American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 2016, Vol. 4, No.

1, 39-43
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajcea/4/1/6
© Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/ajcea-4-1-6

A Comparative Analysis of Codes Prediction of Shear

Resistance in Beams without Shear Reinforcement
Ofonime A. Harry1,*, Ifiok E. Ekop2
1
Institute for Infrastructure and Environment, University of Edinburgh, UK
2
Department of Building and Quantity Surveying, Joseph Ayo Babalola University, Ikeji Arakeji, Nigeria
*Corresponding author: o.harry@ed.ac.uk

Abstract Shear provisions in codes are based on empirical equations derived from experimental test results
without any rational theory to explain its behavior. Some of these expressions, for example BS 8110, ACI 318 and
Eurocode 2 takes into account the effect of reinforcement ratio, effective depth and concrete compressive strength
while Canadian code considers the shear strength to be a function of concrete compressive strength only. The new
Model code 2010 considers the shear strength of beams as a function of longitudinal strain in the web. This brings
about disparity in shear strength prediction from different codes. This paper examines the accuracy of shear strength
predictions in beams without shear reinforcement. The study involves a comparative analysis of shear strength
predictions from five different codes: BS 8110, Eurocode 2, Canadian code, ACI code 318 and Model code 2010. A
total of 435 experimental test results from database of shear critical beams in literature were used for the study. The
results shows that Model code 2010 shear strength prediction is the most conservative among the five codes shear
provisions considered in this study. This may be due to the assumed linear elastic state of the flexural reinforcement
at the point of failure in shear. BS 8110 and Eurocode 2 predictions gave the least variation compared to other codes
predictions. The highest number of unsafe shear strength predictions was obtained from Canadian code followed by
prediction s from ACI 318.
Keywords: shear strength, concrete compressive strength, database, effective depth, reinforcement ratio, shear
reinforcement, longitudinal strain
Cite This Article: Ofonime A. Harry, and Ifiok E. Ekop, “A Comparative Analysis of Codes Prediction of
Shear Resistance in Beams without Shear Reinforcement.” American Journal of Civil Engineering and
Architecture, vol. 4, no. 1 (2016): 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajcea-4-1-6.

The problem is more complicated in reinforced

1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete have been used in the construction
industries in buildings, bridges, tunnels, dams and many
other structures. This is due to its ability to resist corrosion,
resistance to fire, low cost when compared with material
such as steel amongst others. To effectively utilize
concrete in any construction, its behavior from initial
loading up to failure must be known and predicted
accurately. These behavior can be classified into two:
flexural and shear. While the flexural behavior of
reinforced concrete beam can be predicted with reasonable
accuracy, prediction of shear behavior of reinforced
concrete beam is still marked with disparity in the
research community. For instance, the provisions for
flexural behavior of beams in different codes are similar.
This is due to the fundamental theory of ‘plain section
remain plain’ which govern the flexural behavior of
reinforced concrete beams. On the other hand, the shear
behavior is based on empirical equations derived from
experimental test result without any rational theory to
describe its behavior. This cause notable disparity between
predicted shear strength from different codes.
concrete beams without shear reinforcement in which the
shear resistance is said to depend on the uncracked
concrete compression zone, shear span-to-depth ratio and
reinforcement ratio [1]. Until the advent of Modified
Compression Field Theory [2], the shear strength of
concrete members without shear reinforcement was
believed to depend on the reinforcement ratio. This led to
the inclusion of the effect of reinforcement ratio, concrete
compressive strength and effective depth in shear
provisions in some codes like BS 8110, Eurocode 2 and
ACI code 318. On the contrary, the new Model code 2010
which is based on Modified Field Compression Theory
(MCFT) considers the shear strength of beam to be a
function of the longitudinal strain in the web rather than
the reinforcement ratio. This brings about disparity in the
predicted shear resistance from different codes.
Several researches aim at investigating the adequacy of
shear provisions in different codes have been conducted in
the past decades [3-9]. Sudheer et al [7] compared ACI,
Canadian and CEP-FIP model codes shear strength
predictions in beams without shear reinforcement. Their
result showed that both ACI and Canadian codes under
estimated the shear strength of beams for different shear
span-to-depth ratio. CEP-FIB predicted shear strength
were all lower than the experimental test results. Reineck
 40 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

et al [10] compared the ACI predicted shear strength with the longitudinal reinforcement ratio given as As/bd. ɣc is
784 experimental test results of reinforced concrete beams the concrete partial factor of safety and bw is the beam
failing in shear. They concluded that ACI 318 code shear width in mm. For beams with short shear span-to-depth
provisions are unconservative with about 15% of ratio ( 0.5d ≤ a ≤ 2d ), the calculated shear resistance is
predictions resulting in unsafe prediction. In experimental multiplied by av/2d to account for the influence of arching
studies [5] comparing the shear strength of high strength action.
concrete (HSC) beam having different shear span-to-depth
ratio with predictions from ACI, Canadian code and 2.3. ACI code 318
Zsutty’s equation for shear, it was shown that both ACI
and Canadian code underestimated the shear strength of The shear resistance of nonprestressed concrete
beams. Underestimation of shear strength from Canadian members without shear reinforcement is given as;
code was more pronounced at lower shear span-to-depth  λ f c′ 
ratio. Vc =  b d (3)
 6  w
Most of the research in this field focused on comparing  
one or two different codes prediction with experimental
test results. To understand the accuracy of shear For detailed analysis, the shear resistance can be
predictions in different codes, it is apparent to compare the determined from;
predictions among these codes with experimental test
 Vu 
results. This paper is therefore aimed at comparing the  0.16 f c′ + 17 ρ w
Vc =  bw d ≤ 0.29 f c′bw d (4)
shear provisions in five different codes: Eurocode 2, BS  M u 
8110, Canadian code, ACI code 318 and Model code 2010
with the experimental test results from the literature. A where f c′, ρ w , bw , d are the concrete compressive strength,
database of shear critical beams without shear flexural reinforcement ratio, width and effective depth of
reinforcement compiled by Reineck et al [10] is used for beam respectively. λ is a factor that account for light
the study. weight concrete. For normal concrete, λ is taken as 1. Vu
and Mu are factored shear force and bending moment
occurring simultaneously in the critical section considered.
2. Review of Shear Provisions in Different In any case Vud/Mu should not be greater than 1.
Codes
2.4. Canadian Code
2.1. BS 8110 The Canadian code considers shear strength of beams
The shear resistance in beam without shear without web reinforcement to be a function of
reinforcement is given as; compressive strength of concrete only. The shear
resistance in beam without shear reinforcement is given as;
1/3 1/4
0.79  100 As   400  Vc = 0.2 f c′bw d (5)
Vc =   (1)
γ m  bd   d 
where f’c, d and bw are the concrete compressive strength
where 0.79 is a factor accounting for other parameters in MPa, effective depth and width of beam respectively.
influencing the shear strength not considered in equation
(1). 100As/bd is the reinforcement ratio which should be 2.5. Model Code 2010
greater than 0.15 but less than 3. 400/d takes into account
the size effect and should be not less than 0.67 for Model code 2010 shear design provision is much more
members without web reinforcement. ɣm is the concrete complex than other codes considered in this study. It has
partial factor of safety. For concrete compressive strength different levels of approximation. The shear resistance of
(fcu) greater than 25N/mm2, equation (1) is multiplied by reinforced concrete beams without transverse
(fcu/25)1/3 to account for the influence of higher reinforcement is given as;
compressive strength on the shear strength. Increase in
f ck
shear strength which occur in deep beams due to arching VRd ,c = kv bz (6)
action is considered by multiplying the calculated shear γc
strength by 2d/av for beams with shear span-to-depth ratio
a/d<2-2.5. where fck is the characteristic compressive strength of
concrete in MPa, b is the width of the section in mm and z
is the effective shear span depth and is assumed to be
2.2. Eurocode 2
0.95d in reinforced concrete members. γ c is the concrete
Shear resistance of beams without shear reinforcement partial factor of safety. The term kv considers the influence
is similar to that of BS 8110 in that it takes into account of strain in the web and the aggregate size. Model code
the concrete compressive strength, effective depth and 2010 offers two level of approximation to determine kv in
reinforcement ratio. The shear resistance is given as; beams without shear reinforcement. These include level I
and II. For level II approximation,
(100 fck )1/3 (1 + )
0.18
=VRd ,c 200 / d bw d (2)
γc 0.4 1300
= ⋅ (7)
( )
kv
In equation (2), fck is the cylinder compressive strength ( +1500 z x ) 1000 + 0.7kd z
g
of concrete in MPa, d is the effective depth in mm, ρ1 is
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 41

where frequency of about 72% of the total number of test result

considered followed by effective depth between 300-
32
=
kd g ≥ 0.75 (8) 399mm. Similarly, reinforcement ratio between the range
16 + d g of 1.5-1.99 and concrete compressive strength between the
range of 20-29.99 has the highest frequencies of 23% and
ε χ is the longitudinal strain in the web and kdg is a factor 39% respectively. These reflect the range of values
that account for the size of aggregate. For level I commonly used for effective depth, reinforcement ratio
approximation, equation (7) is further simplified with the and concrete compressive strength in most of the
assumption that strain in the reinforcement remains elastic reinforced concrete design and construction.
at the point of failure in shear. As such the strain in the
web is assumed to be one-half the yield strain of the
flexural reinforcement. Also the maximum aggregate size
can be assumed to be 9.6mm, making equation (8) equals
1.25. In this paper, level I approximation is used to
calculate the shear resistance of beams.

3. Criteria for Selecting Experimental

Test Results for the Study

Figure 3. Number of beams against the compressive strength of concrete

4. Result and Discussion

Figure 1. Number of beams against the effective depth of beams

Figure 4. Experimental versus predicted shear force (BS 8110)

Figure 2. Number of beams against the reinforcement ratio

A total of 435 experimental test result on shear critical

simply supported beams were selected from the database
of Karl-Heinz Reineck [10] which contains 784
experimental test result of reinforced concrete beams
without shear reinforcement. Only beams subjected to
concentrated loads were considered. In order to avoid the
effect of arching action, beams with shear span-to-depth Figure 5. Experimental versus predicted shear force (EC 2)
ratio a / d < 2.5 were not considered. The distribution of
the effective depth, reinforcement ratio and concrete Figure 4-Figure 8 shows plots of experimental shear
compressive strength of beams used in this study is shown force versus predicted shear force from different codes.
in Figure 1-Figure 3. It can be observed from Figure 1 that The threshold of Vresult/Vpre= 1 is also plotted in these
the effective depth between 200-299mm has the highest graphs. A look at these figures shows that Model code
42 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

2010 has the most scattered data points with respect to the or reached the yield strain at failure. This therefore implies
threshold line (Vresult/Vpre= 1). BS 8110 and EC 2 follows that Model code 2010 assumption of elastic strain in the
the same trend in predicting the shear resistance of beams. reinforcement at failure is overly conservative. Canadian
A detailed analysis of the predicted shear resistance from code had the highest number of unsafe predictions (i.e.
different codes using regression analysis is presented in predictions with Vexp/Vcode <1).
Table 1. From this table, it can be seen that BS 8110 gave
the lowest standard deviation of 0.25 while the lowest
coefficient of variation of 0.19 occurred in BS 8110 and
Eurocode 2 predictions. These results especially the
predictions from BS8110, ACI 318, EC 2 and Canadian
codes are in close agreement with the works of [11] and
[12]. The minimum and maximum value of Vexp/Vcode for
Model code 2010 are both greater than 1 which shows that
Model code 2010 prediction is the most conservative
when compared with predictions from BS 8110, EC 2,
Canadian code and AC1 318 code. This may be due to the
simplifying assumption of half the yield strain in the level
I approximation adopted in this study. In experimental test
on reinforced concrete slabs failing in shear [13] it was
shown that strain in the reinforcement was either closed to
Figure 6. Experimental versus predicted shear force (ACI 318)

Table 1. Comparison of the ratio of experimental and predicted shear strength for 435 beams
Vexp/VBS 8110 Vexp/VEC 2 Vexp/VCanadian code Vexp/VACI 318 Vexp/VModel code 2010
Mean 1.33 1.60 1.19 1.33 2.71
Standard deviation 0.25 0.31 0.33 0.31 0.72
Coefficient of Variation 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.23 0.27
Maximum Vexp/Vcode 3.56 3.41 2.73 2.90 6.14
Minimum Vexp/Vcode 0.79 0.89 0.46 0.54 1.19
Vexp/Vcode <1 14 1 121 53 -

5. Summary and Conclusion

Figure 7. Experimental versus predicted shear force (Canadian code)
This study investigated the accuracy of shear strength
predictions from five different codes. From this
comparative analysis, the main conclusions can be
summarised as follows;
1) Model code 2010 under estimate the shear
strength of beams when compared to predictions from BS
8110, Euro code 2, ACI code 318 and Canadian code.
2) BS 8110, Eurocode 2 and ACI 318 code can
fairly predict shear strength of beams without web
reinforcement better than Model code 2010 and Canadian
code.
3) Model code predictions are less than
experimental test results for all the 435 experimental test
results considered in this study.
4) Canadian code shear prediction had the highest
percentage of unsafe design which is about 27.8%
followed by prediction from ACI 318 code with 12.2%.

Figure 8. Experimental versus predicted shear force (Model code 2010)
References
[1] J. K. Kim and Y. D. Park, ‘Prediction of Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Beams wihout Web Reinforcement’, ACI
Material. Journal., vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 213-222, 1996.
[2] F. J. Vecchio and M. P. Collins, ‘The Modified Compression-
Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Element Subjected to
Shear’, ACI Journal., vol. 83, pp. 219-231, 1986.
[3] A. B. Shuraim, ‘A novel approach for evaluating the concrete
shear strength in reinforced concrete beams’, Latin American
Journal of Solids Strucures, vol. 11, pp. 93-112, 2014.
[4] S. H. Ahmad, S. F. A. Rafeeqi, and S. Fareed, ‘Shear Strength of
Normal and Light Weight Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture
without Web Reinforcement’, Journal of Emergng Trends in
Engineering and Applied Sciences, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 967-971,
2011.
[5] A. R. Mardookhpour, ‘Evaluation of codes and equation for
prediction shear capacity in HSC beams without shear.
reinforcements’, World Journal of Engineering, vol. 9, no. 1, pp.
57-62, 2012.
[6] J. Amani and R. Moeini, ‘Prediction of shear strength of
reinforced concrete beams using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference
system and artificial neural network’, Scientia Iranica A., vol. 19,
no. 2, pp. 242-248, 2012.
[7] Sudheer Reedy L., Ramana Rao V., and Gunneswara Rao D.,
‘Shear Resistance of High Strength Concrete Beams Without
Shear Reinforcement’, International Journal of Civil and
Structural Engineering vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 101-113, 2010.
[8] S. H. Ahmad, S. F. A. Rafeeqi, and S. Fareed, ‘Shear Predictions
of Eurocode EC2’, American Journal of Civil Engineering and
Architecture, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 43-46, 2013.
[9] G. Arslan, ‘Shear strength of reinforced concrete slender beams’,
Proceedings of the Institutes of Civil Engineers - Structures and
Buildings, vol. 163, no. 3, pp. 195-205, 2010.
[10] O. Reineck, K.-H.; Bentz, Evans C.; Fitik, Birol; Kuchma, Daniel
A. and Bayrak, ‘ACI-DAfStb Database of Shear Tests on Slender
Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups’, ACI Structural
Journal, vol. no. 5, pp. 867-875, 2013.
43
[11] G. Arslan, ‘Shear Strngth of Reinofrced Concrete Slender',
Proceedings of Instituiton of Civil Engineers, Structures and
Buildings 163, issue SB3, pp. 195-205, 2010.
[12] Ali Hussein Ali Al-Ahmed and Thaar Saud Al-Gasham,
'Alternative Cracking Shear Strength Equation for Reinforced
Concrete Normal Beams without stirrups', Iraqi Journal of Civil
Engineering vol 8, no 1, pp. 44-49, 2011.
[13] Rui Vaz Rodrigues, Aurelio Muttoni and Miguel Fernandez Ruiz,
'Influence of Shear on Rotation Capacity of Reinforced Concrete
Members without Shear Reinforcement' ACI Structural Journal,
Vol 107, no 5, pp. 516-525, 2010.
[14] British Standards Institution.( 1985), Code of Practice and Design
and Construction (BS 8110: Part 1:1985), British Standards
Institution, London.
[15] CEN (2004) Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, EN 1992-1-
1:2004.
[16] ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2005) Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-05) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-05). American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
ACI Committee 318-05.
[17] CSA Committee A23.3 (2004). Design of Concrete Structures,
Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada,
214 pp.
[18] Model Code 2010, First Draft Volume 1 and 2, Fib Bulletins 55,
56, Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.