360

Advances in understanding
shear performance
of concrete structures
D A Kuchma* and M P Collins+

* Universityof Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign,USA

Universityof Toronto, Canada

Summary
Recent research has improved our understandingof
the mechanisms of shear resistance, which has
enabled the development of improvedmodels for
predictingshear strength and shear behavior. These
models have been used to develop new and more
rationalshear design expressions, replacing the
complex set of empirical expressionsthat are used in
many codes of practice.They have also been used to

develop non-linear finite element programs that can

be used to predict the complete load-deformation
response of complex concretestructures.
Additionally, there has been significant progress in
developing procedures for using strut-and-tie
models to proportionreinforcementin disturbed
regions. This article summarizes these advances.

Progress in Structural Engineeringand Materials I998 Vol I(4): 360-369

Procedures for the flexural design of reinforced

concrete are straightforward and consistent from
country to country on account of the accuracy and
power of the plane sections theory. On the other hand,
the design procedures for predicting shear strength
commonly consist of numerous, often complex,
empirical equations, which are not based on a simple
conceptualmodel. Rational models, developed from
research, have now reached the point of maturity
where they are being used as the basis for new shear
design procedures. Beyond the ability to predict
strength, some of these analytical models have been
used to develop non-linear finite element (FE)
programs.
It is the objective of this article to describe the
impact that recent advances in our understanding of
shear behavior are having on shear design and
analysis procedures. To achieve this goal, this report
begins with a description of several leading methods
for predicting shear strength. This will establish the
framework for reviewing shear transfer mechanisms
Abbrevlitlonr

Tarmlnolo~

AASHTO= American Associationof

State Highway and
Transportation Officials
ACI
= American Concrete
Institute
ASCE
= American Society of Civil
Englneen
EC
= Eurxode
FE
= Rniteelement
LRFD
= load and resistance factor
design
= modelcode
MC
PCA
= PorciandCement
AsxKiatlon
RC
= reinforcedconcrete

o
A,

=
=

A, =
bw =

B =
d

dv

shearspan
areaoftheflexural
reinforcement
area of shear reinforcement
= shear width or web width
factor that accounts for the
ability of the cracked concrete
to transmit tension
depth of member (distance
from extreme compression
Rber to center of flexural
reinforcement)
shear depth (often taken as

Id)

=
=

f',
fd
fdmax

f,
jd

0CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITEDI998 ISSN 1365-0556

=
=

=
=

and discussing the effect of several important factors

on shear capacity. This report concludeswith the
description of an analyticalmodel for predicting the
behavior of complex structures.The capabilities of
this model are illustrated in an example.

Approaches for predictingshear capacity

Several procedures for predicting shear strength are
described below. These include international building
code procedures, various truss methods, and more
recent techniques.

TRADITIONAL
Vc(EMPIRICAL)

+ Vs(45" TRUSS)

The oldest and most valued model for evaluating

shear resistance has been the 45" parallel chord truss.
In this model, a vertical load in a beam is idealized as
being carried down and along diagonal concrete
compression members and up steel ties until it reaches
the support. When this model was brought to the
USA, it was observed to be quite conservativeand

modulusofthe
reinforcement
straininRexurai
reinforcement
compressive cylinder
strength
compressive stress in strut
or compressionReid
maximum allowable
compressive stress In strut
or compressionfleld
yield strength of shear
reinforcement
flexural lever arm (often
taken as 0.94

Mu

= factored moment at a

section In a member
Nu = factored axial load a t a
section In a member
$I
= strength reduction factor
pvmin = minimum required
percentage of shear
reinforcement
s
= spacingofshear
reinforcement
9
= angle between principal
compressive stress and
longitudinal axis
= angle between shear crack
gcr
and longitudinal axls

Vc = concrete contribution t o shear

resistance

Vn = nominal shear capacity

V,

= transversereinforcement
contribution to shear resistance

Vu = factored shear force at a section

in a member
vci

= shear slip resistanceaionga

crack
crackwidth

SHEARPERFORMANCEOFCONCRETESTRUCTURES
thus, a concrete contribution (V,)was added to the
steel contribution (V,from 45" truss). To the practicing
engineer, the design procedure currently used in the
ACI Building Coder11is understood to be an
evaluation of sectional strength where the concrete
contribution to shear resistance is linked to the
diagonal cracking load of the member. The actions of
flexure and shear are handled separately.
The familiar expression used in the ACI Building
Code for the nominal shear strength is given as:

The accuracy of the expression for V,is of greatest

importance for members that contain only minimum
or no shear reinforcement, as is the case for many
b ams, slabs and footings. The shear stress limit of
&/6 was evaluated from beams made from 'normal
strength' concrete which had an average depth of
340 mm and contained about 2% of flexural
reinforcement, and were typically loaded by point
loads on simple spans. Unfortunately, this expression
is not very accurate in predicting the shear strength
for many other practical situations. Consequently,
numerous complex empirical equations were added
to the ACI Building Code despite the charge of ASCEACI committee 426 in 1973to develop:
'design regulations for shear strength that can be integrated,
simplified,and given a physical significanceso that
designerscan approachunusual design problems in a
rational manner.'[rq
Even so, these empirical expressions have been
observed often to poorly predict shear strength as will
be demonstrated in this article.

VARIABLE
ANGLE TRUSS

MODEL WITH NO

Vc

One variation on the 'standard truss model' is the

variable angle parallel chord truss model, in which 8
(the angle of diagonal compression) is not assumed to
act at 45" from the longitudinal axis. The capacity of
each vertical truss member is taken as the strength of
shear reinforcement within a beam segment of length
(jd x cote) where j d is the flexural level arm (often
taken as 0.9d). The variable angle truss model is a
design option in Eurocode (EC) 2, Part 1131,where it is
conservatively assumed that the angle of the shear
cracks are parallel to the diagonal compression. In this
case, no shear stress is considered to act on the crack
face with the result being that there is no concrete
contribution to shear resistance:

v,=

A,f,0.9d cot0

(2a)

The diagonal compressive stress may be evaluated

from equilibrium. It is checked to ensure that it is less
than a compressive stress limit. In EC2, fdmax is taken

36 I

as approximately 0.36 f i :

(2b)
The theory of plasticity on which this approach is
based, assumes that the capacity of the web is reached
at the condition of simultaneous concrete crushing
and yielding of the shear reinforcement.
Consequently, 8 depends on the amount of shear
reinforcement used and can be found using Mohr ' s
circle of stress. Low values of 8 correspond to low
quantities of shear reinforcement. In order to avoid
under-reinforced members, minimum values for 8 are
suggested. In EC2, Part 1,the following limits are
given:
0.4 < cote < 2.5
0.5 < cote < 2.0

(22-68") for RC members

(27-63")for prestressed concrete
members

VARIABLE
ANGLE TRUSS

MODELS WITH

Vc

If the angle of the diagonal compression (0)is flatter

than the angle of the diagonal cracks (eJ, then a shear
stress will act on the crack face. A crack is able to resist
shear by 'aggregate interlock' or 'crack friction'. This
interface shear transfer is, amongst other things, a
function of crack width. The vertical component of the
stresses on the crack face can be evaluated from
equilibrium and provides a rational explanation for
the concrete contribution, V,, to shear resistance. Two
such variable angle truss models are described below.
Tooth model

In the 1960s, Kanir~proposed a model in which the

concrete between adjacent cracks was idealized as a
tooth in a comb. This model has been developedrs-n to
consider the shear stresses acting on crack faces and in
some cases the dowel action of the reinforcement. In
order to evaluate the shear stress on the crack, it is
necessary to know the inclination of both the shear
cracks (ecr),
and the diagonal compressive strut (0).
Different researchers have made different
assumptions for these values. As an example,
Reineckgi assumes that the cracks are at 60" from the
longitudinal axis, and leaves the angle of diagonal
compression up to the discretion of the designer. In
order to check if the crack can resist this shear stress,
he estimates the width of the crack from the calculated
longitudinal strain at mid-height, and by assuming
that the cracks are spaced at 70% of the crack height.
General shear design method ofthe modified
compression field theory

In this methodrs**i,the angle of the diagonal

compression is not assumed, but rather is calculated
from the response of the member (average state of
strain) to the applied loads (N,V, and M )as
determined using the modified compression field

0CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITEDI998 ISSN 1365-0556

CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION

362
theory(presented later)19*1.
Except under special
conditions, the angle of the principal compression (8)
will be at an angle to the crack thereby creating a shear
stress on the crack face. The shear strength of a
member without shear reinforcement is predicted to
be dependent on the shear slip resistance along the
crack face. The crack width is conservatively
estimated from the crack spacing and the strain in the
longitudinalreinforcement. For members not
containing shear reinforcement, the crack spacing is
taken as the lesser of the distance between the layers
of crack control reinforcement and the distance
between the flexural reinforcement and the depth of
compression, both divided by the sine of 8. For
members with shear reinforcement, the crack spacing
is taken as 300 mm. The longitudinalstrain is
evaluated from eqn 3a, and the shear strength of the
member is determined using eqn 3b:
6, =

T a b l r I Valurs o f ( ia n d 1 8 f o r i n r m b r r s c o n t a i n i n g a t l r a s t
t h e rniniincim a m o u n t o f s t i r r u p s
Longltudlnal Straln

2
0'

I I1

i 0.100

0.5(Nu+Vu co t8 ) +M , /d v

0.2m

50.80

51.00

S0.71

51.W

52.00

23.10

26.10

30.110

34.00

30.00

38.00

99.00

0.271

0.211

0.200

0.180

0.174

0.143

0.120

23.60

28.00

31.10

34.00

36.00

37.00

36.00

0.216

0.208

0.187

0.181

0.187

0.133

0.112

21.00

29.00

32.00

34.00

38.00

36.10

37.00

0.211

0.203

0.188

0.171

0.160

0.126

0.103

27.60

31.00

33.00

34.00

34.10

31.00

36.0-

0.203

O.lS4

0.174

0.111

0.131

0.100

0.083

30.0'

32.0

33.0

34.0

36.W

38.1'

41.6'

0.191

0.167

0.136

0.126

0.116

0.106

0.104

Table 2 Valurs o f / iand 11 f o r rnrrr1bc.t-s c o n t a i n i n g Irss

t h a n t h e rnininiiiiii a m o u n t o f s t i r r u p s

E S AS

3
.

II II
II

V, =Vc+Vs= , 8 f i b v d v + A , f , d v c o r 9
S

The values of p and 8, calculated from the modified

compression field theory, are given in Tables 1 and 2.
Note that in this method, shear in cracked concrete is
described as being carried by a field of diagonal
compression, and a perpendicular field of diagonal
tension. The variable pis the parameter used to
describe the magnitude of the diagonal tension, and
may be limited by the ability of the reinforced concrete
to transmit shear across the crack. The general method
also requires that the longitudinalreinforcement is
designed to resist the forces induced by all actions as
described by:
Asf, 2 -Mll
+0.5~+(~-0,5V,)

#4

50.26

x lo00

(3c)

The general design method has been adopted by three

North American design codestlo-121.

STRUTLAND-TIE
METHOD
Besides being a basis for producing sectional shear
design relationships, truss models are powerful tools
for visualizing the flow of forces throughout
continuous mediatis*,i~i.
In this manner, the
simultaneous actions of shear, moment, and axial load
are explicitly considered. The calculated member
forces are the forces to be designed for without the
need for additional detailing rules. In B (beam)
regions, where plane sectionsremain plane, the
parallel chord truss model with parallel diagonal
struts is the most utilized truss model.
In D (disturbed or discontinuity)regions, a truss
model is typically referred to as a 'strut-and-tie model'
and can be used to describe the flow of forces though a

0CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITEDI998 ISSN 1365-0556

125

Longltudlnal Straln ex x 1000

50

50.25

50.50

51.00

27O
0.408

29O
0.309

32O
0.283

0.201

41'
0.183
48O
0.153

51
0.183

0.118

59O

88O

0.126

0.084

30

0.384
34O

s 500

0.359

I 1' 1
'lOOo

(3

0.335

s2000 0

41
0.306

37O

34O
0.283
39'
0.248

45'
0.212
53'
0.171

37O
0.235
4 3 O

51.50

52.00

34O

38O

0.214

0.183

38O
0.161

43'
0.158
51O
0.127

45'
0.138
54O
0.108

0.095

0.080

0.084

0.052

58'

::

W31

complex stress field where plane sections do not

remain plane. The strength of this model is that it
allows the designer to visualize and direct the flow of
forces.A D-region exists in any segment of a member
within approximatelythe member's depth from a
concentrated load, support, or change in cross-section.
While the varieties of potential strut-and-tiemodels
are only limited by the imagination of the engineer,
typically there are only a couple of practical models
for most design situations.
The strut-and-tiemodel was incorporated into the
Canadian Concrete Design Code in 1984 and the
AASHTO-LRFDcode in 1994. It is also the foundation
of the design procedure for concrete structuresin the
Model Code 90 (MC9O)ti51.In these procedures, the
capacity of an internal truss is limited by the strength
of the concrete compressive struts, the strength of the
steel tension ties, or the ability to transfer loads in the
joints (nodalregions).In addition, sufficient ductility
is required to enable the well-cracked structure to
support the load in the manner envisionedby the
designer. The Canadian Code requires that an
orthogonal grid of distributed reinforcement with a
reinforcement ratio of 0.2% in each directionbe placed
throughout the design region for this purpose.

SHEARPERFORMANCEOF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

FRACTURE
MECHANICS
Fracture mechanics has been used to predict the shear
strength of beams. These methods are considered
most applicable for predicting the strength of small
beams that fail by the propagation of a single diagonal
crack. Notable models have been developed by
Hillerborgn61,and by Bazant & Ohr171.Recents
summaries of fracture mechanics methods are
provided by Reinhardtrial and the ACI
Committee 446r191. The methods are numerically
demanding even for simple reinforced structures,
with the unfortunate result that relationships for
predicting strength may appear empirical to many
designers.

Mechanisms of shear transfer

The concrete contribution to the shear strength of a
member is commonly considered to be the sum of one
or more of the six mechanisms described below.

SHEAR
IN UNCRACKED FLEXURAL COMPRESSION

ZONE

Shear is transferred in the uncracked compression

zone of a beam, by a field of diagonal compression and
perpendicular field of diagonal tension. High axial
compressive stresses due to bending or prestressing
can allow this uncracked zone to support high shear
stresses, and about 35 years ago it was believed that
this was the primary mechanism by which cracked RC
beams transmitted shear. It is now recognized that
typically less than half of the total shear is resisted in
this manner.

DOWEL
ACTION
Shear displacement across a crack is resisted in part by
the flexural stiffness of the reinforcement that crosses
the crack. However, this dowel action is usually
limited by the tensile strength of the concrete that
supports the reinforcement. Dowel action is not
considered to be a significant component of shear
resistance unless the member contains a very large
amount of longitudinal reinforcement.

RESIDUAL
TENSILE

STRESSES

When a crack develops, there is not a complete

separation of the two surfaces. Residual tensile
stresses across cracks have been studied in
displacement controlled tests. It was found that these
stresses were significant for cracks with widths
between 0.05 and 0.15 mmr201.A large portion of the
shear in small beams (d c 100 mm), where the cracks
are quite narrow, can be carried in this manner. Since
crack widths scale with overall member size, residual
tensile stresses probably do not contribute
substantially to the resistance of large beams.

INTERFACE
SHEAR TRANSFER
Shear can be transmitted across a crack when the local
roughness of the crack (distances from trough to peak)

363

is greater than the width of the crack. This effect has

traditionally been referred to as 'aggregate interlock',
but the description 'crack friction' is now more
appropriate since cracks in high strength concrete
propagate through the aggregate. An extensive
amount of experimental work has been conducted to
evaluate shear stress vs shear slip relationships as
influenced by the crack width, normal stress, and
roughness of the crack[2,zi-z6*].In the general method,
the shear resistance of a crack (VJ is calculated using
eqn 3d, where 'w' is the crack width and 'a' is the
aggregate size in millimetres:
Va

0.18Jf:
24w
0.3+a+16

This relationship was based on experiments

conducted by Walravenrz61,who tested specimens cast
with the then normal strength concrete. In using this
expression for high strength concrete, it is suggested
that 'a' be taken as zero until additional data are
available.

ARCH
ACTION
When a load is applied to a member within a distance
equal to about 2.5 times the depth of the member from
a support, a significant portion of the load is carried
directly to the support by a diagonal strut. This is
referred to as arch action and it dominates the shear
behavior of deep members.

SHEAR
REINFORCEMENT
Shear reinforcement is modeled to carry shear as
determined using a 45" or variable angle truss. Shear
reinforcement is also provided to restrain the growth
of inclined cracking. The amount of minimum shear
reinforcement that is predicted to be required depends
on the model that is adopted. It is interesting to note
the differences between international codes. EC2,
Part 1131, recommends that pvmin= 0.11% for normal
strength concrete and 0.1370for higher strength
concrete. MC 90's recommendationris~is closely
linked to the concrete compressive strength, with
0.09% being required for 22 MPa concrete and 0.20%
being required for 67 MPa concrete. The amount
recommended by the ACIrii depends on the strength
of the reinforcement. For regular strength (420 MPa)
reinforcement, 0.08% is required. Recent evidence
suggests that the minimum amount of shear
reinforcement required by the ACI may be
unconservative for higher strength concrete
membersrz71.

Factors influencingshear strength

It is the opinion of the authors that now that there is
adequate understanding of the mechanics of shear
resistance, new design procedures should be based on
rational models. One of the shortcomings of empirical

0CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITEDI998 ISSN 1365-0556

364

CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION

procedures is that the influence of factors that have a

large impact on shear resistance is accounted for by
adding new more complex empirical relationships
and by placing limitations on the use of existing
relationships. The influence of these factors on
strength can be more effectivelyaccounted for if a
rational model is at the heart of design relationships as
illustratedbelow.

about the same percentage of flexural reinforcement

as was used in these large beam tests. The failure shear
stress for these warehouse beams (d = 864 mm) have
been plotted in Fig. 1 along with the failure shear
stress for the one-third scale models of these beams
tested at the Portland Cement Association (PCA).The
much higher failure stress of the model beams led the
engineers to conclude that axial tensile stressesdue to
restraint were responsible for the low failure stress of
the prototype. From Fig. 1, it seems clear that the low
failure stress of the warehouse beams resulted from
the size effect in shear.
While there is now general agreement that there is a
size effect in shear, two different mechanisms have
been offered to explain the size effect. One explanation
is that the spacing and width of cracks scale with
increasing size, with the consequence being that the
wider cracks in large beams cannot support as much
shear stress as narrower shear cracks in smaller
beams. The explanation provided by fracture
mechanics is that since the energy absorbed in
forming a localized crack is only dependent on the
size of the localization, then proportionately less
energy is required to fail a larger beam.

SIZE EFFECT

It has been repeatedly observed in experimental

studies that for many types of members the shear
stress at failure decreases as the depth of a member
increases[w,29*-311. This has come to be known as the
size effect in shear. This effect appears to be most
significant for large lightly reinforced members that
do not contain shear reinforcement. Convincing
evidence of this size effect was provided by a largescale experimental study conducted by Shioya et
al[29*1.
The results from this work are summarized in
Fig. 1, where it is illustrated that large beams (depth >
1 m) failed at a shear stress approximately one-third of
the failure shear stress of smaller beams (depth <
200 mm). The largest of these beams failed under
shear stresses that are less than half of the value used
in the basic ACI design expression.
It is interesting to note that the Air Force warehouse
beams that collapsed in the US in the 1950s and
sparked an intensive investigation into shearras, had

SPAN-TO-DEPTH
RATIO
As early as 1907, it was observed that shear strength
increases as the shear span to depth ratio (a/d)
decreases. The explanation is that in stockier

Warehouse Beams

- 0.20

Vcilcuiated here
A
p = *=0.004

f,'= 3500

psi

(24.1 MPa)

2 ksi
-- 5(386
MPa)

(PSI)

1.4-

'\

Air Force

",.

1.2 F=Y=-q*
a = 2.5 mm
1.0 (0.1 In.)

>\

--.

0.15

- 0.10

-\

b =5OIn.

b = 30 In.

' - 0

&(I500

mm)

0.05

d = 118 in,

1 mm)

00

,b J

A b

$0

&

:o

A A

d (Ineheo)
Fig. I influence of member depth and maximum aggregate size on shear stress at failure

0CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITEDI998 ISSN 1365-0556

lb,

1:o

1bO

SHEARPERFORMANCEOF CONCRETESTRUCTURES
members, a larger portion of the load flows directly to
the support by arch action, rather than being carried
across diagonal shear cracks. Empirical sectional force
design procedures often contain a modification factor
which uses a/d as a parameter to account for this effect.
This influence is directly accounted for when the
strut-and-tiemodel is used for the design of members
with lower a/d ratios.

CONCRETE
STRENGTH

longitudinal strain.
It has been observedrsi*ithat beams cast with
longitudinal reinforcement distributed over the depth
of the beam have more closely spaced narrower cracks
(Fig. 2b) and higher shear strengths. This observation
is accounted for in the general method, in which
spacing of the reinforcementrather than overall
member depth is considered to be a more useful
parameter for describing the size effect in shear.

AND AGGREGATE SIZE

In some regions, concrete is commercially available in

compressive cylinder strengths of up to 140 MPa.
Since most design expressionswere based on tests of
then normal strength (25MPa) concrete, code
committees have placed limits on the concrete
strength that may be used in some design
relationships. Even so, results from recent
researchr27,31*,331
illustrate that this may not be a
sufficiently conservative solution. Fig. 2(a)provides a
comparison, in which a beam cast with 37 MPa
concrete failed at 225 kN, while an otherwise
equivalent beam cast with 98 MPa concrete failed at a
shear of 193 kN.This observation can be explained by
the influence of crack roughness on shear slip
resistance as considered in the general method.

AXIALLOAD
In the general method, the effect of axial tension or
compression is directly considered when evaluating
the longitudinal strain (see eqn 3a) and the angle of
the shear cracks. This information is used to evaluate
the crack width from which the shear resistance is
determined. In the tooth model, the influence of axial
load on the strain at mid-depth has been considered.
The results from a series of experimentsc34-361
substantiate the predictions of the general method
and indicate that the special empirical expressions
used by the ACI can significantly overestimate the
benefit of axial compression and the detriment of axial
tension (Fig.3).

SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS

PERCENTAGE
AND DISTRIBUTION

OF LONGITUDINAL

REINFORCEMENT

For a given applied bending moment, the effect of

increasing the amount of longitudinal reinforcement
is to decrease the stress and strain in the steel. Further,
as the spacing of the cracks is likely to be somewhat
reduced, the width of the cracks will be reduced. This
effect is captured by the general and tooth model
approaches in which the shear resistance is made a
function of the crack width as calculated using the

365

Normal Strength Concrete, fi: = 36 MPa

No Distributed Reinforcement
As
= 2800 rim2, d = 925 rnrn, b = 300 rnm
B1oo
Vexp = 225 kN, Vaci = 273 kN,
VexpNaci = 0.82, Brittle Failure

FOR

D-REGIONS

After a strut-and-tie model has been used to describe

the flow of forces through D (disturbed) regions, it is
necessary to determine the forces and stresses in the
members of the idealized truss. From recent
workri3,14,37,38*-401,
guidelineshave been established
for determining the geometry of nodal regions, struts,
and ties. In addition, stress limits have been suggested
to avoid splitting or crushing of the compressive
struts, and to provide a sufficiently large region for
transfer of forces between struts and ties in nodal

- B1

OOH

High Strength Concrete, f. 98 MPa

No Distributed Reinforcement
As = 2800 mrn2, d = 925 rnrn, b - 300 rnrn
Vexp = 193 kN, Vaci = 383 kN,
VexpNaci = 0.50, Brittle Failure

Fig. 2(a) Influence of concrete strength on shear capacity

0CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITEDI998 ISSN 1365-0556

366

CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION

SE1OOA
High Strength Concrete, fC = 86 MPa
No Distributed Reinforcement
As = 2800 mm2 (main flexural reinforcement)
d = 920 rnm, b = 295 rnrn
At V = 252 kN, Max. Crack Width = 2.5 mm

SEl OOB
High Strength Concrete, fc = 86 MPa
With Distributed Reinforcement
AS = 2800 mm2 (main flexural reinforcement)
+ 8 x 200 = ls00 mm2distributed reinforcement
d =920mrn, b =295rnm
At V = 343 kN, Max. Crack Width = 0.60mm

Fig. 2(b) Influence of distributed reinforcement on crack widths

--"-r

M/V = 0.315 m
Compression
failure under
combined

2000

4000 6000

8000 loo00 12000 14OOO lao00

AXIAL COMPRESSION (kN)

Fig. 3 Influence of axial compressionon shear capacity

regions. A strut is checked against splitting due to the

transverse tension developed by the spreading of the
strut away from the nodal zone. The compressive
stress limits in nodal regions are reduced based on the
influence of tensile strain on compressivestrength.
Confinement of nodal zones, particularly in 3-D
applications,has been found to be a significantfactor
in determining allowablestresses[4i,4zi.Currently,
additions and an appendix to the ACI code are under
review that would provide designerswith guidelines
for using the strut-and-tiemodel.

Predictingthe complete response of

complex structures
SMEARED
CRACK MODELS
One of the difficulties in developing a behavioral
model for shear is that the longitudinal strain changes
over the height and the length of the shear critical
region. In order to understand shear behavior better,

0CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITEDI998 ISSN 1365-0556

Vecchio & Collins subjected square RC panels to

uniform in-plane shear and axial stresses[si.From the
measurements of overall surface deformation, the
applied stress versus average strain (over several
cracks) characteristicsfor diagonally cracked concrete
was determined. Based on test results, it was also
determined to be reasonable to assume that the
direction of principal compressive stress in the
concrete coincided with the direction of principal
compressive strain. With this assumption and
stress-strain rela tionships for concrete and steel,
compatibility and equilibrium can be used to relate a
state of average strain to a state of average stress.
Thus, shear in cracked reinforced concrete is
considered to be carried by a field of diagonal
compression and a perpendicular field of diagonal
tension. This model was called the modified
compression field theory and is summarized in Fig. 4.
It can be applied in various levels of complexity, from
simplifiedbeam design procedures, to multi-layer
sectionalanalysis procedures, to non-linear FE
methods. Therefore, the accuracy of the prediction
depends on the effort involved. In all levels of
analysis, it is necessary to check that the tension can be
transmitted across the crack by a combination of a
local increase in reinforcing bar stresses and possible
shear on the crack face.
At the University of Houston, Hsu et a1143-wi have
developed somewhat similar models to predict the
behavior of elements subjected to shear and axial
stresses. The primary difference in these models is that
rather than checking the equilibrium at a crack face,
the average strength of the reinforcement is reduced to
account for the increase in stresses at the crack face.

SHEARPERFORMANCEOF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Equilibrium:
Average Stresses:

PYf,

Geometric Conditions:

Average Stress-Average Strain

Relationships:

Average Strains:

Reinforcement:

c, = (E:,tan20 + E : ~ /) (I + tan2e)

= f , + v cot0 -f1

cy = (cl + c2tan20 / (I + tan20)

=fv + v tan0 -f1

y, = 2 (4
- c2) tan0

f 2 = v (tan0

+ cote) -fl

367

tan 0 = (ex - c2)/

Stresses at Cracks:

Crack Widths:

p,f,,, =A + cote + vci cote

pyfWcr=fv + v tan0 - vci tan0

w=sgc,

Concrete:

f,

(5- c2)

II

Allowable Shear Stress on Crack

where

0.18p

(sine + c o s 0 )

so = I /

SX

s,

0.8 + 170:,

vcj

0.31

+ a24+ w16

Fig. 4 A summary of the relationshipsused in the modified compressionfield theory

NON-LINEAR
FE MODELS
In order to develop a general non-linear FE model, it is
necessary to be able to determine the average state of
stress corresponding to an average state of strain.
Algorithms based on the modified compression field
theory have been written for this purpose and utilized
in the development of sectional analysisw*i,shell
elernentr481,2-D,and 3-D continuum~91,
frame, and
global shell elementtsoi programs. In the development
of the FE programstsi*i,a secant stiffness formulation
was selected and low-powered elements were chosen.
These allowed for the use of more realistic non-linear
constitutive relationships, that are both numerically
more stable and make it possible to modify existing
linear FE programs with a reasonable amount of
effort. These formulations have now been developed
to account for plastic strain offsets so that these
models can be used to predict the response of
structuresto cyclic loading once there is sufficient
detailed data to support these developments.
As an example of the capabilities of these programs, a
few aspects of a studyrszi conducted to evaluate the
strength of a connection in a concrete offshore
structure are given in the Case study (see box, right).

Case study: predicting the response of a complex structure

Inthe design of the gravity base structure for Condeep
offshore structures, the lower cells are subjected t o a net
positive pressure differential (Fig. 5a). As a result, the cell
walls t r y t o move inwards, while the edges of the flattening
dome t r y to move outwards. This leads t o a complex state
of stress in the upper-cell lower-dome connection.
0 A global non-linear shell analysis i s performed using
program APECS (50) t o determine the moments,
shears, and axial loads in both the longitudinal and
circumferential directions (Figs 5b and c). This
information i s used t o describe the loading acting on the
boundary nodes for a 2-D non-linear finite analysis of the
connection (Fig. 5d).
0 FE analysis i s performed using program TRlX which i s
capable of predicting crack directions and the
magnitudes of the principal compressive stresses
(Fig. 5e).
Each element in this 2-D continuum model accounts for
the influence of local element characteristics
(reinforcement and concrete properties, spacing of
reinforcement) in predicting the response (average
state of strain, reinforcing bars stresses at a crack, crack
width and shear slip capacity along a crack) t o the
applied loading (longitudinal and transverse stresses). In
this way, program TRlX captures the observed behavior
of crack reorientation, load redistribution due t o
cracking and softening, and the progressive
development of slip along crack surfaces.

0CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITEDI998 ISSN 1365-0556

CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION

368

(a) Offshore platform

(b) Stress resultants on shell element

Cracking@ 90 m

Cracldng@ I35 m

(c) Finite element model

Compressive
stresses@ l35m

(d) Finite element mesh and

modelingreinforcement

(e) Predictionof cracked regions, crack

orientation and compressive stresses

Fig. 5 Moments and predictions from a non-linear FE analysis of an offshore structure

Conclusions
Models based on the mechanisms of shear
resistance[ss**i
have now reached the point of maturity
at which they can be used as the basis for new more
rational shear design relationships.Strut-and-tie
models offer the design engineer a powerful tool for
visualizing and calculating the flow of forces in
disturbed regions in order to select appropriate
reinforcement.Analytical models for the shear
behavior of cracked concrete, such as the modified
compression field theory, have made it possible to
develop non-linear FE programs that are capable of
predicting the performance of complex reinforced and
prestressed concrete structures.

[3] Comlth Europeen de Normallsation. Eumcode2: Design ofconcrete

structures. h n I- Genemlrules ondrules fbr buildings. Brussels: CEN. I99 I.
[4] Kani GNJ. The riddle of shear failure and its solution. ACIJournal I964
April 441-467.
[S] Hamadl YD & Regan PE. Behavior In shear of beams with flexural
cracks. Mogozine ofConcme Reseorch I980 I: 67-77.
[6] Relneck K-H. Ultimate shear force of structural concrete members
without transverse reinforcement derived from a mechanical model. ACI Stwctural
Journol I99 I: September: 592-602.
[7] MacGregorJG& Walters JRV.Analysis of inclinedcrackingshear in
slender reinforced concrete beams.ACIJournol I967 October: 644-653.
[a] Collins MP, MitchellD, Adebar PE & Vecchlo FJ.Ageneral shear
design method. ACI Svucturol]wrnol I 9 9 6 January/February:36-45

**

Provides a complete alternative design procedure for reinforcedand

prestressed concrete members subjected to the actlons of shear, moment
and axlal load.

* [PI Vecchlo FJ& Collins MR The modifled compression field theory for
reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. AClJournol I986 MarchlAprll
2 IS 2 3 I.
Describes an experimentaland analytlcalproject from whlch was dewloped a
complete load-deformationresponse model for dlagonally cracked
reinforced concrete subjected to shear and axlal stresses.

Referencesand recommended reading

Papers of particular Interest have been marked
Special Interest
Exceptlonal Interest

*
**

[I] American Concrete institute (Act). Bulldingcode requirements fbr

ninfbrcedconcrete(ACl 3 18-95) and cornmentory(ACI 3 I 8 R-95). Detroit American
Concrete Institute. 1995.
** [Z] ACI-ASCE. The shear strength of reinforced concrete members.
ACI-ASCE Committee 426. Chapters 1-4. PmcJourndofthe Stwctuml Division
(ASCE) I973 June: I09 I- I I87.
Thls report syntheslzes research results and deslgn proposals that
represented the state-of-the-art In the understanding of shear transfer
rnechanlsmsin 1973.

0CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITEDI998 ISSN 1365-0556

[lo] Canadian StandardsAssoclotion (CSA). Design of concrete

structures for buildings. CSA CornmitteeA23.3. CAN3423.3-94. CSA Rexdale.
Canada. 1984.
[I I] Ontario Ministry of Transportation. Omorio highwoy bridge design
code, 3rd edition. Downview. Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Transportation. I99 I.
[I Z] American Associationof State Highway and Wansportation
ORlclals (AASHTO). LRFD metric bridge design specifications ond cornmentory. Is t
edition. Washington: AASHTO. 1994.
[I31 Mart1P. Basic tools of reinforced concrete beam design. ACIJournol 1985:
JanuarylFebruary:46-56.

Presentsthe application of truss models for the deslgn of both Band D

regions with examples.

SHEARPERFORMANCEOF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

*

[141 Schlaich J, Schafer K & Jennewein M. Towards a consistent design of

reinforced concrete structures. PCljournol I 9 8 7 32(3): 74- 150.

Provides a thorough presentationof the use of strut-and-tie models for
design of many different structures. Dimensioningrules, stress limits. and other
important issues are discussed.

[ 151 Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB). Modelcode I990

(MC90). CEB-FIR London: Thomas Telford. 1993.
[161 Hillerborg A, Modeer M & Peterson PE. Analysis of crack formation
and crackgrowth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements.
Cement ond ConcreteResearch I 9 7 6 773-782.
[IT] Bazant Z P & Oh BH. Crack band theory for fracture of concrete.
RllEM /6(93). 1983. 155-177.
[181 Relnhardt HW. The role of fracture mechanics in rational rules for
concrete design. IABSE Survey 5-34/86. In: IABSE Per. I.Zurich IABSE. 1986.
[ I91 American Concrete Institute (ACI). Fracture mechanics of
concrete: concepts, models and determination of material properties. ACI 446. I
R-9 I.Detroit: ACI. 1989.
[ZO] Evans RH & Marathe MS. Microcrackingand stress-strain curves for
concrete in tension. Moteriols ond Structures, Researchand Testing (RILEM) 1968:
JanuarylFebruary: 6 1-64.
[Z I] Fenwick R C & Paulay T. Mechanisms of shear resistance of concrete
beams. ASCEjournol1968:October. 2325-2350.
[ZZ] M a t t o c k AH & Hawklns NM. Shear transfer in reinforced concrete:
recent research. PCljournal I 9 7 2 I7(2): 55-75.
1231 Taylor HPJ. The fundamental behavior of reinforced concrete beams in
bending and shear. ACI SP-42. Detroit ACI. 1974.43-77.
[24] Gambarova PG. O n aggregate interlock mechanism in reinforced
concrete plate with extensive cracking. IABSE Colloquium. Delft, I98 I. 105-1 34.
[Z5] MillardSG &Johnson RR Shear transfer in cracked reinforced
concrete. Mogozine ofConcrete Research 1985: M a r c h 3- 15.
* [26] Walraven JC.Fundamentalanalysis of aggregate interiock.journolofthe
Structurol Division(ASCE) I98 I: November: 22452270.
Provides a summary of extensive work done to quantify the influence of
several factors on the shear slip behavior alonga crack surface.

1271 Yoon YS, Cook WD & Mitchell D. Minimum shear reinforcement in

normal. medium, and high-strengthconcrete beams.ACI SvucturoljournolI 9 9 6
September/October. 576-584.
[Za] Bazant Z P & Planas J. Frocture and size efea in concrete ond other
quosibrittle moteriols. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 1977.

Discusses the description for the size effect as provided by fracture

mechanics.

[Z9] Shloya T, lguro M. Nojirl Y e t al. Shear strength of large reinforced

concrete beams. Fracture mechanics: applicationto concrete. SP-118. Detroit: ACI.
259-279.
Provides convincing evidencefor the size effect in shear.

[30] Walraven J 81Lehwalter N. Size effects in short beams loaded in shear.

ACI Structumljournol I 9 9 4 SeptemberlOctober: 585-593.
[3 I] Collins M P & Kuchma DA. How safe are our large, lightly reinforced,

concrete beams, slabs, and footings?ACI Structumljournol I998 (not yet published).
Describes the influence of several important factors o n shear capacity and
suggests that current ACI design procedures may be less conservative than
desired.

[32] Elstner R C & Hognestad E. Laboratory investigationof rigid frame

failure. ACljournol I957 January:637-668.
[33] A h m a d SH, Khaloo A R & P w e d a A. Shear capacity of reinforced
high-strengthconcrete beams.AClJournol I 9 8 6 M a r c h l A p r i l 297-305.

Daniel A Kuchma BASc MASc PhD

Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois a t
Urbana-Champaign,2 I I4 Newmark Laboratory,
205 North Mathews Avenue MC250,Urbana, IL 61 80 I , USA
E-mail: kuchma@uiuc.edu

369

[34] Bhide SB & Collins MP. Influenceof axial tension on the shear capacity
of reinforced concrete members. ACI StructumljoumolI 9 8 9 September/
October: 570-58 I.
[35] Adebar PE & Collins MP. Shear design of concrete offshore structures.
ACI Structumljournol I 9 9 4 MaylJune: 324-335.
[36] Gupta P & Collins MR Behavior of reinforced concrete members
subjected t o shear and compression.Repon, Deportment ofcivil Engineering,
UniversityafTomnto. 1993.
[37] Jirsa 10,Breen JE, Bergmeister K, Barton D et al. Experimental
studies of nodes in strut-and-tie models. IABSE Colloquiumon StruaumlConcrete,
Stuttgart, I99 I. 525-532.
[38] MacGregor JG.Reinforced concrete mechonicsond design. 3rd edition.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hail. 1997.

This textbook presents the current US design procedure with an emphasis
o n the behavior of reinforced concrete. Examplesfor design usingthe strutand-tie model are given.

[39] Bergmeister K, Breen JE & Jlrsa JO. Dimensioningofthe nodes and

developmentof reinforcement. Report on IABSEColloquiumon Structuml Concrete.
Stuttgart, 1991.551-564.
[40] Alshegeir A. Analysis and design of disturbed regionswith strut-tie
models. PhD Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University,West Lafayette.
Indiana. 1992.
[4 I] Adebar PE. Kuchma DA & Collins MP. Strut-and-tie models for pile
caps. ACI Structumljournol I 9 9 0 JanuarylFebruary: 8 1-92.
[42] Adebar P & Zhou 2. Bearing strength of compressive struts confined
by plain concrete. ACI Srructumljournoll993: SeptemberlOctober: 534-54 I.
[43] Pang X-BD & Hsu TTC. Behavior of reinforced concrete membrane
elements in shear. ACI Smctumljournol I 9 9 4 JulylAugust: 423-433.
[44] Belarbi A & HSU
TTC. Constitutive laws of softened concrete in biaxial
tension-compression.ACI Structumljournol 1995: SeptemberlOctober: 562-573.
[45] BelarbiA & H s u TTC. Constitutive laws of concrete in tension and
reinforcing bars stiffened by concrete. ACI Smctumljournol I 9 9 4 JulylAugust
465-474.
* [46] H s u TTC. Unified theory ofreinforced concrete. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC Press. 1993.
Presentsan alternative model to the modified compression field theory for
predicting the load-deformation responseof elements subject to shear and
normal forces.

[47] Collins MP & Mitchell D. Prestressedconcrete structures. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. I99 I.
Presentsa summary of the development of methods for shear design.
Provides examples based o n the modified compression field theory along
with a program for predicting the response of a member subject to shear,
moment, and axial load.

[48] Collins MP,A d e b r r PE & Klrschner U. Shell474: o computerpmgmm

to determine the sectionolresistonceofconcrete structure in occordoncewith CSA

stondard 54744489. Rexdale. Ontario: Canadian Standards Association. April 1989.

[49] Seiby RG & Vecchio FJ. Three dimensional constitutive relations for
reinforced concrete. Publication No 93-02. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto. November 1993.
[SO] Polak MA. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete shells. F'hD Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto. 1992.
* [51] Vecchlo FJ. Nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete
membranes.ACI StructurolJoumolI990:JanuarylFebruary: 26-35.
Describes how existinglinear FE programs can be modified t o perform a nonlinear analysis based on the modified compression field theory.
[52] Kuchma DA, Collins MP 8% Tamas J. Strength of upper-domecell-wall
connection of concrete offshore structures. ACI Structuroljournol I998 (in press).
** [53] A m e r i c a n Concrete Institute (ACI). Recent code approachesto
shear design of structural concrete. ACI-ASCE Committee 445. Detroit: ACI. I998 (in
press).

The report summarizes the state-of-the-art for shear design methods and
models for behavior.

Michael P Collins BE PhD

Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,

Toronto, Ontario, M5S IA4 Canada

0CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITEDI998 ISSN 1365-0556