ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 101-S87
Minimum Transverse Reinforcement in 65 MPa
Concrete Beams
by Khaldoun N. Rahal and Khaled S. Al-Shaleh
This paper reports the experimental results from a study of the
shear behavior of 65 MPa (9500 psi) concrete beams, reinforced in
the transverse and longitudinal directions. A total of 11 test results
are presented. The amount of the transverse steel was selected to
evaluate the different requirements for minimum transverse
reinforcement in the ACI Code, the CSA A23.3 Standard, and the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications. The performance of the specimens
is evaluated based on the cracking pattern, crack widths at
estimated service load, and on the postcracking reserve strength.
The concrete specimens had different levels of longitudinal
reinforcement to evaluate its effect on the performance of the
beams. It is observed that the available amount of longitudinal
steel influences the decision on what can be considered an adequate
level of minimum transverse reinforcement, and that the shear
capacity equations in the current ACI Code, CSA Standard, and
AASHTO LRFD Specifications are conservative.
Keywords: beam; cracking; high-strength concrete; shear; stirrup; strength.
INTRODUCTION
The use of high-strength concrete (HSC) in building and
bridge construction has increased significantly in the past
20 years. HSC offers improved structural properties and
improved durability. Concrete with compressive strength of
50 to 75 MPa has become commercially available in
different parts of the world. The current North American
building and bridge codes1-3 include numerous provisions to
accommodate the design of HSC members.
In a reinforced concrete beam subjected to shearing
forces, the reinforcing steel is virtually unstressed before
cracking in the concrete. Upon cracking, the mechanism
of resistance in the member changes, and the reinforcement
carries the tensile stresses that can no longer be resisted
by the concrete at a crack location. A minimum amount
of transverse reinforcement is required to ensure ample
postcracking reserve strength (to avoid a brittle failure
upon concrete cracking), and to provide adequate crack
control at service conditions. This minimum amount
hence depends on the cracking stress of the concrete.
HSC cracks at higher shear stresses relative to conventional
concrete and consequently requires larger amounts of
minimum transverse reinforcement.
Similar to transverse reinforcement, larger amounts of
longitudinal steel increase the postcracking reserve strength
and provide better control of the propagation of cracks.
Hence, the available longitudinal steel can influence the
decision on what can be considered an adequate minimum
transverse reinforcement. On the other hand, the presence of
a bending moment increases the demand on the longitudinal
reinforcement, and hence has an effect similar to having less
of this reinforcement.
872
TECHNICAL PAPER
The influence of longitudinal steel on the shear strength
has been clearly recognized and accounted for in the calculation
of the shear capacity, but not in the selection of the minimum
transverse steel. The ACI1 detailed equations for the concrete
contribution Vc accounts for the effects of the longitudinal steel
and the other stress resultants such as bending moment and
axial load. Similarly, the general method, which is the alternative
shear design method in the Canadian building code2 and
AASHTO LRFD Specifications,3 accounts for the influence of
longitudinal steel, bending, torsion, and axial load in the
calculation of the longitudinal strain indicator x, which
affects both the concrete and steel contributions Vc and Vs.
The past 15 years brought new provisions governing the
minimum transverse reinforcement in the ACI Code,1,4 Canadian
CSA Standard,2 and AASHTO LRFD Specifications.3 These
provisions, however, are not unified. Moreover, they are based
on a limited number of experimental data (for example,
References 5 to 10) that did not study the effects of factors such
as the amount of longitudinal reinforcement. More tests are still
required to adequately understand this part of the behavior of
higher strength reinforced concrete in shear.
This paper presents the results of an experimental program
whose main objective was to study the behavior of reinforced
concrete beams with 65 MPa concrete to evaluate the minimum
transverse reinforcement provisions in the ACI Code, CSA
Standard, and AASHTO LRFD Specifications.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Minimum transverse reinforcement is required to avoid
brittle failure upon diagonal cracking of the concrete and to
provide adequate crack control. HSC cracks at higher loads,
and hence requires larger amounts of minimum transverse
steel. The North American code provisions for minimum
transverse steel in HSC beams differ significantly, and are
based on a limited number of experimental tests. They also
do not take into account the influence of the amount of
longitudinal reinforcement in the concrete. This paper
reports the experimental results from 11 shear tests of beam
specimens made of 65 MPa concrete and reinforced with
minimal transverse steel and two levels of longitudinal steel.
The objectives of the study are to contribute to the experimental
data available for the shear behavior of HSC beams, and to
evaluate the adequacy of the current provisions for minimum
transverse reinforcement in the ACI, CSA, and AASHTO
LRFD codes.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 6, November-December 2004.
MS No. 03-372 received September 24, 2003, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2004, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the September-
October 2005 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by May 1, 2005.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
ACI member Khaldoun N. Rahal is an associate professor in the Department of
Civil Engineering at Kuwait University, Safat, Kuwait. He is currently the President
of the ACI Kuwait Chapter, and a member of the torsion subcommittee of Joint ACI-
ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion.
ACI member Khaled S. Al-Shaleh is an assistant professor at the Department of Civil
Engineering, Kuwait University. He is a member of the ACI Kuwait Chapter.
CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM
TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT
In ACI 318-83,11 the minimum transverse reinforcement
does not depend on the concrete strength and is given by the
following equation
v fy 0.345 MPa (50 psi)
where v and fy are the ratio and the yield stress of the transverse
reinforcement, respectively. This equation is based on test
results on concrete of strength smaller than 40 MPa, and
experience has proven its adequacy.
Equation (1) remained valid in ACI 318-89,4 but the
square root of the compressive strength used in the calculation of
the concrete contribution Vc was limited to 8.3 MPa (100 psi).
Consequently, designs could not take advantage of strengths
larger than 69 MPa (10,000 psi) unless a larger value of
minimum reinforcement was provided
v fy 0.01 fc
This amount, however, need not exceed 1.03 MPa (150 psi).
Since the cracking stress in the concrete depends on fc,
the 1994 Canadian CSA A23.3-94 Standard2 introduced a
new equation for the minimum transverse reinforcement
as follows
v fy 0.06 fc (N, mm units)
v fy 0.72 fc (lb, in. units)
In 1994, AASHTO introduced its first edition of the LRFD
Specifications.12 The minimum transverse reinforcement
equation was given by
v fy 0.083 fc (N, mm units)
v fy fc (lb, in. units)
The AASHTO equation is similar to that of CSA, but
requires 38% more steel for the same concrete strength.
AASHTOs equation remained the same in the second
edition3 in 1998.
In 2002, the ACI 318-02 code1 adopted a format similar to
that of the CSA and AASHTO by relating v fy to fc by the
following equation
v fy 0.0625 fc (N, mm units)
v fy 0.75 fc (lb, in. units)
but not to be less than 0.345 MPa (50 psi) as given in Eq. (1).
For concrete strength larger than 30.5 MPa (4400 psi), the
current ACI Code requires only 4% more steel than the
current CSA Standard.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
(1)
Fig. 1Minimum transverse reinforcement requirements in
codes and ratios in tested specimens.
In addition to the minimum amount requirements, the ACI
Code limits the spacing of the stirrups to 0.5d, while the CSA
A23.3 and AASHTO LRFD limits are 0.7d and 0.8dv,
respectively (not to exceed 600 mm [24 in.] in all three
codes). More rigid limits are required if the steel contribution
exceeds specific levels.
(2) It is noted that the code minimum reinforcement requirements
(Eq. (1) to (5)) do not include the effects of the co-existing
longitudinal steel.
Figure 1 shows the five different minimum reinforcement
requirements described by Eq. (1) to (5). The ACI 318-89
curve is based on the assumption that the designer is allowed
to use values of fc larger than 8.3 MPa (100 psi) in the
calculation of Vc. The figure clearly shows the abrupt change
(3a) in ACI 318-89 requirements at 69 MPa (10,000 psi). Below
this strength, the AASHTO requirements are the most
conservative. At 65 MPa (9500 psi) for example, AASHTO
(3b)
requires v fy of 0.67 MPa (97 psi), which is approximately
94% larger than ACI 318-83 and 318-89 requirement of
0.345 MPa (50 psi), and approximately 38% larger than the
CSA A23.3 requirement of 0.484 MPa (70 psi). At 100 MPa,
AASHTO requires 0.83 MPa (120 psi), which is approximately
17% smaller than the ACI 318-89 requirement of 1.0 MPa
(4a) (145 psi), and approximately 38% larger than the CSA A23.3
requirement of 0.60 MPa (87 psi). The most significant
(4b) difference between the code requirements is between 65 and
75 MPa.
The most relevant study for concrete strength near 65 MPa
(9500 psi) is that by Yoon, Cook, and Mitchell,6 who
reported 12 test results on 36, 67, and 87 MPa (5220, 9715,
and 12,615 psi) concrete specimens with minimum transverse
reinforcements according to ACI 318-83, CSA A23.3-94,
and ACI 318-89. They concluded that the CSA A23.3-94
requirements are adequate for high-strength concrete (HSC),
while those of ACI 318-83 are not. The ACI 318-89 provisions
were also found inadequate for the 67 MPa (9715 psi)
(5a)
specimens. The tests by Ozcebe, Ersoy, and Tankut,5 mainly
on 75 MPa (10,875 psi) concrete and their analysis of
(5b) previous experimental results such as those from References
7 to 10 indicated that ACI 318-83 provisions are not adequate
for HSC. They also reported that the CSA provisions, which
relate the minimum transverse reinforcement to fc,
provided the required postcracking strength and ability to
control cracking at service loads, and that they were
873
Table 1Details of test specimens and summary of experimental results
Beam fcy,* MPa fcu, MPa fsp,* MPa Age, days d, mm s, mm v fy, MPa Vcr , kN Vcr-avg Vexp, kN Vexp /Vcr-avg
A65-NTR 61.3 83.6 74 330 0 100 125 1.08
A65-200 60.9 80.5 79 325 200 0.339 100 175 1.51
Series A A65-140 62.1 85.2 83 325 140 0.485 138 116 150 1.29
A65-110 60.9 80.5 79 325 110 0.617 188 1.62
A65-95 62.1 85.2 83 325 95 0.714 125 220 1.90
B65-NTR 61.9 85.0 5.89 305 0 125 170 1.26
B65-200 64.3 86.4 5.87 97 300 200 0.366 150 195 1.44
B65-160 65.1 87.0 5.99 76 300 160 0.458 138 208 1.53
Series B 135
B65-140 65.1 87.0 5.99 76 300 140 0.523 138 235 1.74
B65-125 66.4 87.0 5.96 87 300 125 0.586 138 242 1.79
B65-110 66.4 87.0 5.96 87 300 110 0.665 125 270 2.00
*Average from three standard cylinders (152 mm in diameter by 305 mm in length).
Average from three 100 mm cubes.

varied by varying the spacing of the stirrups. In each series,

Fig. 2Test setup and specimen details.
adequate for HSC. They recommended, however, further
testing to justify the lower limits given by the CSA A23.3-94
Standard. This paper focuses on studying the behavior of test
specimens with concrete strengths slightly below 69 MPa to
evaluate the code requirements for this range of strength.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The experimental program consisted of seven beams of
65 MPa (9500 psi) concrete strength each tested in a four-point
loading arrangement. Four of the seven beams included two
test regions; hence, a total of 11 test results are reported.
Figure 2 shows the test setup and gives the details of the
specimens. Additional details of the test specimens are given
in Table 1.
All beams were 200 mm (7.87 in.) wide and 370 mm
(14.57 in.) deep, 2.75 m (9 ft) long, and were tested at a shear
span of 900 mm (35.4 in.). This gives a shear span-depth
ratio (a/d) between 2.7 and 3. The beams were grouped into
two series (A and B), depending on the amount of longitudinal
reinforcement. Specimens of Series A were reinforced with
325 longitudinal bars giving a longitudinal ratio L of
approximately 2.2%, while those in Series B were reinforced
with 525 bars giving a ratio of approximately 4%. Within
each series, the amount of transverse reinforcement was
one specimen was reinforced in the longitudinal direction
only, while the remaining specimens contained reinforcement in
both the longitudinal and transverse directions. The spacing
of stirrups ranged from 200 to 95 mm (7.87 to 3.74 in.).
Figure 1 shows the reinforcement ratios in relation to the
different code requirements (fc based on average cylinder
compressive strength on the day of the beam test). The stirrups
in six of the specimens did satisfy the ACI maximum
spacing requirement of d/2, equal to approximately 165 and
150 mm (6.5 and 5.9 in.) in Series A and B, respectively.
All beams with transverse reinforcement, however, satisfied
the CSA and AASHTO maximum spacing limit of 0.7d and
0.8dv, respectively.
The designation of the specimen reflects its major properties.
For example, in A65-110, A stands for Series A with L of
approximately 2.2%, 65 is the target cylinder compressive
strength of the concrete in MPa, and 110 is the spacing of
stirrups in mm. The spacing designation in test regions that
did not contain transverse reinforcement was replaced
with NTR.
Materials
Ordinary portland cement and silica fume (10% by weight
of total cementitious materials) were used. Natural sand and
equal proportions of two sizes of Gabbro crushed rock
coarse aggregates, 12 and 10 mm (1/2 and 3/8 in.), were also
used. A high-range water-reducing admixture was used to
minimize the water-cement ratio and ease placement of the
concrete. Standard 152 x 305 mm cylinders and 100 mm
cubes were cast and tested to evaluate the compressive
strength and split tensile strength of the concrete. The samples
were cured in the same conditions as the beams, and were
tested on the same day as the beams.
Deformed bars 25 mm in diameter were used to reinforce
the beams in the longitudinal direction as shown in Fig. 2.
Two different types of 6 mm plain bars were used in the
manufacture of the closed stirrups of Series A and B. The
area, yield stress, and ultimate strength of the 25 mm diameter
bars are As = 475 mm2 (0.736 in.2), fy = 440 MPa (63.8 ksi),
and fu = 681 MPa (98.8 ksi). For the 6 mm stirrups in Series A,
these values are As = 28.3 mm2 (0.044 in.2) and fy = 240 MPa
(34.8 ksi). For the 6 mm stirrups in Series B, these values are
As = 24 mm2 (0.0372 in.2), fy = 305 MPa (44.2 ksi), and fu =
388 MPa (56.3 ksi).

874 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004

Beam preparation and testing procedure
Nineteen electrical resistance strain gages were attached to
the bars of the specimens with stirrups, seven on the longitudinal
steel and twelve on the stirrups (refer to Fig. 2). In the two
beams without stirrups, seven gages were attached to the
longitudinal steel. In all specimens, the ends of the longitudinal
bars were bent to provide better development of the bars
beyond the support.
Electronic gages were used in the specimens of Series A to
measure surface displacements during the tests as shown in
Fig. 2. These gages provided concrete surface strains averaged
over a distance large enough to span more than one crack.
After casting, the beams and the control cubes and cylinders
were cured at room temperature using wet burlap covered by
plastic sheets to preserve moisture. Moist curing stopped 2 to
4 days before testing to allow for painting and placement of
the beam on the loading frame.
The load and support arrangement of the beams is shown
in Fig. 2. Four 160 x 25 mm steel plates were used at the
location of the loading and supports. The width of the plates
was slightly larger than the width of the beam. One support
location was restrained from longitudinal movement
using a pin-type support, while the two loading locations
and the other support location were provided with roller-
type support to allow free elongation of the beam in the
longitudinal direction.
As shown in Fig. 2, some beams had different stirrups
spacing on either side of the applied load. After reaching the
Fig. 3Crack patterns in specimens near ultimate loads.
ultimate strength of the weaker side of the specimen, the load
was released, and the concrete was repaired if the failure
caused considerable damage to the specimen. External stirrups In the specimens of Series A (L 2.2%), larger amounts of
and top and bottom steel plates were used to reinforce the transverse steel did not have a significant effect on the cracking
damaged half of the beam, then the beam was loaded to fail pattern except in Specimen A65-95 (v fy = 0.714 MPa or
the stronger side (with smaller stirrups spacing). Hence, it 104 psi), whose transverse reinforcement level satisfied the
was possible to obtain eight test results from four of the most stringent requirements of AASHTO (v fy = 0.656 MPa or
seven beams, giving a total of 11 test results. 95 psi) (also refer to Fig. 1). Specimen A65-110 showed an
unusual pattern, and it reached its capacity without developing
DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS the typical major diagonal crack.
Table 1 summarizes the observed strength of the control Specimens of Series B (L = 3.96%) showed more favorable
cylinders and cubes and the observed cracking and ultimate cracking patterns. The larger amounts of transverse steel in
shear forces in the beams. The target concrete strength was Series B improved the number of cracks in the beams. The
obtained within acceptable accuracy. On average, the cylinder adequate cracking pattern in Specimen B65-NTR, which
strength fcy was 75% of the cube strength fcu, and the split did not contain stirrups, points to the influence of longitudinal
tensile strength fsp was approximately 0.74fcy. reinforcement on crack control. Comparing the crack
patterns of beams of Series A and B indicates a strong
Cracking shear relationship between crack patterns and amounts of not
The cracking shear force Vcr is typically taken as the shear only the transverse, but also the longitudinal, reinforcement.
that causes the first diagonal cracking. In beams with rectangular Hence, from the point of view of ability of controlling the
cross sections, concrete cracks in flexure at the bottom face. development of cracks, the minimum amount of transverse
At larger loads, the shearing stresses cause these cracks to reinforcement depends significantly on the amount of co-
change orientation near mid-height of the section and existing longitudinal reinforcement.
become diagonal cracks. Detecting this change is not a
straightforward task. Visual examination, steel strain gage Crack width
readings, and surface displacement gages (available in Series A The maximum width in the diagonal cracks near mid-
only) were used to obtain the experimental cracking loads. height of the section was measured during the tests. Figure 4(a)
Table 1 shows the observed cracking shear, which was more shows parts of the shear versus crack width diagrams for
uniform in Series B than in Series A. Series A. It is to be noted that in Series A, the behavior was
dominated by a single major crack, as shown in Fig. 3. The
Cracking pattern amount of stirrups in Specimen A65-200 nearly satisfied the
Figure 3 shows the observed cracking patterns in 10 out of least stringent requirements of ACI 318-83 (Eq. (1)), but did
the 11 test regions. The drawn patterns in test regions that not satisfy the maximum spacing requirements (s < d/2 =
were on the right-hand side of the specimens were mirrored 150 mm). Comparing the curves of A65-NTR and A65-200
along the vertical axis of symmetry of the beam to improve shows that the addition of these stirrups improved the
the readability of the figure. behavior considerably. Specimen A65-140 satisfied all the

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004 875


Fig. 4Measured widths of diagonal cracks: (a) Series A;
and (b) Series B.
CSA A23.3-94 and the ACI 318-02 requirements, including
the maximum spacing limits. It cracked at a higher load, but
the stirrups did not adequately restrain the propagation of the
crack. Comparing the curves for A65-200 and A65-140 does
not show a clear improvement in behavior in the beam with
43% more stirrups. Placing the stirrups at 110 mm
(approaching the most stringent requirements given by
AASHTO) improved the crack response behavior, but cannot
be judged to be adequate when considering the lack of the
expected diagonal crack as shown in Fig. 3. Specimen A65-95
exceeded the AASHTO requirements by 9% and showed an
adequate response. In summary, specimens of Series A that
satisfied the 1994 CSA and the 2002 ACI requirements did
not show the expected consistency in crack control. The
specimen that satisfied the AASHTO LRFD requirements
showed an adequate behavior.
Ozcebe, Ersoy, and Tankut5 recommended a 0.3 mm
upper limit on the crack width at service load. Figure 4 (a)
shows the range of estimated service load for the specimens,
assumed to be 70% of the ultimate shear force calculated
using the ACI Code equations. The code equations were very
conservative, and the estimated service loads were smaller
than the experimentally observed cracking loads. The specimens
remained uncracked at estimated service load, and hence
satisfied the recommended limit on crack width.
Figure 4(b) shows a plot of parts of the shear versus crack
width response of the specimens of Series B. A more consistent
improvement in crack control with larger amount of transverse
steel is observed. Specimen B65-200 satisfied Eq. (1) of the
ACI 318-83 for amount of transverse steel, but did not satisfy
the maximum spacing limit. It showed a more favorable
876
behavior in comparison with the B65-NTR, developing a
maximum crack width of 3 mm. Specimen B65-160 nearly
satisfied the CSA A23.3-94 and the ACI 318-02 requirements
except for the ACI maximum spacing limit (by a 10 mm
difference only), but showed an adequate cracking behavior in
comparison with B65-200 and B65-NTR. Specimens B65-140
and B65-125 satisfied all requirements of the 1994 CSA and
2002 ACI requirements, but not those of AASHTO LRFD,
and displayed an adequate crack width behavior. Specimen
B65-110 satisfied all codes, including AASHTO, and
displayed an adequate crack width behavior. It did not show
favorable behavior, however, when compared with B65-160,
B65-140, and B65-125 as would have been expected.
Similar to the trend in Series A, the specimens of Series B
cracked at loads significantly larger than the estimated service
load, and hence satisfied the 0.3 mm limit recommended by
Ozcebe, Ersoy, and Tankut.5 In summary, Series B specimens
that satisfied the requirements of the current codes (ACI 2002,
CSA 1994, and AASHTO 1998) showed adequate crack
control behavior.
A comparison of Fig. 4(a) and (b) shows a significant
reduction in the maximum crack width with the increase in
the amount of longitudinal reinforcement. The ACI 318-02
and CSA A23.3-94 provisions were more reliable when
combined with larger amounts of longitudinal steel, while
the more stringent AASHTO requirements seemed more
appropriate when the longitudinal steel is relatively smaller,
that is, more utilized. Hence, Fig. 4 confirms the conclusion
in the previous section that the minimum amount of transverse
reinforcement depends significantly on the amount of co-
existing longitudinal reinforcement, and that with the higher
utilization of the longitudinal steel, the AASHTO LRFD
requirements are more appropriate for proper crack control
behavior in the postcracking part of the response.
Postcracking reserve strength
The minimum amount of transverse reinforcement is
required to provide ample postcracking reserve strength to
avoid sudden failure upon cracking. Figure 5(a) and (b) show
a plot of the individual and the average cracking loads, and
the ultimate loads in the two series of specimens.
Due to the difference in the calculated and observed
cracking shear force, it is more appropriate to calculate the
postcracking reserve strength based on the observed
cracking values. This is more conservative, and hence more
suitable, for the type of brittle failure expected in shear. It
also provides a measure of the available strength before
actual cracks provide signs of warning of overload on the
beams. Due to the variation shown in Table 1 in the cracking
shear for the specimens of the same series, it is assumed
adequate to consider an average value for each series. Table 1
shows that for the six members that satisfied the CSA
requirements, Vexp/Vcr-avg ranged from 1.293 to 1.90 for
Series A, and 1.74 to 2.0 for Series B. Assuming that a 30%
postcracking reserve strength is adequate, the table shows
that all the behavior of all the transversely reinforced
specimens seems satisfactory.
It is to be noted, however, that Specimen A65-140, which
satisfied the CSA A23.3-94 requirements but not those of
AASHTO LRFD, did not show an increase in strength consistent
with the increase in amount of transverse reinforcement (relative
to A65-200). Moreover, this specimen failed at Vexp = 150 kN,
approximately 9% larger than its diagonal cracking at Vcr =
138 kN. This could be an anomaly in the results, but still
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
 Table 2Comparison between observed and calculated shear capacity
ACI 2002 CSA (GM) 1994 AASHTO (GM) 1998
Beam Vcr-avg Vexp, kN VACI, kN Vexp/VACI VCSA, kN Vexp/VCSA VLRFD, kN Vexp /VLRFD
A65-NTR 125 86.3* 1.34 92.0* 1.36 92.0* 1.36
A65-200 175 * * 1.93 * 1.93
84.7 1.37 90.5 90.5
A65-140 116 150 117.1 1.28 122.5 1.22 91.2 * 1.64
A65-110 188 124.8 1.51 129.8 1.45 * 2.08
90.5
A65-95 220 132.0 1.67 136.0 1.62 136.0 1.62
B65-NTR 170 * * *
80.1 1.69 98.0 1.73 98.0 1.73
B65-200 195 80.3* 1.68 98.1* 1.99 98.1* 1.99
B65-160 208 * * 2.11 * 2.11
80.8 1.67 98.6 98.6
135
B65-140 235 112.2 2.09 129.0 1.82 * 2.38
98.6
B65-125 242 116.8 2.07 134.0 1.81 99.4* 2.43
B65-110 270 121.5 2.22 139.2 1.94 99.4* 2.72
*
Based on concrete contribution because of lack or inadequate amount or spacing of transverse reinforcement.

Ratio of calculated shear force over average cracking shear force.

raises concerns about the performance of members designed

according to the current CSA and ACI requirements in
regions with relatively low (and more practical) amounts of
longitudinal reinforcement or in regions subjected to large
bending moments.

COMPARISONS WITH STRENGTH EQUATIONS

Table 2 shows the results of the comparison between the
observed and calculated capacity of the specimens. The
calculations are based on unit resistance factors and on the
observed concrete compressive strengths and steel yield
strengths. The simplified ACI equations for the concrete
contribution Vc are used because they are more commonly
used in design. In members where the transverse reinforcement
did not satisfy the ACI Code requirements (either amount or
stirrups spacing), the calculated strength was assumed to be
equal to the concrete contribution alone. The ACI Code
equation for Vc is based on the cracking load and not the
ultimate load, and hence, it does not take into account the post-
cracking strength. Consequently, in calculating Vexp/VACI in
those members, the experimental value was assumed to be
the average observed cracking shear instead of the observed
ultimate shear force.
The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and
the Canadian CSA Standard allow the use of two alternative
methods. The simplified method is similar to the ACI
simple method, while the general method (GM) is based on Fig. 5Postcracking reserve strength: (a) Series A; and (b)
the modified compression field theory. In this section, the Series B.
experimental results are compared to the GM. The main
difference between the method in AASHTO and CSA is the
amount of minimum reinforcement as shown in Fig.1 and not account for it (that is, Vs = 0) in that case, and hence gives
Eq. (3) and (4). (Further details of this method can be found overly conservative results.
in References 13 and 14.) The GM has two sets of provisions: The minimum ratio of the experimental to the calculated
the first for members with and the second for members capacity was 1.28 for ACI 318-02, 1.22 for CSA A23.3-94,
without adequate transverse reinforcement,13,14 and they are and 1.36 for AASHTO LRFD. This provides an adequate
used depending on whether the minimum requirements are factor of safety and, consequently, the capacity equations of the
satisfied or not. current codes1-3 can be safely used for 65 MPa concrete beams.
Table 2 shows that the equations from all three codes
considered were conservative for all specimens. Some of the CONCLUSIONS
calculated strength values are overly conservative mainly This study was conducted to evaluate the current code
because the strength of the specimens increases with the requirements for minimum transverse reinforcement in
addition of transverse reinforcement, even if it does not 65 MPa (9500 psi) HSC beams. The experiments resulted in
satisfy the minimum requirements. The code equation does the following conclusions:

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004 877

 1. The performance of the different levels of transverse
steel depends considerably on the amount and, hence, the use
of co-existing longitudinal steel in the beam. The behavior of
members with larger longitudinal steel was more favorable;
2. The current ACI Code and CSA Standard provide
adequate performance in the members with large amounts of
longitudinal reinforcement, that is, in members where this steel
is less utilized. In beams with smaller amounts of longitudinal
steel, increasing the amount of transverse reinforcement from the
ACI 318-83 minimum to the ACI 318-02 and CSA A23.3-94
minimum did not provide the expected improvement in post-
cracking reserve strength and in crack control behavior;
3. Though judged inadequate for HSC, transverse steel
according to the ACI 318-83 requirements (v fy = 0.345 MPa
[50 psi]) provides improvement in behavior relative to
members without transverse steel. This improvement is more
significant in members with relatively smaller amounts of
longitudinal reinforcement;
4. There was no evidence that beams designed for the
maximum stirrups spacing of 0.5d (ACI Code) behave more
adequately than beams designed for a maximum spacing of
0.7d (CSA Standard) and 0.8dv (AASHTO LRFD);
5. The shear capacity equations in the current ACI Code,
CSA Standard, and AASHTO LRFD Specifications are
conservative. Beams designed to satisfy the minimum
transverse reinforcement provisions of the current codes did
not show diagonal cracking at service loads; and
6. Further testing is required to justify the lower limits by
the ACI 318-02 and CSA A23.3-94 in areas subjected to
relatively large bending moments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research presented in this paper was made possible by a grant from
the Kuwait Foundation for Scientific Research (KFAS) Project No. 99-09-03
and Kuwait University Research Administration, grant No. EV126. This
support is gratefully acknowledged. The assistance of Hatem Rumaih in
supervising the experimental testing is also acknowledged.
NOTATION
As = area of reinforcing bar
a = shear span
b = width of beam cross section
d = effective depth of beam cross section
fc = specified compressive strength of concrete
fcu = cube compressive strength of concrete on day of testing beam
fcy = cylinder compressive strength of concrete on day of testing
beam
fsp = splitting tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimen on
day of testing beam
fu = ultimate strength of reinforcing steel
878
fy = yield stress of reinforcing steel
s = spacing of stirrups measured along length of beam
V = applied shear force
VACI = ultimate shear force calculated using ACI Code equations
Vc = concrete contribution in ACI equation
Vcr = cracking shear force
Vcr-avg = average cracking shear force in each series of beams
VCSA = ultimate shear force calculated using general method of
CSA
Vexp = experimental ultimate shear force
VLRFD = ultimate shear force calculated using general method of
AASHTO LRFD
L = ratio of longitudinal reinforcement in tension zone
v = ratio of transverse reinforcement
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.
2. CSA Standard A23.3-94, Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian
Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 1994, 199 pp.
3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary, SI
Units, Second Edition, Washington D.C., 1998, 1091 pp.
4. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary (318R-89), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1989, 353 pp.
5. Ozcebe, G.; Ersoy, U.; and Tankut, T., Evaluation of Minimum Shear
Reinforcement Requirements for Higher Strength Concrete, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 96, No. 3, May-June 1999, pp. 361-368.
6. Yoon, Y. S.; Cook, W. D.; and Mitchell, D., Minimum Shear
Reinforcement in Normal, Medium, and High-Strength Concrete Beams,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1996, pp. 576-584.
7. Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., Shear Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Using High-Strength Concrete, ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 290-296.
8. Johnson, M. K., and Ramirez, J. A., Minimum Shear Reinforcement
in Beams with Higher Strength Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86,
No. 4, July-Aug. 1989, pp. 376-382.
9. Roller, J. J., and Russell, H. G., Shear Strength of High-Strength
Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1990, pp. 191-198.
10. Mphonde, A. G., and Frantz, G. C., Shear Tests of High-Strength
Reinforced Concrete Beams, Report No. CE84-157, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Connecticut, 1984, 260 pp.
11. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-83), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 1983, 111 pp.
12. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary, SI
Units, First Edition, Washington D.C., 1994, 1091 pp.
13. Collins, M. P.; Mitchell, D.; Adebar, P.; and Vecchio, F. J., A
General Shear Design Method, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-
Feb. 1996, pp. 36-45.
14. Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., Background of the 1994 CSA
A23.3 General Method of Shear Design, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, V. 26, No. 6, Dec. 1999, pp. 827-839.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004