SHEAR ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

PROGRAM ON ANCHORAGE CRITERIA IN RC SLABS:

COMPARISONS BETWEEN FIBMC2010 AND NBR6118


Marquesi, M. L. G.
Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of So Carlos, So Carlos, Brazil
EGT Engenharia, So Paulo, Brazil

Stucchi, F. R.
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, University of So Paulo, So Paulo, Brazil
EGT Engenharia, So Paulo, Brazil

Ungaretti, M. C., Fujii, G.
EGT Engenharia, So Paulo, Brazil


Abstract

This paper investigates the shear strength and anchorage of one-way RC slabs without stirrups.
Comparison between FIB Model Code 2010 Final Draft and Draft of Brazilian Standard NBR6118
2013 is presented. A total of 64 results of experiments in slab strips reinforced with steel bars or
steel mesh are analyzed. All specimens were designed with part of the beams at the ends of the slab
strips in order to provide support. A preliminary horizontal loading was applied to allow a
cracking, just beside the support beam, and to ensure that a strut and tie resisting behavior is
mobilized. 13 specimens failed by loss of anchorage, 13 failed by shear and 38 failed by flexure. A
qualified database of 81 slab strips was created and conclusions based on these tests are made
concerning the safety and accuracy of the shear provisions. Level of approximation 1 of new model
code predicted the strength with an average experimental-over-predicted shear strength ratio of
2.01 with a coefficient of variation (COV) of 14.6%, level 2, with an average of 1.29 with COV of
14.5% and NBR, with an average of 1.08 with COV of 14.3%.
Some comments are made in order to stand out an engineers point of view regarding economy,
safety, design and research models.

Keywords: Anchorage, Analytical models, Design models, Shear, Shear database

1 Introduction
Differently from beams, that must have at least a minimum shear reinforcement according to
Brazilian and European standards, slabs are typically dimensioned so that no shear reinforcement is
needed, as placing stirrups in slabs is perceived to be difficult and costly. When designing
buildings, slabs are responsible for a significative concrete consumption. Therefore, an economic
design associated with an enough safety is required.
The design of slabs in flexure and shear consider a slab as a series of independent strips of
arbitrary width, usually per meter. In experiments that are carried out to evaluate the model
uncertainties in resistances, conventionally, the ratios of observed and predicted values, slab strips
are most common used. Establishing a relationship between what is done in lab and what
potentially happen in reality the volume of concrete involved in a slab as a whole is greater, i.e.
strips would not collapse independently as in the usual experiments without redistribution of
internal forces. In addition, most part of the practical cases consists of slabs subjected to uniform
loads where the maximum shear force does not coincide with the maximum moment, and the
reinforcement ratios are small enough to ensure failure by bending. Kani (1966) commented about
point load and uniform distributed load: A comparison of point loading tests shows, as could be
expected, that a uniformly distributed loading produces somewhat more favorable results. Thus, it
is slightly conservative if the design requirements for beams under point loadings are extended to
beams under uniform distributed loads. Thus, it is reasonable take that into account in the pursuit
of an optimal point between economy and safety.
This paper presents a comparison between FIB Model Code 2010 Final Draft [1] and the Draft
of Brazilian Standard NBR6118 2013 [3] regarding shear and anchorage failures. A total of 64
results of experiments in slab strips without transversal reinforcement are analyzed. 13 specimens
failed by loss of anchorage, 13 by shear and 38 by flexure, as described in [15]. As the universally
accepted theory for predicting flexural strength showed a very good result and the equivalence
between bars and steel mesh, only a few comments are made about flexure. Anchorage and shear
receive more attention and a special effort is made about shear since there is no generally accepted
physical or empirical model explaining the response of members without stirrups. A qualified shear
test results database was created. A sanctioned set of criteria was then developed for accepting a
test result into an evaluation-level database.
Some comments are also made in order to stand out an engineers point of view regarding
economy, safety, design and research models.
2 Economy, safety, design models and research models
More now than ever before the world demands sustainable engineering solutions. In structural
engineering field it means do what has to be done with economy and safety enough in order to
guarantee infrastructure and quality of life. For each situation an adequate construction system need
be chosen taking into account their advantages, local techniques and available materials. Besides,
analytical models found in code provisions need agree with the sustainability concept. For that, an
optimal point between economy and safety must be sought considering practical experience and
representative experiments, not mixing apples with oranges.
Another important aspect related to analytical models in codes is about their complexity. For an
engineer is very important to distinguish between design model and research model [12]. The
design models should be established in a simple way, neither simplistic nor sophisticated. The first
causes uneconomic solutions and the second distracts the mind potentiating the human error.
Schlaich (1991) stated The art of finding the right model and applying the right method of
analysis consists in defining and asking for just enough and not as much as possible. Any
redundant refinement is destructive as is any substantial omission. A design model tries to
parameterize the reality through the most important variables.
On the other hand, a research model tries to represent the reality. Many variables, many
equations, constitutive laws and nonlinear finite element analysis are used. Research models and
experiments must agree with high accuracy.
Some general theories, for instance, the Modified Compression Field, have been successfully
applied to members without shear reinforcement [14]. However, simplifications in these theories
were needed in order to introduce them in codes of practice [4] [5]. How better are these simplified
physical models in relation to the traditional empirical or semi-empirical ones?
3 Anchorage provisions
3.1 Fib New Model Code 2010 [1]
Reinforcement in tension may be anchored by bond or by a combination of bond along the straight
portion with a resistance provided by welded transverse bar, a head welded at the end of the bar, a
hook or a bend. Providing some minimum detailing requirements (NMC 6.1.3.2), design bond
strength is given by:

bd
= 2
bd,0
- u.4p
t
<
1.5
y
c

ck
(1)

where p
tr
is the mean compression stress perpendicular to the potential splitting failure surface at
the ultimate limit state, it is negative when transverse stress is compressive; and f
bd,0
is the basic
bond strength given by:

bd,0
= p
1
p
2
p
3
p
4
]
ck
5 y
c
(2)

where:
q
1
is a coefficient taken as 1.75 for ribbed bars (including galvanised and stainless
reinforcement), 1.4 for fusion bonded epoxy coated ribbed bars and 0.90 for plain surface
bars.
q
2
represents the casting position of the bar during concreting:

2
=1.0 when good bond conditions are obtained, as for:
all bars with an inclination of 45 - 90 to the horizontal during concreting and;
all bars with an inclination less than 45 to the horizontal which are up to 250mm
from the bottom or at least 300mm from the top of the concrete layer during
concreting.

2
= 0.7 for all other cases where ribbed bars are used, or

2
= 0.5 where plain bars are used.
q
3
represents the bar diameter:

3
= 1.0 for | 25mm;

3
= (25/|)
0.3
for | > 25mm.
q
4
represents the characteristic strength of steel reinforcement being anchored or lapped:

4
= 1.20 for f
yk
= 400MPa;

4
= 1.00 for f
yk
= 500MPa;

4
= 0.85 for f
yk
= 600MPa;

4
= 0.75 for f
yk
= 700MPa;

4
= 0.68 for f
yk
= 800MPa;
Intermediate values may be obtained by interpolation.
Thus, for cases of straight bars in tension the design anchorage length is:

l
b
= o
1
I
yd
4 ]
bd
> l
b,mn
, o
1
=
A
s,ccl
A
s,c]
(3)

l
b,mn
= mox ]u.S
I
yd
4 ]
bd
, 1u, 1uumm (4)



3.2 Draft of NBR6118 2013 [3]
The design value of the ultimate bond stress may be taken as:

bd
= p
1
p
2
p
3

ctd
(5)


ctd
=
0.7]
ctm
y
c
(6)

ctm
= u.S
ck
23
or
ck
CSu (7)

ctm
= 2.12 l n(1 +u.11
ck
) or
ck
> CSu (8)
where
q
1
is a coefficient taken as 2.25 for ribbed bars, 1.4 for welded wire reinforcement and 1.0
for plain surface bars.

q
2
represents the casting position of the bar during concreting: 1.0 for good conditions and
0.7 for all others cases.

q
3
represents the bar diameter:

3
= 1.0 for | 32mm;

3
= (132-|)/100 for | > 32mm.

The design anchorage length for cases of straight bars in tension is given by equations 3 and 4.
4 Shear provisions
4.1 Fib New Model Code 2010 [1]
The shear provisions of the NMC have been significantly changed from previous model codes.
NMC proposes equations stemmed from the work of Collins et al. The Modified Compression
Field Theory (MCFT) produces accurate estimates of shear strength but the requirement to solve 15
simultaneous nonlinear equations is not compatible to a design model. As such, some simplifying
assumptions were taken into account in order to make design practical. These assumptions reduce
the number of equations from 15 to two and they were used in the Canadian code for structural
concrete and in NMC [4] [13].
Another significantly change in shear provisions is the inclusion of a Level of Approximation
(LoA) concept. The first level is low time-consuming and in theory, is typically sufficient for
preliminary design or to check that a design provision is not governing. The highest level provides
the most accurate results, but at the cost of the most arithmetic.


Fig. 1 Level-of-Approximation approach [9].

The design shear resistance in NMC of a web or slab without shear reinforcement is given by:

I
Rd,c
= k

]
ck
y
c
b
w
z (9)

where the value of f
ck
should not be taken greater than 64MPa. Two levels of approximation are
present in this case. In level I is considered the assumption that the mid-depth strain at the control
section is c
x
= 0.00125, that corresponds to half the yield strain for a reinforcing bar with f
yk
= 500
MPa. This level can be used in members with no significant axial load, with f
yk
600MPa, f
ck
70
MPa and with a maximum aggregate size of not less than 10mm. Thus:

k

=
180
1000+1.25z
(10)
For Level II the state of strain need be calculated and the maximum size of aggregate introduced:
k

=
0.4
1+1500s
x
.
1300
1000+k
dg
z
(11)

e
x
=
1
L
s
A
s
|
M
Ed
2z
+
v
Ed
2
] (12)

k
dg
=
32
16+d
g

3
4
(13)
where z and d
g
are in mm and the variable z can be calculated as 0.9d. For high-strength concrete
(f
ck
> 70 MPa) or lightweight concrete, the cracks will tend to pass through the aggregate and thus
for such concretes, the value of d
g
should be taken as zero.
4.2 Draft of NBR6118 2013 [3]
The shear provision for slabs without transversal reinforcement is based on previous version of
EC2 [16]. As time goes by, however, some small changes were adopted. Considering a reinforced
member, the shear resistance takes into account three main parameters: tensile strength, size effect
and the influence of longitudinal reinforcement ratio. These parameters were established
empirically in the formula and because of that some limitations are needed.

I
Rd1
= u.2S
ctd
(1.6 -J)(1.2 +4up)b
w
J where p < u.u2 (14)

The tensile strength is presented in equations 7 and 8. For slabs with height greater than 600 mm
this equation is not recommended, neither for f
ck
greater than 70MPa. However, the vast majority
of cases are covered.
5 Experimental program
The last version of the Brazilian Standard for Structural Concrete Design recommends to RC slabs
with steel meshes the utilization of a straight anchorage length at support of the maximum between
10 cm or 10 times the diameter of the bar, with at least one transversal welded bar. This provision
considered smooth bars. As the steel meshes are now made with improved bond, it was supposed
the standard need no more require the transversal welded bar and may allow smaller anchorage
lengths. Thus, it was proposed a program of tests on samples of concrete reinforced with welded
steel meshes to evaluate the behavior with this type of reinforcement in relation to its anchorage at
supports using different lengths of anchorage, but also to evaluate shear, flexure and their
interaction with anchorage. For comparison some samples were reinforced with steel bars.
Due to good anchorage, some failures were conditioned by shear and they were analyzed all
together with a qualified database of shear test results.

5.1 Specimen design and experimental setup
The specimens were constructed to a nominal width of 34 cm, 150 cm of total clear span and varied
in thickness from 7 to 15 cm. Diameters of bars ranged from 4.2 mm to 12.5 mm, with anchorage
length of 5, 7 and 10 cm. Beams, with b
beam
varying from 12 to 15 and h
beam
varying from 32 to 40,
were designed at the ends of the slab strips in order to provide support and allow a cracking just
beside the support beam. It is shown below the design of generic specimen A10-0-xxx.

Fig. 2 Design of specimen A10-0-xxx.
All specimens were cast using concrete with specified 28-day strength of 30 MPa. At the time
of testing the strength was close to this value or even higher. The concrete was made using
aggregate with a maximum size of 19 mm. More information is present in Table 2 and 3.
The specimens were submitted preliminarily to a horizontal loading, as shown in Fig. 3, in order
to cause a pre-cracking just on the inner face of the support beams. Thus, the strut and tie resisting
behavior is mobilized and the anchorage capacity evaluated. The tests were performed always
symmetrically with two span loads, at the third span points or 2h
slab
from the supports. All tests
were carried out in an upside down position, Fig.4.


Loading case a

Loading case b
Fig. 3 Horizontal loading. Fig. 4 Testing loading.






Table 1
Details and nomenclature of specimens
Reinforcement Anchorage length
evaluable
Distance of the1
st

transversal bar to the
border of the beam
Testing loadings Specimens
A Steel
Welded
Mesh
10 cm 0 cm a Symmetric load
at 1/3 of the span
distance of the
support
A10-0-xxx-a or b
A10-7.5-xxx-a or b
A10-10-xxx-a or b
A10-15-xxx-a or b
A7- 0-xxx- a or b
A5- 0-xxx-a or b
7.5 cm
7 cm
10 cm b Symmetric load
at 2 h
slab
distance
of the support
5cm
15 cm
B Reinforcing
Bars
10 cm 0 cm a Symmetric load
at 1/3 of the span
distance of the
support
B10-0- a or b
B10-7.5- a or b
B10-15- a or b
7.5 cm
b Symmetric load
at 2 h
slab
distance
of the support
15 cm
xxx refers to mesh type


5.2 Experimental results
A total of 64 results, where all experimental data were clearly defined, are analyzed. See [15]. 13
specimens failed by loss of anchorage, 13 by shear and 38 by flexure. In Fig. 5 are presented the
failure modes of the experimental program.
The flexural theory predicts the strength of the 38 specimens with an average experimental-
over-predicted flexural strength ratio of 1.01 with a coefficient of variation of 5.2%.

Flexural failure Anchorage failure
Shear failure: flexure-shear Shear failure: diagonal tension
Fig. 5 Failure modes.
Table 2
Characteristics and results of specimen that failed by anchorage
Specimen f
c
f
y
| long l
b

evaluable
f
b
NBR f
b
NMC P
exp.
P
exp
/P
NBR
P
exp
/P
NMC

A5-0-138-a 27.5 698 0.42 5.00 3.827 2.760 9.29 1.84 2.55
A5-0-246-a 24.6 747 0.56 5.00 3.553 2.490 14.86 2.38 3.39
A5-0-503-a-1 21.7 674 0.80 5.00 3.268 2.530 12.34 1.50 1.94
A5-0-503-a-2 21.7 674 0.80 5.00 3.268 2.530 13.50 1.64 2.12
A5-0-503-b 21.7 674 0.80 5.00 3.268 2.530 17.25 2.10 2.71
A5-0-785-a-1 23.4 688 1.00 5.00 3.436 2.580 22.20 2.06 2.74
A5-0-785-a-2 23.4 688 1.00 5.00 3.436 2.580 32.60 3.02 4.02
A5-0-1131-a-1 26.8 632 1.20 5.00 6.045 2.964 47.57 2.09 4.26
A5-0-1131-a-2 26.8 632 1.20 5.00 6.045 2.964 54.75 2.40 4.90
A7-0-246-a 16.3 747 0.56 7.00 2.700 2.027 12.79 1.92 2.56
A7-0-503-a 20.4 674 0.80 7.00 3.136 2.453 26.48 2.40 3.07
A7-0-785-a 23 688 1.00 7.00 3.397 2.558 45.56 3.05 4.05
A7-0-1131-a 29.3 632 1.20 7.00 6.415 3.099 55.10 1.63 3.37
Note: f
c
indicates cylinder strength on day of test [MPa]; f
y
represents the yield stress
[MPa]; f
b
, the bond strength [MPa]; l
b
, the anchorage length [cm]; | [cm]; P
exp.
, the shear
force correspondent to anchorage failure [kN].
2.16 3.21
COV 22.6% 27.8%


Regarding anchorage failure, P
NBR
and

P
NMC
represent the predicted vertical force, or reaction, at
inner face of support beam. These forces are correlated to horizontal tensile force in bars dividing
by cotu = 1.5, corresponding to u equals to 33.69, as NBR6118 prescribes. For analyzed cases, a
desirable safety is found. The average experimental-over-predicted bond strength ratio is 2.16 for
NBR and 3.21 for FIBMC2010 with coefficient of variation of 22.6% and 27.8%, respectively.
These values of the COV are not completely reliable due to the size of the sample (13 elements).
FIBMC2010 is more conservative and prescriptive than NBR.
All analyzed shear results has anchorage length of 10 cm. That implied, independent of bar
diameters, in a good anchorage and then shear failure was determinant. Two types of shear failure
were observed: 1. flexure-shear that is assumed to take place in regions where flexure cracks have
appeared and, 2. diagonal tension that is supposed to take place within regions of the structural
span not affected by flexural cracks.
In RC members, diagonal tension may be regarded as an upper limit. It may be predicted
conservatively with the same model that predicts flexure-shear. When both cases are analyzed all
together, as in this case it conducts to a large coefficient of variation. See Table 3, which indicates,
for each test, the failure observed. These values of the COV are not completely reliable due to the
size of the sample (13 elements).














Table 3
Characteristics and results of specimen that failed by shear
Specimen d b/d a/d l fy fc Failure Vexp. Vexp. /VNBR Vexp. /VNMC.II
A1uuSuSb 81 4.2u 2.47 u.S48 674 2S.2 FS SS.u1 1.2S 1.u8
A1u1uSuSb 81 4.2u 2.47 u.S48 674 29.S
FS
S4.S6 1.1S 1.u7
A1uu78Sb 8u 4.2S 2.Su u.868 688 19.2
FS
S4.62 1.44 1.1u
A1u1u78Sb 8u 4.2S 2.Su u.868 688 26.4
FS
S6.uS 1.21 1.u2
A1u1u11S1b 119 2.86 1.68 u.8S9 6S2 S6.6
FS
62.S1 1.18 1.u6
A1uu1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 2S.u BT 69.6S 1.72 1.7u
A1u7.S1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 2S.u BT 69.SS 1.71 1.7u
A1u1S1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 2S.u BT 68.67 1.69 1.68
A1uu78Sb 8u 4.2S 2.Su u.868 688 2S.S BT 42.u9 1.S4 1.S4
A1uu1227b 119 2.86 2.SS u.8S9 6S2 22.8 BT 72.88 1.88 1.87
B1uu1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 29.S BT 79.98 1.67 1.81
B1u7.S1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 29.S BT 76.S2 1.6u 1.7S
B1u1S1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 29.S BT 86.1S 1.8u 1.94
Note: fc inuicates cylinuei stiength on uay of test |NPaj; fy iepiesents the yielu stiess
|NPaj; u |mmj; l , ieinfoicement iatio |%j; vexp. iepiesents applieu sheai foice
consiueiing specimen selfweight in the upsiue uown position |kNj. FS iefeis to flexuie
sheai anu BT to uiagonal tension;
1.S2 1.48
C0v 16.7% 24.1%
6 Shear database of RC slab strips
Because of a small number of tests, a qualified database of shear test results was created. All slab
strips in this database do not contain shear reinforcement and the majority was subjected to point
loads, only four uniformly loaded tests. Besides the experimental program presented in this work,
two databases were used as source: Collins (2008) and Reineck (2010). As first criterion, 105 tests
whose width-depth ratio (b/d) is greater than 2 were gathered.
A sanctioned set of criteria was then developed for accepting a test result from 105 into an
evaluation-level database. 81 tests were selected.



Fig. 6 Components of database.

These sanctioned set of criteria include: compressive strength from 18 to 59 MPa, a width-depth
ratio from 2.3 to 12.1, a longitudinal reinforcement ratio from 0.6 to 2.9% and minimum and
maximum shear span-to-depth ratio (a/d) based on Kanis strength envelope [7], of 2 and 6,
respectively. The shear presenting failure by diagonal tension were not included in the evaluation-
level database.
In Fig. 7 the results are plotted in terms of shear stress for each of the codes for both collected
data (105 in left) and selected data (81 in right). The FIBMC results are presented in two levels of
13 2 4 4 7 4 9 41 4 17 105tests
5 2 4 4 7 2 4 33 4 16 81tests
Stucchi2010 Marti1977 Kani1967 Ghannoum1998
Bentz2004 Aster1974 Richart1948 Leonhardt1962
Heger1982 Regan1988
approximation. For the first level (FIBMC2010 - LoA I) a smaller amount of tests is shown (49
results) since there are some limitations, namely the yield stress must be less than 600 MPa and the
maximum diameter of the aggregate should be greater than 10 mm. Besides these limitations,
simplifications proposed for this level of approximation became it too conservative, even for what
was proposed. The average for the 49 data is 2.01 with a coefficient of variation of 14.6%. For the
81 selected data the FIBMC2010 - LoA II has an average of 1.29 and COV of 14.5% and the
Brazilian standard (NBR) has an average of 1.08 and COV of 14.3%.
Analyzing the FIBMC LoA II and NBR for the 105 data the first has an average of 1.33 with a
COV of 16.6%, and the second, 1.18 and 23.1%, respectively.
Regarding some limitations for application of the NBR design model, namely height not greater
than 600 mm and f
ck
not greater than 70MPa, and what was commented about how slabs work in
reality, safety and economy, the NBR design model may be considered satisfactory despite an
average of 1.08. This mean value, that could be 1.0 for flexure for example, should be greater than
1.0 for shear due to the expected brittle failure and 8% could be considered enough.
The FIBMC LoA I need be improved in order to represent what it is proposed within a model
code. FIBMC LoA II, as expected, is better in accuracy in relation to LoA I but at the cost of the
most arithmetic. Its coefficient of variation, as not expected, was almost the same than NBR one
for 81 selected data.

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.

(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
NBR
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.

(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
NBR
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.

(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
FIBMC2010 LoAI
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.

(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
FIBMC2010 LoAI
Fig. 7 Experimental versus predicted shear stresses: left - 105 tests, right - 81 tests.
7 Conclusions
As a result of this research, it was possible to conclude that:

1) When used as slab reinforcement, bars and welded meshes have equivalent behavior in service
and at ultimate limit state.
2) The reliability of flexural results was really good. Theatrical results were 1% lower than
experimental, with a COV of 5% for both NBR and NMC.
3) As it would be desirable, the theory for shear collapse without stirrups, flexure-shear, has higher
safety margin than the flexure theory. The NBR margin of 8% seems to be enough, if we consider
that we tested only strips, not real slabs and under concentrated not distributed loads, to avoid
brittle failure. The Brazilian criteria for shear are equivalent to EC2 1992 version, not the last
version. The margin of the NMC LoA II of 23% is probably more than enough. The COV of both
is approximately 14.4%. The margin of LoA I is more than 100%, really too much.
4) If we consider in the database for shear failure, not only flexure-shear, but also diagonal tension,
mean value and COV increase. It would be always better to study each type of failure, let say,
Ultimate Limit State, separately.
5) As it would be desirable, the theory for loss of anchorage is still safer. The margin of the NBR
criteria is a little higher than 50% and of NMC approximately 70%. The COV were 23 and 28%
respectively. This higher safety margin is really desirable to avoid the separation between steel and
concrete before a failure of reinforced concrete.
6) The minimum anchorage at the support (maximum between 10| and 10 cm) for steel mesh
made of enhanced bond bars avoids the slip of reinforcement with that enlarged safe margin.
References
[1] Final Draft of fib Model Code 2010. Fdration international de bton (fib). Lausanne.
[2] NBR6118: 2004, Structural Concrete Design Brazilian Standard (available in English).
[3] Draft of NBR6118: 2013, Structural Concrete Design, Brazilian Standard.
[4] Bentz, E. C., and Collins, M. P. (2006), Development of the 2004 CSA A23.3 shear
provisions for reinforced concrete. Can. J. Civ. Eng., 335, 521534.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.

(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
FIBMC2010 LoAII
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.

(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
FIBMC2010 LoAII
[5] Bentz, E. C., Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (2006), The simplied MCFT for calculating
the shear strength of reinforced concrete elements. ACI Journal, 1034, 614624.
[6] Collins et al. (2008), Where is Shear Reinforcement Required? Review of Research Results
and Design Procedures, ACI Struct. J., Vol. 105, No 5.
[7] Kani, G. N. J. (1964), The Riddle of Shear Failure and Its Solution, ACI Journal,
Proceedings V. 61, No. 3, pp. 441-467.
[8] Kani, G. N. J. (1966), Basic Facts Concerning Shear Failure ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 63,
No. 6, pp. 675-692.
[9] Muttoni, A., Ruiz, M. F. (2012), Level-of-Approximation Approach in Codes of Practice.
Structural Engineering International, V. 2, pp 190-194.
[10] Muttoni, A., Ruiz, M. F. (2008), Shear Strength of Members without Transverse
Reinforcement as Function of Critical Shear Crack Width, ACI Journal, Vol. 105, No 2.
[11] Reineck, K. H., Kuchma, D. A. (2010), Extended databases with shear tests on structural
concrete beams without and with stirrups for the assessment of shear design procedures,
Research Report.
[12] Schlaich, J. (1991), The need for consistent and translucent Models, IABSE Colloquium
Structural Concrete, Proceedings V. 62, Stuttgart, p. 169-184.
[13] Sherwood, E. G. (2008), One-Way Shear Behaviour of Large, Lightly-Reinforced Concrete
Beams and Slabs, PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada, 546 pp.
[14] Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1986), The modied compression eld theory for
reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. J. Am. Concr. Inst., 832, 219231.
[15] IBTS Instituto Brasileiro de Tela Soldada Estudo do comportamento de Estruturas de
Concreto armadas com Tela Soldada Ensaios de Ancoragem (2010) Pesquisa EGT
(Stucchi, F.; Fugii, G.) e EEUSP-S. Carlos (Hanai, J.; Takeya, T.) www.ibts.org.br
[16] EUROCODE 2 Design of Concrete Structures Part 1.1 General Rules and Rules for
Buildings 1992 version.