HBRC Journal (2012) 8, 99106

Housing and Building National Research Center

HBRC Journal

http://ees.elsevier.com/hbrcj

Evaluate the capability and accuracy of

response-2000 program in prediction of the shear
capacities of reinforced and prestressed concrete members
Ibrahim M. Metwally

Reinforced Concrete Dept., Housing & Building Research Centre, P.O. Box 1770 Cairo, Egypt

Received 15 July 2011; accepted 17 January 2012

KEYWORDS Abstract The program Response-2000 developed at the University of Toronto by Evan C. Bentz
Response-2000; (1) was used in this research to obtain shear strength predictions. This program allows users to ana-
Shear capacity; lyze beams and columns subjected to moment, shear, and axial loads comprising virtually any type
Concrete beams of beam geometry, material types, and material properties. The fundamental theory supporting the
program is the Modied Compression Field Theory (MCFT).
Member response analysis and sectional analysis were both used in Response-2000 to predict the
behavior of the beams. Member response calculates the full member behavior including the deec-
tion and curvature along the member length, as well as predicted failure modes. The analysis was
performed by specifying the length subjected to shear and any constant moment region. Response-
2000 provided a very good prediction of experimental behavior when compared to a database of
534 beams tested in shear. These include prestressed and reinforced sections, very large footing-like
sections, sections made with very high strength concrete and elements with unusual geometry. All
are predicted well. The results include that Response-2000 can predict the failure shear with an
average experimental over predicted shear ratio of 1.05 with a coefcient of variation of 12%. This
compares favorably to the ACI 318-08 [2] Code prediction ratios that have an average of 1.20 and a
coefcient of variation of 32%.
2012 Housing and Building National Research Center. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
All rights reserved.

Introduction

Response-2000 computer program was developed at the

University of Toronto by Evan Bentz [1] as a part of his
E-mail address: dr_ibrahimmetwally@yahoo.com
Ph.D. thesis. This two-dimensional sectional analysis program
Peer review under responsibility of Housing and Building National
for beams and columns will calculate the strength and ductility
Research Center
of a reinforced concrete cross-section subjected to shear,
moment, and axial load. Al1 three loads are considered simul-
taneously to nd the full load-deformation response.
Production and hosting by Elsevier Response- 2000 is able to calculate the strength of beams
1687-4048 2012 Housing and Building National Research Center. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2012.09.005
100 I.M. Metwally

Fig. 1 Reinforced Concrete Element.

Fig. 2 Automatically produced cross section of beam from Response-2000.

and columns with rectangular sections as well as or better than
traditional methods and, more importantly, is able to make
predictions of shear strengths for sections that cannot easily
be modeled by such traditional methods. Response-2000 al-
lows analysis of beams and columns subjected to arbitrary
combinations of axial, moment, and shear. It also includes a
method to integrate the sectional behavior for simple prismatic
beam-segments. The assumptions implicit in the program are
that plane sections remain plane and that there is no transverse
clamping stress across the depth of the beam. For sections of a
beam or column a reasonable distance away from a support or
point load, these are excellent assumptions. These are the same
locations in beams that are usually the critical locations for
brittle shear failure. Response 2000 uses the Modied
Evaluate the capability and accuracy of response-2000 program in prediction of the shear
Fig. 3 Response-2000 results from an analysis of a RC beam.
Compression Field Theory (MCFT) which is considered the
theoretical foundation for the analytical process [3].
The MCFT is a smeared, rotating crack model describing
the load-deformation response of reinforced concrete elements
subjected to general two- or three dimensional stress condi-
tions, as shown in Fig. 1. Conditions of equilibrium, compat-
ibility and constitutive response are formulated in terms of
average stresses and average strains; also central to the formu-
lation, however, is the consideration of local stress conditions
at crack locations. Concrete is treated as an orthotropic solid
continuum with evenly distributed (smeared) cracks, as op-
posed to a solid interrupted by discrete physical discontinu-
ities. The smeared cracks freely reorient, remaining coaxial
with the changing direction of the principal concrete compres-
sive stress eld. As well as being computationally convenient,
the smeared rotating crack approach is consistent with the dis-
tributed and meandering crack patterns observed in many rein-
forced concrete structures. In the basic form of the MCFT, the
following assumptions are made: reinforcement (permissible in
any direction) is well distributed; cracks are uniformly distrib-
uted and fully rotating; element boundary stresses are uni-
formly applied; a unique stress state exists for each strain
state, without consideration of strain history; strains and stres-
ses are averaged over distances that include several cracks;
concrete principal strain and principal stress directions coin-
cide; perfect bond exists between reinforcement and concrete;
independent constitutive relationships can be dened for con-
crete and reinforcement; and negligible shear stresses exist in
the reinforcement. These assumptions lead to a simple and
powerful conceptual model that can be applied to a wide range
of practical problems.
Response 2000 will calculate strengths and deformations
for beams and columns subjected to axial load, moment and
101
shear based on the familiar assumption plane sections remain
plane of engineering beam theory. Therefore, to have a rea-
sonable analysis result, a limitation on the depth/span ratio
of the frame component should exist.
Unlike the other programs, Response-2000 program does
not have a default cross section entered into it. This is not a
problem, however, as one can be made quickly. For this exam-
ple, an 80 foot span prestressed concrete bridge girder and slab
will be analyzed.
Program Response-2000 provides enhanced modeling and
analysis capabilities for beam elements, using a layered section
analysis approach (1). In addition to the traditional abilities of
a sectional model to account for the effects of axial load and
shear, Response-2000 also allows rigorous inclusion of the
effects of shear. Thus shear-moment-axial load interaction ef-
fects on strength and ductility are automatically taken into
effect. The program is based on the assumption of plane sec-
tions remaining plane, zero clamping stress through the depth
of the beam and the constitutive relations of the MCFT.
Example capabilities are illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3.
Research signicance
Examine the validity of the Response 2000 program and ACI
318 Code for nding the shear capacity of all types of concrete
members with any cross sections (reinforced and prestressed
concrete members).
Test specimens & methodology
The test specimens consisted of 534 reinforced and prestressed
concrete beams with various shapes of cross section geometries
were collected from the literature. The parameters of this study
 102
Table 1 Summary of Response-2000 & ACI 318 Experimental Verication.
Reference Number & Specimens type Loading Depth, mm fc, MPa Stirrups Avfy/bws Response-2000 ACI 318-08
M COV, % M COV, %
MacGregor [4] 83 Prestressed I beams 2 point loads on simple span 305 16 to 52 0 to 3.6 1.12 12.5
Kani et al. [5] 43 rectangular beams 2 point loads on simple span 152 to 1219 17 to 35 0 1.05 9.1 1.27 19.5
Ghannoum [6] 16 rectangular beams Point load on simple span 220 to 960 34 to 58 0 1.10 12.5 1.12 24.4
Moody et al. [7] 28 rectangular beams Point load on simple span 305 6.1 to 41.2 0 1.02 10.4 1.39 11.2
Adebar and Collins [8] 21 rectangular beams End loads applying shear and tension 210 to 410 46 to 59 0 to 1.3 0.96 12.8 1.7 66.4
Taylor [9] 15 rectangular beams Point load on simple span 150 to 1000 22 to 34 0 0.99 8.3 1.23 13.6
Shahawy and Batchelor [10] 25 full-size Prestressed Point load on simple span 1118 42 0 to 12 1.05 9.6 1.09 14.2
bridge girders
Collins et al. [11] 16 rectangular beams Point load on continuous span 500 to 1000 50 to 91 0 to 0.83 1.02 8.2 0.88 12.4
Khalifa and Collins [12] 9 round columns Symmetrical moment and shear 445 23 to 40 0 to 2.7 1.06 6.4 1.33 24.2
Aregawi [13] 34 Prestressed I beams 2 point loads on simple span 256 and 457 40 to 70 0 to 4.8 1.12 8.2 1.15 9.7
Podgorniak [14] 28 rectangular beams Point load on simple span 125 to 1000 36 to 99 0 to 0.35 1.05 16.8 0.89 29.2
Shioya et al. [15] and Shioya [16] 5 rectangular beams Uniform load on simple span 300 to 3000 19 to 29 0 1.02 10.9 0.74 46.3
Yoon et al. [17] 12 rectangular beams Point load on simple span 750 36 to 87 0 to 1 1.05 11.2 1.14 14.4
Angelakos [18] 12 rectangular beams Point load on simple span 1000 21 to 80 0 to 0.35 0.95 15.4 0.74 23.8
Haddadin et al. [19] 62 T-beams Point load on beam with tension 470 13 to 44 0 to 4.8 1.09 11.1 1.1 8.9
or compression
Pasley et al. [20] 13 T-beams Point loads on continuous span 457 31 0 to 0.57 0.98 9.1 0.98 8.6
Palaskas and Darwin [21] 15 T-beams Point loads on continuous span 457 31 0 to 0.77 1.02 13.1 1.05 10
Ozcebe et al. [22] 12 rectangular beams 2 point loads on simple span 360 58 to 82 0 to 0.71 1.09 10.3 1.34 14.7
Roller and Russell [23] 10 rectangular beams Point load on simple span 635 to 864 72 to 125 0 to 8.1 0.95 11.7 1.06 25.3
Kong and Rangan [24] 33 rectangular beams Point load on simple span 250 to 600 64 to 89 0.6 to 1.48 1.03 12.8 1.51 11.5
Rangan [25] 16 I-beams Point load on simple span 615 29 to 45 7.41 to 15.4 1.01 9.7 1.7 19.6
Levi and Marro [26] 7 I-beams Point load on simple span 1050 25 to 60 4.02 to 6.03 1.08 4.9 1.5 12.2
Kawano and Watanabe [27] 8 rectangular beams 2 point loads on simple span 330 to 2200 25 0 1.05 9.4 0.98 28
Gupta[28], Arbesman [29] and 5 rectangular beams Various loading 406 to 610 25 to 50 0 to 2.0 1.02 11.1 1.71 55
Kuzmanovic [30]
4 I-beams
2 Interlock hoop
534 beams 1.05 12.0 1.20 32

I.M. Metwally
Evaluate the capability and accuracy of response-2000 program in prediction of the shear 103

Fig. 4 Experimental and Predicted Shear Strength by Response-2000 and ACI 318.

Fig. 5 Experimental to predicted shear strength of beams versus concrete compressive strength.

Fig. 6 Experimental to predicted shear strength of beams versus shear span to depth ratio.
104
Fig. 7 Experimental to predicted shear strength of beams versus effective depth.
were beam geometry (bd), amount of longitudinal tensile
steel reinforcement (q), amount of transverse steel reinforce-
ment (qv ), loading status, and concrete compressive strength
(f0c ). The beams were simply supported and subjected to vari-
ous types of loading, as reported in Table 1.
These beams have been considered with a view to compare
the ultimate shear strength of them to the shear capacity pre-
dicted by both Response-2000 software and ACI 318 Code.
For a comparison to be made between the actual shear capac-
ities and theoretical ones, the theoretical shear capacities had
to be based on the same parameters as the actual beams tested.
The details and summary of Response-2000 & ACI 318 Code
experimental verication have been given in Table 1.
Verication of the response-2000 program & aci 318 code
To verify the Response-2000 Program, the theoretical values of
shear strength predicted by Response-2000 Program were
compared to the test results of 534 prestressed and reinforced
concrete beams which were collected from the literature.
Table 1 show relevant details on the specimens included in this
verication.
Fig. 8 Experimental to predicted shear strength of beams versus tensile Longitudinal Reinforcement.
I.M. Metwally
Besides the predicted shear strengths according to the
Response-2000 Program, the predicted shear capacities
according to the current ACI 318-08 shear design equation
are also presented in Table 1. For the 534 concrete beam tests,
the average Vuexp /Vupred for the Response-2000 is 1.05 with a
coefcient of variation of 12% (Table 1). On the other hand,
the corresponding values were 1.2 and 32%for the current
ACI 318-08 method.
Fig. 4 shows comparison between the experimental and pre-
dicted shear strengths of the studied beams based on the results
of the Response-2000 Program and ACI 318-08 equations.
From these gures, it is evident that the level of accuracy of
the shear strength of the concrete beams predicted by the
Response-2000 Program is consistent unlike the method of
ACI 318-08. The same observation can be made when the re-
sults of the Response-2000 Program and those of the ACI
318-08 equations are plotted versus the concrete strength,
(shear span to depth)a/d ratio, effective depth, longitudinal
reinforcement, and transverse reinforcement as in Figs. 59
respectively. Across the range of variables included in the data
set, the predictions of the ACI 318-08 design method appear to
have larger band width of the scattered results and higher level
Evaluate the capability and accuracy of response-2000 program in prediction of the shear
Fig. 9 Experimental to predicted shear strength of beams versus Transverse Reinforcement (Stirrups).
of conservatism compared to that of the Response-2000
Program. Thus, Response-2000 Program appears to be more
accurate and reliable for predicting the shear capacity of pre-
stressed and reinforced concrete beams.
Conclusions
Response-2000 Program was used to calculate the shear
strength of 534 prestressed and reinforced concrete beams
tested in 27 different investigations. The calculated shear
strengths using this program were compared to those calcu-
lated by the ACI 318-08 equations and the experimental ones.
Based on this comparison, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
1. Response-2000 Program gives accurate predictions and yet
conservative over the range of variables known to affect the
shear strength.
2. Response-2000 Program was compared to the ACI 318
Code using the available test data. More accurate and con-
sistent predictions were obtained using this software.
3. It is very needed to modify the ACI 318 Code provision; it
provides more conservative and inaccurate estimate of the
shear capacity for concrete beams.
References
[1] E.C. Bentz, Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Members, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 184 (2000).
[2] ACI Committee, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-08), American Concrete Institute 318 (2008).
[3] F.J. Vecchio, M.P. Collins, The modied compression eld
theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear, ACI.
J. 83 (2) (1986) 219231.
[4] J.G. MacGregor, Strength and Behavior of Prestressed Concrete
Beams with Web Reinforcement, PhD thesis, Uinversity of
Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 295 (1960).
[5] M.W. Kani, M.W. Huggins, R.R. Wittkopp, Kani on Shear in
Reinforced Concrete, University of Toronto Press, Toronto,
1979, 225.
105
[6] W.M. Ghannoum, Size Effect on Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Beams, M. Eng. Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, 115
(1998).
[7] K.G. Moody, M. Viest, R.C. Elstner, E. Hognestad, Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams, Part-1:Test of Simple
Beams, J. American Conc. Inst. 26 (4) (Nov. 1954) 317333.
[8] P.E. Adebar, M.P. Collins, Shear Strength of Members without
Transverse Reinforcement, Can. J. Civil Eng. 23 (1) (Feb. 1996)
3041.
[9] H.P. Taylor, Shear Strength of Large Beams, J. Struc. Div. Proc.
ASCE. 98 (11) (Nov, 1972) 24732489.
[10] M.A. Shahawy, B. Batchelor, Shear Behavior of Full-Scale
Prestressed Concrete Girders: Comparison Between AASHTO
Specications and LRFD Code, PCI J. 41 (3) (May-June, 1996)
4862.
[11] M.P. Collins, D. Mitchell, J.G. MacGregor, Structural Design
Considerations for High Strength, Concrete International, May
1993 (May, 1993) 2734.
[12] J.U. Khalifa, and M.P. Collins, Circular Reinforced Concrete
Members Subjected to Shear, Publication No. 81-08, Dept. of
Civil Eng., University of Toronto, Dec. 103 (1981).
[13] M. Aregawi, An Experimental Investigation of Circular
Reinforced Concrete Beams in Shear, M. Sc. Thesis, Dept. of
Civil Eng., University of Toronto, 86 (1974).
[14] B. Podgorniak, The Inuence of Concrete Strength, Distribution
of Longitudinal Reinforcement, Amount of Transverse
Reinforcement and Member Size on shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Members, M. Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Civil
Eng., University of Toronto, (1998).
[15] T. Shioya, M. Iguro, Y. Nojiri, H. Akiyama, and T. Okada,
Shear Strength of Large Reinforced Concrete Beams, Fracture
Mechanics: Application to Concrete, SP-118, ACI, Detroit, 309
(1989).
[16] T. Shioya, Shear Properties of Large Reinforced Concrete
Member, Special Report of Institute of Technology, Shimizu
Corporation, No. 25, 198 (1989).
[17] Y. Yoon, W. Cook, D. Mitchell, Minimum Shear
Reinforcement in Normal, Medium, and High-Strength Conc.
Beams, ACI Struc. J. 93 (5) (1996) 576584.
[18] D. Angelakos, The Inuence of Concrete Strength and
Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio on the Shear Strength of
Large-Size Reinforced Concrete Beams with and without
Transverse Reinforcement, M. Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng.,
University of Toronto, 181 (1999).
106
[19] M.J. Haddadin, S.T. Hong, A.H. Mattock, Stirrup Effectiveness
in Reinforced Concrete Beams with Axial Force, J. Struc. Div.
Proc. ASCE. 97 (ST9) (Sept. 1971) 22772297.
[20] G.P. Pasley, S. Gogoi, D. Darwin, and S.L. McCabe, Shear
Strength of Continuous Lightly Reinforced T-Beams, SM
Report No. 26, University of Kansas, Dec. 151 (1990).
[21] M.N. Palaskas, and D. Darwin, Shear Strength of lightly
Reinforced T-Beams. SM Report No. 3, University of Kansas,
Center for Research, Lawrence, Kansas, Sept., 198 (1980).
[22] G. Ozcebe, U. Ersoy, T. Tankut, An Evaluation on the
Minimum Shear Reinforcement Requirements for Higher
Strength Concrete, Medium, and High-Strength Conc. Beams,
ACI Struc. J. 96 (3) (1999).
[23] J.J. Roller, H.G. Russell, Shear Strength of High-strength
Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement, Medium, and High-
Strength Conc. Beams, ACI Struc. J. 87 (2) (1990) 191
198.
[24] P.Y. Kong, B. Rangan, Shear Strength of High-Performance
Concrete Beams, Medium, and High-Strength Conc. Beams,
ACI Struc. J. 95 (6) (1998) 677688.
I.M. Metwally
[25] B. Rangan, Web Crushing Strength of Reinforced and
Prestressed Concrete Beams, Medium, and High-Strength
Conc. Beams, ACI Struc. J. 88 (1) (1991) 1216.
[26] F. Levi, P. Marro, Shear Tests up to Failure of Beams made
with Normal and High Strength Concrete, CEB Bulletin 193,
Lausanne, Switzerland, Dec. 1989.
[27] Kawano, H. and Watanabe, H., Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Columns-Effect of Specimen Size and Load Reversal,
Proceedings of the Second Italy-Japan Workshop on Seismic
Design and Retrot of Bridges, Feb. 1997; Rome, Italy.
[28] P.R. Gupta, Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Elements
Subjected to High Compression and Shear, Ph.D. Thesis,
Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Toronto, (1998).
[29] B. Arbesman, The Effects of Stirrups Cover and Amount of
Reinforcement on Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete
Beams, M. Eng. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of
Toronto, (1975).
[30] S. Kuzmanovic, An Investigation of the Shear Design of a
Reinforced Concrete Box Structure, M. Sc. Thesis, Dept. of
Civil Eng., University of Toronto, 126 (1998).