
MI: American Concrete Institute.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2008. ACI 318: Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 31808)
and Commentary (ACI 318R08). Farmington Hills, MI:
ACI.
Arslan, G. 2010. Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Slender Beams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-Structures and Buildings 163 (SB3): 195205.
Balzs. 2010. A Historical Review of Shear. CEB-FIP
Technical Report Bulletin 57 Shear and Punching Shear
in RC and FRC Elements, Workshop, Salo, October 1516.
Bentz, E. C., F. J. Vecchio, and M. R. Collins. 2006. Simplified
Modified Compression Field Theory for Calculating Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Elements. ACI Structural
Journal 103 (4): 614624.
Bentz, E. C. 2010. MC2010: Shear Strength of Beams and
Implications of the New Approaches. CEB-FIP Technical
Report Bulletin 57 Shear and Punching Shear in RC and
FRC Elements, Workshop, Salo, October 1516.
Bhal, N. S. 1968. Uber Den Einfluss Der Balkenhhe Auf
Schubtragfhigkeit Von Einfeldrigen Stahlbetonbalken
Mit Und Ohne Schubbewehrung [The influence of beam
height on the shear capacity of single-span reinforced
concrete beams with and without shear reinforcement].
PhD diss., Universitt Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany (in
German).
Birkeland, P. W., and H. W. Birkeland. 1966. Connections in
Precast Concrete Construction. Journal of the American
Concrete Institute 63 (3): 345368.

Bresler, B., and A. C. Scordelis. 1963. Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Beams. Journal of the American
Concrete Institute 60 (1): 5174.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). 2012. CSA S80612:
Design and Construction of Building Structures with Fiber-
reinforced Polymers. Mississauga.
CEB. 1992. CEB-FIP Model Code 90. London: Thomas
Telford.
Chana, P. S. 1981. Some Aspects of Modelling the Behaviour
of Reinforced Concrete under Shear Loading. Technical
Report Number 543, Cement and Concrete Association,
Wexham Springs.
Chang, T. S., and C. E. Kesler. 1958. Static and Fatigue Strength
in Shear of Beams with Tensile Reinforcement. Journal of
the American Concrete Institute 54 (6): 10331057.
Choi, K. K., H. G. Park, and J. K. Wight. 2007. Unified Shear
Strength Model for Reinforced Concrete Beams Part I:
Development. ACI Structural Journal 104 (2): 142152.
Collins, M. P., and D. Kuchma. 1999. How Safe are our Large,
Lightly Reinforced Concrete Beams, Slabs, and Footings?
ACI Structural Journal 96 (4): 482490.
Diaz de Cossio, R. 1962. Discussion to 326 Report. ACI
Journal Proceedings 59 (11): 13231349.
Diaz de Cossio, R., and C. P. Seiss. 1960. Behavior and
Downloaded by [101.98.62.29] at 20:39 13 August 2017
Strength in Shear of Beams and Frames without Web
Reinforcement. Journal of the American Concrete Institute
56 (2): 695736.
EN 1992-1-1. 2004. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
StructuresPart 11: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.
Brussels: CEN.
Fdration International du Bton 2012. 2012. FIB Bulletin
66 Model Code 2010. Vol. 2. Lausanne: International
Federation for Structural Concrete.
Foster, S. J. 1998. Design of Non-flexural Members for
Shear. Cement and Concrete Composites 20 (6): 465475.
Gale, L., and T. J. Ibell. 2000. Effects of Compression
Reinforcement on the Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Beams. Magazine of Concrete Research
52 (4): 275285.
Hamadi, Y. D., and P. E. Regan. 1980. Behaviour in Shear
of Beams with Flexural Cracks. Magazine of Concrete
Research 32 (111): 6778.
Haskett, M., D. J. Oehlers, and M. S. Mohamed Ali.
2008. Local and Global Bond Characteristics of Steel
Reinforcing Bars. Engineering Structures 30 (2): 376383.
Hoang, L. C., and M. P. Nielsen. 1998. Plasticity Approach
to Shear Design. Cement & Concrete Composites 20 (6):
437453.
Hwang, S. J., and H. J. Lee. 2002. Strength Prediction for
Discontinuity Regions by Softened Strut-and-tie Model.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 128 (12): 1519
1526.
Kang, S. M., and K. K. Choi. 2013. Shear Strength Model
for Fibre Reinforced Polymer Shear Reinforced Concrete
Beams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-
Structures and Buildings 166 (3): 139152.
Kani, G. N. J. 1966. Basic Facts concerning Shear Failure.
Journal of the American Concrete Institute 63 (6): 675692.
Kani, G. N. J. 1967. How Safe are our Large Reinforced
Concrete Beams? ACI Journal 64 (3): 128141.
Khuntia, M., and B. Stojadinovic. 2001. Shear strength
of reinforced concrete beams without transverse
reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal 98 (5): 648656.
Kim, W., and R. N. White. 1999. Shear-critical Cracking
in Slender Reinforced Concrete Beams. ACI Structural
Journal 96 (5): 757766.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 95
Knight, D., P. Visintin, D. J. Oehlers, and M. Z. Jumaat. 2013.
Incorporating Residual Strains in the Flexural Rigidity
of RC Members with Varying Degrees of Prestress and
Cracking. Advances in Structural Engineering 16 (10):
17011718.
Kotsovos, M. D. 1987. Shear Failure of Reinforced-concrete
Beams. Engineering Structures 9 (1): 3238.
Krefeld, W. J., and C. W. Thurston. 1966. Studies of the
Shear and Diagonal Tension Strength of Simply Supported
Reinforced Concrete Beams. Journal of the American
Concrete Institute 63 (4): 451476.
Leonhardt, F., and R. Walther. 1962. Schubversuche
an Einfeldrigen Stahlbetonbalken Mit Und Ohne
Schubbewehrung Zur Ermittlung Der Schubtragfhigkeit
Und Der Oberen Schubspannungsgrenze. DAfStb, Heft
151, W. Ernst u. Sohn, Berlin (in German).
Lucas, W. 2011. The Discrete Rotation Shear Behaviour
of RC Beams. PhD thesis, Australia: The University of
Adelaide.
Lucas, W., D. J. Oehlers, and M. Ali. 2011. Formulation of
a Shear Resistance Mechanism for Inclined Cracks in RC
Beams. Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE 137 (12):
14801488.
Mathey, R. G., and D. Watstein. 1963. Shear Strength of
Beams without Web Reinforcement Containing Deformed
Bars of Different Yield Strengths. Journal of the American
Concrete Institute 60 (2): 183208.
Mattock, A. H. 1969. Diagonal Tension Cracking in Concrete
Beams with Axial Forces. Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE 95 (9): 18871900.
Moody, K. G., I. M. Viest, R. C. Elstner, and E. Hognestad.
1954. Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Part 1 -Tests of Simple Beams. Journal of the American
Concrete Institute 51 (12): 317332.
Morrow, J., and I. M. Viest. 1957. Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Frame Members without Web
Reinforcement. Journal of the American Concrete Institute
53 (3): 833869.
Mphonde, A. G., and G. C. Frantz. 1984. Shear Tests of
High-strength and Low-strength Concrete Beams without
Stirrups. Journal of the American Concrete Institute 81 (4):
350357.
Muhamad, R., M. S. M. Ali, D. J. Oehlers, and M. Griffith.
2012. The Tension Stiffening Mechanism in Reinforced
Concrete Prisms. Advances in Structural Engineering 15
(12): 20532070.
Nielsen, M. P., M. W. Braestrup, B. C. Jensen, and F. Bach.
1978. Concrete Plasticity, Beam ShearShear in Joints
Punching Shear. Lyngby: Special Publication, Danish
Society for Structural Science and Engineering.
Oehlers, D. J., M. S. Mohamed Ali, M. Haskett, W. Lucas,
R. Muhamad, and P. Visintin. 2011. FRP-reinforced
Concrete Beams: Unified Approach Based on IC Theory.
ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction 15 (3): 293
303.
Papadakis, G. 1996. Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete
Beams without Stirrups. PhD diss., Department of
Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Thessaloniki, Greece (in Greek).
Park, H. G., K. K. Choi, and J. K. Wight. 2006. Strain-based
Shear Strength Model for Slender Beams without Web
Reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal 103 (6): 783793.
Park, J. W., and D. Kuchma. 2007. Strut-and-tie Model
Analysis for Strength Prediction of Deep Beams. ACI
Structural Journal 104 (6): 657666.
 96 T. ZHANG ET AL.
Placas, A., and P. E. Regan. 1971. Shear Failure of Reinforced
Concrete Beams. ACI Journal Proceedings 68 (10): 763
773.
Rebeiz, K. S., J. Fente, and M. A. Frabizzio. 2001. Effect of
Variables on Shear Strength of Concrete Beams. Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering 13 (6): 467470.
Regan, P. E. 1969. Shear in Reinforced Concrete Beams.
Magazine of Concrete Research 21 (66): 3142.
Regan, P. E. 1993. Research on Shear: A Benefit to Humanity
or a Waste of Time? The Structural Engineer 71 (19): 337
347.
Regan, P. E., and C. W. Yu. 1973. Limit State Design of
Structural Concrete. London: Chatto & Windus.
Russo, G., G. Somma, and D. Mitri. 2005. Shear Strength
Analysis and Prediction for Reinforced Concrete Beams
without Stirrups. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering
131 (1): 6674.
Sigrist, V., E. Bentz, M. F. Ruiz, S. Foster, and A. Muttoni.
2013. Background to the Fib Model Code 2010 Shear
Provisions Part I: Beams and Slabs. Structural Concrete
14 (3): 195203.
Sozen, M. A., E. M. Zwoyer, and C. P. Siess. 1959. Investigation
of Prestressed Reinforced Concrete for Highway Bridges. Part
1: Strength in Shear of Beams without Web Reinforcement.
Downloaded by [101.98.62.29] at 20:39 13 August 2017
Engineering Experimental Station Bulletin No. 452,
University of Illinois, Illinois.
Standards Australia. 2009. AS 36002009 Concrete Structures.
Sydney: Australian Standards, Standards Australia.
Tang, C. W., T. Yen, and H. J. Chen. 2009. Shear Behavior
of Reinforced Concrete Beams Made with Sedimentary
Lightweight Aggregate without Shear Reinforcement.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 21 (12): 730739.
Taylor, H. P. J. 1972. Shear Strength of Large Beams. Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE 98 (11): 24732490.
Teng, S., F. K. Kong, and S. P. POH. 1998. Shear Strength of
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Deep Beams. Part
1: Current Design Methods and a Proposed Equation.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-
Structures and Buildings 128 (2): 112123.
Tureyen, A. K., and R. J. Frosch. 2003. Concrete Shear
Strength: Another Perspective. ACI Structural Journal 100
(5): 609615.
Vecchio, F. J., and M. P. Collins. 1986. The Modified
Compression-field Theory for Reinforced-concrete
Elements Subjected to Shear. Journal of the American
Concrete Institute 83 (2): 219231.
Vecchio, F. J., and M. P. Collins. 1988. Predicting the
Response of Reinforced-concrete Beams Subjected to
Shear using Modified Compression Field-theory. ACI
Structural Journal 85 (3): 258268.
Visintin, P., D. J. Oehlers, C. W. Wu, and M. C. Griffith. 2012.
The Reinforcement Contribution to the Cyclic Behaviour
of Reinforced Concrete Beam Hinges. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics 41 (12): 15911608.
Walraven, J. C. 1978. The Influence of Depth on the Shear
Strength of Lightweight Concrete Beams without Shear
Reinforcement. Stevin Lab. Report Number 5-78-4, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Walraven, J., J. Frenay, and A. Pruijssers. 1987. Influence of
Concrete Strength and Load History on the Shear Friction
Capacity of Concrete Members. Journal Prestressed
Concrete Institute 32 (1): 6684.
Watstein, D., and R. C. Mathey. 1958. Strains in Beams
Having Diagonal Crack. Journal of the American Concrete
Institute 55 (12): 717728.
Wei, W., J. Gong, and Y. Che. 2011. Shear Strength Prediction
for Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups.
Magazine of Concrete Research 63 (6): 433440.
Xu, S., X. Zhang, and H. W. Reinhardt. 2012. Shear Capacity
Prediction of Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups
using Fracture Mechanics Approach. ACI Structural
Journal 109 (5): 705714.
Yost, J. R., S. P. Gross, and D. W. Dinehart. 2001. Shear
Strength of Normal Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced
with Deformed GFRP Bars. Journal of Composites for
Construction 5 (4): 268275.
Zhang, J. P. 1997. Diagonal Cracking and Shear Strength
of Reinforced Concrete Beams. Magazine of Concrete
Research 49 (178): 5565.
Zhang, T. 2013a. A Mechanics Based Approach for Shear
Strength of RC Beams without Web Reinforcement.
Departmental Report, Number R 184. The University of
Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Zhang, T., D. J. Oehlers, and P. Visintin. 2013b. Shear
Strength of FRP RC Beams and One-way Slabs without
Stirrups. ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction 18
(5): 04014007.
Zhang, T., P. Visintin, D. J. Oehlers, and M. C. Griffith.
2013c. Presliding Shear Failure in Prestressed RC Beams.
I: Partial-interaction Mechanism. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering 140 (10): 04014069.
Zhang, T., P. Visintin, D. J. Oehlers, and M. C. Griffith.
2013d. Presliding Shear Failure in Prestressed RC Beams.
II: Behavior. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 140
(10): 04014070.