See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237191418

Background to the general method of shear

design in the 1994 CSA-A23.3 standard

Article in Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering February 2011

DOI: 10.1139/cjce-26-6-827

CITATIONS READS

13 166

2 authors, including:

Khaldoun Rahal
Kuwait University
48 PUBLICATIONS 676 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Shear Behavior of Reinforced Convrete Elements made using Recycled Concrete Aggregate View project

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete - Simplified design and analysis procedure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Khaldoun Rahal on 24 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 827

Background to the general method of shear

design in the 1994 CSA-A23.3 standard
Khaldoun N. Rahal and Michael P. Collins

Abstract: The 1994 CSA-A23.3 standard Design of concrete structures includes a new shear design method based on
the equations of the modified compression field theory (MCFT). This general method is a simplification which casts
the MCFT in the traditional Vc + Vs format resulting in a set of six general equations and two tables. This new
method unifies the treatment of reinforced, partially prestressed and fully prestressed concrete and accounts, in a
rational manner, for the effects of axial load and bending moment on shear capacity. Simplifying the MCFT while
maintaining acceptable generality and accuracy involved a number of considerations and assumptions. This paper gives
the background to the development of these shear design equations and tables of the general method.
Key words: beams, building codes, crack width and spacing, diagonal cracking, reinforced concrete, shear strength, size
effect in shear, structural design.
Rsum : Le standard CSA-A23.3 de 1994 sur la conception de stuctures en bton comprend une nouvelle mthode de
conception de cisaillement base sur les quations de la thorie modifie de champ de compression (modified
compression field theory, MCFT). Cette mthode gnrale est une simplification qui moule la MCFT dans le
format traditionnel Vc + Vs , ce qui rsulte en six ensembles dquations gnrales et deux tables. Cette nouvelle
mthode unifie le traitement du bton arm partiellement prcontraint et compltement prcontraint, et prend en compte
de manire rationnelle les effets de la charge axiale et du moment flchissant sur la capacit de cisaillement. Pour
simplifier la MCFT tout en maintenant une gnralit et une prcision acceptable il faut un certain nombre de
considrations et de suppositions. Cet article fournit le contexte du dveloppement de ces quations et tables de
conception de cisaillement dans le cadre de la mthode gnrale.

Mots cls : poutres, codes de btiment, largeur et espacement de fissures, fissure diagonale, bton arm, rsistance au
cisaillement, leffet de la taille dans le cisaillement, conception structurelle.

[Traduit par la Rdaction] Rahal and Collins 839

Introduction
One hundred years ago, the Swiss engineer Ritter pub-
lished his famous paper on shear in reinforced concrete
(Ritter 1899). His 45 truss model became the basis of
many building codes in North America and around the
world.
Ritters model assumed that after cracking of the concrete,
the behaviour of a reinforced concrete beam becomes analo-
gous to that of a truss with a top longitudinal concrete chord,
a bottom longitudinal steel chord, vertical steel ties, and di-
agonal concrete struts inclined at 45. The model also as-
sumed that the diagonally cracked concrete cannot resist
Received December 15, 1998.
Revised manuscript accepted July 5, 1999.
K.N. Rahal. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering and Petroleum, Kuwait University, Safat, 13060,
Kuwait.
M.P. Collins.1 Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A4, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until April 30, 2000 (address inside
front cover).
1
Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed
(e-mail: mpc@civ.utoronto.ca).
tension and thus eliminated the need for diagonal tension
members perpendicular to the concrete struts. The shear
force was assumed to be resisted by forces in the transverse
steel, commonly referred to as the steel contribution (Vs).
For the usual case of transverse reinforcement which is at
90 to the longitudinal reinforcement,
Av fyvdv
[1] Vs =
s
Over the past 100 years, thousands of tests have been con-
ducted to study the shear behaviour of reinforced and pre-
stressed concrete beams. These experiments studied the
effects of the numerous parameters that affect the shear be-
haviour, such as the concrete compressive strength, the
amount and distribution of transverse and longitudinal rein-
forcement, prestressing, span to depth ratio, beam size (size
effects), and the magnitude of coexisting bending moments
and axial loads. Based on the experimental results, many
semi-empirical modifications have been proposed to improve
Ritters 45 truss model. The main modification has been the
addition of a semi-empirical concrete contribution term (Vc)
to the steel contribution term (Vs) in the equation for total
shear resistance. To account for the effects of the parameters
affecting the shear strength, this traditional method includes
different expressions and numerous attached restrictions for
the calculation of the concrete contribution factor Vc. The

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 26: 827839 (1999) 1999 NRC Canada

828
ACI code (ACI 1995), for example, includes eight different
expressions for Vc.
Ritters steel contribution term Vs was based on the as-
sumption that the diagonal compressive stress in the cracked
concrete was inclined at 45 to the longitudinal axis. This
assumption is still retained in the shear design provisions of
the 1995 ACI code (ACI 1995); however, for torsional de-
sign, this code permits the angle of inclination of the diago-
nal compressive stress to be taken as low as 30.
Along with the extensive experimental research, analytical
models have been developed and have contributed towards a
better understanding of shear behaviour. The development of
the compression field theory (CFT), first for torsion (Mitch-
ell and Collins 1974) and then for shear (Collins 1978), en-
abled the angle of inclination, , of the diagonal
compression to be calculated in a rational manner. Design
procedures based on the CFT, which ignores tensile stresses
in the concrete, were included in the 1984 edition of A23.3
(CSA 1984). The modified compression field theory
(MCFT) (Vecchio and Collins 1986) accounts for the benefi-
cial effects of the small tensile stresses that still remain in
diagonally cracked reinforced concrete members. It is this
theory that forms the basis of the general method for shear
design in the 1994 edition of A23.3 (CSA 1994).
The MCFT is capable of giving detailed predictions of the
loaddeformation response of sections loaded in shear
(Vecchio and Collins 1988). For design purposes, often all
that is required is the shear strength. For this purpose the
challenge has been to simplify the equations of the MCFT so
that a reasonably accurate estimate of the shear strength can
be obtained using hand calculations.
In this simplified method (Collins et al. 1996; Collins and
Mitchell 1991), the nominal shear resistance Vr at a section
is given by
[2] Vr = Vc + Vs + Vp
where Vc is the concrete contribution provided by the resid-
ual tensile stresses in the cracked concrete, Vs is the shear
contribution provided by the stirrups, and Vp is the contribu-
tion of the vertical component of the prestressing force.
As in the traditional approach, the concrete contribution to
the shear strength is related to square root of the concrete
compressive strength ( fc ). Thus,
[3] Vc = fc bw dv
and the steel contribution is given by
Av fyv dv
[4] Vs = cot
s corner of the beam shown in Fig. 2d gives
The term is a factor which depends on the ability of the
concrete to transmit tensile stresses. It is affected by differ-
ent parameters related to the amount of reinforcement and
the levels of axial tension, axial compression, bending, and
prestressing. Traditionally, the effects of these parameters
have been taken into account by using different equations for
different types of members and loading conditions (rein-
forced versus prestressed, effect of axial tension or compres-
sion and bending). In the current ACI code (ACI 1995), for
example, the different Vc equations correspond to a range of
from 0 for members subjected to significant tension forces,
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 26, 1999
up to 0.417 for some prestressed members. Equation [4] is
similar to Ritters equation (eq. [1]), but the angle of inclina-
tion of the truss member is a variable not necessarily equal
to 45.
The and values for members with and without trans-
verse reinforcement adopted by the Canadian code (CSA
1994) are shown in Fig. 1. These values are also presented
in tabular format in Table 1. This paper gives the back-
ground of the development of the general method. It dis-
cusses the theoretical basis of the equations and the
procedures and assumptions used to generate the and de-
sign values in the Canadian code.
The modified compression field theory
This section describes briefly the details of the theory
most relevant to the development of design factors and equa-
tions of the 1994 CSA-A23.3 Canadian building code (CSA
1994). More detail on the MCFT can be obtained from
Vecchio and Collins (1986 and 1988) and Collins and Mitch-
ell (1991).
Equilibrium equations
The equations of equilibrium are presented for the case of
non-prestressed members subjected to pure shear. The de-
sign equations will be generalized later to include the effects
of axial loads, bending moment, and prestressing.
Figures 2a and 2b show a symmetrically reinforced beam
subjected to shear near ultimate capacity. The shear force V
is resisted by the diagonal compressive stresses f2 together
with the diagonal tensile stresses f1. It is to be noted that the
principal tensile and compressive stresses vary at different
locations within the beam. For example, the tensile stress is
zero at crack locations, but is significant between the cracks.
If the stresses f1 and f2 are values averaged over an area
containing many cracks, Mohrs circle of stresses shown in
Fig. 2c can be used to summarize the state of average
stresses in the section. The following expression for f2 can
be derived:
[5] f2 = v(tan + cot ) f1
where is the angle that the principal compressive stresses
and strains make with the longitudinal axis of the beam (di-
agonal shear cracks are assumed to be oriented along the an-
gle ; see Fig. 2b); v = V/bwdv is the shear stress; bw is the
effective shear width; and dv is the effective shear depth (dv
= 0.9d, where d is the effective depth). Using eq. [5] and
considering equilibrium in the transverse direction of the
Av fv
[6] V = f1 cot bwdv + dv cot
s
where Av is the area of stirrups within a spacing s; s is the
spacing of the stirrups measured along the length of the
beam; and fv is the stress in the stirrups. Equation [6] indi-
cates that the shear resistance of a reinforced concrete sec-
tion can be regarded as the sum of a concrete contribution
and a steel contribution.
As shown in Fig. 2b the diagonal stresses have compo-
nents in the longitudinal direction. Considering longitudinal
1999 NRC Canada
Rahal and Collins 829

Fig. 1a. Design values of and for members with web reinforcement.

equilibrium in Fig. 2b, substituting f2 from eq. [5] and rear- linear up to the cracking stress fcr. After the formation of the
ranging gives initial cracks, a significant decay in the concrete stress oc-
curs, but the cracked concrete is held together by aggregate
[7] Al fl = ( f2 cos 2 f1 sin2 )bwdv = V cot f1bwdv interlock and by increased stresses in the reinforcement
crossing the crack. After cracking, the average tensile stress
where Al and fl are respectively the area and the average in the concrete decreases as the straining of the cracked con-
stress in the longitudinal reinforcing bars. Equation [7] crete increases. Based on the results from element tests
quantifies the effects of the shear force on the longitudinal (Vecchio and Collins 1986; Kirschner and Collins 1986), the
steel. relationship is taken as

Constitutive relationships fcr

Figure 3a shows the average stress average strain rela- [8] f1 =
tionship of concrete in tension. The curve is assumed to be 1 + 5001

1999 NRC Canada

830 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 26, 1999

Fig. 1b. Design values of and for members without web reinforcement.

where 1 is the average principal tensile strain (positive
quantity), and fcr is the cracking stress of concrete taken as
0.33 fc .
For large values of 1, the cracks become wide and the
magnitude of f1 is limited by the yielding of the reinforce-
ment at the crack and by the ability of the crack to transmit
forces across the crack interface. By considering the equilib-
rium of forces at a crack this upper limit for f1 can be found
as
Av
[9] f1 v ci tan + ( fyv fv)
bw s
where fv and fyv are respectively the average stress and the
yield strength of the transverse reinforcement, and vci is the
maximum local shear stress that can be transmitted across
the crack. The quantity vci is related to the concrete strength
fc, the crack width w, and the maximum aggregate size a
through the following expression, which was derived
(Vecchio and Collins 1986) by considering the shear friction
tests of Walraven (1981):
018
. fc
[10] v ci =
0.3 + [24w(a + 16)]

1999 NRC Canada

Rahal and Collins 831

Table 1a. Design values of and for members with transverse reinforcement.
Longitudinal strain, x 1000
vf / fc 0.0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.5 2.0
0.050 0.405 0.290 0.208 0.197 0.185 0.162 0.143
27.0 28.5 29.0 33.0 36.0 41.0 43.0
0.075 0.405 0.250 0.205 0.194 0.179 0.158 0.137
27.0 27.5 30.0 33.5 36.0 40.0 42.0
0.100 0.271 0.211 0.200 0.189 0.174 0.143 0.120
23.5 26.5 30.5 34.0 36.0 38.0 39.0
0.125 0.216 0.208 0.197 0.181 0.167 0.133 0.112
23.5 28.0 31.5 34.0 36.0 37.0 38.0
0.150 0.212 0.203 0.189 0.171 0.160 0.125 0.103
25.0 29.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 36.5 37.0
0.200 0.203 0.194 0.174 0.151 0.131 0.100 0.083
27.5 31.0 33.0 34.0 34.5 35.0 36.0
0.250 0.191 0.167 0.136 0.126 0.116 0.108 0.104
30.0 32.0 33.0 34.0 35.5 38.5 41.5

Table 1b. Design values of and for members without transverse reinforcement.
Longitudinal strain, x 1000
sz (mm) 0.0 0.25 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
125 0.406 0.309 0.263 0.214 0.183 0.161
27 29 32 34 36 38
250 0.384 0.283 0.235 0.183 0.156 0.138
30 34 37 41 43 45
500 0.359 0.248 0.201 0.153 0.127 0.108
34 39 43 48 51 54
1000 0.335 0.212 0.163 0.118 0.095 0.080
37 45 51 56 60 63
2000 0.306 0.171 0.126 0.084 0.064 0.052
41 53 59 66 69 72

The average crack width w is taken as 1s, where s is the
spacing of the diagonal cracks given by
1
[11] s =
(sin sz ) + (cos sv)
where sv and sz are the crack spacings indicative of the crack
control characteristics of the transverse and longitudinal re-
inforcement respectively (see Fig. 4).
The diagonally cracked concrete in the web of the mem-
ber is subjected to transverse strain 1. This transverse strain
has the opposite effect of confinement and, hence, weakens
the ability of the concrete to withstand compression. This
phenomenon is referred to as concrete softening. Based on
tests of reinforced concrete elements (Vecchio and Collins
1986), it has been found that the maximum attainable con-
crete stress f2max can be expressed as
fc
[12] f2 max = fc
0.8 + 1701
As a simple, but reasonably accurate, approximation, the
stressstrain relationship of a concrete cylinder in compres-
sion can be assumed to be parabolic, with a peak at fc and a
corresponding strain c (positive value) (see Fig. 3b). For
diagonally cracked concrete, the stressstrain relationship
can be represented by
2
[13] f2 = 2 2 2 f2max
c c
where 2 is the principal compressive strain (positive when
compressive). The modified stressstrain curve is shown in
Fig. 3b.
The stressstrain relationship of the reinforcing steel is as-
sumed to be elastic up to the yield stress, followed by a flat
yield plateau.
Compatibility equations
Cracks in the concrete represent discontinuities, which
complicate the application of the compatibility requirements.
However, strains averaged over a length containing a number
of cracks can be considered to be related by the require-
ments of a continuous material. Mohrs circle (Fig. 2e) sum-
marizes these requirements and gives the following
expressions for the transverse strain in the stirrup, v, and
the principal tensile strain, 1:
[14] v = 1 (1 x ) tan2

1999 NRC Canada

832 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 26, 1999

Fig. 2. Equilibrium and compatibility conditions for a symmetrically reinforced concrete beam subjected to pure shear: (a) cross
section, (b) principal stresses in concrete, (c) average concrete stresses, (d) tension in web reinforcement, and (e) average strains.

Fig. 3. Stressstrain relationship of concrete: (a) in tension and [15] 1 = x + (x + 2 ) cot 2

(b) in compression.
where x and v are respectively the longitudinal and trans-
verse strains (positive when tensile). The angle can be re-
lated to the strain in the reinforcement by the following
relationship:
x + 2
[16] tan2 =
v + 2

Design using MCFT

In its original form, the MCFT is a powerful analysis tool
where the solution to the full response of sections subjected
to shear, bending, axial load, and torsion can be obtained
(Rahal and Collins 1995; Collins and Mitchell 1991;
Vecchio and Collins 1986, 1988). It is suitable for program-
mable calculators and personal computers, since it normally
requires an iterative solution technique.
By incorporating appropriate simplifying assumptions, the
theory can be cast in a simple form suitable for design while
maintaining adequate accuracy and generality. This section
describes the simplifying assumptions and the procedure
used to evaluate the concrete and steel contributions to the
shear strength.

Members with transverse reinforcement

Comparing eq. [3] with eq. [6] gives
f1 cot
[17] =
fc

As shown in Fig. 3, f1 depends on 1 (eq. [8]), but could be

limited by the ability of the crack to transmit forces

1999 NRC Canada

Rahal and Collins 833

Fig. 4. Spacing of inclined cracks in members with web reinforcement (from Collins and Mitchell 1991): (a) cross section, (b) inclined
cracks due to shear, (c) vertical cracks due to axial tension, and (d) horizontal cracks due to transverse tension.

(eq. [9]). Hence, from eqs. [17], [8], and [9], can be calcu-
1 = x + x + 0.002 1 =
v
lated as follows: [22]
fc
0.33 cot
[18] =
1 + 5001
1 1 (tan + cot )(08
. + 1701) cot 2
v
but is limited to fc

cot 0.18
[19] (v ci tan ) = If x and vfc are known, eq. [22] gives a relationship be-
fc 0.3 + [241 s(a + 16)]
tween and 1, which are the two terms necessary to calcu-
In deriving eq. [19], it was assumed that the stirrups have late the concrete and steel contributions to the shear strength
yielded when the ultimate conditions are reached, i.e., fv = (see eqs. [3], [4], [18], and [19]). The term can be obtained
fyv in eq. [9]. Both expressions for indicate that it is related from eqs. [18] and [19], provided the crack spacing, s, and
to 1, and that it decreases as 1 increases. the maximum aggregate size, a, are known.
Near ultimate conditions, the contribution of f1 in eq. [5] The CSA 1994 shear design provisions specify that the
is small relative to the other term and can be conservatively amount of transverse reinforcement must be such that the
neglected. Thus, quantity Av fy/(bws) is at least equal to 0.06 fc . Beams that
contain at least this minimum amount of transverse rein-
[20] f2 = v (tan + cot ) forcement are assumed to have a well-distributed pattern of
diagonal cracks so that the spacing of these cracks can be
Assuming that the strain at which the concrete reaches its taken as 300 mm (12 in.). Further, the maximum aggregate
peak stress is 0.002, the parabolic stressstrain curve shown size is assumed to be 19 mm (3/4 in.).
in Fig. 3 and eq. [13] can be described by When the MCFT is used to determine the failure shear of
a given section subjected to given loading ratios, the pre-
2 = 0.0021 1 2
f dicted value of at failure has just one value. However,
[21]
f2max when the MCFT is used to design the section to resist speci-

fied loads, a range of values of is possible. In general,
where f2max is the maximum compressive stress resisted by lower values of will be associated with designs that require
the cracked concrete, given by eq. [12]. less transverse reinforcement but more longitudinal rein-
Substituting eqs. [20] and [12] into [21], and then eq. [21] forcement. For a given set of values of x and vfc, a design
into [15], and rearranging gives range of values from min to max can be determined (see

1999 NRC Canada

834 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 26, 1999

Table 2. Values of min and max for members with transverse reinforcement.

x 1000
v / fc 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.5 2.0
0.05 14.0 15.1 16.1 16.7 17.4 18.5 19.5
17.4 23.7 28.8 32.9 36.1 41.2 45.0
0.075 16.6 17.8 18.7 19.6 20.3 21.8 22.9
19.9 25.3 29.8 33.5 36.5 41.2 45.0
0.100 18.8 20.0 21.1 22.1 22.9 24.5 25.8
21.9 26.5 30.6 34.0 36.9 41.5 45.0
0.125 20.8 22.2 23.2 24.3 25.2 27.0 28.5
23.5 27.8 31.5 34.6 37.3 41.6 45.0
0.150 22.6 24.0 25.3 26.3 27.5 29.3 31.1
25.0 28.8 32.3 35.2 37.7 41.7 45.0
0.200 26.1 27.6 29.1 30.4 31.6 33.8 36.1
27.7 30.9 33.7 36.3 38.4 42.1 45.0
0.25 29.4 31.1 32.7 34.4 35.8 38.6 41.5
30.0 32.6 35.1 37.3 39.3 42.4 45.0
0.30 32.665 34.695 36.610 38.470 40.320
32.675* 34.835* 36.855* 38.700* 40.375*
*Relatively limited range of feasible .

No range of feasible .

Fig. 5. Selection of opt for members with web reinforcement.
Table 2). The use of values less than min will result in the
calculated value of the diagonal compressive stress, f2, being
greater than the calculated crushing strength of the concrete,
f2max. This case corresponds to a negative number under the
square root in eq. [22]. The use of values greater than max
will result in the calculated value of the stirrup strain, v, be-
ing less than the assumed yield strain, which is 0.002.
The recommended design values for listed in Table 1a
were determined by evaluating the cost of the required shear
reinforcement, both transverse and longitudinal reinforce-
ment, and choosing the value that corresponds to a mini-
mum cost. The cost factor used is
v v
[23] CO = 3 tan + + cot
fc fc fc fc ble 2, it will be found that the five values of in the upper
The first term in this expression accounts for the cost of the
transverse reinforcement (i.e., the stirrups), while the second
term accounts for the cost of the additional longitudinal rein-
forcement that will be required to resist the shear. Appendix
2 gives the details of the derivation of eq. [23].
Table 2 and Fig. 5 illustrate the procedure of choosing the
optimum value of for the case of x = 0.001 and vfc =
0.10. For each possible value of the corresponding value of
1 is calculated from eq. [22]. The solution to this quadratic
equation is described in Appendix 3. With 1 and known,
the concrete contribution factor, , can be evaluated from
eqs. [18] and [19]. The stirrup strain, v, and the concrete
stress ratio, f2/f2max, are also calculated to verify that the
mode of failure will be appropriate. Finally, the cost factor,
CO, is determined from eq. [23]. In evaluating this cost
function it is assumed that fc equals 35 MPa. In the example
shown, the optimum angle is chosen to be 36 with a corre-
sponding value of 0.174.
Table 2 shows the range of feasible for x ranging from
0 to 0.002 and vfc ranging from 0.05 to 0.30. At relatively
larger values of vfc, the feasible range of becomes very
small, or even nonexistent such as in the cases where vfc =
0.30 and x = 0.002. A practical upper limit on vfc is set to
0.25. The selection of the limits on x will be discussed in a
following section where the equation for x is presented.
Figure 1a and Table 1a show the selected values of the
design parameters and (from CSA 1994), where the
values were rounded off to the nearest 0.5. In addition,
some small adjustments were made to smooth the curves
shown in Fig. 1a. In the cases where opt was close to one of
the limits, rounding it causes the selected to fall slightly
outside the optimum range. This, however, has limited sig-
nificance for calculations based on the method.
If the recommended design values of listed in Table 1a
are compared with the values of min and max listed in Ta-
left of Table 1a are significantly greater than the correspond-
ing max values in Table 2 (shown in bold). In these cases the
shear that needs to be resisted is relatively low, while the pa-
rameters that increase the concrete contribution, Vc, such as

1999 NRC Canada

Rahal and Collins
Fig. 6. Crack spacing parameter sz for (a) concentrated longitudinal reinforcement and (b) distributed longitudinal reinforcement.
prestressing or high axial compression are significant (i.e.,
low values of x ). For these designs, the amount of trans-
verse reinforcement required will typically be less than the
specified minimum amount for members with transverse re-
inforcement. Because of this the and values for these five
cases are based on the procedures for members without
transverse reinforcement as described below.
Members without transverse reinforcement
In sections reinforced in the longitudinal direction only,
there is no contribution from the stirrups to the nominal
shear strength. Consequently, eq. [2] is reduced to
[24] Vr = Vc + Vp
The and values derived in the previous sections cannot be
applied in the case of sections without adequate transverse
reinforcement because these values are based on the assump-
tion that a reasonable crack control is provided by the trans-
verse reinforcement and that the ultimate stress occurs at
relatively large strains. The lack of transverse reinforcement
causes the diagonal crack spacing, s, to be considerably dif-
ferent from the 300 mm assumed in the previous case. This
significantly influences , the main parameter affecting the
strength of members without adequate transverse reinforce-
ment (see eqs. [19] and [24]). Consequently, the and val-
ues developed in the previous section can be unconservative
for members with no transverse reinforcement.
835
If there is no transverse reinforcement, there is no crack
control for horizontal cracks, so the term sv (see Fig. 4) be-
comes infinity. The spacing of the diagonal cracks, s, as
given by eq. [11] then becomes
sz
[25] s =
sin
where sz can be calculated based on Fig. 6.
Table 1b and Fig. 1b show the CSA-A23.3 and design
factors for members not reinforced in the transverse direc-
tion (CSA 1994). The design parameters are x and sz. Even
though there is no steel contribution to the resistance, the an-
gle is listed in the table, since it affects the longitudinal
strain x , as shown in a following section.
The crack control parameter sz accounts for the size effect
in shear, which is the name given to the observation that
large reinforced concrete beams, which do not contain stir-
rups, fail at shear stresses that are typically significantly
lower than those of geometrically similar smaller beams
(Collins and Mitchell 1991; Shioya 1989; Kani 1967). Spe-
cial provisions for size effects in shear were also imple-
mented in the 1994 simplified method (CSA 1994). The
change affected members deeper than 300 mm.
The technique used to generate the design values of and
of Fig. 1b and Table 1b is similar to the one for members
with transverse reinforcement, but simpler. For each value of
, two values of (eqs. [18] and [19]) are calculated based
on 1, with the smaller of the two governing. The optimum
1999 NRC Canada
836 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 26, 1999

Table 3. Calculation of opt for x = 0.001 and vfc = 0.10 for members with transverse reinforcement.

1 (103) (eq. [18]) ([eq. 19]) (gov.) v (103) f2max (MPa) 2 ( 103) f2 (MPa) f2/f2max CO Comments
42 2.56 0.1737 0.2148 0.1737 1.30 28.3 0.27 7.03 0.24 0.335 Stirrups not
40 2.82 0.1817 0.2019 0.1817 1.54 27.4 0.28 7.10 0.25 0.330 yielding
38 3.12 0.1896 0.1883 0.1883 1.83 26.3 0.30 7.21 0.27 0.329
36 3.50 0.1975 0.174 0.174 2.18 25.1 0.32 7.36 0.29 0.332 optimum
34 3.96 0.2053 0.159 0.159 2.62 23.8 0.35 7.54 0.31 0.336
32 4.55 0.2126 0.1433 0.1433 3.17 22.2 0.39 7.79 0.35 0.341
30 5.33 0.2193 0.1268 0.1268 3.89 20.5 0.44 8.08 0.39 0.346 Feasible
28 6.39 0.2249 0.1096 0.1096 4.87 18.6 0.52 8.44 0.45 0.353
26 7.95 0.2283 0.0914 0.0914 6.29 16.3 0.65 8.88 0.54 0.360
24 10.6 0.2266 0.0712 0.0712 8.71 13.4 0.91 9.41 0.70 0.369
22 No solution Crushing

Table 4. Calculation of opt and b for sz = 500 mm and x = 0.0005 for members without transverse reinforcement.

sz (mm) 1 (103) (eq. [18]) (eq. [19]) (gov.) (MPa) f2 (MPa) f2max (MPa) 2 (103) 1 (103)
39.0 794.5 1.357 0.223 0.173 0.173 1.02 2.09 33.96 0.0627 1.358
40.0 777.9 1.301 0.218 0.181 0.181 1.07 2.18 34.27 0.0645 1.302
41.0 762.1 1.249 0.212 0.189 0.189 1.12 2.26 34.57 0.0664 1.250
42.0 747.2 1.201 0.207 0.197 0.197 1.16 2.34 34.86 0.0683 1.201
42.5 740.1 1.178 0.204 0.201 0.201 1.19 2.38 34.99 0.0693 1.178
43.0 733.1 1.155 0.201 0.204 0.201 1.19 2.39 35.00 0.0693 1.155
43.5 726.4 1.131 0.198 0.208 0.198 1.17 2.35 35.00 0.0684 1.131
44.0 719.8 1.108 0.196 0.213 0.196 1.16 2.32 35.00 0.0674 1.108
45.0 707.1 1.065 0.191 0.220 0.191 1.13 2.26 35.00 0.0656 1.066
46.0 695.1 1.026 0.186 0.228 0.186 1.10 2.20 35.00 0.0638 1.026
47.0 683.7 0.989 0.181 0.236 0.181 1.07 2.14 35.00 0.0622 0.989

Fig. 7. Selection of opt for members without web reinforcement.
angle opt is that which corresponds to the highest value of
. Once again, the maximum aggregate size, a, is assumed to
be equal to 19 mm (3/4 in.).
Solution technique for members without transverse
reinforcement
Step 1. Select x and sz for which the design parameters are
to be determined.
Step 2. For a wide range of (say 20 to 85).
Step 3. Calculate s using eq. [25].
Step 4. By trial and error, calculate 1 and the corresponding
as shown in steps 4a to 4h.
4a. Assume 1.
4b. Calculate using eqs. [18] and [19].
4c. Calculate v = / fc (see eq. [3]).
4d. Calculate f2 using eq. [20].
4e. Calculate f2max using eq. [12].
4 f. Calculate 2 using eq. [21].
4g. Calculate 1 using eq. [15].
4h. If 1 differs from what was assumed at step 4a
by more than an acceptable tolerance, revise 1
and repeat step 4.
Step 5. Plot versus , and repeat step 2 if necessary.
Step 6. Select that gives the maximum .
Since is the smaller of the two values obtained from
eqs. [18] and [19], the highest is that when both equations
give the same value. The solution can be simplified by solv-
ing eq. [22] iteratively and setting computed from eq. [18]
equal to computed from eq. [19] (two equations in two un-
knowns, with 0.8 + 1701 > 1; see eq. [12]). However, the
detailed procedure described above may be easier to follow.
Table 4 and Fig. 7 show the results of the exercise for x =
0.0005 and sz = 500 mm. In this case, opt = 43 and the cor-
responding = 0.201.
Figure 1b and Table 1b show a significant size effect for
members without web reinforcement. For example, a mem-
ber with an effective depth of 1000 mm with concentrated
longitudinal reinforcement (sz d = 1000 mm) subjected to
significant bending (x = 0.002) can resist a shear stress of
only about 0.08 fc . A similar member with 125 mm effec-
tive depth can resist twice this shear stress. The ability of
these design equations to capture the size effect in shear for

1999 NRC Canada

Rahal and Collins
Fig. 8. Contribution of stress resultants to x .
members without adequate reinforcement was demonstrated
by Collins and Mitchell (1991) and Collins et al. (1996).
Shear stress
In the design process, the shear stress v used in vfc is cal-
culated as follows:
Vf Vp
[26] v=
bwdv
The contribution Vp is subtracted from the factored shear
Vf, since the part of the shear force resisted by the vertical
component of the prestressing force does not affect the
stresses in the concrete.
Longitudinal strain indicator
While is more directly related to 1, the design tables
were developed for different values of x , since it is easier to
visualize and to calculate. The term x represents the longi-
tudinal strain in the web concrete and in the longitudinal re-
inforcement. While x will actually vary over the depth of
the beam, an indicator of the magnitude of this strain can be
conveniently and conservatively calculated at the level of the
centroid of the flexural tension reinforcement. Thus, the in-
dicator of longitudinal strain, x , can be calculated as fol-
lows:
0.5N f + 0.5Vf cot + M f dv Ap fpo
[27] x =
Es As + Ep Ap
where Es is the modulus of elasticity of the non-prestressed
steel; Ep is the modulus of elasticity of the prestressed steel;
As is the area of non-prestressed steel in the flexural tension
zone; Ap is the area of prestressing steel in the flexural ten-
sion zone; fpo is the stress in the prestressing steel when the
strain in the surrounding concrete is zero; Nf is the factored
applied axial load (positive if tensile); Mf is the factored
bending moment (positive); and Vf is the factored shear
force (positive). Equation [27] is based on calculating the
837
force in the longitudinal tensile reinforcement caused by the
axial force, Nf, the shear, Vf, and the moment, Mf. For
non-prestressed sections, the strain x will be the tensile
force in the longitudinal reinforcement divided by the axial
stiffness of the longitudinal reinforcement (see Fig. 8). For
prestressed concrete sections, the longitudinal strain in the
concrete will remain compressive until the tensile force in
the longitudinal reinforcement exceeds Apfpo, where fpo is the
stress associated with the difference in strain between the
prestressed reinforcement and the surrounding concrete.
Equation [27] applies to positive (tensile) strains, which
are less than the yield strain of the reinforcement. For nega-
tive (compressive) values of x , the rigidity of the section
should include a contribution from the concrete to the term
in the denominator (EsAs + EpAp).
The stressstrain relationship of the longitudinal steel is
assumed to have a flat plateau after the occurrence of yield-
ing. Hence, for strains larger than the yield strain, the effec-
tive rigidity is less than EsAs + EpAp, and eq. [27] does not
give a correct estimate of the longitudinal strain. A practical
limit of x = 0.002 is set in Table 1 and Fig. 1. Moreover, de-
signs that satisfy this limitation will normally have adequate
longitudinal reinforcement to resist the applied moment, ax-
ial load, and shear. This check for the adequacy of the longi-
tudinal reinforcement is introduced in the following section.
Effect of shear on the longitudinal
reinforcement
Traditionally, the effects of shear on the stresses in the
longitudinal reinforcement at a section were accounted for
by extending the longitudinal bars a distance about equal to
the depth of the beam beyond the point where they were no
longer needed to resist flexure.
Collins et al. (1996) and Collins and Mitchell (1991) cal-
culated the longitudinal force at a cracked section due to the
shear force as cot (Vf 0.5Vs Vp). Since the angle is
calculated in the design, it is possible to calculate the force
caused by the shear force in the longitudinal direction and,
consequently, it is possible to rationally account for it in the
design of the longitudinal reinforcement.
The adequacy of the longitudinal reinforcement to resist
the stress that can be developed is checked by ensuring that
Mf
[28] As fyl + Ap fpr + 0.5N f + cot (Vf 0.5Vs Vp)
dv
where fyl is the yield strength of non-prestressed reinforce-
ment in tension zone and fpr is the stress in prestressing at
factored resistance. The left-hand side of eq. [28] represents
the factored maximum force that can be resisted by the steel
in the flexural tension zone of the section. The right-hand
side represents the maximum force that may develop in the
longitudinal reinforcement due to the effects of bending, ax-
ial force, and shear force.
Designs with x > 0.002 are not likely to satisfy eq. [28].
Consequently, a practical upper limit of x = 0.002 is set in
the design tables and figures.
1999 NRC Canada
838
Conclusions
This paper presented the background of the development
of the general method which is an alternative shear design
method in the 1994 CSA-A23.3 building code. Simplifying
assumptions allowed the powerful MCFT to be cast into the
traditional Vc + Vs approach while maintaining an ade-
quate level of generality and accuracy.
In beams with transverse reinforcement, the diagonal
crack spacing and the maximum aggregate size were as-
sumed to be 300 and 19 mm respectively. Selecting from the
range of feasible design angles of the truss model was based
on minimizing an expression related to the total cost of the
production and placement of the reinforcement.
In beams without transverse reinforcement, the crack
spacing was taken as a variable affecting the strength. This
enables the method to account for the detrimental effect of
large size in calculating shear capacity. It is important to
note that the general method predicts that even members
without stirrups can have a substantial increase in shear ca-
pacity after formation of the first diagonal cracks.
Acknowledgements
The development of the modified compression field theory
has been made possible by a series of grants from the Natu-
ral Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
and the Networks of Centres of Excellence Program funded
by the Minister of State, Science and Technology, Canada.
Their support is gratefully acknowledged. This paper was
compiled during the periods of employment of the first au-
thor with Morrison Hershfield Limited, Toronto, and then
with Kuwait University. Support and availing the computer
facilities at both institutions is gratefully acknowledged.
References
ACI. 1995. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete
(ACI 318-95) and commentary (ACI 318 R-95). Committee 318,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.
Collins, M.P. 1978. Towards a rational theory for RC members in
shear. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 104(ST4):
649666.
Collins, M.P., and Mitchell, D. 1980. Shear and torsion design of
prestressed and non-prestressed concrete beams. Journal of the
Prestressed Concrete Institute, 25(5): 32100.
Collins, M.P., and Mitchell, D. 1991. Prestressed concrete struc-
tures. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Collins, M.P., Mitchell, D., Adebar, P.E., and Vecchio, F.J. 1996. A
general shear design method. ACI Structural Journal, 93(1):
3645.
CSA. 1984. Design of concrete structures for buildings. Standard
A23.3-M84, Canadian Standards Association, Etobicoke, Ont.
CSA. 1994. Design of concrete structures for buildings. Standard
A23.3-94, Canadian Standards Association, Etobicoke, Ont.
Kani, G.N.J. 1967. How safe are our large reinforced concrete
beams? Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 64:
128141.
Kirschner, U., and Collins, M.P. 1986. Investigating the behaviour
of reinforced concrete shell elements. Department of Civil Engi-
neering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., Publication No.
86-09.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 26, 1999
Mitchell, D., and Collins, M.P. 1974. Diagonal compression field
theory a rational model for structural concrete in pure tor-
sion. Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 71: 396408.
Rahal, K.N., and Collins, M.P. 1995. Analysis of sections sub-
jected to combined shear and torsion a theoretical model.
ACI Structural Journal, 92(4): 459469.
Ritter, W. 1899. Die Bauweise Hennebique, Schweiserische
Bauzeitung, Zurich, Switzerland.
Shioya, T. 1989. Shear properties of large reinforced concrete
member. Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corporation, Tokyo,
Japan, Special Report No. 25.
Vecchio, F.J., and Collins, M.P. 1986. The modified compression
field theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear.
ACI Journal, 83(2): 219231.
Vecchio, F.J., and Collins, M.P. 1988. Predicting the response of
reinforced concrete beams subjected to shear using the modified
compression field theory. ACI Structural Journal, 85(4):
258268.
Walraven, J.C. 1981. Fundamental analysis of aggregate interlock.
ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 107(ST11):
22452270.
Appendix 1. List of symbols
a: maximum aggregate size
Al: total area of non-prestressed longitudinal reinforcement
in section subjected to pure shear
Ap: area of prestressed longitudinal reinforcement in flexural
tension zone of section
As: area of non-prestressed longitudinal reinforcement in
flexural tension zone of section
Av: area of transverse reinforcement within a distance s
bw: effective shear width of section
CO: indicator of cost of reinforcement
dv: effective shear depth of section
Ep: modulus of elasticity of prestressed steel
Es: modulus of elasticity of non-prestressed steel
fcr: cracking stress of concrete
fcx: stress in concrete in longitudinal direction
fcv: stress in concrete in transverse direction
fc: specified compressive strength of concrete
fl: stress in longitudinal steel
fpo: stress in prestressing steel when stress in surrounding
concrete is zero
fpr: stress in prestressing steel at factored resistance
fv: stress in stirrups
fyl: yield strength of non-prestressed reinforcement in ten-
sion zone of section
fyv: yield strength of stirrups
f1: average diagonal tensile stress
f2: average diagonal compressive stress
f2max: compressive strength of diagonally cracked concrete
L: length of beam
Mf: factored bending moment (positive)
Nf: factored applied axial load including tensile effects of
shrinkage and creep (positive if tensile)
s: spacing of stirrups measured along length of beam
sv: crack spacing of transverse cracks in web members
sz: crack spacing of longitudinal cracks in web members
s: average spacing of diagonal cracks
V: shear force
Vc: contribution of concrete to shear resistance
1999 NRC Canada
 Rahal and Collins 839

Vf: factored shear force at section (positive) v + v c fc

[A2] Al L = cot bwdvL
Vp: contribution of inclined prestressed steel to shear resis- fc fyl
tance
Vr: factored shear resistance of section The term vc can be substituted with fc (see eq. [3]).
Vs: contribution of transverse shear reinforcement to shear Assuming that the transverse reinforcement consists of
resistance closed stirrups, the volume of transverse steel over a length
w: crack width L of the beam is 0.5Av2(dv + bw)L/s. Note that Av is the com-
1: factor accounting for bond characteristics of reinforce- bined cross-sectional area of both legs of the stirrups. As-
ment suming that dv = bw, the volume expression can be reduced
2 : factor accounting for duration of loading to 2AvdvL/s. Substituting Av/s from eq. [4] into the previous
: factor accounting for shear resistance of cracked concrete expression and rearranging gives the following volume of
1: average tensile principal concrete strain, positive when transverse reinforcement:
tensile v (v v c ) fc
2 : average compressive principal concrete strain, positive [A3] 2 s tan bwdvL = 2 tan bwdvL
fyv fc fyv
when compressive
v: transverse strain in stirrups, positive when tensile Combining eqs. [A2] and [A3], applying the 1.5 penalty fac-
x : longitudinal strain of flexural tension chord of member, tor on the volume of transverse reinforcement, assuming that
positive when tensile fyl and fyv are equal, replacing Vconcrete by bwdvL, and rear-
: angle that principal compressive stresses and strains make ranging give
with longitudinal axis of beam
max: maximum value in the feasible range of Vsteel fy v v
min : minimum value in the feasible range of [A4] = 3 tan + + cot
Vconcrete fc fc fc fc fc
opt : optimum value in the feasible range of
v: shearing stress due to shear The right-hand expression is the indicator of the cost of rein-
vc: concrete contribution to total shear stress forcement, CO, shown in eq. [23].
vci: limiting shear stress on the crack surface
vs: steel contribution to total shear stress
Appendix 3

Appendix 2 This appendix gives the closed-form solution for eq. [22].
With t = tan , and the strain in millistrains units, the strain
This appendix presents the derivation of an expression re- 1 can be obtained by solving the following quadratic equa-
lated to the cost of supplying and placing the longitudinal tion:
and transverse reinforcement in a beam of length L. The
[A5] A12 + B1 + C = 0
concrete and steel material reduction factors are assumed to
be equal to unity and are not included in the derivation. A where
penalty factor of 1.5 is applied to the cost of transverse rein-
t4
forcement to account for the increased cost associated with [A6] A=
bending and placing the stirrups. 4
The force in the longitudinal reinforcement at a crack lo- v 1 2 x 2
cation due to the applied shear is given by (Collins and [A7] B = 0.17 t + t (t + t 4)
Mitchell 1991) fc t 2

[A1] Al fyl = (V + Vc ) cot and

v 1
Equation [A1] can be rearranged to give the volume of lon- [A8] C = 0.8 t + + (1 + t 2 ) x + 0.25(1 + t 2 ) 2 x2
gitudinal reinforcement over a length L of the beam: fc t

1999 NRC Canada

V i e w p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t s