Shear strength in the new Eurocode 2. A step forward?

A. Cladera and A. R. Mar

The shear strength of reinforced concrete beams with stirrups has been a highly controversial matter since Ritter and Morsh proposed the rst truss models. Since then, different analytical models have been discussed, such as truss models with concrete contribution, shear/compression theories, truss models with variable angle of inclination, and compression eld theories. However, some of these models were too complex to be implemented in a code of practice and they had to be simplied. As Regan has pointed out, for simpler models the problem is mostly that of the need to neglect some factors, considered secondaries. However, what is secondary in one case may be primary in another. With the release of the new Eurocode 2 (prEN 1992-1-1:2003) the controversy has been raised again. The EC-2 proposes a very simple formulation based on a truss model. However, the authors think that it is a gross oversimplication of a complex problem as it neglects important key variables. In this paper the new EC2 shear procedure predictions are compared to empirical tests and to other simplied formulations. It is concluded that the EC-2 procedure is very easy to use by practising engineers but it presents a great scatter of results. On the one hand, it may be too conservative for slightly shear-reinforced beams or for prestressed beams. On the other, it may be slightly unconservative for heavily reinforced members. [doi: 10.1680/stco.2007.8.2.57]

Antoni Cladera University of Balearic Islands, Palma de Mallorca, Spain Antonio R. Mar Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain

Introduction
The new Eurocode 2 Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings is going to be launched in some months. This new Eurocode1 is adapted to the challenges that practising engineers must confront in their everyday work, improving the previous code in many respects. The shear strength procedure has changed considerably from the previous Eurocode. For beams with web reinforcement, the shear strength is based on a truss model, with a variable angle of inclination of the struts and without any concrete contribution. This leads to a very simple procedure that allows practising engineers to calculate the shear strength, for any case, very quickly. In fact, it is almost This paper was rst submitted to Structural Concrete in October 2004.

as simple as the Ritter2 and Morsch3 models formulated in the early 20th century. However, it is the authors opinion that this signicant simplication may overlook some important parameters affecting shear strength, as Regan already sentenced for some simplied models.4 The EC-2 shear procedure is based on a truss model and it veries the equilibrium condition, therefore the EC-2 model satises the lower bound theorem if the concrete and the steel do not exceed the yield condition anywhere, and consequently the method is safe. The latest models found in the technical literature, even the simplied models, try to satisfy the equilibrium and the compatibility conditions. In fact, complex models such as the modied compression eld theory (MCFT)5 may be explained as a truss model in which the shear strength is the sum of the steel and concrete contribution. The main difference from a classic truss model with concrete contribution (i.e. the procedure in the EC-2 of 19916) is that the concrete contribution in the MCFT is the vertical component of the shear stress transferred across the crack (Figure 1), y ci, and not the diagonal cracking strength. Models based on compatibility and equilibrium conditions predict that the angle of inclination of the struts at failure depends, among other factors, on the cross-sectional dimensions, the amount of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement and the bending moment concomitant with the shear force acting at

the studied section. For this reason, these models predict a non-linear response based on the amount of web reinforcement. The greater the number of stirrups the less effective they are7 because the angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses with respect to the longitudinal axis of the member increases. The truss model of the new Eurocode 2 proposes a linear response (without concrete contribution) until the failure is governed by crushing of the compression struts. As it will be discussed later, this leads to very conservative results when compared with experimental tests on lightly shear-reinforced beams and slightly unconservative results for highly shear-reinforced members.

Shear strength procedure for beams with web reinforcement in the new Eurocode 2
For reinforced concrete members with vertical shear reinforcement, the shear resistance, VRd,s, should be taken to be the lesser, either VRd;s or VRd;max ac bw znfcd =cot u tan u 2 Asw zfywd cot u s 1

where VRd,s is the design value of the shear force which can be sustained by the yielding shear reinforcement; VRd,max is the design value of

14644177 (Print) 17517648 (Online) # 2007 Thomas Telford and b

58

Cladera and Mar

Avfy

Avfy

f1

uci

4 Figure 1 Concrete contribution in the MCFT the maximum shear force which can be sustained by the member, limited by crushing of the compression struts; Asw is the crosssectional area of the shear reinforcement; s is the spacing of the stirrups; z is the lever arm, that may be considered as z 0.9d; fywd is the yield strength of the shear reinforcement; u is the angle of the inclined struts; bw is the width of the web; fcd is the design compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days; and ac is a coefcient that takes into account the effect of normal stresses on the shear strength. The recommended value of ac follows from the following expressions: 1 for non-prestressed structures; (1 scp/fcd) for 0 , scp 0.25fcd; 1.25 for 0.25fcd , scp 0.50fcd; and 2.5(1 2 scp/ fcd) for 0.50fcd , scp 1.00fcd. scp is compressive stress in concrete from axial load or prestressing. n is a coefcient that takes into account the increase of fragility and the reduction of shear transfer by aggregate interlock with the increase of the compressive concrete strength. It may be taken to be 0.6 for fck 60 MPa, and 0.9 2 fck/200 . 0.5 for high-strength concrete beams. The recommended limiting values for cot u are given by 1 cot u 2:5 3 fyk is the characteristic yield strength of stirrups. To carry out this study, the nal draft of the Eurocode 2 prEN 1992-1-1, dated December 2003, has been used.1 No major amendments are assumed to be carried out to this draft.

tested by the authors. Table 1 summarises the ranges of the different variables in the database. It is important to highlight that the main objective of this research was not to develop the most accurate database to justify the use of one or another model, but to qualitatively compare some shear procedures with different tested beams. Great efforts were made in order to avoid inaccuracies in the database. Nonetheless, if any errata existed in the nal database it would affect all the compared procedures. All the beams in the database contain at least the minimum amount of shear reinforcement proposed by the CSA-94 provision,11 shown by p Asw fy ! 0 06 fc bs 5

Comparison of the EC-2 predictions with test results Shear database

In order to evaluate the EC-2 shear procedure for reinforced concrete members with web reinforcement, a database with 202 beams was developed. It relied basically on the databases developed by Bentz,8 Kuchma9 and Zararis.10 Although all these 202 beams were reported to have failed in shear, some may actually have failed in exure. For this reason, and in order to obtain a fair comparison of shear code predictions and experimentally observed failure loads, a lter to eliminate those beams failing in exure was applied to the database. All beam specimens whose calculated exural strength was lower than the actual value reached during the test (with a 5% security margin) were removed from the database. Finally, the database was composed of 122 beam specimens. All the beams were simply supported and loaded with one or two point loads. The longitudinal reinforcement was constant along the beam. The shear span to depth ratio, a/d, for all these beam specimens was greater than 2.49. Figure 2 shows the shear span of a typical reinforced concrete beam specimen

where fy is the yield strength of stirrups. The previous expression was chosen because it is the minor minimum amount of shear reinforcement of the different studied codes. Yoon et al. 12 justied that it offers an adequate reserve of strength after the web cracking.

Comparison with the test results

Comparisons between the experimental results and those obtained by the code procedure are given in Table 2 and in the Appendix. The value of the ratio Vfail/Vpred (shear force causing failure in the empirical test/predicted shear resistance by different compared formulations) has been calculated for each beam specimen. If the shear strength calculated by the EC-2 procedure was higher than the concomitant shear force at the exural failure load, the latter has been considered as the value of the EC-2 shear strength. The average Vfail/Vpred ratio for the 122 beam specimens is 1.64 with a coefcient of variation (CoV) of 32.24% for the new EC-2 formulation. It can be seen in Table 2 that the average of the Vfail/Vpred ratio for the EC-2 shear procedure varies signicantly for different subsets of beams. For heavily shear-reinforced concrete beams (rwfy . 2 MPa where r w is the reinforcement ratio for shear reinforcement) the EC-2 is slightly unconservative with a
Structural Concrete

The new EC-2 proposes, as the minimum amount of web reinforcement, p Asw fyk ! 0:08 fck bs 4

where fck is the characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days; and

2007 8 No 2

Shear strength in the new Eurocode 2

59

Comparison of the test results with other formulations

The empirical shear strength of the 122 beam specimens of the database has been compared with four other formulations: the truss model with concrete contribution of the old EC-26 (ENV 1992-1-1:1991), the equation 11-3 of the ACI 318-02 Code,13 the draft for public comment of the CSA14 (CSA Committee A23.3, 2003), and a semi-analytical method proposed by Cladera and Mar.7 All these methods are summarised in Table 3. The procedure proposed by Cladera and Mar7 is based on a truss model with a variable angle of inclination of the struts plus a concrete contribution. The angle is obtained by compatibility, based on the MCFT. To adjust the concrete contribution, an articial neural network was developed to predict the shear strength of reinforced beams failing on diagonal tension failure and, based on its results, a parametric study was carried out. The concrete contribution takes into account the main observations of this parametric study. To calculate the shear strength predicted by the methods that consider the inuence of the bending moment on the shear strength (CSA 200314 and Cladera and Mar7) a critical location must be selected. This has been taken as a distance 0.9d from the edge of the loading plate. As the dimensions of the loading plate were not always known, it has been considered a 150 mm wide (%6 inch) loading plate. The results shown in Table 2 indicate that for reinforced concrete members with web reinforcement the average of the Vfail/Vpred ratio is equal to 1.19 for the old EC-2 shear procedure, 1.38 for the ACI 318-02 shear procedure, 1.13 for the CSA formulation and 1.06 for the proposed method by Cladera and Mar. The coefcients of variance (CoVs) are 17.95, 22.25, 17.27 and 15.44% respectively. It can be seen that even the very simple equation 11-3 of the ACI 318-02 correlates better with the empirical tests than the new EC-2 does. The old EC-2 formulation of 1991 also offers a better correlation with the test results than the new EC-2 shear procedure. The relationship between the predictions by different methods considered in this paper and the amount of web reinforcement is presented

4 Figure 2 Cracking at shear failure for a typical reinforced concrete beam

Table 1 Range of parameters in the database Parameter d: mm rl: % rwfy: MPa fc: MPa a/d Vfail: kN Minimum 95 0.76 0.31 21 2.49 15.6 Maximum 1200 5.80 3.28 125.2 5.00 1172.2

Vfail/Vpred ratio equal to 0.86. On the other hand, for lightly reinforced concrete beams (rwfy 1 MPa) the EC-2 is excessively conservative with a Vfail/Vpred ratio equal to 1.80. In Figure 3

the relationship between the EC-2 shear strength predictions and the amount of web reinforcement is presented. The conservative results for slightly reinforced concrete beams are evident as the concrete contribution is neglected, a very important factor when the steel contribution is low. The slightly unconservative results for highly reinforced concrete beams are due to the assumption of the EC-2 procedure that the angle of the concrete struts can be as low as cot u 2.5; meanwhile for highly reinforced beams cot u may only reach values around 1.101.30 according to models based on equilibrium and compatibility.

Table 2 Verication of different shear procedures for reinforced concrete beams with stirrups Beam specimens # Average Vfail/Vpred CoV Vfail/Vpred CSA Cladera 2003 2004 17.27 14.15 17.94 11.55 13.41 19.61 19.93 12.74 15.44 12.08 15.37 10.82 13.11 12.11 18.93 11.94

EC-2 EC-2 ACI CSA Cladera EC-2 EC-2 ACI 2003 1991 11-3 2003 2004 2003 1991 11-3 All d ! 750 mm rwfy 1 MPa rwfy . 1 MPa, rwfy 2 MPa rwfy . 2 MPa fc 70 MPa fc . 70 MPa rl 2 % 122 9 92 22 8 73 49 25 1.64 1.20 1.80 1.23 0.86 1.64 1.63 1.50 1.19 1.04 1.20 1.18 1.06 1.14 1.26 1.03 1.38 0.97 1.41 1.34 1.13 1.35 1.42 1.12 1.13 0.93 1.15 1.12 0.95 1.09 1.18 1.01 1.06 1.07 1.09 1.02 0.88 1.04 1.09 1.09 32.24 10.04 27.01 17.79 12.54 30.14 35.47 30.17 17.95 17.41 18.48 14.32 18.92 14.47 20.31 13.80 22.25 18.83 23.04 15.78 17.28 14.16 25.26 20.23

Structural Concrete

2007 8 No 2

60

Cladera and Mar

400 350 300 Vfail/Vpred 250 200 150 100 050 000 400 350 300 Vfail/Vpred 250 200 150 100 050 000 000 100

EC-2 prEN 1992-1-1:2003

ACI 318-02 Eq.11-3

CSA 2003

Cladera and Mari (2004)

200 rwfy: MPa

300

400

000

100

200 rwfy: MPa

300

400

4 Figure 3 Correlation of the EC-2, ACI 318-02, CSA 2003 and Cladera and Mar procedures with empirical tests. Inuence of the amount of web reinforcement

Table 3 Summary of different shear design procedures Formulation EC-2 nal draft prEN 1992-1-1:2003 EC-2 ENV 1992-1-1:1991 VRd,c 0 VRd,s Asw =szfywd cot u VRd, max ac bw znfcd cot u=1 cot2 u VRd,c tRd k(12 40rl ) 015scp bw d VRd,s Asw =s zfywd VRd, max 1 nfcd bw 09d 2 p Vc b fc bw z Comments 1 cot u 25

fc , 50 MPa rl 2.0 tRd 025fctk005 k 16 d ! 1

d(m)

Public review draft CSA Sept 2003

ACI 318-02

Prop. Cladera and Mar (2004)

Vs Av fy =s z cot u Vmax = 025fc bw d p  fc =6 bw d (11-3) Vc p Vs Asw =s zfywd 067 fc bw d There are other expressions for prestressed beams or for beams with axial forces h i 02 Vc 017j(100rl )1=2 fc t1=3 015scp bw d Vs dv Aw =sfywd cot u

b and u are given in simple design equations as function of the longitudinal strain at mid-depth. fc 64 MPa fc , 70 MPa Vd/M 1

u is expressed as a equation which depends on the longitudinal strain in the web and the non-dimensional shear

p j: size effect factor; j 1 (200/sx) 2.75 (sx is the smallest of 0.9d or vertical distance between longitudinal distributed reinforcement, where d is effective cross-section depth); t: t Vd/(bw 0.9d) 3 MPa (Vd is designing (factored) shear strength)

Structural Concrete

2007 8 No 2

Shear strength in the new Eurocode 2

61

in Figure 3. In the method proposed by Cladera and Mar,7 the Vfail/Vpred ratio is reduced by .24 as the amount of stirrups increases 1 (Vfail/Vpred 1.09 for beams with rwfy 1 MPa and Vfail/Vpred 0.88 for beams with rwfy . 2 MPa). However, this ratio was reduced by 2.09 times for the EC-2 procedure (Vfail/Vpred 1.80 for beams with rwfy 1 MPa and Vfail/Vpred 0.86 for beams with rwfy . 2 MPa). The reduction for the CSA procedure is equal to 1.21. As other formulations could have been used for this comparison, the authors encourage the researchers and engineers to correlate the test results with their national code procedure or any other shear formulation. The basic information of the beam specimens is presented in the Appendix. 4 Figure 4 Typical test conguration for a prestressed beam specimen

EC-2 predictions for prestressed concrete beams compared with other formulations
To study how well the EC-2 predicts the shear strength of prestress tested beams, 40 beam specimens in the works reported by Bennett and Balasooriya,15 Elzanaty et al.,16 Kaufman and Ramrez,17 Lyngberg,18 Shahawy and 19 Batchelor and Rangan20 have been studied. The photograph in Figure 4 illustrates a typical test conguration on a prestressed beam specimen. Table 4 compares the correlations of the different shear formulations with the empirical results. If the results of all beams are studied together, the new EC-2 shear procedure gives a Vfail/Vpred ratio equal to 1.22 with a coefcient of variation of 34.26%. However, it is possible to divide the beam specimens into two sets (Table 4). The rst set includes the beams that collapsed because of concrete crushing (22 beam specimens). The second contains the beams that failed after yielding of stirrups (18 beams). For the second set the new EC-2 shear procedure is more conservative. The new EC-2 procedure does not consider the inuence of the prestressing force on the shear strength (Table 3). For this reason, the average of the Vfail/Vpred ratio increases from 1.11 to 1.96 as the concrete compressive stress at the centroidal axis due to prestressing increases from scp 4.5 MPa to scp . 9 MPa.
Structural Concrete

Table 4 Verication of the EC-2 shear procedure and other formulations for prestressed beams with stirrups Beam specimens # Average Vtest/Vpred CoV Vtest/Vpred beams EC-2 EC-2 ACI CSA Cladera EC-2 EC-2 ACI CSA Cladera 2003 1991 11-3 2003 2004 2003 1991 11-3 2003 2004 40 22 18 4 8 6 1.22 0.98 1.52 1.11 1.41 1.42 1.37 1.49 1.39 1.45 1.23 1.34 1.10 0.94 1.12 1.22 1.20 1.24 1.04 1.26 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.15 1.18 34.26 12.87 30.16 10.22 17.75 14.75 14.21 14.47 9.77 17.61 16.87 14.17 12.32 9.75 12.37 12.44 11.84 13.11 15.90 9.01 14.62 17.15 11.29 22.37 9.12 4.65

All Concrete crushing Stirrups yielding scp 4.5 MPa scp .4.5 MPa, scp 9 MPa scp . 9 MPa

1.96 1.60 1.16 1.36 1.20

24.80 10.94 6.26 5.74

This behaviour is not observed so clearly for the other shear procedures. The proposed method for prestressed beams with web reinforcement by Cladera and Mar is an extension of the method for reinforced concrete beams and it is presented elsewhere.21

Conclusions
The new Eurocode 2 shear procedure for members with web reinforcement is, indeed, a very simple method to calculate the shear strength for practising engineers and it veries the lower bound theory of plasticity. However,

it neglects variables that may be primary for some beams, and it offers a great scatter of results when compared to empirical tests. These results may be slightly unconservative for highly shear-reinforced members, and they are too conservative for slightly reinforced beams, as no concrete contribution is considered. Moreover, the benet of prestressing is not taken into account due to the excessive simplicity of the model. Other formulations studied in this paper offers much better correlation to the empirical tests than the new Eurocode 2, even the well known ACI Code formulation or the shear procedure of the old Eurocode of 1991. Denitely, it is

2007 8 No 2

62

Appendix
fc: Vfail/ 2003 VCSA 181 177 173 178 181 182 182 406 111 109 16 26 30 18 74 24 85 113 84 94 95 98 1.19 126 310 255 1.41 357 445 809 749 606 1172 837 115 4 844 4 123 138 72 72 72 739 831 100 110 1.93 110 1.24 1.40 110 286 225 1.07 325 426 838 755 858 76 90 1.25 90 1.01 1.41 124 130 133 139 1.17 150 361 274 0.99 384 489 791 1.37 994 85 93 1.53 99 0.89 854 1.18 1044 96 105 1.39 118 1.36 121 1.37 128 122 1.02 1.11 1.14 1.33 1.26 1.14 22 1.14 1.15 249 228 251 517 129 119 17 32 30 24 95 116 150 161 164 150 1.00 164 546 546 1.00 597 0.87 0.96 0.97 1.16 0.94 0.83 1.21 1.11 240 201 1.00 1.21 239 256 2004 VClad Vfail/ Vfail/ MPa 330 350 340 350 350 340 350 440 276 276 275 258 179 258 292 269 269 269 269 271 271 525 525 525 549 445 483 464 844 844 4 3 3 3 2.65 460 494 788 638 3.1 383 271 222 136 338 271 3.6 150 105 1.43 133 105 116 71 113 3.6 3.6 1.62 1.27 151 71 113 121 71 109 3.6 3.6 1.03 1.09 1.69 2.12 1.10 1.34 95 71 85 72 76 36 63 51 4 20 7 17 12 3 28 14 19 15 2.02 2.86 1.46 1.17 1.90 1.67 3 25 7 17 12 19 3 16 7 14 10 13 112 54 78 62 88 117 54 82 64 90 3 468 428 1.09 394 432 1.19 1.08 461 1.02 3.97 208 110 186 169 1.88 1.23 193 202 122 162 145 1.25 1.12 1.15 1.08 220 111 182 167 3.95 3.97 1.98 1.66 215 110 183 168 1.17 1.21 1.14 1.15 173 120 151 1.14 138 1.04 4.01 4.01 1.28 189 1.31 192 1.39 175 1.44 1.96 168 110 179 166 233 106 179 164 kN 2003 VEC2-03 1991 VEC2-91 11-3 VACI fy: a/d Vfail: VEC-2 Vfail/ VEC-2 Vfail/ VACI VCSA VClad Vf,max

Author [Source]

Beam

b:

d:

Cladera and Mar

name 24 25 24 26 25 27 26 25 34 31 29 28 26 28 22 28 47 69 82 47 83 36 36 56 29 72 2.89 0.23 3.36 0.38 3.95 0.12 1.26 0.15 1.77 0.1

mm mm

rl: MPa %

rv: %

Bresler and

A-1

307

466

Scordelis10

CRA-1

305

460

3.92 3.98

2.20 1.52

1.30 0.94

1.22 0.90

1.29 0.95

CRB-1

229

457

1.8 0.1 1.69 0.1 2.28 0.15

1.42 192 1.01 188 1.25 167

1WCRA-1

305

457

1WCA-1

305

462

1WCB-1

231

460

1.71 0.1 1.76 0.1 2.34 0.15

3WCA-1

305

460

Bahl10

B45

240 1200

Placas and

R12

152

272

Regan10

R25

152

272

4.16 0.21 4.16 0.21

3.6 3.6

2.17 2.07

1.43 1.43

1.83 1.80

1.30 1.27

1.05 1.02

Swamy and

C3

76

95

Andriopoulos

10

O3

76

132

2.18 3.63

1.14 1.48

1.61 2.12

1.21 1.34

0.99 0.97

Z3

76

132

1.97 0.16 3.95 0.12 3.95 0.34

O4

76

132

Mphonde and

B50-3-3

152

298

Frantz

10

B100-3-3

152

298

3.6 3.6

2.14 1.34

1.21 1.12

1.49 1.33

1.04 1.00

0.90 0.84

B100-7-3

152

298

3.36 0.12 3.36 0.26 3.36 0.26

B100-11-3

152

298

B100-15-3

152

298

95 1.44 106 1.60 114 1.22 114

B150-7-3

152

298

3.36 0.26 3.36 0.26 3.36 0.38

B150-15-3

152

298

Johnson and

305

539

Ramirez

22

305

539

3.1 3.1

1.25 1.64

1.09 0.87

0.96 0.76

0.94 0.81

305

539

2.49 0.14 2.49 0.07 2.49 0.14

1.18 353 0.99 293 1.18 385

Anderson et al. 10

W1

406

345

Roller and Russell

23

457

871

0.93 1.24

1.03 0.97

0.94 0.90

Structural Concrete

457

762 125

2.31 0.39 1.88 0.16 2.35 0.16

1.08 489 0.94 880 0.99 845

0.94 494 1.00 1116 0.88 1248 1.12 1459 137 168 1.17 203

10 40 75 76

457

762 125

Sarsam and

AL2-N

180

233

Al-Musawi10

AL2-H

180

233

1.60 1.71

1.15 1.11

1.50 1.36

1.35 1.32

1.19 1.17

2007 8 No 2
2.23 0.09 2.23 0.09 2.81 0.09

BL2-H

180

233

CL2-H 80 74 76 41 98 90 4.54 0.78 324 426 426 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 228 147 208 147 206 147 278 147 253 147 224 147 260 233 118 253 147 219 147 282 195 178 107 229 105 175 105 258 147 203 3.01 2.74 99 242 147 260 147 98 2.65 1.97 1.73 1.50 1.44 1.67 2.17 1.66 1.76 2.04 1.65 1.77 195 175 183 195 195 214 171 179 179 195 139 195 195 195 1.73 1.53 195 1.30 1.15 1.48 1.27 1.30 1.13 1.32 1.04 1.28 0.98 1.33 1.46 1.24 1.33 195 1.40 1.89 1.06 1.43 195 162 162 162 162 162 145 154 167 167 189 149 147 147 167 113 167 167 195 162 3.28 721 547 569 585 1.32 1.27 598 333 483 490 689 380 502 504 3.28 3.28 1.23 660 1.81 1.80 1.37 1.24 552 261 455 451 483 261 386 362 3.28 3.28 1.22 542 1.37 591 1.22 571 1.85 2.11 1.25 1.21 1.03 1.02 1.17 1.05 1.09 363 190 357 330 457 190 357 330 409 409 460 505 585 574 695 221 221 221 221 1.22 1.08 1.40 1.79 187 1.51 195 1.52 208 1.19 1.22 1.05 1.23 1.07 1.20 0.92 1.24 1.42 1.79 143 1.45 197 1.56 203 1.22 1.28 221 221 197 208 224 224 249 156 199 199 229 163 222 226 0.99 1.33 1.71 208 1.56 208 1.38 208 267 277 254 230 286 267 277 254 230 286 3 123 143 107 99 141 147 295 295 685 685 685 756 756 775 1.04 775 326 326 326 326 326 326 332 332 332 332 332 207 330 330 338 225 281 309 (Table continued) 1.09 1.15 1.13 1.24 1.15 0.88 1.13 1.14 1.13 0.98 1.31 208 1.50 230 1.19 166 1.32 1.12 1.15 1.01 0.93 1.26 1.18 1.04 1.05 1.09 323 3 108 119 98 88 129 144 0.91 0.86 1.11 1.14 1.23 110 1.24 121 0.99 1.01 0.84 0.87 324 3 102 93 88 77 98 119 146 322 3 87 92 81 68 85 95 95 3.5 543 221 92 119 99 150 275 0.18 2.22 131 543 247 67 108 88 135 274 2.5 2.5 3.71 2.39 2.28 1.86 2.07 1.68 1.83 1.47 543 207 92 119 99 139 230

180

233

70

844

147

72

110

90

129

233

BS4-H

180

233

4 2.5

2.05 2.24

1.33 1.74

1.39 1.66

1.14 1.49

CS3-H

180

233

3.5 0.09 2.81 0.18 3.5 0.13

1.63 106 2.08 124 2.81 119

Structural Concrete

CS4-H

180

233

Xie et al. 10

NNW-3

127

203

NHW-3

127

198

0.95 1.10

1.07 1.17

1.28 1.34

1.03 1.04

0.91 0.86

NHW-3a

127

198

3.2 0.49 4.54 0.51 4.54 0.65

2007 8 No 2
57 56 36 36 36 67 67 87 87 64 64 64 64 64 64 73 73 73 73 73 67 67 67 87 87 89 89 2.49 2.49 2.5 2.53 2.5 2.49 0.157 569 0.209 569 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.8 0.157 569 0.157 569 0.157 569 2.5 2.5 2.8 0.23 2.8 2.8 0.16 0.14 2.8 2.8 0.11 0.11 3.03 0.34 3.03 0.34 3.27 3.27 0.96 0.96 1.05 1.05 1.16 267 1.16 267 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 2.8 2.8 0.08 0.08 3.28 3.28 2.40 1.91 1.28 1.02 1.04 0.83 1.12 0.89 1.38 438 1.10 438 1.33 470 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.5 1.56 1.42 1.17 1.07 1.10 1.00 1.03 0.94 0.157 569 0.157 569 0.157 569 1.41 208 1.28 208 1.27 208 0.105 569 0.126 569 0.157 569 2.8 1.65 0.101 632 2.79 0.101 632 2.79 0.101 632 1.56 190 1.19 190 1.55 208 2.8 0.157 569 2.78 0.157 569 2.8 0.157 569 2.8 0.157 569

NHW-3b

127

198 103

McGormley

BUIS-3

203

419

et al.

10

EUIS-3

203

419

Yoon et al.

12

N1-N

375

655

N2-S

375

655

N2-N

375

655

M2-S

375

655

M2-N

375

655

H2-S

375

655

H2-N

375

655

Kong and

S1-1

250

292

Rangan

24

S1-2

250

292

S1-3

250

292

S1-4

250

292

S1-5

250

292

S1-6

250

292

S2-1

250

292

S2-2

250

292

S2-3

250

292

S2-4

250

292

S2-5

250

292

S3-2

250

297

S3-3

250

293

S3-4

250

293

S4-4

250

292

S4-6

250

198

S5-1

250

292

Shear strength in the new Eurocode 2

S5-2

250

292

63

64

Author [Source] MPa % 89 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 26 26 26 26 75 74 74 71 21 38 47 49 49 49 51 55 74 43 75 73 82 255 255 425 2.7 3 3 5 230 218 201 167 155 223 265 254 105 125 156 143 97 61 53 58 430 1.95 0.214 430 2.88 2.88 536 169 175 430 158 86 2.92 342 250 1.37 277 250 364 376 183 219 236 217 185 177 0.84 125 110 107 1.67 109 1.05 1.21 282 250 278 1.03 0.16 500 516 489 507 500 152 113 150 2.72 2.5 1.34 1.06 1.01 1.02 500 139 113 147 154 159 586 323 396 0.91 376 132 172 0.97 0.93 191 170 177 174 0.84 125 92 89 0.89 91 500 583 489 533 596 1.96 0.13 262 85 40 80 62 256 93 75 87 77 2.77 3.46 1.24 2.13 1.06 1.07 1.20 1.37 269 89 50 78 67 81 91 77 267 89 37 72 61 75 2.8 284 209 220 195 0.224 569 2.5 1.36 289 183 209 183 1.38 1.29 1.58 225 1.46 236 1.29 1.20 266 147 195 1.36 167 1.28 225 244 257 69 77 91 79 510 122 129 0.88 543 447 282 299 0.92 267 155 205 1.08 1.19 193 1.04 224 202 193 234 0.84 125 116 120 0.90 134 1.02 0.95 1.02 1.10 2.8 2.8 0.157 569 0.196 569 2.5 2.5 1.81 1.58 251 118 183 154 209 272 98 175 145 197 2.5 2.5 2.77 2.13 1.55 1.37 1.46 1.28 1.38 1.20 1.18 1.19 1.11 311 247 235 212 303 304 211 221 196 286 365 365 320 320 320 320 320 102 102 102 103 764 154 173 586 446 483 1.28 376 256 256 256 257 223 335 0.84 125 164 181 0.72 151 1.02 1.00 1.18 1.15 1.02 1.08 3.3 3.3 1.44 1.26 1.38 1.32 1.23 1.18 1.06 1.02 274 184 211 184 273 365 247 148 196 168 254 365 3.3 3.3 1.48 236 1.55 248 1.46 264 1.67 1.48 1.26 1.30 1.13 1.16 0.97 1.00 205 119 184 155 237 365 244 147 195 167 229 339 % MPa kN 2003 VEC2-03 1991 VEC2-91 11-3 VACI 2003 VCSA 2004 VClad

Beam

b: Vfail/ Vfail/ Vfail/

d:

fc:

rl:
fy: a/d Vfail: VEC-2 Vfail/ VEC-2 Vfail/ VACI VCSA VClad Vf,max

rv:

Cladera and Mar

name

mm mm

S5-3

250

292

S7-2

250

294

2.5 3.3

1.66 1.73

1.25 1.11

1.17 1.00

1.06 0.87

S7-3

250

294

1.46 208 1.32 205 1.47 219

S7-4

250

294

2.8 0.157 569 4.46 0.126 569 4.46 0.157 569 4.46 0.196 569

S7-5

250

294

S7-6

250

294

S8-1

250

292

S8-2

250

292

4.46 0.224 569 4.46 0.262 569 2.8 0.105 569 2.8 0.126 569 1.87 187 1.63 195 1.59 208

S8-4

250

292

S8-5

250

292

S8-6

250

292

Karayiannis and

A36

200

260

Chalioris10

A48

200

260

2.77 2.77

2.38 1.77

1.23 1.15

1.46 1.34

1.19 1.11

1.29 1.15

A72

200

260

1.47 0.12 1.47 0.16 1.47 0.25

B90

200

260

Collins and

SE100B-M

295

920

Kuchma

25

SE50A-M

169

459

2.5 2.72

1.19 1.23

1.09 0.95

0.98 0.97

1.14 1.14

SE50B-M

169

459

1.36 0.16 1.03 0.13 1.16 0.13

0.98 594 0.90 143 0.96 149

SE100A-M-69 295

920

Angelakos et al. 26

DB120M

300

925

DB140M

300

925

2.92 2.92

1.13 1.11

1.01 0.76

0.82 0.71

1.00 0.93

BM100

300

925

1.01 0.791 508 1.01 0.791 508 0.76 0.791 508

0.87 345 0.70 391 0.91 371

Adebar and

ST4

290

278

Collins27

ST5

290

278

2.88 2.88

1.84 0.97

0.86 0.77

1.00 0.87

1.02 0.82

ST6

290

278

1.95 0.11 1.95 0.18 1.95 0.28

1.19 159 0.98 195 1.20 213

ST19

290

278

Structural Concrete

Tan et al. 28

2-2.58/0.25

110

443

4-5.80/2.50

110

398

2.82 3.14

0.70 1.04

0.84 1.50

0.80 1.21

0.80 1.13

G-2.70-5.38

110

463

2.58 0.48 499 5.8 0.48 538 1.23 0.333 555

0.88 193 1.52 219 0.84 125

Ozcebe et al. 29

TS36

150

310

TH39

150

310

2.54 2.68

1.42 1.34

1.42 1.28

1.35 1.19

2007 8 No 2
2.59 0.23 3.08 0.2 4.43 0.13

ACI59

150

310

1.69 109 1.61 111 1.07 108

TH59 82 50 50 61 69 69 50 45 88 87 83 42 42 38 39 39 45 44 42 39 41 45 43 Average Standard deviation CoV: % Minimum Maximum 5th percentile of data 1.64 0.53 32.24 0.70 3.71 0.87 EC-2 2003 2.91 0.12 500 147 82 135 500 193 109 147 3.28 3.25 1.77 1.79 500 202 143 156 500 164 83 130 3.27 3.28 1.98 1.41 1.27 1.30 1.31 1.09 1.19 0.21 17.95 0.76 2.28 0.87 EC-2 1991 500 177 110 144 500 150 82 135 103 115 101 129 116 104 3.3 3.27 1.84 1.61 1.11 1.23 500 200 112 152 120 500 128 81 126 98 3.27 3.21 1.59 1.78 1.02 1.31 500 151 110 139 112 500 190 144 151 127 188 85 134 103 177 120 148 119 4 95 107 99 89 1.06 103 107 169 149 176 161 143 167 147 163 145 178 164 1.42 133 1.38 0.31 22.25 0.70 2.81 0.88 ACI 11-3 147 1.13 0.19 17.27 0.71 2.07 0.84 CSA 2003 1.33 1.11 1.26 1.28 1.14 1.23 1.00 1.34 1.67 149 1.46 132 1.54 144 3 121 143 125 118 143 0.84 0.89 0.97 0.96 0.86 0.92 3 107 144 112 104 144 3 63 72 72 72 72 267 204 206 173 228 281 72 144 143 107 217 217 211 212 212 226 216 216 213 215 219 219 1.06 0.16 15.44 0.72 1.83 0.83 Clad 2004 1.18 1.00 1.13 1.14 1.02 1.09 0.89 1.19 0.84 0.89 255 200 205 186 236 297 2.99 0.239 530 2.99 0.239 540 3.08 3.08 1.28 1.31 1.25 1.29 1.18 1.27 1.08 1.17 204 119 173 150 174 237 180 119 173 145 171 234 3.06 3.06 1.36 169 1.37 216 1.54 209 1.51 1.72 1.04 1.18 1.08 1.21 1.05 1.17 246 204 206 173 228 281 178 92 162 124 150 228 425 5 125 120 134 118 151 151

150

310

75

425

119

80

117

100

144

149

TS59

150

310

4.43 0.18 4.43 0.27

1.49 1.04

1.02 0.94

1.19 117 1.06 134

1.02 0.94

0.83 0.83

Structural Concrete

H50/2

200

353

Cladera and Mar30

H50/4

200

351

3.06 3.08

1.94 1.21

1.10 1.19

1.19 1.18

1.18 1.08

H60/2

200

353

1.43 149 1.42 209 1.24 167

H75/2

200

353

2.28 0.109 530 2.99 0.239 540 2.28 0.141 530 2.28 0.141 530

H75/4

200

351

2007 8 No 2
0.87 0.75 0.87 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.87 0.75 0.87 72 1.03 126 1.03 140 2.07 0.378 421 4.54 0.65 421 4.54 0.78 421 4.54 0.51 421 2.99 0.166 530 2.99 0.118 530 3.3 3.3 1.48 2.20 1.20 1.40 1.49 148 1.82 133 1.19 1.41 1.05 1.26 3.25 3.27 1.32 1.38 1.26 1.08 1.22 1.06 1.08 0.94 2.9 0.21 2.92 0.16 2.99 0.12 1.50 156 1.34 142 1.30 128 2.86 0.16 2.95 0.12 2.91 0.16 2.9 0.12 2.93 0.21 2.93 0.16 1.63 131 1.57 158 1.66 145

H100/4

200

351

Ahmad et al.

31

LNW-3

127

216

LHW-3a

127

198

LHW-3b

127

198

LHW-4

127

198

Etxeberria32

HN-V3

200

303

HN-V4

200

303

Gonzalez-

V13HC

199

307

Fonteboa

33

V17HC

199

306

V24HC

195

306

V17HCS

200

312

V24HCS

200

302

V17HR

200

306

V24HR

201

306

V13HRS

199

305

V17HRS

199

305

V24HRS

199

307

Shear strength in the new Eurocode 2 65

66

Cladera and Mar

the authors opinion that shear strength in the new Eurocode 2 is a step forward in terms of simplicity but, as has been shown, for specic cases other methods are more accurate.

Acknowledgements
The research described in this paper was nanced by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technologys project MAT2002-00615. The authors wish to express their gratitude for this nancial support.

References
1. European Committee for Standardization. prEN 1992-1-1:2003. Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Revised nal draft, Brussels, Belgium, December 2003. 2. Ritter, W. Die bauweise hennebique. Shweizerische Bauzeitung, 1899, 33, No. 7, 59 61. 3. Morsch, E. Concrete-Steel Construction. McGrawHill, New York, 1909 (English translation by E. P. Goodrich). 4. Regan, P. Research on shear: A benet to humanity or a waste of time? The Structural Engineer, 1993, 71, No. 19, 337 347. 5. Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P. The modied compression eld theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Structural Journal, 1986, 86, No. 2, 219 231. 6. European Committee for Standardization. ENV 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Spanish Edition, Brussels, Belgium, 1991. 7. Cladera, A. and Mar, A. R. Shear design procedure for reinforced normal and highstrength concrete beams using articial neural networks. Part II: Beams with stirrups. Engineering Structures, 2004, 26, No. 7, 927 936. 8. Bentz, E. C. Sectional analysis of reinforced concrete members. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 2000.

9. Kuchma, D. Shear Data Bank. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, www.cee.cd.uiuc. edu/Kuchma, 2000. 10. Zararis, P. D. Shear strength and minimum shear reinforcement of reinforced concrete slender beams. ACI Structural Journal, 2003, 100, No. 2, 203 214. 11. Canadian Standards Association. Design of Concrete Structures CSA A23.3-94. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, ON, 1994. 12. Yoon, Y. S., Cook, W. D. and Mitchell, D. Minimum shear reinforcement in normal, medium and high-strength concrete beams. ACI Structural Journal, 1996, 93, No. 5, 576584. 13. American Concrete Institute. ACI Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete. ACI, Farmington Hills, ACI 318-02, 2002. 14. CSA Committee A23.3. Design of Concrete Structures. Public review draft, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, ON, September 2003, p. 233. 15. Bennet, E. W. and Balasooriya, B. M. A. Shear strength of prestressed beams with thin webs failing in inclined compression. ACI Journal, 1971, 68, No. 3, 204 212. 16. Elzanaty, A. H., Nilson, A. H. and Slate, F. O. Shear capacity of prestressed concrete beams using high-strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal,1986, 83, No. 3, 359 368. 17. Kaufman, M. K. and Ramirez, J. A. Re-evaluation of the ultimate shear behavior of high-strength concrete prestressed I-beams. ACI Structural Journal, 1988, 85, No. 3, 295 303. 18. Lyngberg, B. S. Ultimate shear resistance of partially prestressed reinforced concrete I-beams. ACI Journal, 1976, 73, No. 4, 214 583. 19. Shahawy, M. A. and Batchelor, B. D. V. Shear behavior of full-scale prestressed concrete girders: comparison between AASHTO specications and LRFD code. PCI Journal, 1996, 41, No. 3, 48 62. 20. Rangan, B. V. Web crushing strength of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams. ACI Structural Journal, 1991, 88, No. 1, 12 16. 21. Cladera, A. and Mar, A. R. Shear design procedure for reinforced and prestressed high and normal-strength concrete beams. Seventh International Symposium on Utilization of High-Strength/High-Performance Concrete, 1, Washington, 2005, 654 668.

22. Johnson, M. K., and Ramirez, J. A. Minimum shear reinforcement in beams with higher strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 1998, 86, No. 4, 376 382. 23. Roller, J. J. and Russell, H. G. Shear strength of high-strength concrete beams with web reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, 1990, 87, No. 2, 191 198. 24. Kong, P. Y. L. and Rangan, B. V. Shear strength of high-performance concrete beams. ACI Structural Journal, 1998, 95, No. 6, 677 688. 25. Collins, M. P. and Kuchma, D. How safe are our large, lightly reinforced concrete beams, slabs and footings? ACI Structural Journal, 1999, 96, No. 4, 482 490. 26. Angelakos, D., Bentz, E. C. and Collins, M. P. Effect of concrete strength and minimum stirrups on shear strength of large members. ACI Structural Journal, 2001, 98, No. 3, 290 300. 27. Adebar, P. and Collins, M. P. Shear strength of members without transverse reinforcement. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1996, 23, No. 1, 30 41. 28. Tan, K., Kong, F., Teng, S. and Weng, L. Effect of web reinforcement on high-strength concrete deep beams. ACI Journal, 1997, 94, No. 5, 572 582. 29. Ozcebe, G., Ersoy, U. and Tankut, T. Evaluation of minimum shear reinforcement requirements for higher strength concrete. ACI Journal, 1999, 96, No. 3, 361 368. 30. Cladera, A. and Mar, A. R. Experimental study on high-strength concrete beams failing in shear. Engineering Structures, 2005, 27, No. 10, 15191527. 31. Ahmad, S. H., Khaloo, A. R. and Poveda, A. Shear capacity of reinforced high-strength concrete beams. ACI Journal, 1986, 83, No. 2, 297 305. 32. Etxeberria, M. Estudio experimental de la resis tencia a cortante en vigas de hormigon de aridos reciclados. PhD thesis, Universidad Politec nica de Cataluna, 2003. 33. Gonzalez-Fonteboa, B. Hormigones con aridos reciclados procedentes de demoliciones: dosicaciones, propiedades mecanicas y comportamiento estructural a cortante. PhD thesis, Universidad de la Coruna, 2002.

Structural Concrete

2007 8 No 2