ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 84-816

Theory of Shear Transfer Strength of Reinforced Concrete

by Thomas T. C. Hsu, S. T. Mau, and Bin Chen

A theory of shear transfer in initially uncracked concrete is pre-
sented. The theory is based on the truss model and incorporates a
softened compression stress-strain relation along the concrete s/ruls.
For reinforced concrete specimens experiencing shear transfer across
a plane, acrilical zone in the vicinity of the shear plane is identified.
Within this zone, the stress distribution is assumed to be approxi-
mately uniform after the formation of cracks. The governing equa-
tions derived from the theory can then be applied to this crilical zone
to obtain strain responses for the given stress conditions. The ulti-
mate shear transfer strength is identified by tracing the complete shear
stress-strain history using electronic computer. Comparison of theo-
retical predictions to 32 test results reported in the literature gives
good agreement.
The theory predicts that steel reinforcement parallel to the shear
plane also contributes to the shear transfer strength, while the shear-
friction concept in the current design codes recognizes only the con-
tribution of steel reinforcement crossing the shear plane. Since the
current design codes are based on test specimens with heavy rein-
forcement parallel to the shear plane, they could be unconservative
for the practical cases where only light reinforcemenl is provided
parallel to the shear plane.
Keywords: building codes; failure mechanisms; friction; reinforced concrete;
reinforcing steels; shear properties; shear strength; stress-strain relationships;
structural analysis.
in the compression struts formed approximately paral-
lel to the direction of the cracks. 12. 16 The compression in
the struts and the tension provided by the reinforcing
bars across and parallel to the shear plane constitute a
truss-like action. Although this truss-like action is well
recognized, 1•8 direct application of the truss model
would result in a much higher prediction of the shear
strength. An attempt was made 8 to bring the predicted
shear strength in line with the measured strength by in-
troducing shear stresses in the compression strut result-
ing in a biaxial failure condition. 17 • 18 However, this ad-
ditional shear stress in the compressional strut consid-
erably complicates the truss model theory.
The fundamental difficulty in predicting the shear
transfer strength of initially uncracked concrete is in the
uncertainty of the compressive strength of the strut. In
a study of the behavior of reinforced concrete panels

The problem of shear transfer across a plane in con-

crete has been studied extensively in the past 15 years.
Through experimental observations, it is established 1

that there are basically two kinds of distinctively dif-

ferent behavior in shear transfer problems: shear trans-
fer across an initially cracked plane, and shear transfer Shear Plane

across an initially uncracked plane. The behavior in the

former case is governed largely by the shear-slip char-
acteristics of the cracked plane. Aggregate interlock,
dowel action, and constraints in a direction normal to
the shear plane affect the resistance to shear. 2 ·3.4· 5· 7 The
final failure occurs along the existing crack [Fig. I (a)]
with little or no additional cracks formed across the ex-
isting crack, 8 except in cases with a high percentage of (a) Initially Cracked (b) Initially Uncracked

steel crossing the initial crack. 5. 7 For design purposes,

the shear strength is predicted using an empirical for-
mula9 based on the shear friction theory.s.to.tt
In contrast, shear failure across an initially un-
cracked plane occurs after numerous cracks formed in
a direction inclined to the shear plane [Fig. I (b)]. The
final failure is usually due to the crushing of concrete
Fig. 1-Shear transfer test specimens
Received Apr. 7, 1986, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 1987, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the January-February 1988 ACI
Structural Journal if received by Sept. I, 1987.

ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1987 149

Thomas T. C. Hsu, FACJ, is a professor in the Civil Engineering Department
at the University of Houston. Dr. Hsu is the author of many technical publi-
cations, and in 1965 was the corecipient of ACt's Wason Medal for Materials
Research. He is a member of ACT Committees 215, Fatigue; 358, Concrete
Guideways; and joint ACI-ASCE Committees 343, Concrete Bridge Design; and
445, Shear and Torsion.
ACJ memberS. T. Mau is an associate professor in the Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Houston. He received his BS and MS degrees from
National Taiwan University and his PhD from Cornell University. He is a
member of ACt Committee 446, Fracture Mechanics.
Bin Chen is a PhD candidate in the Department of Civil Engineering, Univer-
sity of Houston. He received his MS degree from Tong Gi University, Shang-
hai, China, in /98/.
Reinforced
Concrete Reinforcement
Concrete
d tion of the compression struts with respect to the lon-
Concrete
Fig. 2-Truss model for reinforced concrete element
under predominately shear stresses, it was found that
compressive strength of the diagonal struts formed af-
ter the cracking of the concrete can be much lower than
the standard cylinder strength. 19 •20 This phenomenon
has been called the softening of concrete. This soften-
ing of the concrete struts is related to the tensile strain
in a direction perpendicular to the struts. Using the
softened stress-strain relation proposed in Reference 19,
the shear strength and behavior of various reinforced
concrete members had been predicted with good accu-
racy. 21-2s
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
In this study, the softened truss model theory was
applied to the shear transfer problem and was found to
be successful in predicting the shear transfer strength as
well as the shear deformations of 32 initially uncracked
specimens. Contrary to the well-known shear friction
concept, the theory predicts that the ultimate failure is
caused by the crushing of concrete in the compres-
sional struts formed after cracking of concrete. Fur-
thermore, the transverse reinforcement parallel to and
in the vicinity of the shear plane also has an effect on
the shear strength. Since the ACI shear friction provi-
sions are based on test specimens with very high trans-
150
verse reinforcement percentages, the theory calls for
additional test specimens with low transverse reinforce-
ment percentages below 2 percent.
BASIC EQUATIONS
The equilibrium, compatibility, and stress-strain
equations for a reinforced concrete element are first
presented. Stresses and strains are considered positive in
tension and are assumed uniformly distributed.
Stress transformation conditions (equilibrium)
A concrete element is reinforced with longitudinal
bars in the /-direction and with transverse bars in the
!-direction as shown in Fig. 2. It is subjected at its edges
to the in-plane normal stresses a, and a, as well as the
shear stresses r 11 • After diagonal cracking, a series of
diagonal compression struts is formed in the diagonal
or d-direction, resulting in a truss-like action. It is
assumed that the element takes only compressive stress
ad in the direction of the compression struts, and ten-
sion stress a, in the r-direction transverse to the
compression struts. The shear stress rd, is assumed zero.
The angle between the 1-t and d-r coordinate systems is
designated as a. This angle is also the angle of inclina-
gitudinal axis.
The stresses a1, a1, and Tit in the reinforced concrete
element are resisted jointly by the concrete and the steel
reinforcement. The stresses contributed by concrete are
designated as a1"' a1"' and r,,, where the subscript c de-
notes concrete. The concrete stresses in the two coor-
dinate systems 1-t and d-r are transformed according to
the usual stress transformation equations
(1)
(2)
Trrc = (ac - a,) sina COSO! (3)
These relationships can also be presented using Mohr's
stress circle.
The steel reinforcement is assumed to contribute only
normal stresses
a/s = Pt j, (4)
(5)
normal stress in steel in /- and !-direc-
tions, respectively
p,, p, reinforcement ratio in /- and !-direc-
tions, respectively
j,,j, steel stress in /- and !-directions, re-
spectively
The total stress in a reinforced concrete element is the
superposition of the concrete stresses, Eq. (1) to (3),
and the reinforcement contribution, Eq. (4) and (5)
ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1987
 (6) O'"d

(7)
Eq(12a)
Eq(12b)
T 11 = (ad - a,) sina cosa (8) fI
c
-T
Strain transformation conditions (compatibility)
Assuming that the strains are distributed uniformly
in the element, they can be transformed according to
the following equations
(9) E =~
P >-.
(10)
(a) Compression Stress-Strain Relationship
"( 1, = 2(Ed - E,) sina cosa (11)

where E1, E1 normal strains in the 1-t coordinate

system Eq(15a)
'Y1r shear strain in 1-t coordinate system
normal strains in the d-r coordinate Eq(15b)
system (principal strains)
These conditions satisfy Mohr's strain circle.

Material laws
The stress-strain relation in the direction of the
compression strut is represented by the following two
equations suggested by Vecchio and Collins 19 and
(b) Tension Stress-Strain Relationship
shown graphically in Fig. 3(a).
Ascending branch

Fig. 3-Softened stress-stress relationships for concrete

Descending branch

a = _
d A
l
J: 1 _ (EdiE 0 1/A) 2
-

2 - 1/A
l (12b)
(15a)

where Ec = initial modulus of elasticity of concrete,

where Ep = E/A is defined as the peak strain, with E taken to be - 2 fi IE,. This value is obtained by taking
0

taken as - 0.002. A is a coefficient to take care of the derivative of ad with respect to Ed in Eq. (l2a), and then
softening phenomenom and is expressed by taking Ed equal to zero.
For the descending branch after cracking the rela-
tionship is assumed to be

if E, > E0 (15b)
Substituting E1 and E, from Eq. (9) and (10) into Eq.
(13), the expression for A can be simplified to

A=
R d
(14) where !a concrete cracking stress, taken as
4Jf: if 1: is expressed in psi. E,, = concrete cracking
strain = f j E,. This expression is not the same as the
where E, = E1 + E, - Ed. This relationship for E, can equation given in Reference 19. In Reference 19, the
easily be observed from Mohr's strain circle . 26 term under the square root in the denominator is E,
The stress-strain relation in a direction perpendicular rather thanE, - E This correction makes the resulting
0 •

to the compression strut is shown in Fig. 3(b). Before Eq. (15b) consistent with the condition that a, = ;:,
the concrete is cracked, the ascending linear relation- when E, = E". The effect of this modification is minor,
ship is since Ecr is usually much smaller than E,.
ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1987 151
 Eliminating P 1 from Eq. (18) and (19), but keeping Ka
and Kr as variables

(20)
TR. Denoting

1 (21)

and substituting K into Eq. (20), we obtain

Critical Zone (b) (22)

where K = ratio of maximum transverse stress to max-

imum shear stress. If the stresses are distributed uni-
formly over the whole specimen, Ka and Kr equal to
unity, and K = 1/h.
In this study, K will be assumed a known value in the
(a) critical zone. The justification for assuming a constant
K shall be explained later. Using Eq. (22) and a speci-
Fig. 4-Push-off test specimen (Reference 13) and crit- fied a,, the 14 variables listed previously are reduced to
ical zone 12 unknowns. By selecting one of them as a known
value, the remaining 11 unknowns can be solved by the
;; = E,E, if E, ::::;; Ely (16a) 11 equations, Eq. (6) through (12) and Eq. (14) through
(17). A solution procedure can be implemented by first
;; = ;;y if E, > Ely (16b) reducing the number of equations.
It should be observed that the three stress-strain re-
fr = E,EI if E1 ::::;; E1y (17a) lationships of concrete, Eq. (12), (14), and (15), are
given in the d-r axis, and are expressed in terms of six
fr = /ry if E1 > E1y (17b) unknowns, ad, a,, Ed, E, a, and A. It is, therefore, pos-
sible to transform the stresses and strains in the 1-t axis
where E, = Young's modulus of elasticity of the rein-
(!;, fr, E1 EJ onto the d-r axis, so that the equations can
forcement. fry, fry = yield stresses of the longitudinal
be reduced to five equations containing the six un-
and transverse reinforcement, respectively.
knowns. The two equations besides the three stress-
strain relationships are derived as follows:
CONDENSATION OF EQUATIONS AND
Substituting Eq. (16) into Eq. (6) and using Eq. (9)
SOLUTION PROCEDURE
for E1
The preceding 11 equations, Eq. (6) through (12) and
(14) through (17), contain 14 variables:;;, fr, a,, an r 11 ,
E1, En "f 1n ad, a, Ed, E, a, and A. For the shear transfer
test specimens studied in this paper (described later), a, E1 < E1y a, = ad cos 2a + a, sin 2a
is specified. The other two stresses a 1 and r 11 are related
+ p,E,(Ed cos 2a + E,sin 2a) (23b)
to the external applied load P 1 by
Equating Eq. (7) and (8) and noting that a1 = Kr11
(18) from Eq. (22)

(ad - a,) K sina cosa = ad sin 2a

(19) + a, cos 2a + P /r
1 (24)

where Ka coefficient describing the nonuniform Substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (24) and using Eq. (10)
distribution of stress a1 for E1
coefficient describing the nonuniform
(ad - a,)K sina cosa
distribution of stress Tc
b thickness of test specimen (Fig. 4) = ad sin 2 a + a, cos 2a + P1/ry (25a)
h width of test specimen in the longitudi-
nal direction (Fig. 4) and (ad - a,)K sina cosa
length of shear plane in the transverse = ad sin 2a + a, cos 2a
direction (Fig. 4) + p1Es(Ed sin2a + E, cos 2a) (25b)
152 ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1987
 Note that Eq. (23) and (25) are expressed in terms of 9. Select another value of Ed and repeat Steps 1
the six unknowns listed in the preceding paragraphs. By through 8. In this way, a set of solution for various Ed
selecting a value for Ed, the other five unknowns, ad, a, values can be obtained.
E, a, and A, can be solved by Eq. (12), (14), (15), (23), 10. The value of Tit, E1, E, "f 1,, j,, and j, can be calcu-
and (25). Ed is selected because it is expected to vary lated from Eq. (8), (9), (10), (11), (16) and (17), respec-
monotonically as the load is increased. Once these six tively. The relationship of any two variables, such as T1,
unknowns are obtained, the stress and strain in the 1-t versus "( 1,, can be plotted.
axis (T,, E,, E,, "f1, j,, j,) can be easily calculated.
The iterative procedure to solve the five nonlinear si- COMPARISON WITH TESTS
multaneous algebraic equations is as follows: The theory described in the previous steps will now
1. Select a value for Ed. be applied to the shear transfer problem. A typical test
2. Assume a value of a,. specimen for shear transfer across a vertical shear plane
3. Solve forE, from the stress-strain curves of Eq. is shown in Fig. 4. To apply the theory, it is necessary
(15) to know the ratios among the three in-plane stresses a,,
a, and Tit. These stresses should also be uniformly dis-
E, I[_0.005 (I,a,. tributed over the region of interest. However, exami-
nation of the test specimen in Fig. 4 shows that the
stresses cannot be expected to distribute uniformly over
a, the entire specimen, nor can they be expected to be
E =-
, E,. uniform in the central test region. Before cracking, the
shear stress along the shear plane T 1, should be consid-
4. Find A from Eq. (14) erably larger near the two ends of the shear plane where
the open slot disrupts the smooth geometry and intro-
duces local stress concentration. For the same reason,
the transverse normal stress in the direction of the load
a, is larger near the two ends of the shear plane. The
normal stress in the longintudinal direction a, is small
5. Find a" from Eq. (12) and can be neglected.
After diagonal cracking, a cracked region is ob-
served in the vicinity of the shear plane and eventually
leads to failure. This cracked region will be called the
critical zone and is the shaded area shown in Fig. 4.
A typical width of this zone was observed to be about
2 to 3 in. for a 10 in. wide specimenY Within this zone,
the extensive cracking of the concrete had an effect of
redistributing the shear stress and the transverse nor-
6. Solve for a from Eq. (23) mal stress more evenly along the shear plane. The
cracking also reduced the stiffness in the zone as com-
pared to that outside of the zone. This would cause a
redistribution of the compression stress in the trans-
verse direction to become more evenly distributed
across sections perpendicular to the shear plane. Thus,
within this critical zone the stresses might be assumed
to be uniform and the theory developed in the previous
then calculate sin 2a, sina, and cosa. sections could be used. More specifically, the shear
7. Solve for a, from Eq. (25) stress T" was estimated as the average stress over the
entire shear plane (i.e., Kr = 1); and the compressive
stress in the transverse direction a, was estimated as the
aAK sina cosa
a, average stress over a cross-sectional plane perpendicu-
lar to the shear plane (i.e., Ka = 1). The K ratio, there-
fore, becomes 1/h as shown in Fig. 4. The normal stress
aiK sina cosa - sin 2a) in the longitudinal direction a, is assumed to be zero
- p,£s(Edsin 2a + E,COS 2a) [Fig. 4(b)].
K sina cosa + cos 2a In determining the reinforcement ratio, the cross-
sectional area of the longitudinal steel across the shear
8. If the calculated a, is close enough to the assumed plane is divided by the area of the shear plane to obtain
a, value, a set of solution ad, a, E, a, and A has been p 1, and the area of the transverse steel is divided by the
obtained for the selected Ed value. Otherwise, a new a, cross-sectional area of a plane perpendicular to the
is calculated by a bisection method and Steps 2 to 7 are shear plane to obtain p,. As the cracks in the critical
repeated. zone are constrained by the two rows of transverse
ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1987 153
 steel, and the transverse steel is almost uniformly de-
1500 ployed over the whole section, the use of the average
steel ratio over the whole section for the transverse re-
inforcement ratio in the critical zone is considered ap-
propriate.
~
The initially uncracked shear transfer tests reported
Ill
.e in the literature were studied by tracing the shear stress-
1-- 1000 shear strain history by the method as previously de-
ui scribed. Fig. 5 and 6 show the shear stress versus shear
VI
w strain curves for Specimens M2 and M6, respectively,
cc:
1-
VI
obtained from References 13 and 16. For convenience,
cc: the starting point is taken at the zero stress state and
c SPECIMEN M2
w
:z:
successive tracing is done from uncracked state to
NON-SOFTENED CONCRETE
VI
500 cracked state of the concrete, even though the imposed
SOFTENED CONCRETE ratio between the normal stress and shear stress is only
-x- TEST applicable to the cracked state as explained previously.
6. YIELDING OF LONGIT. STEEL
Fig. 5 and 6 each provide three curves: one experi-
mental and two theoretical. One theoretical curve is
0 PEAK STRESS IN CONCRETE
based on the softened compression stress-strain rela-
tionship given by Eq. (12) and (14) and shown in Fig.
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 3(a), while the other one utilizes the nonsoftened
SHEAR STRAIN, )" compression stress-strain curve specified by the CEB-
FIP Model CodeY The CEB-FIP curve has a para-
bolic-rectangular shape. The ascending parabolic curve
up to a strain of 0.002 is described by Eq. (12a), if the
Fig. 5-Shear stress-shear strain curves for Specimen
coefficient 'A is taken as unity, and the continuing hori-
M2 (1 psi = 6.895 kPa)
zontal branch terminates at a strain of 0.0035. Fig. 5
and 6 show that the theoretical curves using the soft-
ened compression stress-strain curve agree very well
with the experimental curve. In contrast, the theoreti-
cal curves based on the nonsoftened compression stress-
2000
strain curve overestimates considerably the maximum
stress as well as the strain at maximum stress.
It should be mentioned that the truss model theory is
not intended for the prediction of behavior before
cracking. Tests in Fig. 5 and 6 show quite reasonably
that the specimens before cracking are considerably
1500 stiffer than those predicted. Only when the ultimate
·;;
strength is approached can the predicted shear stresses
.!: //'-
and shear strains become valid .
l-
f -----i(
ui I
Push-off tests
Ill I
w
1!: 1000 I
I
The two specimens M2 and M6, discussed previously
Ill
I and shown in Fig. 4, are subjected to the so-called
a:: I
c push-off loading. A total of 20 push-off tests is re-
w
:1:
Ill ported in References 13, 16, and 28 for initially un-
- SPECIMEN M8 -
cracked specimens. The test results are compiled in Ta-
-0- NON-SOFTENED CONCRETE ble 1, including the predicted shear stresses 7"'"'·'' the
500 -e- SOFTENED CONCRETE shear strains at peak stress 'Ymax,n and the longitudinal
-X- TEST steel strains at peak stress E1• The shear stresses were
-6- YIELDING OF LONGIT. STEEL computed from Tmax,c = p,lbl, assuming K = l. Also,
-0- PEAK STRESS IN CONCRETE
assuming Ka = 1, then K = 1/h. For specimens No. 1
through 14, K = 10/10 = 1, and for specimens No. 15
through 20, K = 10/12 = 0.83. This means that the
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
shear stresses are assumed to be uniformly distributed
SHEAR STRAIN, 'Y across the shear plane and the transverse stresses are
uniformly distributed on the plane perpendicular to
that.
Fig. 6-Shear stress-shear strain curves for Specimen A comparison of the calculated and experimental
M6 (1 psi = 6.895 kPa) maximum shear stresses is given in Fig. 7. The agree-
154 ACI Structural Journal I March-April1987
ment between the calculated and the measured shear
strengths is indeed very good. The mean value of the ·;
2- 1500
ratio of the measured shear strength to calculated shear "'"'w
strength is 1.054 and the standard deviation is 0.069. ...a:
<f)

Among the 20 tests, 4 of them (1.1A, 1.1B, 6.1, and a:

:.\ Af,:
M.1) have only one row of longitudinal steel across the "
; 1000 )A5~
shear plane. Since the theory is applicable to cases with ,.";;: "' NON~SOFTENED CONCRETE

more evenly distributed reinforcements, appreciable er- ..,.

ror in prediction is expected for these four cases. In ....
-'

fact, Table 1 shows that the test values in these cases z

~ 500 e:JNo 1-1<~ K=ll~>"l.OO

are 10 to 20 percent higher than the predicted values.

~ ... /::,.No 15-20 K = Ill>::: 0.83

This indicates that other factors, such as aggregate in- ><

w

terlocking and dowel action, which are not considered

in the present theory, may become relatively important
in these cases of low steel percentage. If these four
cases are discounted from Table 1, the remaining 16 re-
sults show excellent agreement between theory and test,
with a mean value of 1.030 and a standard deviation of
0.048, for the ratio of experimental shear strength to
calculated shear strength.
Fig. 7 also compares the experimental shear strength
to the theoretical shear strength based on nonsoftened
concrete. This theoretical prediction overestimates the
actual strength by about 50 percent.
To see how sensitive predicted shear strength is to the
assumption of the stress ratio K, results from different
K values ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 are calculated for the
first 14 cases in Table 1 and are shown in Table 2. The
ratios of the experimental to calculated maximum shear
stresses are plotted in Fig. 8 as a function of the K-ra-
1500 2000
500 1000
CALCULATED MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS TmaK,c (psi)
Fig. 7-Comparison of maximum shear stresses for
push-off tests (1 psi = 6.895 kPa)
tio. The shaded area indicates the range of the shear
strength ratio, and the curve through the solid dots
gives the mean value. The results are not sensitive to
changes in K; changing K from 1.0 to 2.0 and from 1.0
to 0.5 results in less than 10 percent and 5 percent dif-
ference, respectively, in shear strength. The variation of
K represents the degree of unevenness of the compres-
sive stress distribution across a plane perpendicular to
the shear plane that could result in an increase or de-
crease of the compressive stress in the critical zone. The

Table 1-Comparison of experimental and theoretical results (push-off)

j,, J:. <,, <, rm,/\.11 Tmul;<' Tmax.l -y,,,, -y,,,,,
Number Specimen p, p, psi psi 1/A X 10-' X 10 ' psi PSI X 10 ' X 10 ' s
f_i!
" Tmax.r

y
I I. lA 0.0044 0.0568 50,700 3920 0.0008 0.3965 62.79 3.415 0.314 750 684 1.0965 4.333

2 l.IB 0.0044 0.0568 48,000 4340 0.0008 0.3749 63.81 3.977 0.356 844 696 1.2126 4.700 y

3 1.2A 0.0088 0.0568 50,700 3840 0.0010 0.4966 57.72 2.113 0.242 1000 923 1.0834 3.933 y

4 1.2B 0.0088 0.0568 48,000 4180 0.0010 0.4701 58.91 2.538 0.287 980 930 1.0538 4.267 y

5 1.3A 0.0132 0.0568 50,700 3840 0.0016 0.5859 54.05 1.769 0.172 1100 1109 0.9919 4.887 y

6 1.3B 0.0132 0.0568 48,000 3920 0.0013 0.5617 54.85 1.716 0.195 1070 1098 0.9745 4.246 y

7 1.4A 0.0176 0.0568 50,700 4510 0.0017 0.5996 53.18 1.658 0.181 1360 1326 1.0256 5.028 N

8 1.4B 0.0176 0.0568 48,000 3855 0.0017 0.6139 52.74 1.479 0.141 1280 1173 1.0912 4.836 N

9 1.5A 0.0220 0.0568 50,700 4510 0.0017 0.6161 52.39 1.429 0.159 1400 1377 1.0167 4.822 N

10 1.5B 0.0220 0.0568 48,000 4065 0.0017 0.6253 52.09 1.325 0.132 1384 1268 1.0915 4.711 N

11 1.6A 0.0264 0.0568 50,700 4310 0.0017 0.6332 51.67 1.218 0.130 1432 1366 1.0483 4.614 N

12 1.6B 0.0264 0.0568 48,000 4050 0.0016 0.6333 51.66 1.153 0.120 1420 1300 1.0923 4.355 N

13 6.1 0.0044 0.0568 48,000 3960 0.0008 0.3893 63.21 3.597 0.321 800 672 1.1905 4.441 y

14 6.2 0.0220 0.0568 48,000 3930 0.0017 0.6282 52.01 1.291 0.125 1240 1235 1.0041 4.672 N

15 Ml 0.0044 0.0587 50,900 4180 0.0008 0.3806 63.03 3.778 0.386 760 695 1.0935 4.660 4.000 y

16 M2 0.0088 0.0587 52,700 3900 0.0011 0.4924 57.33 2.348 0.318 980 932 1.0515 4.423 3.333 y

17 M3 0.0132 0.0587 52,300 3995 0.0015 0.5689 53.81 1.812 0.273 1110 1131 0.9814 4.486 4.667 y

18 M4 0.0176 0.0587 50,900 4150 0.0017 0.5995 52.35 1.588 0.253 1140 1233 0.9246 5.072 4.667 y

19 M5 0.0220 0.0587 52,700 3935 0.0017 0.6202 51.39 1.314 0.220 1280 1225 1.0449 4.814 6.667 N

20 M6 0.0264 0.0587 52,700 4120 0.0017 0.6281 50.88 1.197 0.219 1320 !304 1.0123 4.713 3.333 N
K = 1.0 for No. 1 through 14; K = 0.83 for No. 15 through 20. No. I through 14 are taken from Reference 28 and No. 15 through 20 are taken from References
13 and 16. 'Ym~., -y,,,,, = experimental and calculated shear strains at maximum stress, respectively. Y = steel yielded; N = steel not yielded.'" 1/A a ,, and, are
values at maximum stress. S = longitudinal steel. I psi = 6.895 kPa. ' ' ' ' '

ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1987 155

 ...,
.,'l.><
,(
2.0
iii
E E _g. 1500 M6( P. = 0.0264)
"' "'
!/) !/) 1.5 MEAN
."
E
( ~ "'
!/) !/)
w "' ~ I
w
a: a:
1-
!/)
1-
!/)
ui
Ul
w 1000 I M2(P,
I t
=0.0088) l
a: 1

rr:
y
a:
C(
a:
C( 1.0
1-
Ul I
w w a: oT
::r:: ::r:: C(
max,c
!/) !/) w I
::r::
x x Ul 500 practical
I
I *Tmax,t
C(
:::E
C(
:::E 0.5 x
C(
regk»n - 1
I TEST
:-sPECIMEN
a:w <..i
-1
:; I

ll. C(
><
w
(,)
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
TRANSVERSE STEEL RATIO, p1
K-RATIO

Fig. 8-Ejject ojK-ratio on calculated maximum shear Fig. 9-Ejject of transverse steel ratio on calculated
stresses maximum shear stresses (1 psi = 6.895 kPa)

Table 2- Effect of stress ratio K (push-off)

Theoretical prediction
K = 2.0 K = 1.0 K = 0.5
711/U\,I' -y, 'Y' -y,
Number Specimen psi T X 10' s T X 10 ' s T X 10' s
I I. IA 750 753 3.098 y 684 4.333 y 661 5.79 y

2 I.IB 844 768 2.857 y 696 4.700 y 672 5.76 y

3 1.2A 1000 1025 3.353 y 923 3.933 y 885 5.19 y

4 1.2B 980 1046 2.904 y 930 4.267 y 893 5.59 y

5 1.3A 1100 1163 4.131 N 1109 4.887 y 1063 4.90 y

6 1.3B 1070 1182 4.370 y 1098 4.246 y 1046 5.10 y

7 1.4A 1360 1395 3.950 N 1326 5.028 N 1289 5.50 y

8 1.4B 1280 1233 3.882 N 1173 4.836 N 1142 5.26 N

9 1.5A 1400 1457 3.972 N 1377 4.822 N 1334 5.29 N
10 1.5B 1384 1340 3.726 N 1268 4.711 N 1230 5.14 N
II 1.6A 1432 1451 3.596 N 1366 4.614 N 1321 5.07 N
12 1.6B 1420 1380 3.589 N 1300 4.355 N 1258 4.98 N
13 6.1 800 739 2.651 y 672 4.441 y 649 5.45 y

14 6.2 1240 1304 3.712 N 1235 4.672 N 1198 5.09 N

r = r,,_,._, in psi, "' = "(,,_,,,. S = longitudinal steel; Y = yielded; N = not yielded. I psi = 6.895 kPa.

Table 3- Effect of transverse steel (push-off)

j,, f,'' 7/J/(1\,,
psi
7 011111 . , ,

Number Specimen p, psi psi psi 0.0025* 0.0055* 0.011''' 0.022* 0.0293* 0.044* 0.0587' 0.0733* 0.088*
16 M2 0.0088 52,700 3900 980 700 777 829 877 895 918 932 942 950
20 M6 0.0264 52,700 4120 1320 1174 1209 1243 1273 1284 1297 1304 1310 1313
*Assumed p,.
tp, in actual test specimen.
I psi = 6.895 kPa.

insensitivity of the shear strength to the assumed K-ra- specimens, M2 and M6 (p, = 0.0088 and 0.0264). The
tio simply means that the shear strength is not sensitive transverse reinforcement ratio is assumed to vary from
to the unevenness of the compressive stress distribution. p, = 0.0025 to 0.088 for cases shown in Table 3. The
The choice of the simple expression K = 1/h would effect of the transverse steel ratio on the maximum
have the advantage of simplicity and would provide shear stress is plotted in Fig. 9. Fig. 9 shows that
sufficient accuracy. changing the reinforcement ratio from the actual 0.0587
The sensitivity of shear strength to the assumption to 0.0293 or from 0.0587 to 0.088 results in a change of
made in determining the amount of transverse steel is shear strength by Jess than 4 percent. If, however, the
studied by comparing the results for two of the test transverse steel ratio is reduced from the test specimen
156 ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1987
 <'>
0...
8.0 .--------r------.---.------::l
~
.....
Ill
E
)>...
rri 6.0
Ill
w
a:
I-
I/)

><
4.0
""
::IE
I- ......

"':ccz
a:
I-
I/)
2.0 p = 12"
a:

1:
SPECIMEN 15-20
""
w
:1:
Ill
a:w 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
a..
><
w
CALC. SHEAR STRAIN AT MAX. STRESS, Y max,c (X10" 3 )

Fig. 10-Comparison of shear strains at maximum

stress

value of 0.0587 to the minimum practical values of

0.0025, then the reduction of shear strength is as large
as 25 percent. While the test specimens are heavily
reinforced in the transverse direction to force failure at 2.75"
the shear plane, such heavy reinforcement parallel to
~

I
the shear plane is generally not available in practical

structures. Thus, design guidelines based solely on these
tests may not be conservative.
Also compared in Table 1 are the shear strains at
peak stress for the six specimens for which the test val-
ues were reported from measured slip across the shear
plane. A test shear $train is calculated by dividing the
measured slip by the gage distance across the shear
plane. A comparison of the calculated and experimen-
tal shear strains at maximum stress is given in Fig. 10.
The predicted shear strains at peak stress are in gener-
ally good agreement with the test values. The scatter
can be explained by the fact that the slip across the
shear plane was measured at one level across the shear
plane, while the predicted shear strain is an average
value.
Push-off tests with imposed longitudinal tensile
stress
A tensile stress is applied in the longitudinal direc-
tion to a test specimen, 14•15 as shown in Fig. 11. If the
~ ~
I[ I JJ I 7
•
r--- h = 14" ---1
Fig. 11-Push-off test specimen with longitudinal ten-
sion stress (Reference 14) (1 in. = 25.4 mm)
tensile stress is kept constant during the test, the shear
strength is expected to be weakened. Test results are
available to show this weakening effect. 14 The present
theory can be applied easily to such cases by assigning
a constant normal stress in the longitudinal direction.
In these test specimens K = 12/14 = 0.86. Shown in
Table 4 are the measured and calculated shear strengths
for six tests, including four with imposed longitudinal
tension. The agreement is acceptable but not as good as

Table 4-Effect of normal stress (push-off)

Normal
feo J:. ,,, ,, Tou"/' TI!W\·:''
T,U.\,1
"(,.,,,., "(.,.,,,, stress,
Number Specimen p, p, psi psi E,, 1/f- a X JO·' X 10' pSI psi Tmax,c xlO' xiO' Steel psi
21 EIU 0.0105 0.0360 52,700 4060 0.0013 0.5031 55.68 2.469 0.456 1089 1004 1.0847 5.145 6.266 y 0
22 E4U O.QI05 0.0360 49,100 3860 0.0011 0.4236 60.00 3.745 0.515 946 757 1.2497 5.595 1.800 y 200
23 E6U 0.0105 0.0360 50,800 4120 0.0007 0.3178 65.13 5.178 0.563 607 545 1.1138 5.449 1.390 y 400
24 FlU 0.0157 0.0360 52,200 4035 0.0017 0.5865 52.17 1.699 0.352 1369 1173 1.1671 5.279 N 0
25 F4U 0.0157 0.0360 53,200 4175 0.0013 0.5219 54.55 2.125 0.437 1143 1087 1.0515 4.878 y 200
26 F6U 0.0157 0.0360 51,000 4245 0.0012 0.4411 58.86 3.581 0.546 1066 877 1.2155 5.779 y 400
1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1987 157

 2.0
....>< It
><
IV IV
E E
1.5
'"" ui
ui '""
(/) (/)
w w
a:
1-
a:
1-
• ••
(/)
a:
(/)
a: 1.0 •
<1: <1:
w w
::c
::c (/)
(/)

>< ><
<1: <1: 0.5
::1! ::1!
SPECIMEN 21-26
Fig. 13-Crack pattern of push-off specimens with
ri cj longitudinal tension stress (Reference 14)
w ...J
Q. <1:
>< ()
w
0 200 400
that of the previous cases. One possible reason for the
LONGITUDINAL TENSION STRESS, "£. (psi)
generally higher test values is the existence of the addi-
tional steel bars to apply the longitudinal stresses and
Fig. 12-Effect of longitudinal tension stress on maxi- the additional ties for the transverse steel bars. This
mum shear strength (1 psi = 6.895 kPa) additional steel does not pass through the shear plane
and is therefore not taken into account in the calcula-
tion. However, it may be close enough to the shear
plane to be partially effective in the truss model action.
The effect of the longitudinal tensile stress on the
shear strength is plotted in Fig. 12, showing the ratio of
the calculated to experimental maximum shear stresses
for these six specimens as a function of the imposed
longitudinal tension stress. The effect of the longitudi-
nal tension stress is correctly predicted.
Table 4 shows that the test value of shear strain at

T I
peak stress is reasonably close to the predicted value for
I
I I the case with no applied tension. However, in the two
cases with imposed tension the calculated values are
three to four times greater than the test values. A close
look at the reported cracking pattern, 14 shown in Fig.
Side View 13, reveals the cause. For the specimens with imposed
longitudinal tension, E4U and E6U, the critical crack
zone is much narrower than that for specimen E1 U,
where no tension is imposed. Since the gage length
across the shear plane in these tests is kept constant and
is much larger than the width of the critical crack zone
in Specimens E4U and E6U, the resulting shear strains
based on this large gage length would show much re-
duced values. Should the observed narrower width of
crack zone be used as the gage length, the shear strains
of Specimens E4U and E6U would be closer to the val-
ues predicted by the theory.

14-r-- 1 3., - - - - . . ..
!
1
Pull-off tests

-:___ l,_\1 p_ ____'--

T
In a pull-off test, 8•29 a tension force is applied in the
transverse direction of the test specimen to produce a

T
4.75"
(.
I
I
I
'-
9.5"
shear stress at the shear plane and a tensile stress in the
transverse direction (Fig. 14). 29 In the theoretical calcu-
lation, the tensile stress is modelled by a negative stress
I

l_ - Section ratio K = - 12/13 = - 0.92. However, it is recog-

-- __.. -

~3"-+
I
- il-----
l nized that the tensile stress in the transverse direction in
the critical zone may be larger than assumed, since the
tension is transmitted almost directly through the an-
choring bars within the critical zone. The local distri-
bution of tensile stress is difficult to estimate and the
Fig. 14-Pull-off test specimen (Reference 29) (1 in. calculated shear is expected to be somewhat greater
25.4 mm) than the actual shear strength because the tensile stress
158 ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1987
would be underestimated using an average value. This 1500 /

indeed is the result as shown in Fig. 15. The calculated

maximum shear stresses are mostly greater than the test .e
. ~~/
o,../
/

/
/

/ /

.
~

values. )( / /~o,..

,/ ,.
/
...E / / '
/ /
vi 1000
DISCUSSION /

.
til "/
w
The proposed theory for shear transfer across anini- a:
1- /
/

/
.-
tially uncracked plane in reinforced concrete is shown til
/
/
/
a:
to be sound. Excellent agreement between predicted <
w /
/
/
/

and measured shear strength is obtained for cases where %

til
/
/
/
•
the stress distribution in a critcal zone encompassing the ..: 500 / /
< / /
shear plane is reasonably uniform after cracking of the ::E / /
/

concrete. It is shown that the predicted shear strength

is not sensitive to the distribution of the compressive
stress applied in the transverse direction, nor is it sen-
sitive to the amount of transverse reinforcement in the
specimen if a large amount of transverse reinforcement
is used. However, if a specimen is lightly reinforced in
the transverse direction near the shear plane, the reduc-
tion of shear strength can be substantial when com-
pared to the shear strengths of specimens with heavy
transverse reinforcement reported in the literature.
According to the theory, the softening of concrete
after cracking of the concrete plays an important role
in determining the shear strength. Both the amount of
longitudinal reinforcement across the shear plane and
the transverse reinforcement near the shear plane are
important factors determining the degree of softening
of the concrete and therefore contribute to the shear
resistance across the shear plane. The longitudinal re-
inforcement has a more important role than that of the
transverse reinforcement in shaping the shear resistance
of the shear plane, as can be seen from both the test re-
sults and theoretical predicitons.
The literature contains reports of only nine test spec-
imens to measure the slip across the shear plane. De-
spite the small number of tests and slip measurements
available, comparison of predicted and test shear
strains at peak stress shows general agreement. This is
another indication that the proposed theory is sound.
Since its incorporation into the ACI Building Code in
1971, the shear friction theory has been widely applied
in design practice. In this theory, it is assumed that the
shear transfer strength of reinforced concrete is a func-
tion of the longitudinal steel crossing the shear plane
and the compression strength of concrete, but it is not
a function of the transverse steel parallel to the shear
plane. This study shows, however, that the transverse
steel near the shear plane could have a significant ef-
fect on the shear transfer strength. Since the shear fric-
tion equations in the ACI Building Code were based on
test specimens with a very high percentage of trans-
verse steel near the shear plane, they could be uncon-
servative when applied to the practical cases of shear
transfer with a small percentage of transverse steel.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Shear strength across an initially uncracked plane
in reinforced concrete can be predicted with good ac-
curacy by the proposed theory. This theory is based on
ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1987
a:w /
/
/
/
/ SPECIMEN No. 2 7-32
c.. / /
>< /'/
w /.V
AI"
0 500 1000 1500
CALC. MAX. SHEAR STRESS, T max,c (psi)
Fig. 15-Comparison of maximum shear stresses for
pull-off tests (1 psi = 6.895 kPa)
the truss model and incorporates a softened compres-
sion stress-strain relation along the concrete struts.
2. The current ACI Building Code design criterion
for shear strength across a plane is based on the shear
friction theory. Since the shear-friction theory assumes
that the shear transfer strength is not a function of the
reinforcement parallel to the shear plane, the ACI pro-
visions are derived from test specimens that use heavy
reinforcement parallel to and near the shear plane. The
proposed truss model theory, however, indicates that
this reinforcement could have a significant effect on the
shear transfer strength. For the practical cases of de-
sign with small percentages of reinforcement parallel to
the shear plane, the code provisions for initially un-
cracked concrete might be unconservative.
3. More tests are required for shear transfer speci-
mens with light reinforcement of 0.2 to 2 percent par-
allel to the shear plane. The critical zone of the future
test specimens also should be carefully instrumented to
ascertain the strain field.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank Professor Alan Mattock for supplying
the detailed test data against which the proposed theory is compared.
This work is partially supported by the Texas Advanced Research
Program.
NOTATION
b thickness of test specimen
d a direction parallel to the direction of the compression strut
E, initial Young's modulus of concrete
E, Young's modulus of reinforcing bars
J: cylinder compression strength of concrete
f,., cracking strength of concrete
;; stress in the longitudinal steel reinforcement
};, yielding stress of longitudinal steel reinforcement
}; stress in the transverse steel reinforcement
};, yielding stress of transverse steel reinforcement
h width of test specimen in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 4)
159
 K ratio of normal stress in transverse direction to shear stress in
the 1-t coordinate system
K. ratio of normal stress in transverse direction in the critical zone
to that of the average normal stress
K, ratio of shear stress in the critical zone to that of the average
shear stress over the shear plane
the longitudinal direction (a direction perpendicular to the
shear plane); length of shear plane in the transverse direction
(Fig. 4).
P, external applied load in the transverse direction
r direction perpendicular to the direction of the compression
strut
transverse direction; a direction parallel to the shear plane
angle of inclination of the compression strut from the /-axis
shear strain in the 1-t coordinate system
tensile strain at which concrete cracks
compression strain in the direction of the strut
normal strain in the /-direction
yield strain of longitudinal steel reinforcement
E, compression strain at maximum stress in a uniaxial stress-
strain curve of concrete cylinder
peak strain of softened concrete defined as E,/A
normal strain in the r-direction
normal strain in the /-direction
E,, yield strain of transverse steel reinforcement
"A coefficient for softening effect
reinforcement ratio of the longitudinal steel
reinforcement ratio of the transverse steel
a, compressive stress in the concrete strut
a, normal stress in the /-direction
a,, normal stress in concrete in the /-direction
a, normal stress in the r-direction
a, normal stress in the /-direction
a,. normal stress in concrete in the /-direction
a" normal stress in steel in the /-direction
T1, shear stress in the 1-t coordinate system
T,,. shear stress in concrete in the 1-t coordinate system
T,., = shear strength of test specimen
REFERENCES
I. ACI-ASCE Committee 426, "The Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Members," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 99, ST6, June 1973, pp.
1091-1187.
2. Dulacska, Helen, "Dowel Action of Reinforcement Crossing
Cracks in Concrete," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No. 12, Dec.
1972, pp. 754-757.
3. Paulay, T., and Loeber, P. J., "Shear Transfer by Aggregate
Interlock," Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, 1974, pp. 1-15.
4. Paulay, T.; Park, R.; and Phillips, M. H., "Horizontal Con-
struction Joints in Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete," Shear in
Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1974, pp. 599-616.
5. Walraven, J. C.; Vos, E.; and Reinhardt, H. W., "Experiments
on Shear Transfer in Cracks in Concrete, Part I: Description of Re-
sults," Report No. 5-79-3, Stevin Laboratory, Delft University of
Technology, 1979, 89 pp.
6. Walraven, J. C., "Experiments on Shear Transfer in Cracks in
Concrete, Part 2: Analysis of Results," Report No. 5-79-10, Stevin
Laboratory, Delft University of Technology, 1979, 132 pp.
7. Walraven, J. C., Aggregate Interlock: A Theoretical and Exper-
imental Analysis, Delft University Press, 1980, 197 pp.
8. Mattock, Alan H., and Hawkins, Neil M., "Shear Transfer in
Reinforced Concrete-Recent Research," Journal, Prestressed Con-
crete Institute, V. 17, No.2, Mar.-Apr. 1972, pp. 55-75.
9. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI-318-83)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1983, Ill pp.
160
10. Birkeland, Philip W., and Birkeland, Halvard W., "Connec-
tions in Precast Concrete Construction," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings
V. 63, No.3, Mar. 1966, pp. 345-368.
II. Mast, Robert F., "Auxiliary Reinforcement in Concrete Con-
nections," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 94, ST6, June 1968, pp. 1485-
1504.
12. Mattock, A. H., "Shear Transfer in Concrete Having Rein-
forcement at an Angle to the Shear Plane," Shear in Reinforced
Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974, pp. 17-
42.
13. Mattock, Alan H., "Effect of Aggregate Type on Single Di-
rection Shear Transfer Strength in Monolithic Concrete," Report No.
SM74-2, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washing-
ton, Seattle, Aug. 1974, 72 pp.
14. Mattock, Alan H., "Effect of Moment and Tension Across the
Shear Plane on Single Direction Shear Transfer Strength in Mono-
lithic Concrete," Report No. SM74-3, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, University of Washington, Seattle, Oct. 1974, 103 pp.
15. Mattock, Alan H.; Johal, L.; and Chow, H. C., "Shear
Transfer in Reinforced Concrete with Moment or Tension Acting
Across the Shear Plane," Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, V.
20, No.4, July-Aug. 1975, pp. 76-93.
16. Mattock, Alan H.; Li, W. K.; and Wang, T. C., "Shear
Transfer in Lightweight Reinforced Concrete," Journal, Prestressed
Concrete Institute, V. 21, No. I, Jan.-Feb. 1976, pp. 20-39.
17. Kupfer, Helmut; Hilsdorf, Hubert K.; and Rusch, Hubert,
"Behavior of Concrete Under Biaxial Stresses," ACI JOURNAL, Pro-
ceedings V. 66, No.8, Aug. 1969, pp. 656-666.
18. Zia, Paul, "Torsional Strength of Prestressed Concrete Mem-
bers," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 57, No. 10, Apr. 1961, pp.
1337-1359.
19. Vecchio, F., and Collins, M.P., "Stress-Strain Characteristics
of Reinforced Concrete in Pure Shear," Final Report, IABSE Col-
loquium on Advanced Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete (Delft,
1981), International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineer-
ing, Ziirich, pp. 211-225.
20. Vecchio, F., and Collins, M. P ., "The Response of Reinforced
Concrete to In-Plane Shear Normal Stresses," Publication No. 82-03,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Mar. 1982,
332 pp.
21. Hsu, Thomas T. C., and Mo, Y. L., "Softening of Concrete
in Torsional Members -Theory and Tests," ACI JouRNAL, Pro-
ceedings V. 82, No.3, May-June 1985, pp. 290-303.
22. Hsu, Thomas T. C., and Mo, Y. L., "Softening of Concrete
in Torsional Members - Design Recommendations," ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 82, No.4, July-Aug. 1985, pp. 443-452.
23. Hsu, Thomas T. C., and Mo, Y. L., "Softening of Concrete
in Torsional Members- Prestressed Concrete," ACI JoURNAL, Pro-
ceedings V. 82, No.5, Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp. 603-615.
24. Hsu, Thomas T. C., and Mo, Y. L., "Softening of Concrete
in Low-Rise Shear Walls," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No.6,
Nov.-Dec. 1985, pp. 883-889.
25. Mau, S. T., and Hsu, Thomas T. C., "Shear Design and
Analysis of Low-Rise Structural Walls," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings
V. 83, No.2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 306-315.
26. Hsu, Thomas T. C., Torsion of Reinforced Concrete, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1984, 516 pp.
27. CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures, 3rd Edition,
Comite Euro-International du Beton/Federation Internationale de Ia
Precontrainte, Paris, 1978, 348 pp.
28. Hofbeck, J. A.; Ibrahim, I. 0.; and Mattock, Alan H., "Shear
Transfer in Reinforced Concrete," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 66,
No.2, Feb. 1969, pp. 119-128.
29. Chatterjee, P., "Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete," MS
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington,
Seattle, 1971, 48 pp.
ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1987