Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1519–1527

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental study on high-strength concrete beams failing in shear

A. Claderaa,∗, A.R. Maríb,1
a University of Balearic Islands, Department of Physics, Ctra. Valldemossa km 7.5, 07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain
b Technical University of Catalonia, Department of Construction Engineering, Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain

Received 8 September 2004; received in revised form 16 March 2005; accepted 25 April 2005
Available online 24 May 2005

Abstract

To better understand the response of high-strength concrete beams failing in shear with and without shear reinforcement, eighteen
reinforced concrete beams were tested as a part of extensive research on shear design of reinforced high-strength concrete beams. The
concrete compressive strength of the beams at the age of the tests ranged from 50 to 87 MPa. The primary design variables were the amount
of shear and longitudinal reinforcement. A minimum amount of shear reinforcement related to the concrete tensile strength was also proposed.
The details of the beam specimens, material properties, instrumentation and the testing procedure used are carefully described in this paper.
They will be useful for researchers to compare and analyze other design approaches. The test results are presented and discussed, and the
influence of each design parameter is studied separately. Furthermore, the minimum amount of web reinforcement proposed in this paper
is validated using experimental data from the literature. Test results are also compared with different shear design approaches and, finally,
conclusions are drawn.
© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: High-strength concrete; Reinforced concrete; Beams; Tests; Shear failure; Building codes

1. Introduction

The use of High-Strength Concrete (HSC) has increased

considerably during the last decade, since it can be produced
reliably in the field using low water–cement ratios thanks to
high-quality water-reducing admixtures. Furthermore, HSC
will be more and more frequently used in columns, in precast
elements and in structures where durability is an important
design parameter.
To give a simplified explanation, HSC is obtained by
improving the compactness of the concrete mix, which
increases the strength of both the paste and the interface
between the paste and the coarse aggregate. However,
Fig. 1. Crack in high-strength concrete. The crack goes through the
an increase in the strength of the concrete produces an aggregates.
increase in its brittleness and smoother shear failure surfaces
(Fig. 1), leading to some concerns about the application
of high-strength concrete. Since most of the current shear
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 971 171378; fax: +34 971 173426.
procedures are based on tests carried out on beams with a
E-mail addresses: antoni.cladera@uib.es (A. Cladera), concrete compressive strength lower than 40 MPa, and one
antonio.mari@upc.es (A.R. Marí). of the shear transfer mechanisms is shear-friction across the
1 Tel.: +34 93 4016508. cracks, the failure shear strength needs to be re-evaluated.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.04.010
1520 A. Cladera, A.R. Marí / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1519–1527

Table 1
Details of the beam specimens and summary of the experimental results

Beam fc f sp bw d a/d ρw f y a ρw f y b ρl Vfail Vcr

(MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (kN) (kN)

H50/1 49.9 3.46 200 359 3.01 0 0 2.24 99.69 95

H50/2 49.9 3.46 200 353 3.06 0.577 0.605 2.28 177.64 85
H50/3 49.9 3.46 200 351 3.08 1.291 1.291 2.29 242.07 90
H50/4 49.9 3.46 200 351 3.08 1.291 1.291 2.99 246.34 110
H50/5 49.9 3.46 200 359 3.01 0 0 2.24 129.65 85
H60/1 60.8 4.22 200 359 3.01 0 0 2.24 108.14 104
H60/2 60.8 4.22 200 353 3.06 0.747 0.747 2.28 179.74 95
H60/3 60.8 4.22 200 351 3.08 1.267 1.374 2.29 258.78 100
H60/4 60.8 4.22 200 351 3.08 1.267 1.374 2.99 308.71 –
H75/1 68.9 3.69 200 359 3.01 0 0 2.24 99.93 99
H75/2 68.9 3.69 200 353 3.06 0.747 0.783 2.28 203.94 95
H75/3 68.9 3.69 200 351 3.08 1.267 1.362 2.29 269.35 95
H75/4 68.9 3.69 200 351 3.08 1.267 1.362 2.99 255.23 100
H100/1 87.0 4.05 200 359 3.01 0 0 2.24 117.85 117
H100/2 87.0 4.05 200 353 3.06 0.906 0.929 2.28 225.55 110
H100/3 87.0 4.05 200 351 3.08 1.291 1.355 2.29 253.64 110
H100/4 87.0 4.05 200 351 3.08 1.291 1.353 2.99 266.53 85
H100/5 87.0 4.05 200 359 3.01 0 0 2.24 140.09 85
a Calculated using the real yielding stress of the stirrups.
b Calculated using the stress of the stirrups in the test just before reaching the failure load.

Moreover, shear failure in a beam without web reinforce-
ment is sudden and brittle. Therefore, it is necessary to
provide a minimum amount of shear reinforcement, which
must prevent sudden shear failure on the formation of first
diagonal tension cracking and, in addition, must adequately
control the diagonal tension cracks at service load levels.
Thus, the minimum area of web reinforcement is intended
to ensure that the capacity of the member after cracking
exceeds the load at which inclined cracking occurs. Due to
the higher tensile strength of high-strength concrete, a higher
cracking shear is expected and hence, would require a larger
amount of minimum shear reinforcement [1].
The experimental campaign described in this paper was
part of extensive research that led to the proposal of a
new shear design procedure for normal and high-strength
concrete beams [2,3].
– To evaluate the efficiency of the amount of shear
reinforcement as a function of the concrete compressive
strength. Some authors believe that for high-strength
concrete beams, stirrups are more efficient than for
normal-strength beam specimens [4,5].
– To evaluate the influence of the amount of longitudinal
reinforcement on the shear strength. The majority of
current codes’ limitation of the amount of longitudinal
reinforcement to 2% will be studied for high-strength
concrete beams.
– To study the influence of web-distributed longitudinal re-
inforcement for high-strength members without stirrups,
as this variable has an important effect on the failure shear
strength according to Ref. [6].
3. Design of the test specimens

2. Objectives of the experimental campaign
The main objectives of the experimental campaign
carried out were:
– To study the influence of the concrete compressive
strength on the shear strength in beams with and without
shear reinforcement. Some current procedures hold that
the failure shear strength does not increase when concrete
compressive strength is higher than 60 MPa for beams
both with and without web reinforcement.
– To propose and verify a minimum amount of web
reinforcement for high-strength concrete beams in
accordance with the increase in concrete tensile strength
for high-strength concretes.
In order to achieve the prior objectives, eighteen beam
specimens were designed and tested. Table 1 and Fig. 2
show the details of the 200 mm wide × 400 mm deep beam
specimens that were tested with a shear span of 1080 mm.
The test program [7] consisted of four series of beams:
(1) the H50 series, designed to have a concrete strength of
50 MPa; (2) the H60 series, designed to have a concrete
strength of 60 MPa; (3) the H75 series, designed to have
a concrete strength of 75 MPa with silica fume; and (4)
the H100 series, designed to have a concrete strength of
100 MPa. The actual concrete strength at the time of testing
is presented in Table 1.
Beam specimen number one in each series (H50/1,
H60/1, H75/1, and H100/1) did not have shear reinforce-
ment. The longitudinal reinforcement consisted of two
 A. Cladera, A.R. Marí / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1519–1527 1521

Fig. 2. Test set-up and cross-section of the beam specimens.

32 mm diameter bars (ρl = 2.24%), with a characteristic The proposed amount of minimum shear reinforcement
yielding stress of 500 MPa. is given in Eq. (3) and compared in Fig. 3 with some other
Beam number two in each series (H50/2, H60/2, H75/2, code proposals.
and H100/2) contained the proposed minimum amount of
shear reinforcement. The longitudinal reinforcement was f ct,m bw s
Aw,min = MPa (3)
equal to that provided in series 1. 7.5 fy
It is proposed that the minimum amount of shear
reinforcement be proportional to the tensile strength of the where Aw,min is the amount of minimum shear reinforce-
concrete, fct,m . In the ‘Design guidance for high-strength ment, bw is the web width, s the stirrup spacing and f y is the
concrete’ [8] it is suggested that traditional tensile strength yield strength of the reinforcing steel.
can be unconservative for high-strength concrete, and it The above formulation was derived taking into account
proposes the following equation: that the minimum shear reinforcement is necessary to avoid

a sudden failure after the diagonal cracking and, therefore, it
should be proportional to the tensile strength of the concrete.
f ct,m = 0.30 3 f c2 MPa if f c ≤ 60 MPa (1)
 To totally derive the proposed equation, the minimum
f ct,m = 0.58 2 f c MPa if fc > 60 MPa. (2) amount was fixed to around 0.35 MPa for a 25 MPa concrete
1522 A. Cladera, A.R. Marí / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1519–1527

size of 12 mm was used throughout the series. Standard

150 mm × 300 mm cylinders were cast with the specimens
to obtain the compressive strength and splitting strength
of each concrete mix (Table 1). The splitting strength of
the concrete H60 was higher than the H75 and H100
splitting strength. No reason was found for this behaviour.
These cylinders were kept under the same environmental
conditions as the beam specimens until the time of testing.
Spanish standard B 500 S reinforcing bars, with a
characteristic yielding stress of 500 MPa, were used. Table 2
lists the actual yield stress, f y , and the ultimate stress, f u , for
the web reinforcing bars.

Table 2
Properties of web reinforcing bars

Size-series Area fy fu
Fig. 3. Comparison of the minimum amount of web reinforcement of (mm2 ) (MPa) (MPa)
different specifications and proposed equation proportional to the concrete
tensile strength. φ6-H60 and H75 28.27 530 680
φ8-H60 and H75 50.27 530 685
φ6-H50 and H100 28.27 530 680
(Fig. 3), as the ACI 99 Code proposed for conventional φ8-H50 and H100 50.27 540 672
concretes.
The third specimen in each series (H50/3, H60/3, H75/3,
and H100/3) had the same amount of web reinforcement for To monitor the behaviour of the tested beams, the
all beams, 8 mm diameter stirrups spaced by 210 mm. It was applied loads, strains at the reinforcement and at the
designed to have the highest amount of web reinforcement concrete surface, and displacements were measured using
in order to produce a shear failure with the provided different instruments such as load cells, strain gauges and
amount of longitudinal reinforcement. Additionally, the magnetostrictive transducers (LVDTs). All the variables
flexural tension reinforcement for all the beams consisted of were monitored continuously by the data acquisition system.
2φ32 bars. Photography and video equipment were also utilised.
The fourth beam in each series (H50/4, H60/4, H75/4, The web strain, υx y , was measured by means of a rosette
and H100/4) had the same shear reinforcement as the of two LVDTs mounted in one side of the beams of series
third series but the flexural tension reinforcement consisted H50 and H100 (see Fig. 4). Using the Mohr circle it is easy
of 2φ32 bars plus a 1φ25 bar. Hence, the amount of to deduce how the web strain can be obtained from the
longitudinal reinforcement was equal to 2.99%. reading of the transducers [7]. However, the direction of the
The fifth beam specimen in each series (H50/5 and strains in the web may not be found with this set-up.
H100/5) did not have stirrups but instead contained four The load was applied at midspan of the beam specimen
small longitudinal bars (8 mm diameter) distributed along by a 150 mm wide and 28 mm thick neoprene pad under
the web plus two bars in the compression zone, resulting
a distance between them of 110 mm. As was mentioned
earlier, Collins et al. [6] postulated that the size effect
is not only a function of the beam depth, but also of
the distance between distributed longitudinal reinforcement
(sz ). According to the AASHTO Specifications, each layer
of this crack control reinforcement must have an area of at
least 0.004bwsz . The area provided in specimens H50/5 and
H100/5 verified the previous expression.

4. Fabrication of the test specimens, material properties,

instrumentation and testing procedure

The beams were cast at the Alvisa precast concrete

plant, located in Selgua (Huesca, Spain). The concrete
components, reinforcement bars, moulds, and procedures Fig. 4. Rosette of two magnetostrictive transducers used to obtain the shear
were those actually used at that plant. A maximum aggregate strain.
 A. Cladera, A.R. Marí / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1519–1527
Fig. 5. Typical crack patterns at failure in the tested beams. (a) Beam
specimen without web reinforcement. (b) Beam specimen with longitudinal
reinforcement distributed along the web. (c) Beam specimen with stirrups.
(d) Beam specimen H60/3 – shear cracks did not reach the load application
zone.
a spherical bearing. The beam specimen was supported by
a sliding pin bearing, on the instrumented side, and a fixed
pin bearing on the opposite side, both of 40 mm diameter.
The tests were carried out under displacement control using
a closed-loop hydraulic compression machine with a loading
capacity of 1000 KN.
5. Failure modes
All beam specimens failed in shear. Nevertheless, beam
specimen H60/3 collapsed due to a combination of shear
and high longitudinal strain, and shear cracks did not cross
the compression zone of the beam. Fig. 5 shows the typical
cracking patterns at failure observed in the experimental
campaign.
The mode of failure for beams without stirrups is
different from that of beams with shear reinforcement.
Beams H50/1, H60/1, H75/1 and H100/1 failed suddenly
with the appearance of a single shear crack. In general, the
higher the beam’s concrete compressive strength, the brisker
its failure.
On the other hand, beams containing stirrups presented
a more ductile response. After the formation of the first
shear crack, stirrups started to work and further shear cracks
developed. At failure, the compressed top part of the beam
was crushed due to the combination of compressive and
shear stresses. In the photographs of Fig. 6 the spalling of
the concrete next to the crack prior to the failure can be seen.
This spalling was best observed in beams with the highest
concrete compressive strength.
1523
Beam specimens containing distributed longitudinal
reinforcement developed more than one shear crack
(see Fig. 5) and failure shear strength was higher than in
other similar beams without web reinforcement. However,
failure was also sudden.
6. Discussion of the test results
6.1. Beam specimens without web reinforcement
Specimens H50/1, H60/1, H75/1, and H100/1 did not
contain shear reinforcement. The only parameter which
varied for all beams was the concrete mix. Longitudinal
reinforcement, ρl , was constant and equal to 2.24%.
Their failure shear strengths were 99.69 KN, 108.14 KN,
99.93 KN, and 117.85 KN respectively. Therefore, there was
a slight increase in failure shear strength as the concrete
compressive strength increased, except for beam specimen
H75/1, whose splitting concrete strength, fsp , was lower than
the H60 splitting strength (Table 1).
6.2. Beam specimens with stirrups
Beam specimens H50/2, H60/2, H75/2, and H100/2 were
provided with the minimum amount of web reinforcement
as proposed in this paper in Eq. (3). The value of the shear
forces as measured at stirrup yielding, Vy in Table 3, was
taken to be the shear strength when the two stirrups crossing
the crack yielded. Fig. 7 and Table 3 demonstrate that the
amount of web reinforcement provided was appropriate,
because the beams showed a significant reserve of strength
after cracking.
For elements with stirrups the influence of the concrete
compressive strength can be studied from the beam
specimens in Series 3 and 4. The failure shear strength of
these test specimens is shown in Fig. 8. As a general trend,
it increases as the concrete compressive strength increases
except for beam H100/3. Beam specimen H60/4 collapsed
under a very high force after the longitudinal reinforcement
had yielded. No apparent reason for this behaviour was
discovered.
This general increment can be explained as an increase of
the web reinforcement effectiveness, as for members without
web reinforcement the increment was not so remarkable.
The addition of web reinforcement improves the shear
response of the specimen by increasing the failure shear
strength and a higher ductile response. The cracking pattern
also changed. For example, in beam H50/1, a single shear
crack was reported, while two shear cracks were noticed in
beam H50/2 and three to four shear cracks in beam specimen
H50/3.
Series 4 beam specimens had 2.99% of longitudinal
reinforcement compared with 2.24% in the Series 3 beams.
The failure shear strength increased slightly as the amount
of longitudinal reinforcement increased except for in beam
H75/4 (Fig. 8). The average increase was approximately 5%.
1524 A. Cladera, A.R. Marí / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1519–1527

Fig. 6. Cracking prior to failure and at failure in a beam with web reinforcement. Concrete spalling near the diagonal crack.

Table 3
Minimum amount of web reinforcement, observed failure, yielding and cracking shear for each specimen provided with the proposed minimum amount

Beam fc ρw a Vfail Vy Vcr b Vy / Vcr Vfail / Vcr

(MPa) (MPa) (KN) (KN) (KN)

H50/2 49.9 0.577 177.64 158 85 1.86 2.09

H60/2 60.8 0.747 179.74 140 95 1.47 1.89
H75/2 68.9 0.747 203.94 144 95 1.52 2.15
H100/2 87.0 0.906 225.55 194 110 1.76 2.32
a Calculated using the real yielding stress of the stirrups.
b Approximated cracking shear force.

Fig. 7. Shear deformation in beams without shear reinforcement and with Fig. 8. Beam specimens with web reinforcement. Failure shear strength
the proposed minimum. versus concrete compressive strength for series 3 and 4.

The failure mechanism was considerably different for

6.3. Beam specimens with distributed longitudinal rein-
forcement
Beams H50/5 and H100/5 were based on the tests
carried out by [6]. They demonstrated that the size effect
disappears when beams without stirrups contain well-
distributed longitudinal reinforcement.
beams with distributed longitudinal reinforcement when
compared with similar beams without any kind of web
reinforcement. Beams H50/1 and H100/1 failed suddenly
after the formation of the first shear crack. Failure
was especially brisk for the beam with the highest
concrete compressive strength. Beam specimens containing
distributed longitudinal reinforcement developed more than
 A. Cladera, A.R. Marí / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1519–1527
Fig. 9. Beam specimens with distributed longitudinal reinforcement. Shear
strain in beams H50/5 and H100/5.
one shear crack and failure shear strength was 30.5% higher
in beam H50/5 and 18.9% in beam specimen H100/5 than
in other, similar beams without web reinforcement (Fig. 9).
However, failure was also sudden.
7. Comparison of test results with different design
approaches
Table 4 summarises the shear procedures included in the
ACI 318-02 Code [9], AASHTO LRFD 2001 [10], the 2002
Final Draft of Eurocode 2 [11] and the method proposed
by Cladera and Marí [2,3]. To calculate the predictions
(Table 5) all the safety factors were taken equal to 1.00.
The amount of web reinforcement was obtained by consid-
ering the stress state of the stirrups during the test just before
reaching the failure load (Table 1). For the beams with web
reinforcement, the EC predicted failure loads depend on the
angle of the compression struts, θ . It has been taken, to ob-
tain the highest prediction, as cotg θ equal to 2.5 (Table 5).
For the ACI procedure the angle is fixed to 45◦ (cotg θ = 1).
For the AASHTO LRFD shear procedure and the method
proposed by Cladera and Marí the angle of the compression
strut is obtained by compatibility (Table 5). Both methods
are based on the Modified Compression Field Theory.
For the eighteen beam specimens, the average Vtest /
Vpredicted ratio is 1.34 for the ACI 318-99 formulation, 1.26
for the EC-2, 1.18 for the AASHTO LRFD, and 1.14 for the
Refs. [2,3] predictions. The coefficient of variation (standard
deviation over the average) is 11.21% for the ACI Code,
6.66% for the AASHTO LRFD, 20.2% for the EC-2, and
6.93% for the Cladera and Marí shear procedure.
Both the AASHTO LRFD and Cladera and Marí predic-
tions prove very satisfactory when compared with the EC-2
predictions.
The ACI procedure correlates better with members
without web reinforcement, than with members with shear
1525
Fig. 10. Validation of the proposed amount of minimum reinforcement with
experimental data of the literature.
reinforcement. For members with stirrups, the procedure
is more conservative, especially for high-strength concrete
specimens.
The EC-2 equations are also excessively conservative
for members with shear reinforcement, in particular for
members with the minimum amount of web reinforcement,
while for beam specimens without stirrups it is slightly
unconservative.
8. Validation of the proposed minimum amount of web
reinforcement
It has already been seen that, for the beam specimens
described in this paper, the minimum amount of web
reinforcement proportioned adequate reserve shear strength.
However, as significant amount of data exist in the current
literature, a broader analysis was carried out using test
results by [1,7,12–17].
Fig. 10 represents the amount of web reinforcement
provided in tested beams over the minimum amount
proposed versus the reserve shear strength index (Vfail /Vcr ).
Ozcebe et al. [12] suggested that to insure an adequate
margin of safety the value of the index should be greater than
1.30. This condition is satisfied (Fig. 10) by the minimum
amount of web reinforcement proposed by Eq. (3).
9. Conclusions
Based on the test results of the eighteen beam specimens,
the following conclusions can be drawn:
– Beams without web reinforcement presented a very
brittle behaviour. The higher their concrete compressive
strength, the brisker their failure.
1526 A. Cladera, A.R. Marí / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1519–1527

Table 4
Summary of different shear procedures

Equations Comments

Beams without web reinforcement:

 ]b d
f ck ≤ 90MPa
V Rd,c = [0.18 k(100ρl f ck )1/3 + 0.15σcd w 200
V Rd,c min = [0.035k 3/2 1/2 
f ck + σcd ]bw d k =1+ ≤ 2.0
EC-2 Final Draft 2002 d
Al
Beams with web reinforcement (V Rd,c = 0) ρl =
> 0.02
bw d
Asw
V Rd,s = z f ywd cot θ 1 ≤ cot θ ≤ 2.5
s
√
Vc = β f c bw z β and θ are listed in a table as a function
AASHTO LRFD 2000 Av f y of the longitudinal strain in the web and the
Vs = s z cot θ Vmax = 0.25 f c bw d
non-dimensional shear.
 
 V ·d
Vc = 0.16 f c + 17ρl bw d
M f c < 70 MPa
ACI 318-02
Asw  V d/M ≤ 1
Vs = z f ywd ≤ 0.67 f c bw d
s
Beams without web reinforcement: θ is expressed as a equation which depends
on the longitudinal strain in the web and the
Vc = [0.225ξ(100ρl )1/2 f c0.2 ]bw d
non-dimensional shear.
Prop. Cladera and Marí [2,3] Beams with web reinforcement:
Vc = [0.17ξ(100ρl )1/2 f c0.2 τ 1/3 ]bw d See Refs. [2,3] for further
Aw
Vs = dv f ywd cot θ details.
s

Table 5
Summary of the predictions made by the ACI Code 318-99, the 2001 AASHTO LRFD Specifications, April 2002 Final Draft of the Eurocode 2 procedures
and method proposed in Refs. [2,3]

Beam Vfail θ Vpredicted Vtest / Vpredicted

(KN) ACI LRFD EC [2,3] ACI LRFD EC [2,3] ACI LRFD EC [2,3]

H50/1 100 – – – – 86 85 105 94 1.16 1.18 0.95 1.06

H50/2 178 45 33 22 34 127 149 96 153 1.39 1.19 1.85 1.16
H50/3 242 45 36 22 38 175 198 204 206 1.38 1.22 1.19 1.17
H50/4 246 45 34 22 36 179 210 204 228 1.37 1.17 1.21 1.08
H50/5 130 – – – – 86 100 105 124 1.51 1.30 1.24 1.05
H60/1 108 – – – – 94 92 112 98 1.14 1.17 0.96 1.10
H60/2 180 45 34 22 35 145 167 119 171 1.24 1.08 1.51 1.05
H60/3 259 45 36 22 38 188 211 217 216 1.38 1.23 1.19 1.20
H60/4 309 45 34 22 36 192 223 217 240 1.61 1.39 1.42 1.29
H75/1 100 – – – – 99 96 117 98 1.01 1.04 0.85 1.02
H75/2 204 45 34 22 35 152 175 124 177 1.34 1.17 1.64 1.15
H75/3 269 45 36 22 38 192 214 215 218 1.40 1.26 1.25 1.24
H75/4 255 45 34 22 36 196 228 215 242 1.30 1.12 1.19 1.05
H100/1 118 – – – – 100 100 126 98 1.18 1.18 1.07 1.20
H100/2 226 45 35 22 36 150 196 147 182 1.50 1.15 1.53 1.24
H100/3 254 45 37 22 38 179 222 214 210 1.42 1.14 1.18 1.21
H100/4 267 45 35 22 36 183 237 214 232 1.46 1.13 1.25 1.15
H100/5 140 – – – – 100 120 126 129 1.26 1.17 1.11 1.09
Average 1.34 1.18 1.26 1.14
Stand. deviation 0.15 0.08 0.25 0.08
COV (%) 11.21 6.66 20.18 6.93
Minimum 1.01 1.04 0.85 1.02
Maximum 1.61 1.39 1.85 1.29
 A. Cladera, A.R. Marí / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1519–1527
– For beams without web reinforcement, the failure shear
strength generally increased as the concrete compressive
strength increased, except for beam H75/3.
– High-strength concrete beams with stirrups presented a
less fragile response than similar beams without web
reinforcement.
– The minimum amount of web reinforcement proposed in
this paper was sufficient in terms of the demand of reserve
of strength after shear cracking.
– For beams with the same geometric amount of transverse
reinforcement, the higher their concrete compressive
strength, the more effective stirrups are.
– For high-strength concrete beams with stirrups, the
limitation of the amount of longitudinal reinforcement to
2% is not experimentally justified.
– Beam specimens with longitudinally distributed web re-
inforcement along the web showed a better behaviour
than similar beams without any kind of shear reinforce-
ment. Although their failure was also fragile, several
shear cracks, rather than a single one, were reported, and
the failure shear strength increased about 25%.
– Methods based on the modified compression field theory
showed a close correlation to the empirical results in
comparison to the other codes’ correlations.
Acknowledgments
The research described in this paper comprises part of
the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology’s projects
TRA99/0974 and MAT2002-00615. The beam specimens
were cast at the Alvisa precast concrete plant located in
Selgua (Huesca, Spain), the authors extend their sincere
thanks to them. The beams were tested at the Structural
Technology Laboratory of the Construction Engineering
Department, with the assistance of the former undergraduate
students Josep Capell and Jorge Suárez.
Appendix. Notation
Aw,min amount of minimum shear reinforcement;
a/d shear span to depth ratio;
bw web width;
d effective depth;
fc concrete compressive strength;
f ct,m average concrete tensile strength;
f sp average concrete splitting strength;
fu ultimate tensile strength of the reinforcing steel;
fy yield strength of the reinforcing steel;
s stirrup spacing;
sz vertical distance between distributed longitudinal
reinforcement;
Vcr cracking shear strength;
Vfail failure shear strength;
1527
Vy shear strength at yielding of the stirrups;
φ diameter of the rebar;
ρl amount of longitudinal reinforcement (%);
ρw f y amount of shear reinforcement (MPa).
References
[1] Yoon YS, Cook WD, Mitchell D. Minimum shear reinforcement in
normal, medium and high-strength concrete beams. ACI Struct J 1996;
93(5):576–84.
[2] Cladera A, Marí AR. Shear design procedure for reinforced concrete
beams using artificial neural networks. Part I: Beams without stirrups.
Eng Struct 2004;26(7):917–26.
[3] Cladera A, Marí AR. Shear design procedure for reinforced concrete
beams using artificial neural networks. Part II: Beams with stirrups.
Eng Struct 2004;26(7):927–36.
[4] Elzanaty AH, Nilson AH, Slate FO. Shear capacity of reinforced
concrete beams using high-strength concrete. ACI J Proc 1986;83(2):
290–6.
[5] Duthinh D, Carino NJ. Shear design of high-strength concrete
beams: a review of the state-of-the-art. Building and Fire Research
Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology; 1996.
p. 198.
[6] Collins MP, Kuchma D. How safe are our large, lightly reinforced
concrete beams, slabs and footings? ACI Struct J 1999;96(4):482–90.
[7] Cladera A. Shear design of reinforced high-strength concrete
beams. Pd.D. thesis published by ACHE (Spanish Concrete
Association). 2003. Also available on the word wide web:
http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TDCat-0328103-122019/.
[8] Concrete Society Technical Report 49. Design guidance for high
strength concrete. United Kingdom; 1998. p. 168.
[9] American Concrete Institute. ACI building code requirements for
reinforced concrete, ACI 318-02; 2002.
[10] AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications and commentary. 2nd
ed. (1998) and 2000 update. Washington DC: American Association
of State Highway Transportation Official; 1998, 2000.
[11] European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 2: Design of
concrete structures, Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings. Final
Draft. July 2002, p. 226.
[12] Ozcebe G, Ersoy U, Tankut T. Evaluation of minimum shear
reinforcement requirements for higher strength concrete. ACI J 1999;
96(3):361–8.
[13] Etxeberria M. Experimental study on microstructure and structural
behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad
Politécnica de Cataluña; 2004, p. 230.
[14] González-Fonteboa B. Hormigones con áridos reciclados procedentes
de demoliciones: dosificaciones, propiedades mecánicas y compor-
tamiento estructural a cortante. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad de la
Coruña; 2002.
[15] Teoh BK, Mansur MA, Wee TH. Behaviour of high-strength concrete
I-beams with low shear reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2002;99(3):
299–307.
[16] Adebar P, Collins MP. Shear strength of members without transverse
reinforcement. Canad J Civil Eng 1996;23:30–41.
[17] Johnson MK, Ramirez JA. Minimum shear reinforcement in beams
with higher strength concrete. ACI Struct J 1989;86(4):376–82.
Dr. A. Cladera is an assistant professor at the Department of Physics
at the University of Balearic Islands. He obtained his Ph.D. in 2003 at
the Technical University of Catalonia researching on shear strength of
reinforced high-strength concrete beams.
Dr. A.R. Marí is a Professor of Construction Engineering at the Technical
University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain. He is a member of the fib task
group 4.1 “Serviceability models” and general reporter of the Committee in
charge of updating the Spanish Concrete Code.