Materials and Structures (2008) 41:113–122
DOI 10.1617/s11527-007-9223-3
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E
Shear strength of reinforced concrete beams with stirrups
Güray Arslan
Received: 7 April 2006 / Accepted: 17 January 2007 / Published online: 28 February 2007

RILEM 2007
Abstract This study presents alternative shear
strength prediction equations for reinforced con-
crete (RC) beams with stirrups. The shear
strength is composed of the contribution of the
nominal shear strength provided by stirrups and
the nominal shear strength provided by concrete.
For the concrete contribution, cracking shear
strength values estimated by Arslan’s equations
are almost same those obtained with ACI 318
simplified equation in terms of coefficient of
variation (COV). However, mean values esti-
mated by ACI 318 tend to be more conservative
comparing to the mean values obtained with
Arslan’s equations. Thus, for the consideration of
concrete contribution to shear strength, Arslan’s
equations are used. To obtain the shear strength
of RC beams, shear strength provided by stirrups
is added to the concrete shear strength estimated
by Arslan’s equations. Results of existing 339
beam shear tests are used to investigate how
accurate proposed equation estimates the shear
strength of RC beams. Furthermore, ACI 318 and
TS500 provisions are also compared to the afore-
mentioned test results. It is found that proposed
G. Arslan (&)
Structural Engineering Division, Civil Engineering
Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Yıldız
Technical University, Besiktas, Istanbul 34349,
Turkey
e-mail: aguray@yildiz.edu.tr; gurayarslan@yahoo.com
equations for beams with shear span to depth
ratios (a/d) between 1.5 and 2.5 are also conser-
vative with a lower COV than ACI 318 and
TS500. However, when a/d ratios exceed 2.5 (both
normal and high strength concrete beams), ACI
318, TS500 and proposed equations give similar
COV value.
Keywords Reinforced concrete
Beams
(supports)
Cracking
Shear strength
Span-
depth ratio
Stirrups
1 Introduction
Design procedures proposed for regulatory stan-
dards should be safe, correct in concept, simple to
understand, and should not necessarily add to
either design or construction costs. These proce-
dures are most effective if they are based on
relatively simple conceptual models rather than
on complex empirical equations [1]. Hence, many
equations have been proposed to estimate the
ultimate and cracking shear strength of reinforced
concrete (RC) beams [2, 3]. Some of them are
Zsutty’s [4] equation, deduced by multiple regres-
sion analysis; Bazant’s [5] equation (derived by
Bazant and Kim), takes into account the size
effect based on non-linear fractures mechanics;
CEB-FIP [6] model code equation, introduced
empirically; the formula of Japan Concrete
114
Institute [7], motivated by Weibull theory in
which the failure is assumed to occur right at the
initiation of a macroscopic crack and the size
effect is assumed to be caused by randomness of
local material strength; ACI 318 Building Code
[8] equation, based on experimental results of
numerous beams.
Generally, the nominal shear strength of RC
beams with stirrups is composed of two compo-
nents: the resistance of stirrup resulting from the
truss action and the concrete resistance. According
to the ASCE-ACI 445 [1] report, shear design
codes require a simple means of computing a
realistic Vc term, additional concrete contribution
as a function of the shear stress level. This so-called
concrete contribution is important in the design of
beams where the factored shear force is near the
value of the shear force required to produce
diagonal tension cracking. This term is necessary
for the economic design of beams and slabs with
little or no shear reinforcement. In the previous
study [3], Arslan’s cracking shear strength equa-
tions performed almost as well as ACI 318 simpli-
fied equation in terms of coefficient of variation
and the cracking shear strength predicted by ACI
318 tend to be more conservative than that
obtained with Arslan’s equations in terms of mean
value. In this study; Arslan’s cracking shear
strength equations are used to take the concrete
contribution into account and the contribution of
stirrups is added to the concrete contribution to
obtain the shear strength of RC beams. The
proposed equation is justified comparing to the
results of existing 339 shear tests carried out with
RC beams with stirrups. Based on the existing test
results, it is concluded that the proposed equations
estimate the shear strength more accurately than
ACI 318 and Turkish Standard especially for the
beams with span to depth ratio (a/d) between 1.5
and 2.5 in terms of COV. However, for slender
beams ((a/d) ‡ 2.5) the COV values obtained for
proposed equations and code provisions (ACI 318
and TS500) are very close.
2 Beams without stirrups
Extensive research has been carried out on the
behavior of RC beams without stirrups. Many
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:113–122
equations [3, 4, 9–13] have been proposed to
estimate the ultimate and cracking shear strength
of RC beams without stirrups.
The ACI 318 Building Code recommends an
equation for shear strength of slender beam
without stirrups, subjected only to shear and
flexure, as follows [8],
 
1 pffiffiffiffi Vu d pffiffiffiffi
vc ¼ fc þ 120q 60:3 fc ða=d  2:5Þ
7 Mu
ð1Þ
where vc is the cracking shear strength of concrete
in MPa, fc is the compressive strength of concrete
in MPa, q is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio,
d is the effective depth and Mu is factored
moment occurring simultaneously with the fac-
tored shear force, Vu, at section considered.
The cracking shear strength of RC beam
without stirrups is typically simplified into the
following,
1 pffiffiffiffi
vc ¼ fc ða=d  2:5Þ ð2Þ
6
The current ACI 318 Building Code assumes that
shear strength is essentially proportional to fc0.5.
According to Arslan [2, 3], cracking shear
strength of reinforced concrete beams without
stirrups are (refer to Appendix for details)
vc ¼ 0:15ðfc Þ0:5 þ 0:02ðfc Þ0:65
ð3aÞ
(For normal strength concrete, NSC)
vc ¼ 0:12ðfc Þ0:5 þ 0:02ðfc Þ0:65
ð3bÞ
(For high strength concrete, HSC)
The proposed equations are compared favorably
with the results of high strength concrete (HSC)
beams with compressive strength of fc ‡ 41.4
MPa (6000 psi), and normal strength concrete
(NSC) beams with lower fc values reported in the
literature.
3 Beams with stirrups
The following procedure outlines the guide-
lines recommended by ASCE 426 [14] in
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:113–122
order to determine the shear strength of RC
beams. The governing equation from ACI 318
Building Code states that the shear capacity
must exceed the shear demand as shown in
Eq. (4).
/vn  vu
The nominal shear strength is derived from two
components: concrete and stirrups. These
relationships are given in Eq. (5).
vn ¼ vc þ v s
where vs is the shear strength of stirrup based on
yield. In the ACI 318 Building Code, the contri-
bution from the shear reinforcement, vs, from the
case of vertical stirrups can be derived from basic
equilibrium considerations on a 45 truss model
with constant stirrup spacing and effective depth
[1].
Many equations in concrete design codes can
of course be developed purely empirically be-
cause it is possible to obtain adequate test data
for the entire range of practical interest and to
sample that range statistically uniformly [15].
There is considerable diversity in calculating the
shear strength of RC members. ACI 318 Building
Code [8] and TS 500 [16] equations are selected
for comparison with proposed equations. These
equations are as follows.
ACI 318 Building Code [8] simplified equation:
 
1 pffiffiffiffi
vn ¼ fc þ qw fyw ða=d  2:5Þ
6
1 pffiffiffiffi
vn ¼ ð3:5  2:5a=dÞ fc þ qw fyw ða=d\2:5Þ
6 short beams
where qw fyw is the nominal strength of stirrups in
MPa, a/d is the shear span to depth ratio.
Turkish Building Code [16]:
 
vn ¼ 0:65ft þ qw fyw
where ft is the tensile strength
pffiffiffiffi of concrete in MPa
and equals to 0:35 fc .
115
4 Shear strength of reinforced concrete slender
beams
Equation (3a) and (3b) are used for taking the
concrete shear strength into account since the
results of those equations are in a good agreement
ð4Þ with existing test results. Adding the shear
strength contribution of stirrups to Eq. (3), the
nominal shear strength of slender beams is
expressed as follows,
 
ð5Þ vn ¼ 0:15ðfc Þ0:5 þ 0:02ðfc Þ0:65 þ qw fyw
(For normal strength concrete, NSC) ð9aÞ
 
vn ¼ 0:12ðfc Þ0:5 þ 0:02ðfc Þ0:65 þ qw fyw
(For high strength concrete, HSC) ð9bÞ
Following is discussion on the effect of compres-
sive strength of concrete (fc), shear span to depth
ratio (a/d) and nominal strength of stirrup (qw
fyw) on the proposed Eq. (9).
Figure 1 compares the proposed Eq. (9) with
the experimental shear strength values obtained
from tests for normal strength concrete beams
[17–36] and high strength concrete beams [10, 12,
21, 24–26, 28–31, 34, 35, 37–45].
Figures 2–4 show the comparison results of
shear strength values obtained with Eq. (9) and
tests for various a/d, qw fyw and fc.
As it is seen from the figures, the ratio of
experimental to predicted shear strength is not
significantly influenced by increasing values of
ð6Þ a/d, qw fyw and fc.
4.1 Shear strength of reinforced concrete
ð7Þ
The arch action on the shear strength becomes
more significant as the a/d ratio decreases. Accord-
ing to Fenwick and Paulay [46], when a/d ratio is
lower than 2.5 arch action governs the behavior
and shear-compression failure occurs, while when
ð8Þ a/d is greater than 2.5 beam action governs and
diagonal-tension failure occurs. ACI 318 Building
Code equation based on experimental test results
is used to determine the relationship between arch
116 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:113–122

Fig. 1 Proposed shear Normal strength concrete (105 beam) High strength concrete (154 beam)
5 10
strength values using Eq.

Pro po sed shear strength ( MPa)

Pro po sed shear strength ( MPa)

(9) versus experimental
4 8
shear strength values
3 6

2 4

1 2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8
Experimental shear strength (MPa) Experimental shear strength (MPa)

Fig. 2 Comparison of Normal strength concrete (105 beam) High strength concrete (154 beam)
2 3
experimental shear
Ex periment al shear streng th /

Ex periment al shear streng th /

strength values and 2.5
Pro po sed shear strength

Pro po sed shear strength

proposed shear strength 1.5
of Eq. (9) for various 2
shear span to depth ratios
1 1.5

1
0.5
0.5

0 0
2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
a/d a/d

Fig. 3 Comparison of Normal strength concrete (105 beam) High strength concrete (154 beam)
2 3
experimental shear
Experimental shear strength /

Ex periment al shear streng th /

strength values and

Proposed shear strength

2.5
Pro po sed shear strength

proposed shear strength 1.5

of Eq. (9) for various 2
stirrups nominal strength
1 1.5

1
0.5
0.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6
ρwfyw (MPa) ρ wf yw (MPa)

Fig. 4 Comparison of Normal strength concrete (105 beam) High strength concrete (154 beam)
2 2
experimental shear
Experimental shear strength /

Ex periment al shear streng th /

strength values and

Proposed shear strength

Pro po sed shear strength

proposed shear strength 1.5 1.5

of Eq. (9) for various
compressive strength of
1 1
concrete

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Concrete compressive strength (MPa) Concrete compressive strength (MPa)
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:113–122
action and shear strength of concrete, leading to
the following expression:
vc / ð3:5  2:5a=dÞ
Zsutty’s equation, using the multiple regression
analysis, was proposed to determine the
relationship between a/d and concrete shear
strength, leading to the following expression for
short beams:
vc / ð2:5d=aÞ
In this study, a regression analysis is undertaken
to identify the influence of a/d on the cracking
shear strength of RC short beams without stirrups
and to define arch action in calculating the shear
strength of RC short beams using the results of
existing 64 experimental shear tests [10, 24, 29,
47–51]. The variation of the ratio of experimental
cracking shear strength of short beams without
stirrups (vc,test) to cracking shear strength of
slender beams (Eq.(3)) can be expressed as
follows,
vc;test 2:48
¼ ð12Þ
Eq. ð3Þ a=d
The effect of 1/(a/d) on the ratio vc,test/Eq. (3) is
illustrated in Fig. 5. The shear strength of RC
short beams without stirrups was rarely
investigated in the past. The test results of the
5
2.48/(a/d)
4 [23, 48, 52] with high strength concrete beams [12,
vc, test/Eq. (3)
3
2 experimental to proposed shear strength is not
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
1/(a/d)
Fig. 5 Effect of 1/(a/d) on cracking shear strength of RC
short beams without stirrups
117
cracking shear strength of short beams without
stirrups are very limited for a/d < 0.8,
consequently further research is required to
ð10Þ verify the proposed Eq. (10). Finally, new
design expressions are proposed for the
calculation of shear strength of short beams
based on the Arslan’s equations for slender
beams by taking the arch action into
consideration. By statistical regression, the
author finds, as found by Zsutty, vc can be
ð11Þ assumed to be proportional to (2.5d/a) to
identify mean arch action and considering this
result for arch action, the shear strength of RC
short beams with stirrups is given by the following
equations:
  2:5 
vn ¼ 0:15ðfc Þ0:5 þ 0:02ðfc Þ0:65 þ qw fyw
a=d
(For normal strength concrete, NSC)
ð13aÞ
  2:5 
0:5 0:65
vn ¼ 0:12ðfc Þ þ 0:02ðfc Þ þ qw fyw
a=d
(For high strength concrete, HSC)
ð13bÞ
Following is discussion on the effect of com-
pressive strength of concrete (fc), shear span to
depth ratio (a/d) and nominal strength of stirrup
(qw fyw) on the proposed Eq. (13).
Figure 6 compares the proposed Eq. (13) with
the experimental shear strength values obtained
from tests for normal strength concrete beams
38, 52].
Figures 7–9 show the errors which are induced
by the discrepancy of a/d, qw fyw and fc between
test and proposed shear strength. The ratio of
significantly influenced with increasing a/d, qw fyw
and fc but shear test data are not homogeneous
comparing to data of slender beams.
2 2.5 5 Evaluation of proposed equation
The proposed shear strength equation has been
compared with the Code provisions (ACI 318 and
118 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:113–122

Fig. 6 Proposed shear Normal strength concrete (56 beam) High strength concrete (24 beam)
6 10
strength values using Eq.

Proposed shear strength (MPa)

Pro po sed shear strength ( MPa)

(13) versus experimental 5
8
shear strength values
4
6
3
4
2

2
1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
Experimental shear strength (MPa) Experimental shear strength (MPa)

Fig. 7 Comparison of Normal strength concrete (56 beam) High strength concrete (24 beam)
experimental shear 2 3
Experimental shear st rength /

Experimental shear st rength /

strength values and
Proposed shea r st rength

Proposed shea r st rength

proposed shear strength 1.5
of Eq. (13) for various 2
shear span to depth ratios
1

1
0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 1 1.5 2 2 .5
a/d a/d

Fig. 8 Comparison of Normal strength concrete (56 beam) High strength concrete (24 beam)
experimental shear 2
Experimental shea r st rength /

Experimental shea r st rength /

strength values and

Proposed shea r st rength

Proposed shea r st rength

proposed shear strength 1.5

of Eq. (13) for various 2
stirrups nominal strength
1

0.5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
ρ wf yw (MPa) ρ wf yw (MPa)

Fig. 9 Comparison of Normal strength concrete (56 beam) High strength concrete (24 beam)
2 2.5
experimental shear
Ex periment al shear streng th /

Ex periment al shear streng th /

strength values and

Pro po sed shear strength

Pro po sed shear strength

2
proposed shear strength 1.5
of Eq. (13) for various
1.5
compressive strength of
1
concrete
1

0.5
0.5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 40 50 60 70 80 90
Compressive strength of concrete (MPa) Compressive strength of concrete (MPa)
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:113–122 119

TS500) and results are tabulated in Table 1. For
the a/d ratio higher than 2.5, the proposed
equation gives mean value of 1.34 and coefficient
of variation (COV) of 0.23 for NSC. Meanwhile,
for HSC mean value and COV are 1.34 and 0.34,
respectively. However, the mean value and COV
obtained for NSC with ACI 318 provisions are
1.41 and 0.23, respectively. For HSC, ACI 318
provision yields mean value of 1.29 and COV of
0.34. Turkish Standard provision, Eq. (8), pro-
vides mean value of 1.17 and COV of 0.23 for
NSC and mean value of 1.06 and COV of 0.33 for
HSC. It can be concluded that the proposed
equations for slender RC beams performed
almost as well as ACI 318 Building Code and
Turkish Standard provisions in terms of COV.
For (a/d) < 2.5, the proposed equations are
compared in Table 2 with existing test results.
The proposed equations correlate much better
with test results than the TS 500 and ACI 318
Building Code provisions. For instance, the mean
value of the ratio of the experimental shear
strength to the shear strength provided by ACI
318 Building Code is 1.84 and the COV of this
ratio is 0.21 for NSC, 1.30 and 0.55 for HSC,
respectively. The mean value of the ratio of the
experimental shear strength to the shear strength
predicted by Turkish Standard is 1.63 and the
COV of this ratio is 0.22 for NSC, 1.12 and 0.54
for HSC, respectively. COV is the index of
uniformity in the prediction and the lower the
COV, the better the prediction capability of the
proposed equations. As it is seen from Table 2,
the proposed equation for shear strength of RC
beams with stirrups is better than the others, in
terms of accuracy and uniformity of prediction.
6 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the
results of this study.
• The proposed equations for slender RC beams
performed almost as well as ACI 318 Building
Code and Turkish standard provisions in
terms of coefficient of variation (COV).
• The proposed equations for shear strength of
short beams with stirrups yield more accurate
results than the Turkish Standard and ACI 318
Building Code provisions and also, uniformity
of prediction is better. However, because the
test data for high strength concrete short
beams are very limited further research is
required to verify the proposed equations.
• The ratio of experimental to proposed shear
strength is not significantly influenced by
increasing a/d, qw fyw and fc for both slender

Table 1 Verification of proposed shear strength for slender RC beams using entire database
fc £ 41.4 MPa (NSC) fc > 41.4 MPa (HSC)
Exp./Prop. Exp./TS 500 Exp./ACI318 Exp./Prop. Exp./TS 500 Exp./ACI318

Mean value 1.34 1.17 1.41 1.34 1.06 1.29

Standard deviation 0.31 0.27 0.33 0.46 0.35 0.44
COV 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.34 0.33 0.34
Exp. = Experimental; Prop. = Proposed

Table 2 Verification of proposed shear strength for short RC beams using entire database
fc £ 41.4 MPa (NSC) fc > 41.4 MPa (HSC)
Exp./Prop. Exp./TS 500 Exp./ACI318 Exp./Prop. Exp./TS 500 Exp./ACI318

Mean value 1.47 1.63 1.84 1.17 1.12 1.30

Standard deviation 0.22 0.36 0.39 0.58 0.61 0.72
COV 0.15 0.22 0.21 0.50 0.54 0.55
Exp. = Experimental; Prop. = Proposed
120
and short beams but shear test data for short
beams are not homogeneous comparing to test
data of slender beams.
Appendix—Estimation of concrete contribution
to shear strength
In determination of concrete contribution to
shear strength, cracking shear strength (vcr,t) and
dowel actions (vcr,d) are considered [2, 3].
According to Khuntia and Stojadinovic [53], the
shear stress distribution is modeled as parabolic
over the effective shear depth with the maximum
value at the neutral axis. Thus, the magnitude of
shear resistance over the effective cross section
equals smax = ft = Vcr,t /(2/3bw k1d), where bw is
the width of section, s max is the shear stress at the
neutral axis, ft is the tensile strength of concrete,
Vcr,t is diagonal tension cracking shear force and
k1d is the effective shear depth, respectively. The
effective shear depth can be taken as k1
d = kd(1 + ecr/ec), where kd is the depth of
neutral axis, ec is the compressive strain in
concrete and taken as 0.002. The cracking strain
value in concrete is taken as ecr ¼ ft =Ec , where pffiffiffiffi
Ec is modulus of elasticity and equal to 4750 fc
in MPa [54]. The tensile strength p of ffiffiffiplain
ffi concrete
ft, ranges from about 0.25 to 0.50 fc [55–57].
pffiffiffiffiThe
direct tensile strength is accepted as 0:50pfffiffifficffi for
normal strength concrete (NSC) and 0:40 fc for
high strength concrete (HSC). According to Kim
and Park [11], k values can be expressed as
follows, k = 0.82(nq)0.36. Within the practical
range, i.e., 5  n  10 and 0:005  q  0:035;
consequently, 0:025  nq  0:35. During the
formation of primary cracks, for a reinforcing
ratio q less than a limiting value qstbl, the average
strains increase until a stabilized cracking state is
reached tension-softening stress in concrete at
cracking. If q is the reinforcement ratio, and
n = Es/Ec is the modular ratio, the minimum
reinforcement ratio required to maintain constant
strain at the crack when the cracking load is
applied to the member and held constant, is qstbl
= 1/(6n) [58]. According to Massicotte et al. [58],
this equation can also be interpreted as the
minimum steel ratio needed for a test setup to
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:113–122
measure accurately the tension-softening branch
in a plain concrete tension test under a load-
controlled procedure. Since qstbl is expressed by
the minimum reinforcement ratio required to
maintain constant strain at the crack, the corre-
sponding limit value for the shear strength
capacity of the diagonal tension crack of slender
beams can also be interpreted as qstbl equal to q.
2
Substituting these equations pffiffiffiffi into vcr;t ¼ 3 ft k1 , we
obtain ffi ¼ 0:15 fc (For NSC) and
pvffiffifficr;t
vcr;t ¼ 0:12 fc (For HSC).
Substituting q stbl = 1/(6n) and n = Es /Ec into
Vcr;d ¼ k3 ðfc Þ0:5 qr bw d [11] and assuming that the
modulus of elasticity of reinforcement is
Es = 2.105 MPa and r = 0.3, the dowel strength
can be expressed approximately by more general
terms fc as follows vcr,d = 0.02(fc)0.65. The shear
strength of a diagonal tension crack of slender
beams may be expressed as Eq. (3).
References
1. ASCE-ACI 445 (1999) Recent approaches to shear
design of structural concrete. State-of-the- Art-Report
by ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on Shear and Torsion.
ASCE J Struct Eng
2. Arslan G (2005) Shear strength of reinforced concrete
frame members under cyclic loads. PhD thesis, Yıldız
Technical University, Istanbul
3. Arslan G (2007) Cracking shear strength of RC slender
beams without stirrups. Turkish Journal of
Engineering & Environmental Sciences (in review)
4. Zsutty TC (1968) Beam shear strength prediction by
analysis of existing data. ACI J 65(11):943–951
5. Bazant ZP, Kim JK (1984) Size effect in shear failure
of longitudinally reinforced beams. ACI Struct J
81(5):456–468
6. CEB-FIP model code for concrete structures (1990)
Comite Euro-International du Beton, Paris. CEB-FIP
7. JSCE (1991) Standard specification for design and
construction of concrete structures, Part I (Design).
Japan Soc. of Civil Engrs., Tokyo
8. ACI Committee 318 (2002) Building code for
structural concrete (318R-2002) and commentary
(318R-2002). American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan
9. Okamura H, Higai T (1980) Proposed design equation
for shear strength of R.C. beams without web
reinforcement. Proc Japan Soc Civil Eng 300:131–141
10. Ahmad SH, Khaloo AR, Poveda A (1986) Shear
capacity of reinforced high-strength concrete beams.
ACI J 83(2):297–305
11. Kim J-K, Park Y-D (1996) Prediction of shear strength
of reinforced concrete beams without web
reinforcement. ACI Mater J 93(3):213–222
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:113–122
12. Shin S-W, Lee K-S, Moon J, Ghosh, SK (1999) Shear
strength of reinforced high-strength concrete beams
with shear span-to-depth ratios between 1.5 and 2.5.
ACI Struct J 96:549–556
13. Rebeiz KS (1999) Shear strength prediction for
concrete members. J Struct Eng 125(3):301–308
14. ASCE-ACI 426 (1973) The shear strength of
reinforced concrete members. Proc Am Soc Civil
Eng 99(ST6):1091–1187
15. Bazant ZP, Yu Q (2003) Designing against size effect
on shear strength of reinforced concrete beams without
stirrups. ITI Report, submitted to ACI Committee 445,
Shear and Torsion; version also submitted for
publication in J Struct Eng
16. TS-500 requirements for design and construction of
reinforced concrete structures, 2000. Turkish
Standards Institute, Ankara (in Turkish)
17. Bresler B, Scordelis AC (1961) Shear strength of
reinforced concrete beams. Series 100, Issue 13,
Structures and Materials Research, Dept. of Civil
Engineering. Univ. of California, Berkeley
18. Leonhardt F, Walter R (1962) Schubversuche an
Einfeldriegen Stahlbeton-Balken mit und ohne
Schubbewehrung zur Ermittlung der Schub
tragfähigkeit und der Oberen Schubspannungsgrenze.
Heft 151, Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, W.
Ernst u. Sohn, Berlin, 68 pp
19. Bresler B, Scordelis AC (1966) Shear strength of
reinforced concrete beams – Series III. Report No. 65-
10, Structures and Materials Research, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley
20. Bahl NS (1968) Über den Einfluß der Balkenhöhe auf
die Schubtragfähigkeit von Einfeldriegen Stahlbeton-
Balken mit und ohne Schubbewehrung. PhD
Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, Germany, 125 pp
21. Placas A, Regan PE (1971) Shear failure of reinforced
concrete beams. ACI J 68(10):763–773
22. Swamy RN, Andriopoulos AD (1974) Contribution of
aggregate interlock and dowel forces to the shear
resistance of reinforced beams with web
Reinforcement. Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42,
ACI, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp 129–166
23. Mattock AH, Wang Z (1984) Shear strength of
reinforced concrete members subject to high axial
compressive stress. ACI Struct J 11(3):287–298
24. Mphonde AG, Frantz GC (1984) Shear tests of high-
and low-strength concrete beams without stirrups. ACI
J 81(4):350–357
25. Elzanaty AH, Nilson AH, Slate FO (1986) Shear
capacity of reinforced concrete beams using high
strength concrete. ACI J 65(1):290–296
26. Johnson MK, Ramirez JA (1989) Minimum shear
reinforcement in beams with higher strength concrete.
ACI Struct J 86(4):376–382
27. Anderson NS, Ramirez JA (1989) Detailing of stirrup
reinforcement. ACI Struct J 86(5):507–515
28. Sarzam KF, Al-Musawi JMS (1992) Shear design of
high- and normal-strength concrete beams with web
reinforcement. ACI Struct J 89(6):658–664
29. Xie Y, Ahmad SH, Yu T, Hino S, Chung W (1994)
Shear ductility of reinforced concrete beams of
121
normal and high-strength concrete. ACI Struct J
91(2):140–149
30. McGormley JC, Creary DB, Ramirez JA (1996) The
performance of epoxy-coated shear reinforcement.
ACI Struct J 93(5):531–537
31. Yoon Y, Cook WD, Mitchell D (1996) Minimum shear
reinforcement in normal-, medium-, and high-strength
concrete beams. ACI Struct J 93(5): 576–584
32. Zararis PH, Papadakis G (1999) Influence of the
arrangement of reinforcement on the shear strength of
RC beams. Proceeding of the 13th Hellenic Conference
on Concrete, Rethymnon, Greece, pp 110–119
33. Karayiannis CG, Chalioris CE (1999) Experimental
investigation of the influence of stirrups on the shear
failure mechanism of reinforced concrete beams.
Proceeding of the 13th Hellenic Conference on
Concrete, Rethymnon, Greece, pp 133–141
34. Angelakos D, Bentz EC, Collins MP (2001) Effect of
concrete strength and minimum stirrups on shear
strength of large members. ACI Struct J 98(3):290–
300
35. Gonzalez FB (2002) Hormigones con aridos reciclados
procetendes de demoliciones: dosificaciones,
propiedades mecanicas y comportamiento estructurea
a cortante. Tesis doctoral dirigida por Prof. Fernando
Martinez, ETSECCP de la Coruna, Universidad de la
Coruna
36. Lyngberg BS (1976) Ultimate shear resistance of
partially prestressed reinforced concrete I-beams.
ACI J Proceedings 73(4)
37. Roller JJ, Russell HG (1990) Shear strength of high-
strength concrete beams with web reinforcement. ACI
Struct J 87(2):191–198
38. Kong PYL, Rangan BV (1998) Shear strength of high-
performance concrete beams. ACI Struct J 95(6):677–
688
39. Rahal KN, Al-Shaleh KS (2004) Minimum transverse
reinforcement in 65 MPa concrete beams. ACI Struct J
101(6):872–878
40. Adebar P, Collins MP (1996) Shear strength of
members without transverse reinforcement. Can J
Civil Eng 23:30–41
41. Tan K, Kong F, Teng S, Weng L (1997) Effect of web
reinforcement on high strength concrete deep beams.
ACI J 94(5):572–582
42. Ozcebe G, Ersoy U, Tankut T (1999) Evaluation of
minimum shear reinforcement requirements for higher
strength concrete. ACI Struct J 96(3):361–368
43. Cladera A, Mari AR (2005) Experimental study on
high-strength concrete beams failing in shear. Eng
Struct 27:1519–1527
44. Etxeberria M, Mari AR, Vazquez E (2003) Estudio
experimental de la resistencia a cortante en vigas de
hormigon de aridos reciclados. PhD thesis,
Universidad Politecnica da Cataluna
45. Collins MP, Kuchma D (1999) How safe are our large,
lightly reinforced concrete beams, slabs and footings?
ACI Structural Journal 96(4):482–490
46. Fenwick RC, Paulay T (1968) Mechanisms of shear
resistance of concrete beams. J Struct Eng ASCE
94(10):2325–2350
122
47. Cho S-H (2003) Shear strength prediction by modified
plasticity theory for short beams. ACI Struct J
100(1):105–112
48. Oh J-K, Shin S-W (2001) Shear strength of reinforced
high-strength concrete deep beams. ACI Struct
J 98(2):164–173
49. Mathey RG, Watstein D (1963) Shear strength of
beams without web reinforcement. ACI J 60(2):183–208
50. Taylor R (1960) Some shear tests on reinforced
concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Mag
Concrete Res 12(36):145–154
51. Kani GNJ (1966) Basic facts concerning shear failure.
ACI J 63(6):675–692
52. Clark A (1951) Diagonal tension in reinforced
concrete beams. ACI J Proceeding 48(2):145–156
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:113–122
53. Khuntia M, Stojadinovic B (2001) Shear strength of
reinforced concrete beams without transverse
reinforcement. ACI Struct J 98(5):648–656
54. Ersoy U, Özcebe G (2001) Betonarme. Evrim
Yayınevi, Istanbul
55. Nilson AH, Winter G (1991) Design of concrete
structures. Mc-Graw-Hill International Editions
56. Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic design of
reinforced concrete and masonry. Wiley, New York
57. Carreira DJ, Chu K (1986) Stress-strain relationship
for reinforced concrete in tension. ACI J 83(3):21–28
58. Massicotte B, Elwi AE, MacGregor JM (1990)
Tension-stiffening model for planar reinforced
concrete members. J Struct Eng ASCE 116(11):3039–
3058