Shear Stress Prediction Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 108-S29
Shear Stress Prediction: Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete

Beams without Stirrups
by Haisam E. Yakoub
This paper develops an equation to predict steel fiber contribution

to the shear strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC). This
equation will be used to modify the CSA A23.3-04 general shear
design method and Bažant and Kim equations so that the modified
relations safely predict the shear strength of SFRC without stirrups.
This paper analyzes 218 shear failure tests previously conducted on
SFRC without stirrups and 72 tests on reinforced concrete—with no
stirrups and no steel fibers—to verify the applicability, accuracy,
and efficiency of the two equations developed in this paper and five
other equations from the literature. Furthermore, it shows that
hooked steel fibers are not as efficient as crimped fibers, and that
round fibers are among the most efficient fibers used in those tests.
Moreover, it recommends a procedure to calculate steel fiber
geometry factors, another factor to evaluate engineering equations,
and further research on different SFRC aspects.
Fig. 1—Shear span to effective depth ratio.
Keywords: absolute reduction factor; failure; geometry factor; shear

stress; steel fiber-reinforced concrete; strain; volume fraction. equations for SFRC shear prediction have higher reduction
factors φ (as per ACI), and lower coefficients of variation
INTRODUCTION than those of the reviewed five equations from the literature.
Integrating steel fibers into reinforced concrete has many In addition, a new factor is introduced to evaluate steel fiber
advantages: it significantly reduces crack width due to efficiencies in contribution to the shear strength of SFRC.
service loadings (Adebar et al. 1997), concrete shrinkage, This factor also helps to evaluate the accuracy of this paper’s
creep, and thermal loads. As a result, it enhances durability; equations and any other engineering equation when other
performance under dynamic loadings; resistance to freezing- evaluation methods are not sufficient. Further research
and-thawing cycles, abrasion, and erosion; and flexural tough- is recommended.
ness (ACI Committee 544 1988). Moreover, adding steel
fibers increases ultimate shear strength, reduces deflections, EXPERIMENTAL DATA REVIEW
increases stiffness, and transforms failure modes from brittle Two hundred and eighteen shear failure tests are recorded
and dangerous shear failures into more ductile flexural failures. in 20 references from previously conducted shear failure
A major advantage of adding steel fibers to concrete is the tests on SFRC beams without stirrups, and 72 accompanied
increase in postcracking tensile strength. This is particularly shear failures of reinforced concrete beams without any
advantageous in high-strength concrete (HSC) because an shear reinforcement are used in this paper. Many tests are
increase in concrete tensile strength is underproportional to reported by Parra-Montesinos (2006). A complete list of the
the increase in compressive strength. Hence, adding steel tests used and their references are tabulated in the addendum
fibers considerably increases ductility in HSC (Imam et al. 1994). “SFRC Tests and References, Appendix A.”* All test beams
There are many equations in the literature that predict the were loaded with two point loads, as shown in Fig. 1, and
ultimate shear strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete they are provided with high longitudinal reinforcement
(SFRC). One prominent equation to predict the shear ratios ρ sufficient to secure shear failure that involves web
capacity of concrete beams that contain longitudinal reinforce- crushing rather than flexural or combined flexural and shear
ment and steel fibers is found in the RILEM TC 162-TDF failures of tested beams. Nonetheless, in some tests, other
paper, “Test and Design Methods for Steel Fiber Reinforced than the aforementioned 218 tests, failures are caused by
Concrete σ-ε Design Method” (Dupont and Vandewalle flexure or the combined effects of shear and flexure, which
2003). In addition, two equations—known as the Imam are not considered in this study. That is because this study
equations—are originally derived from two formulas
proposed by Bažant et al. (Dupont and Vandewalle 2003), *
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
and two other equations, Ashour et al. Modified Zsutty and the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.
Modified ACI (Imam et al. 1994), are discussed herein.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 3, May-June 2011.

MS No. S-2009-200.R4 received May 13, 2010, and reviewed under Institute publication
The developed equation for calculating the steel fiber policies. Copyright © 2011, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
contribution to SFRC shear strength accounts for strain making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the March-
effects in all beam sizes. Moreover, the two other modified April 2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2011.
304 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011

Haisam E. Yakoub is the General Manager of Ottawa Structural Engineering
Services Inc. in Ottawa, ON, Canada. He received his BS from Damascus University,
Damascus, Syria, in 1992, and his MS from Carleton University, Ottawa, ON,
Canada, in 2009. His research interests include seismic base isolation and other
seismic protection systems, steel fiber-reinforced concrete, fiber-reinforced polymer,
masonry, progressive collapse, design for fire resistance, durability for concrete
structures, and wind-induced vibration problems in cable-stayed bridges.
only addresses shear failures in order to facilitate SFRC

ultimate shear strength prediction. The longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio ρ ranges from 0.79 to 5.72%, depending on beam Fig. 2—Crimped and hooked steel fibers.
length, size, and span-depth ratio (a/d) (a/d ranges from 1 to
5), whereas the SFRC specified compressive strength for
standard cylinders, fc′ , ranges from 20.6 to 110 MPa (2.99 to
15.95 ksi). One hundred seventy-five specimens have
normal specified compressive strength (less than 60 MPa
[8.70 ksi]), and the remaining 43 specimens have high
compressive strength fc′ . Loads were gradually increased to
avoid dynamic effects on failure shear.
Materials
The seven different types of steel fibers that were used in
the tests are: hooked, sheared, crimped, round, indented cut
wires, sheared-hooked, and duoform. Figure 2 illustrates the
geometries of the crimped and hooked steel fibers. Steel
fiber tensile strength in most of the tests was greater than
1000 MPa (145.04 ksi). The fiber volume fractions range
from 0.22 to 2.60% per one unit volume of cured SFRC. The
ratios of fiber length to fiber diameter, Lf /Df , vary from 45 to
133, and most of the fiber lengths are between 25.4 and 60 mm
(1 and 2.36 in.). The maximum aggregate size is 14 mm
(0.55 in.). Nevertheless, when the maximum aggregate size
is not reported, it is assumed to be 10 mm (0.39 in.).
Fig. 3—Effects of ρ.
Specimens used in tests
The beam widths ranged from 55 to 200 mm (2.16 to 7.87 in.)
and the effective depths ranged from 80 to 570 mm (3.15 to
22.44 in.).
ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
Items of investigation
The purpose of the conducted investigations was to find
out the effects of the following parameters on SFRC shear
strength: longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρ, specified
concrete compressive strength fc′ , ratio of steel fiber length
to its diameter Lf /Df , steel fiber volume fraction Vf , steel fiber
geometry, and shear span to the effective depth, a/d. By
analyzing the 218 SFRC and 72 reinforced concrete shear
failures with respect to the aforementioned variables, the
following results are confirmed:
• SFRC failure shear stress increases as the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio ρ increases (refer to Fig. 3). In Fig. 3,
fc′ , d, Vf , a/d, and Lf /Df are constant for each graph. Figure
3 shows that rates of increase are higher for a smaller a/d.
• SFRC failure shear stress increases as fc′ increases, and Fig. 4—Effects of Vf on crimped- and hooked-fiber SFRC.
the increase rates are higher in beams with a smaller a/d.
This result is deduced by drawing graphs similar to those
shown in Fig. 3. • SFRC failure shear stress increases with increasing steel
• SFRC failure shear stress increases as the aspect ratio fiber volume fraction Vf . The rates of increase are high
Lf /Df increases, provided that Lf /Df is less than or for fractions less than 1%, however, and become
equal to 100. When Lf /Df is greater than 100, steel moderate, low, or decline as volume fractions increase
fibers tend to form balls or mats that hinder any beyond 1%. Figure 4 shows slight increases in the failure
further increase of shear strength due to an increase in shear stresses of both crimped- and hooked-fiber SFRC
Lf /Df (ACI Committee 544 1996). for volume fractions Vf greater than 1%. Each graph in
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011 305

Fig. 5—Effects of Vf on indented and sheared steel fibers.
Fig. 6—Strain effects of a/d on 218 tests.
Fig. 4 represents a different set of tests. Every set has the
same parameters of Lf /Df, ρ, and a/d, but differs in Vf and
differs by approximately 10% in fc′. Therefore, change
rates are dominated by fiber volume fraction changes.
• SFRC failure shear stress is affected by fiber type or
geometry. Figure 5 illustrates that indented cut wires give
higher failure shear stresses than sheared fibers.
Comparisons were done for similar specimens that differ
by steel fiber type only. Nonetheless, sometimes a higher
failure shear of SFRC is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for certain SFRC to have a higher shear design Fig. 7—Free-body diagram of SFRC beam without stirrups.
strength when all the parameters are identical except
geometries. This is explained later in the paper.
• SFRC failure shear stress moderately increases and where fb is the average fiber interfacial bond stress that
then becomes dramatic when a/d decreases from 2.5 depends on the concrete and fiber characteristics; Df is the
to 1. This higher shear strength for small a/d is caused equivalent diameter of a round steel fiber that has the same
by the formation of a strut-and-tie arch load-carrying gross sectional area; and Lf is the fiber length.
mechanism, as stated by Suter (Keller 1975) (refer to Bond forces in the concrete around a fiber develop from
Fig. 6). zero at a fiber end to a maximum value at the development
length. Bond forces balance the fiber pullout forces (Collins
Steel fiber contribution to shear strength of SFRC and Mitchell 1997). According to the equation in ACI 318-89
The bonded area of a fiber that crosses an arbitrary crack (1989), development length prevents pullout if it is greater than
surface is given by the equation (refer to Fig. 7) Afb = πDf x
(mm2 [in.2]), where x is the distance from a fiber end to a fy
crack surface. The variable x can be any value from 0 to Lf /2. l db, po = 0.375d b --------- mm, f c′ ≤ 70 MPa
f c′
Then, the bonded area of a single fiber is taken by calculating (3)
the average of all possible bonded areas that have exactly the fy
same chance to happen. This average can be calculated as l db, po = 0.03d b --------- in., f c′ ≤ 10, 000 psi
f c′
follows
Lf ⁄ 2 Equation (3) is reported by Collins and Mitchell (1997),

where ldb,po is the development length to prevent pullout
πD f
∫ x dx
πD f L f 2 2
failures; and db is the steel bar diameter (in this paper, db is
0 -, mm (in. )
- = -------------
A fb = -------------------------- (1) referred to as steel fiber diameter Df).
Lf ⁄ 2 4 Under the assumption that the used fiber lengths are equal
to or greater than the lengths defined in Eq. (3), the minimum
The bond force of a fiber to withstand a pullout force is average bond can be deduced from Eq. (2) by approximating
given by the maximum pullout force to a fiber ultimate tensile strength
2
πD f L f πD f L f πD
f fb = -------------
-f MPa (psi) (2) f fb - f = ---------f- × f y
= -------------
4 b 4 b 4

but ldb,po = Lf /2, substituting from Eq. (3)
2
πD fy πD f
f fb = ---------f 0.375D f ---------f b = ---------- × f y
2 f′c
4
Then
f c′
f b = ---------- = 1.33 f c′ MPa; f c′ ≤ 70 MPa
0.75
(4)
f c′
f b = ---------- 145.03 = 16 f c′ psi; f c′ ≤ 10,000 psi
0.75
Fig. 8—Orientation of random steel fiber into unit volume.
Equation (4) shows that the bond stress is constant in
certain concrete, substituting the average compressive strength
in the tests. Equation (4) gives an average bond stress of
9.07 MPa (1315 psi), which is too high in comparison to the and Vf is the steel fiber volume fraction in one unit volume of
average fiber matrix interfacial bond stress of 4.15 MPa SFRC. In this paper, the author deduces and uses maximum
(602 psi), as adopted by Swamy et al. (1974). On the other values of Vf = 1.5% for round fibers and Vf = 1.2% for the other
hand, short bars—shorter than the required transfer length— types of fibers, depending on the failure shear stress regression
develop a higher bond stress, as proven by Berggren (Collins analysis of specimens that differ in volume friction Vf but have
and Mitchell 1997), where bond is mostly higher than 10 MPa other similar parameters. Moreover, volume friction upper
(1450 psi) for fc′ greater than 37 MPa (5365 psi) (this paper’s bounds, as determined by ACI Committee 544 (1993), range
test average is 48.2 MPa [6983 psi]), and mainly higher than from 1 to 2%, depending on the aspect ratios.
5 MPa (725 psi) for fc′ greater than 24 MPa (3480 psi). Fiber distribution in a concrete matrix space is random.
Moreover, for 25 mm (1 in.) length bars, Stocker and Sozen Consequently, tensile stresses must be calculated in one
(Collins and Mitchell 1997) gave values 170 to 290% higher particular direction to estimate the contribution of steel
than the bond values that can be calculated by the ACI fibers to shear strength in a direction perpendicular to the
equation. The author recommends values equal to 0.75 of longitudinal axis of a beam. The author chooses a z-axis of
bond, however, as given by Eq. (4). This is because the an orthogonal coordinate system to be in a direction
applied development length equation is originally derived perpendicular to an arbitrary surface inclined by an angle γ
for bars and the aforementioned research was performed on with the horizontal. This can be any angle, such as α, a
bars rather than fibers. Thus, the 0.75 reduction factor that is cracked surface angle with the horizontal. Then, the cracked
calculated by regression analysis, which is considered as the surface applies on the xy-plane.
scaling reduction factor, accounts for the difference in The angle that a fiber makes with a yz-plane is ψ, and the
diameter between bars and fibers. Therefore, the average angle that the projection of a fiber on the yz-plane with the
bond stress is given by z-axis is ϕ (refer to Fig. 8). The fiber tensile strength
projection in a z-direction is
f b = 0.75 × 1.33 f c′ = f c′ MPa; f c′ ≤ 70 MPa
(5) f fb = f fb cos ψ cos ϕ (8)
f b = 0.75 × 16 f c′ = 12 f c′ psi; f c′ ≤ 10,000 psi
where ffb is the fiber tensile strength.
Assume that nu is the number of steel fibers in a unit volume The average value that can be considered for cosψ is
of SFRC. From Fig. 7, the total number of fibers that cross a
cracked surface is (Narayanan and Darwish 1987) π
---
∫-------------------------
cos ψ dψ
2
1 2
jd cos ψ = 0
- = --- = --- (9)
n = n u b ----------- (6) π π π
sin α --- ---
2 2
The total number of fibers in a unit volume is given by
Similarly, cosϕ = 2/π, substituting in Eq. (8).
V 4V 2
n u = ------f = ---------f- (7) f fb = f fb ⎛ ---⎞ = 0.405f fb
2
(10)
a fb πD f
2
⎝ π⎠
where afb is the cross-sectional area of a single fiber The contribution of n steel fibers that cross the arbitrary
surface to shear strength in the z-direction, Vfb , is given by
2 Vfb = nffb. Substituting the values of n and ffb from Eq. (2),
πD
a fb = ---------f- mm2 (in.2) (5), (6), (7), and (10), the fiber shear strength contribution
4 becomes

πD f L f 4V f jd ⎧ ⎫
V fb = 0.405 -------------
- f ---------- b ----------- Lf d a
4 b πD 2 sin α ⎪ v fb = v fb R g R d = 0.405 -----V f R g --- f c′ : --- ≤ 2.5 ⎪
f
(11) ⎪ Df a d ⎪
Lf ⎨ ⎬ MPa
jd
b ----------- f ′ ⎪ Lf a ⎪
= 0.405 -----V
D f f sin α c v
⎪ fb = v R
fb g dR = 0.162 ----
-V R
f g f c′ : --
- ≥ 2.5 ⎪
⎩ D f d ⎭
Fiber shear stress contribution in the z-direction is (15)
⎧ Lf ⎫
V fb sin α sin α L f d a
⎪ v fb = v fb R g R d = 4.88 -----V f R g --- f c′ : --- ≤ 2.5 ⎪
jd
- = 0.405 ----------- -----V
v fb = ------------------ b ----------- f ′
bjd bjd D f f sin α c ⎪ Df a d ⎪
⎨ ⎬ psi
⎪ Lf a ⎪
v
⎪ fb = v R
fb g dR = 1.95 ----
-V R
f g f c′ : --
- ≥ 2.5 ⎪
Lf ⎩ D f d ⎭
v fb = 0.405 -----V f ′ = const. (MPa)
Df f c
(12)
Lf Bond effects
v fb = 4.88 -----V f ′ = const. (psi) To prevent the steel fibers from rupturing before being
Df f c
pulled out, their tensile strengths must exceed their bond
strengths, that is
Because angle γ is arbitrary in the assumption, however,
then Z is arbitrary. Therefore, Z could be in a vertical direction, 2
and fibers cross a horizontal surface of one unit length and b πD f πD f L f L
---------- f y > -------------
- f or f y > f c′ -----f MPa
width (1 × b). Equation (12) reveals an important conclusion: 4 4 b Df
the shear stress contribution of the steel fibers is constant in (16)
2
all directions, which is different from the shear stresses of πD πD f L f L
---------f- f y > -------------
- f b or f y > 12 f c′ -----f psi
plain concrete (refer to Fig. 8). 4 4 Df
Now assume that Rg is the fiber geometry factor that
accounts for a fiber shape, and Rd is the strain factor that Equation (16) is used to determine the minimum steel fiber
accounts for strain (a/d) effects on SFRC beams, where tensile strength that is required in an SFRC beam that has a
specific fc′ .Therefore, using sufficiently strong fibers makes the
Rd = d ⁄ a : a ⁄ d ≤ 2.5 (13) bond with concrete govern the SFRC failure shears. As a result,
the minimum required yield tensile stress of a steel fiber can be
R d = 0.40 : a ⁄ d ≥ 2.5 (14) calculated by substituting fc′ = 48.2 MPa (6983 psi) and the
highest recommended aspect ratio by 100 in Eq. (16).
Equations (13) and (14) were developed by the author in
two steps. First, apply the original CSA A23.3-04 equation L
f y > f c′ -----f = 48.2 × 100 ≅ 694 MPa (101 ksi) (17)
to the 72 tests of reinforced concrete with no stirrups and no Df
steel fibers. The author determined that a strain factor
accounts for the strain effects on the shear strength of short All the tested steel fibers in this paper conform to Eq. (17)
reinforced concrete beams with no stirrups and no steel because the yield stresses of the fibers are greater than
fibers: a/d ≤ 2.5. (Note that CSA A23.3-04 accounts for the 694 MPa (101.0 ksi). Therefore, shear failures in the tests
strain effects in medium and slender beams only where a/d ≥ most likely occurred by pulling out the steel fibers from the
2.5). Regression analysis gives Rd = 2.5d/a for a/d ≤ 2.5, and concrete matrixes.
Rd = 1 for a/d ≥ 2.5. These results comply with the strut-and-
tie shear model, the modified compression field theory MODIFIED SHEAR STRESS RELATIONS
(MCFT), and the CSA A23.3-04 (2004) shear equation. Second, Modified Bažant and Kim relation
apply the modified CSA A23.3-04 (2004) equation to the Bažant and Kim developed a shear strength relation based on
218 SFRC tests to find the strain effects on the shear strength fracture mechanics principles in their studies on the shear failure
of SFRC short beams. Regression analysis gives the afore- of reinforced normal-strength concrete (Imam et al. 1994).
mentioned Eq. (13) and (14). Equations (13) and (14) point The Bažant and Kim ultimate shear stress equation is
out that the contribution of steel fibers to shear strength in
short beams decreases as compression decreases with the
increase of a/d (strut-and-tie model). Shear becomes ρ -⎞ MPa
v u = 0.83ξ 3 ρ ⎛ f c′ + 249.28 ----------------
⎝ 5⎠
constant when a/d exceeds 2.5 or a/d ≥ 2.5. In medium and (a ⁄ d)
long beams, where a/d ≥ 2.5 and the effect of the tied arch (18)
ρ
becomes negligible and the beam action is greater than the vu = 10ξ 3 ρ ⎛ f c′ + 3000 ----------------5-⎞ psi
⎝ ⎠
tied arch forces, then shear resistance is mainly provided by (a ⁄ d)
concrete teeth (or interlocking forces) (Kani 1964) and steel
fibers in SFRC beams. Consequently, taking strain effects By adding the fiber contribution from Eq. (15) to Eq. (18),
and fiber geometries into account, the fiber ultimate shear the modified Bažant and Kim equation for the SFRC beam
stress contribution becomes ultimate shear stress becomes

Table 1—Comparison between seven used methods in this paper: Vexp /Vpred analysis
Paper’s modified Paper’s modified Imam 1 modified Imam 2 modified Ashour et al. Ashour et al.
Predicting method CSA A23.3-04 Bažant and Kim Bažant and Kim Bažant and Sun RILEM modified ACI modified Zsutty
Average 1.38 1.34 0.59 0.81 1.25 1.18 1.33
Standard deviation σx 0.24 0.25 0.12 0.24 0.32 0.34 0.26
Coefficient of variation 0.17 0.18 0.21 0.29 0.26 0.29 0.19
exp. < pred., % 5.7 8.6 99.9 78.3 22.1 29.8 9.9
ACI reduction factor φ 0.82 0.76 0.30 0.26 0.49 0.39 0.73
Absolute reduction factor 0.59 0.57 0.52 0.31 0.39 0.33 0.55
Fig. 9—Predicted versus experimental results in paper Fig. 10—Ability to predict shear stresses in compliance with
equations. ACI definition of φ in paper equations.
⎧ 3 ⎛ ρ ⎞ Lf d a ⎫ V c = β f c′ b w d v ⇒ v c = β f c′ MPa
⎪ v u = 0.83ξ ρ ⎜⎝ f c′ + 249.28 -----------------⎟ + 0.405 -----V
5⎠ D
- f ′ : --- ≤ 2.5 ⎪
f R g --
a c d (20)
⎪ (a ⁄ d) f ⎪
⎨ ⎬ MPa V c = 12.04β f c′ b w d v ⇒ v c = 12.04β f c′ psi
⎪ 3 ⎛ ρ -⎞ + 0.162 -----V
Lf a ⎪
⎪ v u = 0.83ξ ρ ⎜ f c′ + 249.28 ---------------- ⎟ f Rg f c′ : --- ≥ 2.5 ⎪
⎩ ⎝ (a ⁄ d)
5⎠ D f d
⎭ where
0.40 1300
(19) β = ------------------------------- × ----------------------------- : s xe mm
( 1 + 1500ε x ) ( 1000 + s xe )
⎧ 3 ⎛ ρ -⎞ + 4.88 -----V
Lf d- f ′ : --a- ≤ 2.5 ⎫
(21)
⎪ v u = 10ξ ρ ⎜⎝ f c′ + 3000 ----------------
5⎠
⎟
D f R g --
a c d ⎪ 0.40 51.2
β = ------------------------------- × ---------------------------- : s xe in.
⎪ (a ⁄ d) f ⎪
⎨ ⎬ psi ( 1 + 1500ε x ) ( 39.4 + s xe )
⎪ 3 ⎛ ρ ⎞ Lf a ⎪
⎪ v u = 10ξ ρ ⎜ f c′ + 3000 -----------------⎟ + 1.95 -----V - ≥ 2.5 ⎪
f R g f c′ : --
⎩ ⎝ (a ⁄ d)
5⎠ D d
⎭
f
where εx is the longitudinal strain at the middepth of a beam
where ξ is the aggregate size effect factor, web. It is assumed, conservatively, to be one-half of the
longitudinal steel strain, where a beam is not subjected to
1 prestressing or axial loads,
ξ = -------------------------------------
1 + d ⁄ ( 25d a ) M ⁄ dv + V
ε x = -----------------------
- (22)
2E s A s
da is the maximum aggregate size, and ρ is the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio. Figures 9 and 10 and Table 1 illustrate 35s x
the modified Bažant and Kim equation’s ability to predict - ≥ 0.85s x
s xe = ---------------- : s x, a g mm
the shear stresses of SFRC. 16 + a g
(23)
1.38s x
s xe - ≥ 0.85s x
= --------------------- : s x, a g in.
Modified CSA A23.3-04 (2004) 0.63 + a g
The ultimate shear strength provided by concrete is given
by the CSA A23.3-04 (2004) shear design code and Sherwood where sxe is the equivalent crack spacing factor that accounts
et al. (2008) as follows for the maximum aggregate size effects on shear strength,

Table 2—Calculated geometry factors shear tests. The results define new factors called Rg or
Average ratios of experimentally observed
steel fiber geometry factors. The calculated geometry
to predicted ultimate shear stress
Geometry
factors are tabulated in Table 2; and
Steel fiber type Modified CSA Modified Bažant factors • To have reliable geometry factors, the number of tests
Crimped 0.83 0.83 0.83 should be 30 or more. When a sample size (the number
Duoform 0.89 0.90 0.89 of tests in this case) is more than 30, the center limit
Hooked 1.00 1.00 1.00
theorem holds. Then, sampling distribution can be quite
well approximated to the normal distribution (Montgomery
Indented cut wire 0.82 1.03 0.92
and Runger 2007). For steel fibers other than crimped
Round 0.90 0.92 0.91
and hooked, however, the number of tests used in this
Sheared-hooked 0.99 1.00 0.99 paper ranges from four (for duoform fibers) to 17 (for
Sheared 0.74 0.85 0.79 round fibers).
For the tests used, the author took the averages of the
and sx is the crack spacing parameter that accounts for the calculated geometry factors using both the modified Bažant
crack spacing at the mid-depth of a beam. It is estimated to and Kim equation and the modified CSA A23.3-04 (2004)
be equal to the flexural lever arm dv (dv = 0.9d or 0.72h, equation. Table 2 points out that the calculated geometry
whichever is greater). The limit on sxe of 0.85sx is based on factors for crimped and hooked fibers, using the aforementioned
research conducted by Sherwood (2008), where ag is the two equations, are very close (they differ in the third decimal
maximum aggregate size, and M and V are the external figure). That is because the number of tests was large
failure moment and shear acting on the section, respectively. enough. The tests were 65 for crimped fibers and 103 for
hooked fibers.
Adding the contribution of the steel fibers to the shear
stress from Eq. (15) to the CSA A23.3-04 (2004) shear stress
in Eq. (20), then rearranging and taking into account the ANALYTICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS:
average of β in the 218 tests used, the ultimate shear stress of COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION
SFRC according to the modified CSA A23.3-04 (2004) To evaluate and compare the accuracy of the two developed
equation can be predicted from Eq. (24). equations that predict the ultimate shear stress of SFRC
beams, the two equations and the five other equations from
the literature are applied to the 218 tests of SFRC. Figure 9
⎧ ⎫ compares the failure shear stresses and predicted ultimate
⎪ v = v c + v fb = 2.5β f c′ ⎛ 1 + 0.70V f -----R
Lf ⎞ d a
g --
- : --- ≤ 2.5 ⎪
⎪ ⎝ Df ⎠ a d ⎪ shear stresses using the two modified equations in this paper
⎨ ⎬MPa and the original CSA A23.3-04 (2004) shear equation.
⎪ ⎛ Lf ⎞ a ⎪
⎪ v = v c + v fb = β f c′ ⎝ 1 + 0.70V f ----
Df ⎠
- Rg : --- ≥ 2.5
d ⎪ Figure 10 points out the compliance with the ACI definition
⎩ ⎭
(24) of a reduction factor of variable, vexp /φvpred , experimental
⎧ ⎫ failure shear stress over the predicted ultimate shear stress
⎪ v = v c + v fb = 30β f c′ ⎛ 1 + 0.70V f -----f R g⎞ d
L
--- :a --- ≤ 2.5 ⎪ multiplied by a reduction factor. The value φ is a reduction
⎪ ⎝ Df ⎠ a d ⎪
⎨ ⎬ psi factor that, if multiplied by the predicted ultimate shear
⎪ ⎛ Lf ⎞ a ⎪
⎪ v = v c + v fb = 12β f c′ ⎝ 1 + 0.70V f ----
D
-R g
⎠
: --- ≥ 2.5 ⎪
d
stresses, makes the maximum number of experimental
⎩ f ⎭ failure shear stresses vexp that are less than the predicted
ultimate shear stresses multiplied by the reduction factor
Equation (24) suggests a relationship between the φvpred less than 1% (MacGregor and Bartlett 2000). In other
contribution of fibers to shear stress and β, subsequently words, at least 99% of the experimental failure shear loads
with the longitudinal strain at the mid-depth of a beam and are greater than the ultimate predicted shear strengths
with crack spacing. The author has arrived to this multiplied by an applicable reduction factor. The five other
conclusion by regression analysis of steel fiber contribution equations from the literature that are used to calculate ultimate
to shear stress in Eq. (24). shear capacity for comparison purposes are:
• RILEM TC 162-TDF for ultimate shear strength
Estimation of fiber geometry factors Rg (Dupont and Vandewalle 2003);
The variable Rg reflects the effect of fiber geometry on the • Imam 1 or modified Bažant and Kim equation (Dupont
shear strength of SFRC. The following procedure is used to and Vandewalle 2003);
estimate geometry factors Rg: • Improved Imam or Imam 2 or modified Bažant and Sun
• Assume, initially, that Rg = 1 and calculate the predicted equation (Dupont and Vandewalle 2003);
SFRC shear stresses according to the modified Bažant • Ashour et al.’s first model or modified ACI equation
and Kim equation stated in Eq. (19) and the modified (Imam et al. 1994); and
CSA A23.3-04 (2004) equation in Eq. (24); • Ashour et al.’s second model or the modified Zsutty
• Calculate the ratios of observed SFRC failure shear equation (Imam et al. 1994).
stresses to predicted ultimate shear stresses; Refer to detailed information on the aforementioned five
• Calculate the averages of the previous ratios for each equations in the Addendum, Appendix B.†
type of steel fiber (hooked, crimped, and so on) using The last four equations were originally developed to
each of the modified Bažant and Kim equations in this calculate the ultimate shear capacity of high-strength SFRC
paper and the modified CSA A23.3-04 (2004) equation; (HS-SFRC). This paper, however, proves that they are
• Divide the averages by a reference value. The average applicable to HS-SFRC and normal-strength SFRC (NS-
ratio of the hooked fibers is chosen as a reference value
†
in this paper because it is the greatest and statistically The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
reliable, as the number of hooked tests is 103 failure equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.

Table 3—HS-SFRC versus all SFRC specimens: Vexp /Vpred analysis, Imam models
Imam 2 modified Bažant Imam 1 modified Bažant Imam 2 modified Bažant Imam 1 modified Bažant
Predicting method and Sun, HS-SFRC and Kim, HS-SFRC and Sun, all-SFRC and Kim, all-SFRC
Average 0.83 0.63 0.81 0.59
Standard deviation σx 0.23 0.14 0.24 0.12
Experimental failure shear stresses that are
78.0 99.63 78.3 99.99
less than predicted, %
ACI reduction factors φ 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.30
Coefficient of variation 0.27 0.22 0.29 0.21
Table 4—HS-SFRC versus all SFRC specimens: Vexp /Vpred analysis, Ashour et al. models
Ashour et al. modified Ashour et al. modified Ashour et al. modified Ashour et al. modified
Predicting method ACI for HS-SFRC Zsutty for HS-SFRC ACI for all-SFRC Zsutty for all-SFRC
Average 1.14 1.47 1.18 1.33
Standard deviation σx 0.31 0.31 0.34 0.26
exp. < pred., % 31.6 6.9 29.8 9.9
ACI reduction factor φ 0.43 0.73 0.39 0.73
Coefficient of variation 0.27 0.21 0.29 0.19
Fig. 11—Predicted versus experimental shear stresses in Fig. 12—Ability to predict shear stresses in compliance with
Imam et al. (1994) and RILEM equations. ACI definition of φ in Imam et al. (1994) and RILEM equations.
SFRC). It can be seen from Tables 3 and 4 that the Ashour et • Table 1 compares all the seven equations. Figures 9 to 16
al. modified Zsutty and the Imam 1 modified Bažant and illustrate the equations’ abilities to predict SFRC ultimate
Kim equations are even more accurate when they are applied shear stress. Whereas the RILEM, Imam 1, and Imam 2
to predict all of the 218 SFRC specimens’ ultimate shear equations are shown in Fig. 11 and 12, the Ashour et al.
stresses (the 218 specimens mostly consist of NS-SFRC equations are shown in Fig. 13 and 14. Figures 15 and 16
specimens). This is because they give identical reduction graphically compare the most accurate and efficient four
factors and smaller coefficients of variation when applied to equations’ abilities—among the seven equations—to
the entire set of tests, including all the HS-SFRC tests. predict the ultimate shear stresses. By comparing the
Although the Ashour et al. modified ACI and Imam 2 modi- reduction factors and coefficients of variation in the
fied Bažant and Sun give slight improvements when they are figures and Table 1, it can be seen that the modified CSA
applied solely to HS-SFRC, they are by far less accurate than A23.3-04 (2004) equation is the most accurate of all the
the Ashour et al. modified Zsutty and Imam 1 modified Bažant equations analyzed in this paper, followed by the modi-
and Kim equations, as proven later in this paper and pointed fied Bažant and Kim equation in this paper, and the
out in Tables 3 and 4 and Fig. 11 to 14. Ashour et al. modified Zsutty equation;
The tests used are carried out by different researchers and • The author uses variable vexp /φvpred , where φ complies
every set of specimens was made from different component with the ACI definition. Figures 10, 12, 14, and 16 show
sources. Thus, the variable Vexp /Vpred is a random variable this variable using each of the seven equations. These
and can be assumed to be normally distributed, as the figures show that less than 1% of the experimental
number of tests is much greater than 30. Using normal failure shear stresses are less than the predicted ultimate
distribution of the variable Vexp /Vpred , it can be seen that: shear stresses multiplied by applicable reduction factors.

Fig. 13—Predicted versus experimental shear stresses in
Ashour et al. (Imam et al. 1994) equations. Fig. 15—Predicted versus experimental shear stresses for
the four most accurate equations herein.
Fig. 14—Ability to predict shear stresses in compliance with

ACI definition of φ in Ashour et al. (Imam et al. 1994) equations.
It can be seen that the more condense a cloud is, the more
accurate the equation is and the smaller the coefficients Fig. 16—Ability to predict shear stresses per ACI definition
of variation and standard deviations are; of φ for four most accurate equations herein.
• To reflect these graphical illustrations in numbers and to
make the equation evaluations more comprehensible, the experimental shear stress average should be scaled
author introduced a new variable called the “absolute down to be equal to a predicted average times a reduction
reduction factor.” This variable is equal to the inverse of factor φ. The greater an absolute reduction factor is, the
the term more close the predicted values are to the experimental
values, and the less a coefficient of variation is (that is, the
v exp ⎞ v pred⎞ more accurate and efficient an equation is). The ideal
--1- ⎛ ----------
- or φ a = φ ⎛ ----------
- maximum value of φa that may be reached is 1.
⎝
φ v pred ave ⎠ ⎝ v exp ⎠ ave • The higher accuracy of this paper and the Zsutty
equation can be confirmed by using the absolute
This concept defines a reduction multiplier results from reduction factors (refer to Fig. 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16
multiplying the ACI reduction factor φ by the average of and Table 1). Yet, Table 1 shows that the Imam 1
the predicted-experimental stress ratios. That is, the equation is almost as accurate as the modified Zsutty
absolute reduction factor φa represents how much an equation but more accurate than the RILEM equation

Table 5—Vexp /Vpred statistic analysis of 65 crimped SFRC shear failure tests
Average 1.24 1.26 0.53 0.69 1.24 1.28 1.38
exp. < pred., % 6.3 6.1 99.9 93.6 13.0 16.0 1.0
ACI reduction factor φ 0.88 0.87 0.31 0.20 0.75 0.62 1.00
Table 6—Vexp /Vpred statistic analysis of 103 hooked SFRC shear failure tests
Average 1.433 1.437 0.64 0.88 1.29 1.04 1.32
exp. < pred., % 5.9 5.9 99.8 72.9 22.1 44.4 12.1
ACI eduction factor φ 0.79 0.78 0.35 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.68
and by far more accurate than the Imam Model 2 • In addition, the application of the aforementioned six
equation. These results are pointed out in Fig. 12 and 16. equations on the 17 round fiber tests shows that round
The Imam 1 cloud is more condensed than those of the fibers have 30% lower coefficients of variation and 21%
other two relations. These results can be deduced by higher absolute reduction factors than those of crimped
comparing φa and the coefficients of variation in Table 1; fibers. This indicates that round fibers may be more efficient
• Tables 5 and 6 show all the equations except for the than crimped fibers. This last conclusion is not as reliable,
Imam 2 equation when applied to crimped fibers and however, as the previous one. This is because the number
hooked fibers. The average of the absolute reduction of tests on round-fiber SFRC beams is less than 30 and
factors is 37% greater and the average of the much less than the number of tests on crimped-fiber SFRC
coefficients of variation is 49% smaller when the beams. Moreover, the amounts of the used volume fractions
equations are applied to crimped fibers compared to Vf of round steel fibers do not vary as much.
hooked fibers. Therefore, crimped steel fibers are more
efficient than hooked fibers. Using the aforementioned FURTHER RESEARCH
six equations, the average of the absolute reduction Further research is recommended on:
factors for crimped fibers is 0.63, whereas it is 0.48 for • The effects of fiber geometry under dynamic loads
hooked fibers. That is, the design shear stresses will be versus static loads. Fiber shapes may affect bond stress
equal to 0.63 of the experimental values for crimped- and then shear resistance more in the case of frequented
fiber SFRC beams and equal to 0.48 of the experimental dynamic loads rather than static loads.
values for hooked-fiber SFRC beams. Therefore, for • Determining volume fraction Vf upper bounds for different
hooked fibers to be as efficient or better than crimped types of steel fibers. That is, the bound beyond which the
fibers, the experimental failure shear stresses of increase in shear strength does not justify the increase in
hooked-fiber SFRC beams must be greater than 0.63/ fiber volume fractions. These upper bounds are in the
0.48 = 1.31 times those of crimped-fiber SFRC beams range of 1 to 2%, where high percentages are for smooth
when all the parameters are similar except the fibers and low percentages are for deformed geometries;
geometries. This is most likely not the case, however, • The effects of volume fraction—in the vicinity of 1—on
because some similar tests in this paper do not assert this changing SFRC ultimate shear strengths; and
assumption. Nonetheless, to further assert this • A more accurate estimation of the average interfacial bond
conclusion, doing tests on similar crimped- and hooked- stress in steel fibers—especially those that are shorter than
fiber SFRC beams that differ by fiber geometries only is their transfer lengths—and for different geometries.
a good idea;
• The explanation of this result, in the author’s opinion, is CONCLUSIONS
that hooked fibers are more likely to interlock than This paper develops an equation to calculate steel fiber
crimped fibers during the casting of SFRC beams. The contribution to the ultimate shear stress of SFRC beams.
interlocking of hooked fibers forms balls, which This equation can be added to an equation that predicts the
considerably reduce the failure shear stresses; whereas ultimate shear stress of RC beams without steel fibers, with
in some hooked beams that do not have balls—most or without stirrups, to result in an equation that predicts the
likely because of low volume fractions Vf —failure shear ultimate shear stress of SFRC beams. Two examples of
stresses are high. This explains why the coefficients of applying this equation to the CSA A23.3-04 (2004) shear
variation for hooked-fiber SFRC beams are higher than code and Bažant and Kim ultimate shear stress equations
those of crimped-fiber SFRC beams; and gave two equations for calculating the ultimate shear stress

of SFRC with ACI reduction factors of 0.82 and 0.76 and ACI Committee 544, 1996, “Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete
coefficients of variation of 0.17 and 0.18, respectively. (ACI 544.1R-96),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
66 pp.
In comparison with the five reviewed SFRC equations Adebar, P.; Mindess, S.; St-Pierre, D.; and Olund, B., 1997, “Shear Tests
from the literature, it can be concluded that the two modified of Fiber Concrete Beams without Stirrups,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94,
CSA A23.3-04 (2004) and modified Bažant and Kim equations No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 68-76.
in this paper give more accurate predictions than the five Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., 1997, Prestressed Concrete Structures,
reviewed relations do, depending on the test analysis of the Response Publication, Toronto, ON, Canada, 766 pp.
218 SFRC specimens. CSA A23.3-04, 2004, “Design of Concrete Structures,” Canadian Standards
Association, Toronto, ON, Canada, Dec., pp. 53-66.
The CSA A23.3-04 (2004) shear code equation predicts Dupont, D., and Vandewalle, L., 2003, “Shear Capacity of Concrete
ultimate shear stress without taking into account the strain Beams Containing Longitudinal Reinforcement and Steel Fibers,” SP-216,
effect for short beams, whereas the modified CSA A23.3-04 Innovations in Fiber-Reinforced Concrete for Value, N. Banthia, M. Criswell,
(2004) shear code equation does take this into account for SFRC. P. Tatnall, and K. Folliard, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Furthermore, this paper arrived at a factor that accounts for Hills, MI, pp. 79-94.
Imam, M.; Vandewalle, L.; and Mortelmans, F., 1994, “Shear Capacity
strain effects on short, plain concrete beams to be used with of Steel Fiber High-Strength Concrete Beams,” Canadian Journal of Civil
the CSA A23.3-04 (2004) shear code equation. This paper Engineering, V. 149, Oct., pp. 227-242.
strongly recommends a factor called the “absolute reduction Kani, G. N. J., 1964, “The Riddle of Shear Failure and Its Solution,” ACI
factor” to help evaluate an equation’s ability to predict SFRC JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 61, No. 4, Apr., pp. 441-468.
shear stress or any other stress where other common evaluation Keller, H., 1975, “Shear Strength of Grouted Reinforced Masonry
factors do not help. In addition, this paper proves that Beams,” MEng thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
MacGregor, J. G., and Bartlett, M., 2000, Reinforced Concrete:
crimped fibers are more efficient than hooked fibers, as long Mechanics and Design, first edition, Prentice Hall Canada, Scarborough,
as the fibers used are chosen with appropriate aspect ratios ON, Canada, 1314 pp.
and volume fractions, as mentioned in this paper. Montgomery, D. C., and Runger, G. C., 2007, Applied Statistics and
Probability for Engineers, fourth edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS York, 1024 pp.
A considerable part of the original research was supervised by E. Sherwood, Narayanan, R., and Darwish, I. Y. S., 1987, “Use of Steel Fibers as Shear
who offered important and appreciated guidance. The author appreciates the help Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 3, May-June, pp. 216-227.
from the Carleton University Interlibrary Loan staff, who provided references Parra-Montesinos, G. J., 2006, “Shear Strength of Beams with Deformed
in a timely manner, and is grateful to his wife, Rima, for her continuous support Fibers,” Concrete International, V. 28, No. 11, Nov., pp. 57-66.
to complete this research and paper. Finally, the author wishes to thank A. Skaff Sherwood, E. G., 2008, “One-Way Shear Behavior of Large, Lightly-
at Ottawa University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, for proofreading this paper. Reinforced Concrete Beams and Slabs,” PhD thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 547 pp.
REFERENCES Sherwood, E. G.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., 2008, “Effective Shear
ACI Committee 318, 1989, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Design of Large, Lightly-Reinforced Concrete Slabs Employing High-Strength
Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary (318R-89),” American Concrete Steel,” Second Canadian Conference on Effective Design of Structures,
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 353 pp. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, May 20-23.
ACI Committee 544, 1988, “Design Considerations for Steel Fiber SMD, “Structural Metal Decks,” http://www.smdltd.co.uk. (accessed
Reinforced Concrete (ACI 544.4R-88),” American Concrete Institute, Jan. 4, 2010)
Farmington Hills, MI, 18 pp. SPI, “Fiber Force,” http://www.fiberforce.net. (accessed Jan. 4, 2010)
ACI Committee 544, 1993, “Guide for Specifying, Proportioning, Mixing, Swamy, R. N.; Mangat, P. S.; and Rao, C. V. S. K., 1974, “The
Placing and Finishing Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete (ACI 544.3R-93),” Mechanics of Fiber Reinforced Cement Matrices,” SP-44, Fiber Reinforced
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 10 pp. Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, Jan., pp. 1-28.

SHEAR STRESS PREDICTION OF SFRC BEAMS WITHOUT STIRRUPS YAKOUB, H. E.
Appendix “A”
Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Tests, and References,
Long. Material failure observed and
Section properties System Fibre Properties
Reinf. properties calculated loads
CSA
Machine calc.for
bw h d f’c Lf Vf
Ref Beam No. a/d r% ag (mm) Fiber type Lf/df applied plain
(mm) (mm) (mm) (Mpa) (mm) %
(KN) concrete
(KN)
Dupont D. and
Vandewalle L., 2003 13 200 300 260 1.5 1.81 40.3 14.0 - 60 65 210.0 80.3
« 25 200 300 262 2.5 1.15 29.4 14.0 - 50 45 70.0 54.8
« 28 200 300 260 2.5 1.81 29.4 14.0 - 50 45 85.0 62.4
« 1 200 300 260 3.5 3.55 43.5 14.0 - 60 65 90.5 78.9
« 22 200 300 260 4.0 1.81 40.3 14.0 - 60 65 75.0 59.6
« 14 200 300 260 1.5 1.81 40.7 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.25 280.0 80.6
« 15 200 300 260 1.5 1.81 42.4 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.75 300.0 81.9
« 41 200 300 305 2.5 1.03 34.4 14.0 hooked 60 80 0.57 162.0 63.6
« 17 200 300 262 2.5 1.15 39.1 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.25 82.5 60.4
« 18 200 300 262 2.5 1.15 38.6 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.75 108.0 60.1
« 26 200 300 262 2.5 1.15 26.5 14.0 hooked 50 45 0.25 100.0 52.9
« 31 200 300 262 2.5 1.15 47.4 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.5 130.0 64.3
« 27 200 300 262 2.5 1.15 27.2 14.0 hooked 50 45 0.75 120.0 53.4
« 33 200 300 262 2.5 1.15 45.4 14.0 hooked 50 80 0.5 147.5 63.4
« 20 200 300 260 2.5 1.81 39.1 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.25 108.0 69.0
« 29 200 300 260 2.5 1.81 26.5 14.0 hooked 50 45 0.25 100.0 60.1
« 30 200 300 260 2.5 1.81 27.2 14.0 hooked 50 45 0.75 120.0 60.7
« 21 200 300 260 2.5 1.81 38.6 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.75 144.0 68.7
« 32 200 300 260 2.5 1.81 46.8 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.5 157.5 73.5
« 2 200 300 260 3.5 3.55 46.4 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.25 110.0 80.8
« 3 200 300 260 3.5 3.55 43.2 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.5 120.0 78.7
« 4 200 300 260 3.5 3.55 47.6 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.75 155.0 81.5
1/17

CSA
Machine calc.for
bw h d f’c Lf Vf
(KN) concrete
(KN)
« 23 200 300 260 4.0 1.81 40.7 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.25 82.5 59.8
« 24 200 300 260 4.0 1.81 42.4 14.0 hooked 60 65 0.75 117.0 60.6
Kwak, Yoon-
Keun, et al, 2002 FHB1-2 125 250 212 2.0 1.48 62.6 10.0 - - - 0 80.0 42.2
« FHB1-3 125 250 212 3.0 1.48 62.6 10.0 - - - 0 67.0 36.7
« FHB1-4 125 250 212 4.0 1.48 62.6 10.0 - - - - 52.5 33.0
« FHB2-2 125 250 212 2.0 1.48 63.8 10.0 hooked 50 63 0.5 134.9 42.4
« FHB2-2 125 250 212 2.0 1.48 30.8 10.0 hooked 50 63 0.5 107.1 32.9
« FHB3-2 125 250 212 2.0 1.48 68.6 10.0 hooked 50 63 0.75 144.2 43.5
« FHB2-3 125 250 212 3.0 1.48 63.8 10.0 hooked 50 63 0.5 81.9 36.9
« FHB2-3 125 250 212 3.0 1.48 30.8 10.0 hooked 50 63 0.5 67.6 28.9
« FHB3-3 125 250 212 3.0 1.48 68.6 10.0 hooked 50 63 0.75 90.1 37.8
« FHB2-4 125 250 212 4.0 1.48 63.8 10.0 hooked 50 63 0.5 63.9 33.2
« FHB2-4 125 250 212 4.0 1.48 30.8 10.0 hooked 50 63 0.5 53.0 26.2
« FHB3-4 125 250 212 4.0 1.48 68.6 10.0 hooked 50 63 0.75 72.6 34.0
Uomoto, T., et al, 10.0
1986 100 182 1 2.2 50 Indented 60 1.5 131.77 26.18
« 100 85 1.5 1.84 50 10.0 Indented 60 1.5 46.84 9.28
« 100 182 1.5 2.2 50 10.0 Indented 60 1.5 109.56 26.18
« 100 80 1.5 3.54 50 10.0 Indented 60 1.5 52.16 10.93
« 100 280 2 2 50 10.0 Indented 60 1.5 106.68 41.97
« 100 182 2 2.2 50 10.0 Indented 60 1.5 76.99 26.18
« 100 80 2 3.54 50 10.0 Indented 60 1.5 44.64 10.93
« 100 182 1.5 2.2 53 10.0 Indented 60 0.75 99.01 26.70
« 100 182 2 2.2 53 10.0 Indented 60 0.75 64.97 26.70
« 100 280 2.5 2 53 10.0 Indented 60 0.75 90.16 42.85
« 100 182 2.5 2.2 53 10.0 Indented 60 0.75 62.06 26.70
« 100 280 3 2 53 10.0 Indented 60 0.75 73.64 42.85
2/17

CSA
Machine calc.for
bw h d f’c Lf Vf
(KN) concrete
(KN)
« 100 182 1.5 2.2 48 10.0 Sheared 82.81 35.41
« 100 130 2 1.16 48 10.0 Sheared 31.07 14.90
« 100 280 2 2 48 10.0 Sheared 53 0.75 68.60 22.61
« 100 182 2 2.2 48 10.0 Sheared 53 0.75 57.33 24.51
« 100 182 2.5 2.2 48 10.0 Sheared 53 0.75 46.05 19.69
« 100 182 3 2.2 48 10.0 Sheared 53 0.75 41.86 17.90
« 100 182 3.5 2.2 48 10.0 Sheared 53 0.75 36.76 15.72
« 100 130 1.5 1.16 54 10.0 Sheared 53 0.75 52.00 24.94
« 100 182 1.5 2.2 54 10.0 Sheared 53 0.75 97.37 41.64
« 100 280 2 2 54 10.0 Sheared 53 1.5 101.92 33.59
« 100 182 2 2.2 54 10.0 Sheared 53 1.5 60.06 25.68
« 100 182 2.5 2.2 54 10.0 Sheared 53 1.5 58.24 24.90
Batson, G., Jenkins,
E. and Spatney, R.,
1972 W2 101.6 254 127 1.20 3.1 39.8 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 1.76 140.1 25.5
« W1 101.6 254 127 1.20 3.1 39.8 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 1.76 145.9 25.5
« R1 101.6 254 127 3.20 3.1 39.7 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.88 36.8 20.0
« S1 101.6 254 127 3.40 3.1 39.7 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.88 33.3 19.7
« R2 101.6 254 127 3.40 3.1 39.7 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.88 34.4 19.7
« S3 101.6 254 127 3.40 3.1 39.7 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.88 39.7 19.7
« S2 101.6 254 127 3.40 3.1 39.7 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.88 42.1 19.7
« O1 101.6 254 127 4.00 3.1 40.2 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.44 31.6 18.8
« L1 101.6 254 127 4.00 3.1 34.7 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.22 30.3 17.9
« L2 101.6 254 127 4.00 3.1 34.7 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.22 30.3 17.9
« L3 101.6 254 127 4.00 3.1 33.2 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.22 33.3 17.6
« P2 101.6 254 127 4.20 3.1 40.2 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.44 30.3 18.5
« P3 101.6 254 127 4.20 3.1 40.2 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.44 32.7 18.5
« P1 101.6 254 127 4.20 3.1 40.2 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.44 33.9 18.5
3/17

CSA
Machine calc.for
bw h d f’c Lf Vf
(KN) concrete
(KN)
« M3 101.6 254 127 4.40 3.1 33.2 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.22 25.8 17.1
« M2 101.6 254 127 4.40 3.1 33.2 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.22 27.2 17.1
« M1 101.6 254 127 4.60 3.1 34.7 10.0 Crimped 25.4 75 0.22 26.0 17.1
« B15 200 350 300 1.75 1.9 110.0 10.0 hooked 60 75 0.75 434.9 123.1
« B16 200 350 300 1.75 3.1 110.0 10.0 hooked 60 75 0.75 1056.5 141.5
« 200 350 300 1.75 1.9 110.0 10.0 hooked 60 75 0.75 683.6 117.3
« B2 200 350 300 2.50 1.9 110.0 10.0 hooked 60 75 0.75 249.7 109.4
« B6 200 350 300 2.50 3.1 110.0 10.0 hooked 60 75 0.75 568.8 127.7
« B3 200 350 300 3.50 1.9 110.0 10.0 hooked 60 75 0.75 129.1 97.1
« B7 200 350 300 3.50 3.1 110.0 10.0 hooked 60 75 0.75 417.6 114.9
« B13 200 350 300 4.50 1.9 110.0 10.0 hooked 60 75 0.75 128.9 88.4
« B12 200 350 300 4.50 3.1 110.0 10.0 hooked 60 75 0.75 423.7 105.5
« V1 101.6 254 127 1.80 3.1 39.8 10.0 round 25.4 100 1.76 77.4 17.7
« F2 101.6 254 127 4.00 3.1 40.2 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.44 31.3 17.8
« F1 101.6 254 127 4.00 3.1 40.2 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.44 33.3 17.8
« F3 101.6 254 127 4.00 3.1 40.2 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.44 33.3 17.8
« C3 101.6 254 127 4.20 3.1 33.2 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 25.3 16.6
« C2 101.6 254 127 4.20 3.1 33.2 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 28.0 16.6
« C1 101.6 254 127 4.20 3.1 33.2 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 31.7 16.6
« D3 101.6 254 127 4.30 3.1 33.2 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 28.1 16.6
« D2 101.6 254 127 4.30 3.1 33.2 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 29.7 16.6
« G3 101.6 254 127 4.40 3.1 33.2 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 27.0 16.6
« G1 101.6 254 127 4.40 3.1 33.2 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 28.5 16.6
« B3 101.6 254 127 4.40 3.1 33.2 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 31.8 16.6
« X2 101.6 254 127 4.80 3.1 34.7 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 23.5 16.9
« X1 101.6 254 127 4.80 3.1 34.7 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 24.4 16.9
« X3 101.6 254 127 4.80 3.1 34.7 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 26.2 16.9
« N2 101.6 254 127 4.80 3.1 34.7 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 27.0 16.9
4/17

CSA
Machine calc.for
bw h d f’c Lf Vf
(KN) concrete
(KN)
« N1 101.6 254 127 5.00 3.1 34.7 10.0 round 25.4 100 0.22 24.5 16.9
« 200 350 300 1.75 3.1 34.7 10.0 869.9 87.7
« 200 350 300 2.50 1.9 34.7 10.0 223.6 77.8
« 200 350 300 2.50 3.1 34.7 10.0 499.3 87.7
« 200 350 300 3.50 3.1 34.7 10.0 258.2 87.7
« 200 350 300 3.50 1.9 34.7 10.0 191.1 77.8
« 200 350 300 4.50 3.1 34.7 10.0 257.7 87.7
« 200 350 300 4.50 1.9 34.7 10.0 174.9 77.8
« A2 101.6 254 127 4.80 3.1 34.7 10.0 0.00 23.7 16.9
« A1 101.6 254 127 4.80 3.1 34.7 10.0 24.2 16.9
« A3 101.6 254 127 4.80 3.1 34.7 10.0 26.1 16.9
Kadir, M. R. A. and
Saeed, J. A. 1986 SF2 85 130 2.50 2 61.0 10.00 Crimped 100 0.25 29.50 18.8
« SF3 85 130 3.00 2.00 61.0 10.00 Crimped 100 0.25 30.61 17.7
« 75 135 2.5 1.55 31.4 10.0 Duoform 50 0.75 21.8 12.6
« 75 135 2.5 1.55 30.6 10.0 Duoform 62.5 0.75 24.0 12.5
« 75 135 2.5 1.55 31.2 10.0 Duoform 100 0.75 27.3 12.6
« 75 135 2.5 1.55 29.2 10.0 Duoform 83.3 0.75 27.5 12.3
Narayanan, R. and
Darwish, I. Y. S.,
1987 Sp3 84 130 3 2 60.2 9.00 Crimped 0 17.25 17.4
« B11 85 130 2 2 60.8 10.00 Crimped 133 0.5 51.05 20.2
« B14 85 130 2 2 57.3 10.00 Crimped 133 1 61.55 19.8
« B28 85 126 2 5.72 59 10.00 Crimped 100 0.5 58.48 25.2
« B29 85 126 2 5.72 54 10.00 Crimped 100 1 72.51 24.3
« B30 85 126 2 5.72 63 10.00 Crimped 100 1.5 76.58 25.9
« B31 85 126 2 5.72 50.8 10.00 Crimped 100 2 67.47 23.7
« SF5 85 130 2.5 2 39.2 10.00 Crimped 100 0.25 22.87 16.2
« B12 85 130 2.5 2 60.8 10.00 Crimped 133 0.5 40.77 18.8
5/17

CSA
Machine calc.for
bw h d f’c Lf Vf
(KN) concrete
(KN)
« B15 85 130 2.5 2 57.3 10.00 Crimped 133 1 48.84 18.4
« SF6 85 130 3 2.00 39.2 10.00 Crimped 100 0.25 21.44 15.3
« B1 85 130 3 2 60.8 10.00 Crimped 133 0.5 35.69 17.7
« B2 85 130 3 2 65.8 10.00 Crimped 133 1 40.44 18.2
« B3 85 130 3 2 58.5 10.00 Crimped 100 1.5 40.22 17.5
« B4 85 130 3 2 63.3 10.00 Crimped 100 2 41.33 17.9
« B5 85 130 3 2 63.8 10.00 Crimped 100 2.5 41.55 18.0
« B6 85 130 3 2 61.2 10.00 Crimped 100 3 42.54 17.7
« B7 85 130 3 2 36 10.00 Crimped 133 0.5 21.77 14.8
« B9 85 130 3 2 36.5 10.00 Crimped 100 1 32.82 14.9
« B17 85 128 3 3.69 49 10.00 Crimped 133 0.5 32.20 19.5
« B19 85 128 3 3.69 36 10.00 Crimped 133 0.5 24.37 17.4
« B23 85 128 3 3.69 57.4 10.00 Crimped 133 1 47.55 20.6
« B27 85 128 3 3.69 63 10.00 Crimped 100 1.5 48.52 21.3
« B18 85 126 3.1 5.72 49 10.00 Crimped 133 0.5 38.02 21.2
« B20 85 126 3.1 5.72 36 10.00 Crimped 133 0.5 24.95 18.8
« B24 85 126 3.1 5.72 57.4 10.00 Crimped 133 1 53.55 22.6
« B25 85 126 3.1 5.72 63 10.00 Crimped 100 1.5 51.94 23.4
« B26 85 126 3.1 5.72 50.8 10.00 Crimped 100 2 52.80 21.5
« B13 85 130 3.5 2 49 10.00 Crimped 133 0.5 28.84 15.6
« B16 85 130 3.5 2 57.4 10.00 Crimped 133 1 32.82 16.5
Mansur, M. A., et al
1986 A1 152 229 197 2.0 1.34 24.2 10.0 - - - - 59.9 33.5
« A2 152 229 197 2.8 1.34 24.2 10.0 - - - 0 44.9 30.2
« A3 152 229 197 3.6 1.34 24.2 10.0 - - - 0 38.3 27.7
« B1 152 229 197 2.0 1.34 29.1 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.5 74.9 35.8
« C1 152 229 197 2.0 1.34 29.9 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.75 84.7 36.1
« D1 152 229 197 2.0 1.34 30 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 92.5 36.2
6/17

CSA
Machine calc.for
bw h d f’c Lf Vf
(KN) concrete
(KN)
« C6 152 229 197 2.8 2 29.9 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.75 64.7 36.6
« E3 152 229 197 2.8 2 20.6 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.75 59.9 32.1
« F3 152 229 197 2.8 2 33.4 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.75 85.6 38.1
« E2 152 229 197 2.8 1.34 20.6 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.75 44.9 28.5
« B2 152 229 197 2.8 1.34 29.1 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.5 52.4 32.1
« C2 152 229 197 2.8 1.34 29.9 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.75 59.9 32.4
« D2 152 229 197 2.8 1.34 30 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 64.7 32.4
« F2 152 229 197 2.8 1.34 33.4 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.75 74.9 33.6
« F1 152 229 200 2.8 0.79 33.4 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.75 46.5 28.4
« B3 152 229 197 3.6 1.34 29.1 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.5 44.9 29.5
« A4 152 229 197 4.4 1.34 24.2 10.0 33.5 25.8
Cucchiara, C., et al,
2004 B00 150 250 219 2.0 1.92 41.2 10.0 - - - 0 49.6 48.5
« A00 150 250 219 2.8 1.92 41.2 10.0 - - - 0 40.4 43.8
« B20 150 250 219 2.0 1.92 43.2 10.0 hooked 30 60 2 115.6 49.3
« B10 150 250 219 2.0 1.92 40.9 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 115.0 48.4
« A10 150 250 219 2.8 1.92 40.9 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 96.3 43.7
« A20 150 250 219 2.8 1.92 43.2 10.0 hooked 30 60 2 103.1 44.6
Para-Montesinos, G.
et al. 2006 6 152 457 381 3.4 2.67 42.8 10.0 - - - 0 62.5 73.4
« 5 152 457 381 3.4 2.67 42.8 10.0 - - - 0 64.9 73.4
« 11 152 457 381 3.4 2.67 49.2 10.0 hooked 60 80 1 172.0 77.1
« 7 152 457 381 3.4 2.67 31 10.0 hooked 30 60 1.5 148.3 65.3
« 10 152 457 381 3.4 2.67 44.9 10.0 hooked 30 60 1.5 188.8 74.7
« 9 152 457 381 3.4 2.67 44.9 10.0 hooked 30 60 1.5 190.0 74.7
« 12 152 457 381 3.4 2.67 49.2 10.0 hooked 60 80 1 218.3 77.1
« 8 152 457 381 3.4 2.67 31 10.0 hooked 30 60 1.5 195.2 65.3
« 4 152 457 381 3.5 2.67 38.1 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 146.5 69.8
7/17

CSA
Machine calc.for
bw h d f’c Lf Vf
(KN) concrete
(KN)
« 3 152 457 381 3.5 2.67 38.1 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 200.4 69.8
« 1 152 457 381 3.5 1.96 38.1 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 175.5 63.7
« 2 152 457 381 3.5 1.96 38.1 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 178.9 63.7
Adebar, P., et al,
1997 FC7 152 610 558 1.6 2.12 57 10.0 - - 0 121.3 124.7
« FC1 152 610 558 1.6 2.12 60 10.0 - - 0 148.4 127.2
« FC8 152 610 558 1.6 2.12 54.8 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.4 203.6 122.9
« FC9 152 610 558 1.6 2.12 56.5 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.6 231.5 124.3
« FC10 152 610 558 1.6 2.12 46.9 10.0 hooked 50 100 0.4 246.0 115.7
« FC11 152 610 558 1.6 2.12 40.8 10.0 hooked 50 100 0.6 236.6 109.6
« FC2 152 610 558 1.6 2.12 54.1 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.75 274.8 122.2
« FC3 152 610 558 1.6 2.12 49.9 10.0 hooked 30 60 1.5 323.1 118.5
Ashour, S. A., et al
1992 HSFRC2 125 250 225 2.9 3.57 90 10.0 hooked 30 60 1.3 153.3 58.4
« HSFRC1 125 250 225 2.9 3.57 90 10.0 hooked 30 60 1.3 154.4 58.4
« HSFRC3 125 250 225 2.9 2.21 90 10.0 hooked 30 60 1.3 98.4 50.4
Li, V.C. et al, 1992 127 229 203 3.0 2.2 17.8 10.0 - - - - 42.0 26.2
« 127 229 203 3.0 2.2 26 10.0 hooked 50 100 1 78.6 30.1
« 127 229 203 3.0 2.2 22.7 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 78.6 28.7
Nogahabai, K., 2000 1 Type B 200 300 235 2.8 4.3 97 10.0 - - - 0 280.1 106.0
« 1 Type C 200 500 410 2.9 3 79.1 10.0 - - - 0 177.1 137.9
« 1 Type A 200 250 180 3.3 4.50 90.9 10.0 - - - 0 211.0 79.7
« 3 Type B 200 300 235 2.8 4.3 103.8 10.0 hooked 30 50 1 310.2 108.7
« 7 Type C 200 500 410 2.9 3 78.7 10.0 hooked 60 86 0.5 263.2 137.6
« 10Type C 200 500 410 2.9 3 86 10.0 hooked 60 86 0.75 291.9 142.1
« 8 Type C 200 500 410 2.9 3 78.7 10.0 hooked 60 86 1 311.6 137.6
« 9Type C 200 500 410 2.9 3 68.4 10.0 hooked 60 86 0.75 338.7 130.9
« 4Type D 200 700 570 3.0 2.90 68.40 10.0 hooked 60 86 0.75 339.7 163.4
« 5 Type A 200 250 180 3.3 4.50 91.40 10.0 hooked 60 86 0.5 251.6 79.8
8/17

CSA
Machine calc.for
bw h d f’c Lf Vf
(KN) concrete
(KN)
« 6 Type A 200 250 180 3.3 4.50 91.4 10.0 hooked 60 86 0.75 261.7 79.8
« 5 Type B 200 300 235 2.8 4.3 101.8 10.0 S-hooked 100 1 406.6 107.9
« 6 Type C 200 500 410 2.9 3 81.8 10.0 S-hooked 100 1 327.2 139.5
« 5 Type C 200 500 410 2.9 3 81.8 10.0 S-hooked 100 1 367.4 139.5
« 3Type D 200 700 570 3.0 2.90 81.8 10.0 S-hooked 100 1 379.6 174.3
« 9Type A 200 250 195 3.1 3.1 44.8 10.0 S-hooked 100 1 189.2 60.7
Rosenbusch, J., and
Teutsch, M, 2002 2.2 / 1 200 300 260 1.5 1.81 40.8 10.0 - - - 0 209.6 79.3
« 2.4 / 1 200 300 260 2.5 1.81 40.1 10.0 - - - 0 119.6 68.0
« 2.3 / 1 200 300 260 2.5 1.15 40.1 10.0 - - - 0 78.0 59.0
« T15*100-
plain-1 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 32.1 10.0 - - - - 151.8 101.6
« 20*30-
plain 1 200 300 260 3.5 2.83 32.1 10.0 - - - - 59.8 64.6
« 1.2 / 1 200 300 260 3.5 3.56 44 10.0 - - - - 90.5 77.2
« 20*60-
plain 1 200 600 540 3.5 2.73 32.1 10.0 - - - - 108.0 112.4
« 2.6 / 1 200 300 260 4.0 1.81 40.80 10.0 - - - - 74.9 58.7
« 2.2 / 2 200 300 260 1.5 1.81 41.2 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.25 279.8 79.6
« 2.2 / 3 200 300 260 1.5 1.81 40.3 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.76 299.5 78.9
« 2.4 / 2 200 300 260 2.5 1.81 40 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.25 107.6 68.0
« 2.4 / 3 200 300 260 2.5 1.81 38.7 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.76 144.0 67.2
« 2.3 / 2 200 300 260 2.5 1.15 40 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.25 81.6 58.9
« 2.3 / 3 200 300 260 2.5 1.15 38.7 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.76 107.1 58.3
« T15*100-
SFRC-2 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 37.7 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.5 243.8 107.8
« T 23*50-
SFRC-2 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 38.8 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.5 252.1 108.9
« T15*75-
SFRC-1 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 37.7 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.5 258.5 107.8
9/17

CSA
Machine calc.for
bw h d f’c Lf Vf
(KN) concrete
(KN)
« T15*50-
SFRC-1 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 37.7 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.5 263.1 107.8
« 1.2 / 2 200 300 260 3.5 3.56 46.9 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.25 109.7 79.0
« 1.2 / 3 200 300 260 3.5 3.56 43.7 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.51 120.1 77.0
« 1.2 / 4 200 300 260 3.5 3.56 48.3 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.76 155.0 79.8
« 20*30-
SFRC-1 200 300 260 3.5 2.83 37.7 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.5 110.8 68.5
« 20*30-
SFRC-2 200 300 260 3.5 2.83 38.8 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.5 131.6 69.2
« 20*60-
SFRC-1 200 600 540 3.5 2.73 37.7 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.25 153.4 119.3
« 20*60-
SFRC-2 200 600 560 3.5 2.73 38.8 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.5 229.6 123.7
« 2.6 / 2 200 300 260 4.0 1.81 41.2 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.25 82.2 58.9
« 2.6 / 3 200 300 260 4.0 1.81 40.3 10.0 hooked 60 67 0.76 117.0 58.5
Schantz, B.A., 1993 I 305 610 546 2.8 1.84 39.4 10.0 - - - - 193.2 178.0
Williamson, G.R.,
and Knab, L. I., 1975 1 305 546 457 4.7 2.54 32.1 10.0 - - - - 184.0 136.7
« 4 305 546 457 4.7 2.54 28.5 10.0 NA NA NA 1.5 259.3 131.1
« 3 305 546 457 4.7 2.54 28.5 10.0 NA NA NA 1.5 264.8 131.1
« S2 150 305 276 1.8 2.99 43.2 10.0 - - - - 113.4 68.5
Sharma, A.K., 1986 S1 150 305 276 1.8 1.44 42.3 10.0 - - - - 63.3 56.5
Swamy, R.N., and
Bahia, H.M., 1985 B51 175 250 210 4.5 4.00 38 10.0 - - - - 65.0 51.5
« B61R 175 250 210 4.5 1.95 43 10.0 - - - - 57.7 42.9
« B52 175 250 210 4.5 4.00 35.50 10.0 Crimped 50 100 0.4 79.4 50.2
« B54 175 250 210 4.5 4.00 39.8 10.0 Crimped 50 100 1.2 115.0 52.3
« B53 175 250 210 4.5 4.00 37.4 10.0 Crimped 50 100 0.8 113.9 51.2
« B55 175 250 210 4.5 3.05 38.2 10.0 Crimped 50 100 0.8 118.0 47.6
« B62R 175 250 210 4.5 1.95 35.1 10.0 Crimped 50 100 0.8 75.3 40.1
10/17

CSA
Machine calc.for
bw h d f’c Lf Vf
(KN) concrete
(KN)
« B56 175 250 210 4.5 1.95 41.8 10.0 Crimped 50 100 0.8 96.3 42.5
Swamy, R.N., et al
1993 1TL-1 55 300 265 2.0 4.31 35.4 10.0 - - - - 49.1 23.7
« 2TL-1 55 300 265 2.0 2.76 36.5 10.0 - - - - 36.3 21.8
« 3TL-1 55 300 265 2.0 1.55 37.4 10.0 - - - - 31.3 19.0
« 1TL-2 55 300 265 3.4 4.31 33.6 10.0 - - - - 18.9 20.6
« 2TL-2 55 300 265 3.4 2.76 33.4 10.0 - - - - 17.8 18.3
« 3TL-2 55 300 265 3.4 1.55 32.8 10.0 - - - - 14.9 15.3
« 1TL-3 55 300 265 4.9 4.31 34.1 10.0 - - - - 17.3 18.8
« 2TL-3 55 300 265 4.9 2.76 36.1 10.0 - - - - 15.4 16.9
« 3TL-3 55 300 265 4.9 1.55 33.8 10.0 - - - - 15.0 13.6
« 1TLF-1 55 300 265 2.0 4.31 35.6 10.0 Crimped 50 100 1 79.9 23.7
« 2TLF-1 55 300 265 2.0 2.76 37.8 10.0 Crimped 50 100 1 71.6 22.1
« 3TLF-1 55 300 265 2.0 1.55 35.7 10.0 Crimped 50 100 1 67.5 18.7
« 1TLF-2 55 300 265 3.4 4.31 40.9 10.0 Crimped 50 100 1 58.7 22.2
« 2TLF-2 55 300 265 3.4 2.76 33.1 10.0 Crimped 50 100 1 45.3 18.3
« 3TLF-2 55 300 265 3.4 1.55 34.5 10.0 Crimped 50 100 1 41.2 15.6
« 1TLF-3 55 300 265 4.9 4.31 36 10.0 Crimped 50 100 1 42.3 19.2
« 2TLF-3 55 300 265 4.9 2.76 35.9 10.0 Crimped 50 100 1 42.6 16.8
« 3TLF-3 55 300 265 4.9 1.55 32.5 10.0 Crimped 50 100 1 29.3 13.4
Tan, K. H., et al 1993 1 60 375 340 2.0 3.44 32.8 10.0 - - - - 63.0 29.1
« 6 60 375 340 1.5 3.44 36 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 153.4 32.0
« 3 60 375 340 2.0 3.44 33 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.75 90.4 29.2
« 4 60 375 340 2.0 3.44 36 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 105.1 30.2
« 2 60 375 340 2.0 3.44 35 10.0 hooked 30 60 0.5 108.9 29.9
« 5 60 375 340 2.5 3.44 36 10.0 hooked 30 60 1 77.1 28.8
11/17
References
ACI Committee 544.1R-96, “State of the Art Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete”,2002.
ACI Committee 544.2R-89, “Measurement of Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete”, 1999.
ACI Committee 544.3R-93, “Guide for Specifying, Proportioning, Mixing, Placing, and Finishing Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete”,
Reapproved 1998.
ACI Committee 544.4R-88, “Design Considerations For Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete”, Reapproved 1999.
Adebar, P., Mindess, St-Pierre, and Olund, B., “Shear Tests of Fiber Concrete Beams Without Stirrups,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1997. pp. 68-76.
Al-Ta’an, S. A. and Al-Feel J. R., “Evaluation of Shear Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Beams”, Elsevier, Cement and Concrete
Compositions, Vol. 12. 1990. pp. 87-94.
Ashour, S. A., Hasanain, G.S., and Wafa, F.F., “Shear Behavior of High-Strength Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 89, No. 2, Mar-Apr, 1992. pp.176-184.
Batson, G., Jenkins, E. and Spatney, R., “Steel fibers as shear reinforcement in beams”. ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol.69, No.10,
October 1972. pp. 640-644.
Bentz, E. C., Collins, M. P. and Vecchio, F.J., “Simplified Modified Compression Field Theory for Calculating Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Elements”, ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute , Vol.103, No. 4, Jul/Aug 2006, pp.614-624.
Casanova, P., and Rossi, P., “High-Strength Concrete Beams Submitted to Shear: Steel Fibers Versus Stirrups”, Structural Applications
of Fiber Reinforced Concrete, SP-182, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999. pp. 53-68.
CNBM International Corporation, CMAX, “Product Catalog”, http://www.engineeringfiber.com, Nov, 9, 2008.
Collins, M. P., Bentz, E. C. and Sherwood E. G., “ Where is Shear Reinforcement Required? A Review of Research Results and Design
Procedures”. ACI Structural Journal, March, 2009.
12/17
Collins, M. P., Bentz, E. C. and Sherwood E. G., and Liping Xie, “ An adequate theory for the shear strength of reinforced concrete
structures” , Concrete Plasticity for the Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Structures, University of Cambridge 23rd July, 2007.
CSA A23.3, “Design For Concrete Structures”, Canadian Standard Association,

Toronto, Ontario, December 2004. pp. 53-66.
Cucchiara, C., Mendola, L.L., and Papia, M., “Effectiveness of Stirrups and Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement,” Cement and
Concrete Composites, Vol. 26, No. 7, Oct. 2004. pp. 777-786.
Dupont D. and Vandewalle L. “Shear Capacity of Concrete Beams Containing Longitudinal Reinforcement and Steel Fibers”, October,
1, 2003. pp.79 - 94.
Fiberforce company, “Fiberforce Steel Fibers”, http://www.fiberforce.net, Sep, 9, 2008.
Fiberspan, “A New Way to Build in Concrete”, http://www.fibrespan.com.au, Nov,

5, 2008.
Furlan, S. Jr. and Bento de Hanai, J., “Shear Behaviour of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams”, Elsevier, Cement and Concrete
Compositions, Vol. 19. 1997. pp. 359-366.
Granholm, H. , “Armerade Tegelkonstruktioner”, Transactions of Chalmers University of Technology, No. 16, 1943.
Gustavo, J. Parra-Montesinos, “Shear Srength of Beam with Deformed Steel Fibers”, Concrete International, AM, Vol. 28, No. 11, Nov
2006. pp. 57-66.
Juàrez, C., Valdez, P., Duràn, K., Sobolev, K., “The Diagonal Tension Behavior of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams”, Sience Direct,
Cement and Concrete Components Vol. 29, 2007. pp. 402-408.
Kadir, M. R. A. and Saeed, J. A., “Shear Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams”. Journal of Engineering and Technology, Iraq,
Vol. 4, No.3, 1986. pp 98-112.
Kani, G.N.J, “ The Riddle of Shear Failure and its Solution”, ACI Journal, Vol. 61, No. 4, April, 1964.
13/17
Keller, H., "Shear Strength of Grouted Reinforced Masonry Beams", M. Eng Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada,
1975.
Khuntia, M. and Srojadinovic, B., “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams Without Transverse Reinforcemetn”, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 98, No. 5, Sep, 2001. 648-656.
Kwak, Yoon-Keun, Eberhard, Marc O., Kim, Woo-Suk, and Kim, Jubum, “Shear Strength of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Beams
without Stirrups”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 99, No. 4, July-August, 2002. pp. 530-538.
Li, V.C., Ward, R., and Hamza, A.M., “Steel and Synthetic Fibers as Shear Reinforcement”, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 89, No. 5, Sept-
Oct, 1992. pp. 499-508.
Li, Victor C. “Large Volume, High-Performance Applications of Fibers in Civil Engineering “ ACE-MRL, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, Vol. 83, Issue 3, P.660-683, 2000.
Lim T.Y., Paramasivam, P., and Lee, S. L., “Shear and Moment Capacity of Reinforced Steel-Fiber- Concrete Beams”, Magazine of
Concrete Research, Vol. 39, No. 140, Sept, 1987. pp. 148-160.
MacGregor, J. G., “Reinforced concrete: mechanics and design”, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1988.
Marti P. et al, “ Harmonized Test Procedures for Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete”, ACI Material Journal, Vol. 96, No. 6, Nov-Dec. 1999,
PP 676-686.
Mansur, M. A., Ong, K.C. G. and Paramasivam, P., “Shear Strength of Fibrous Concrete Beams Without Stirrups”, Proceedings,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 112, No.9, September 1986. pp. 2066-2079.
Narayanan, R. and Darwish, I. Y. S., “Use of Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement”. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 84, No.3, May- June
1987. pp. 216- 227.
Nogahabai, K., “Beams of Fibrous Concrete in Shear and Bending: Experiment and Model”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126,
No. 2, Feb. 2000. pp. 243-251.
14/17
Norton Construction Products, “New Concrete Flooring System”, http://www.norcon.co.za, Sep, 6, 2008.
Para-Montesinos, G., Wight, J.K., Dinh, H., Libbrecht, A., and Padilla, C., “Shear Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams Without
Stirrups”, Report No. UMCEE 06-04, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 2006. pp. 39.
Reinforced Engineering Hand Book. James E. Amrhein.
Romualdi, J, P., and Mandel, J.A., “Tensile Strength of Concrete Affected by Uniformly Distributed and Closely Spaced Short Lengths
of Wire Reinforcement,” ACI Journal, proceedings Vol. 61, No. 6, June 1964, pp. 657-672.
Rosenbusch, J., and Teutsch, M., “Trial Beams in Shear”, RILEM TC 162-TDF Workshop (Conference).Technical University of
Braunschweig, Germany, 2003. pp.105-117.
Sachan, A. K. and Kameswara Rao, C. V. S., “Behaviour of Fibre Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams”, Cement and Concrete
Composites, HB Technological Institute, Kanpur 1990, India. Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.211-218.
Schantz, B.A., “The Effect of Shear Stress on Full Scale Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams”, Master of Science thesis,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, 1993. 86 pp.
Shah, S. P. and Skarendahl, A., “ Steel Fiber Concrete” US- Sweden Joint Seminar (NSF-STU) Stockholm, June 3-5, 1985.
Sharma, A.K., “Shear Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams”, ACI Journal, Proceedings Vol. 83, No. 4, July-Aug, 1986.
pp. 624-628.
Sherwood E. G., Bentz, E. C. and Collins, M. P., “Effect of Aggregate Size on Beam-Shear Strength of Thick Slabs” ; ACI Structural
Journal , March- April 2007. pp. 180-190.
Sherwood E. G., Bentz, E. C. and Collins, M. P., “Effective Shear Design of Large, Lightly- Reinforced Concrete Slabs Employing High-
Strength Steel” 2nd Canadian Conference on Effective Design of Structures, McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada , May 20 –
23, 2008.
Sherwood E.G. et al, “Prediction of the Shear Strength of FRB-Reinforced Slabs Using the 2004 CSA A23.3 Design Code”. CSCE 2008
Annual Conference, Québec, QC June 10-13, 2008.
Sherwood G. Edward, Remarks on this paper, Carleton University, 2008-2009.

15/17
Sherwood, E.G., “One-Way Shear Behavior of Large, Lightly-Reinforced Concrete Beams and Slabs,” Ph.D. Thesis, Dep. Of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, 2000.
Sherwood, E.G., Bentz, E.C. and Collins, M.P., “Effective Shear Design of Large, Lightly-Reinforced Concrete Slabs Employing High-
Strength Steel” 2nd Canadian Conference on Effective Design of Structures McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada,
May 20- 23, 2008.
Shunya web site, “Ugarit, Syria” http://www.shunya.net/Pictures/Syria/ugarit/Ugarit.htm, July, 02, 2008.
SMD, “Structural Metal Decks”, http://www.smdltd.co.uk, Sept. 10, 2008.
SPI, Fiber Force, http://www.fiberforce.net, Sept. 10, 2008.
Suter, G. T. and Hendry , A. W., “Shear Strength of Reinforced Brickwork Beams”, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 53, No. 6, June 1975,
pp. 249- 253.
Swamy, R. N., Mangat, P. S., and Rao, C. V. S. K., “The Mechanics of Fiber Reinforced Cement Matrices”, Fiber Reinforced Concrete,
SP-44 , ACI, Detroit, 1974. pp. 1-28.
Swamy, R.N., and Bahia, H.M., “ The Effectiveness of Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement”, Concrete International, Vol. 7, No. 3, Mar,
1985. pp. 35-40.
Swamy, R.N., Jones, R., and Chiam, A.T.P., “Influence of Steel Fibers on the shear Resistance of Lightweight Concrete I-Beams”, ACI
Structural Journal , Vol. 90, No. 1, Jan-Feb, 1993. pp. 103-114.
Tan, K. H.; Murugappan, K.; and Paramasivam, P., “Shear Behavior of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 90, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1993, pp. 3-11.
Uomoto, T., Weerarathe, R.K., Furukoshi. H. and Fujino, H., “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams With Fiber
Reinforcement”. Proceedings, Third Internal RILEM Symposium on Developments in Fiber Reinforced Cement and Concrete, Sheffield,
RILEM Technical Committee 49-TFR, Sheffield University Press Unit, Sheffield, 1986. pp. 553-562.
Vandewalle L., Imam M., and Mortelmans F., “Shear Capacity of Steel Fiber High- Strength Concrete Beams”. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 149, October, 1994. pp. 227-242.
16/17
Vecchio F. J., Collins M. P., “ The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear”, ACI.
Mar-Apr, 1986. pp. 218-231.
Williamson, G.R., and Knab, L. I., “Full Scale Fiber Concrete Beam Tests.” Fiber Reinforced Cement and Composites, RILEM
Symposium, 1975, pp. 209-214.
17/17
APPENDIX B:
Used Equations From Literature:
Original RILEM Design Method:
The RILEM TC 162-TDF relation for shear strength consists of 3 components:

V = Vc + V fb + Vw (1)
Where:
Vc = Shear resistance of the plain concrete of a member without any kind of shear reinforcements.
Vw = Contribution of shear reinforcement to shear strength, and
Vfb = Contribution of the steel fibers reinforcement to shear strength.
The first term, Vc, is defined in Eurocode 2 as:

1
Vc = 0.153 d k (100 ρ1 f ck ) 3 bd (2)

a
Where:
200
k = 1+ ≤2
d
fck = Characteristic cylinder compressive strength [MPa]
b = beam width.
d = beam effective depth.
a/d = aspect ratio. As shown in Figure 1-17.
As1
ρ1 = ≤ 0.02
bd
As1 = tensile reinforcement area in the shear critical section.
The second term, Vw is defined in Eurocode 2 :
Asw
Vw = 0.9df ywd (3)
s
Where:
fywd = yield strength of the stirrups.
Asw = area of stirrups.
s = spacing between stirrups.
The third term, Vfb is the contribution of the steel fibers, has been experimentally determined:
V fb = k f k1τ fd bwd (4)

Where:
1/5
kf = factor of flange contribution in a T section.

kf = 1, for rectangular sections.
k1 = Size effect factor = (1600-d) / 1000 ኑ1
τ fd , Design shear stress. (MPa).
d * 0.5 * f cqk ,3
a 0.7
τ fd Can be calculated from the following equation: τ fd = (5)
γc
Where:
fcqk,3, Characteristic equivalent flexural tensile strength. [MPa]
0.5 = Factor converts flexural tensile strength into axial tensile strength. That is, RILEM TC 162-TDF
relation approximates the failure axial tensile stress, in a concrete beam, into a half of the failure
flexural tensile stress of the same beam that is given by a flexural tensile test.
0.7 = Factor converts the characteristic equivalent flexural tensile strength into the average equivalent
flexural tensile strength. Again, the paper approximates the characteristic flexural tensile strength fcqk,3
equals to 0.7 of the average flexural tensile strength f eqm ,3 that are given by tests.
gc: = partial safety factor equal to 1.5 to obtain the design value of the shear resistance tfd . The value
of gc =1.0 for analysis of the experimental results.
In order to analyze a relation reliability, the relation should be investigated towards some tests
and compare the test results with those predicted from the investigated relation.
To carry out these investigations, 218 test results of SFRC, 72 of plain concrete accompanied
the SFRC specimens, have been used for this purpose and tabulated at the end of this report.
The average flexural tensile strength is used. Then the factor 0.7 will be omitted. Also the
partial safety coefficient will be set to gc =1.0 to get a real ultimate steel fiber contribution as shown in
the equation 1-6.(Dupont D. et al, 2003).
V fb =k f k1 0.5 d f eqm,3bw d (6)

a
In this project, the number of observed failure shear stresses that are less than predicted
shear stresses according to RILEM are 49. In other words, 22.4 % of the experimental failure shear
stresses are less than shear stresses predicted by the RILEM relation. Furthermore, depending on the
statistical analysis of the experimental failure shear stresses versus RILEM predictions, with 99 % of
certainty, the expected percentage of experimental failure shear stresses of SFRC that are less than the
predicted failure shear stresses according to the RILEM relation, for any set of new tests, is 22.4 % of
all experimental failure shear stresses.
2/5
The average value of the observed failure shear to the predicted shear strength ratio or
VExp
is : 1.25 , while the standard deviation coefficient is sx =0.32. The coefficient of variation is =
V predicted
STDEV
= 0.26
Mean
Calculation the Ultimate Shear Capacity According to Modified Bazant & Sun
(improved Imam model or Imam2):
Imam model has used the following formula by Bazant and Sun in order to modify it to account
for steel fibers in high strength SFRC. (Dupont D. and Vandewalle L. , 2003). High strength concrete has
compressive strength greater than 60 MPa.
The paper however, would address the applicability and efficiency of Imam model for both
high strength and normal strength SFRC.
Bazant and Sun formula is used to calculate the ultimate shear strength of normal reinforced
concrete beams:
0.5 ρ
vu = 0.54ψ 3 ρ ( f 'cm +249 ) + vw
(a )5 (7)
d
Where :
y= size effect factor, defined from the equation:
1 + 5.08
da
ψ = (8)
1 + d (25d a )
Where:
d = Effective depth
da = Maximum aggregate size.
ρ = Longitudinal reinforcement ratio.
f’cm= Mean cylinder compressive strength [MPa]
a = Shear span
Imam model does not separate the contribution of fibres in a separate term. Instead it
integrates fibres contribution with the concrete term and calculates stirrups contribution (vw) by using
the aforementioned RILEM.
Imam modified the relation (7) using experimental test results to find the following
relation that is called Imam2 model or improved Imam model of the Modified Bazant and Sun equation,
3/5
ω
vu ,Im am 2 = 0.6ψ 3 ω ( f '0cm.44 +275 )
(a ) 5 [MPa] (9)
d
Where:
ω = ρ (1 + 4 F )
Lf
F = fiber factor, F = ( )V f d f (10)
Df
Lf / Df = aspect ratio of the fiber (length / diameter).
Vf = volume fraction of fiber, and
df = Fiber efficiency coefficient. df, factor equal 0.50 for smooth fibers (such as round fibers), 0.9
for deformed fibers and 1.00 for hooked fibers.
All other parameters are the same as in the equation (2-7).
Calculation the Ultimate Shear Capacity According to Modified Bazant & Kim (Imam1
model ):
This Imam model modified the formula by Bazant and Kim in order to account for steel fibers
in high strength SFRC. (Vandewalle L. et al ,1994.)
The paper however, addresses the applicability and efficiency of this Imam model for both high
strength and normal strength SFRC as well. Bazant and Kim formula that is used to calculate the
ultimate shear strength of normal reinforced concrete beams is: (Vandewalle L. et al, 1994).
ρ
vuBazant = 0.83ξ 3 ρ ( f 'c + 249.28 ) (11)
( a )5
d
Where:
z = the aggregate size effect factor which is presented in the relation:

1
ξ= (12)
1 + d (25d a )
Where:
da = the maximum aggregate size.
Imam1 Modified Bazant & Kim relation into the following Relation: (Vandewalle L. et al 1994)
ρ
vu ,Im am1 = 0.7ξ 3 ρ [ f '0cm.44 (1 + F 0.33 ) + 870 ] (13)
(a )5
d
In which:
4/5
f c' = Cylinder compressive strength. [MPa].
Calculation of the Ultimate Shear Capacity According to Modified ACI (Ashour et al

model ) :
Ashour et al studied the effects of steel fibers on high strength concrete and they made changes
to the ACI Building Code equation and arrived to the following relation: (Vandewalle L. et al 1994) :
d d
vu = (0.7 f 'c + 7 F ) + 17.2 ρ (14)
a a
Where:
F = fiber factor = (Lf/Df)Vf df
Lf , D f and Vf already defined.
df = factor account for fiber types, df equals 0.50 for round fibers, 0.75 for crimped fibers and
1.00 for indented fibers.
Calculation the Ultimate Shear Capacity According to Modified Zsutty (Ashour et al

model ):
Ultimate shear strength can be calculated according to Ashour et al Modified Zsutty relation
from the following relation:
d d
vu = ( 2.113 f 'c + 7 F ) ( ρ ) 0.333 a/d>2.5 (15)
a a
 d d  2 .5 a
vu = ( 2.113 f 'c + 7 F ) ( ρ ) 0.333  + 1 .7 F ( 2 .5 − ) a/d≤2.5 (16)
 a a a d
d
Although, Ashour et al aforementioned relationships have been derived mainly to predict shear
strength of HS- SFRC, the application of these two relations of the normal strength SFRC, however,
gives better reduction factors for Modified Zsutty and almost identical for Modified ACI. That is why
these two relations are used in this paper to predict shear strength for both normal and high strength
SFRC.
5/5

Shear Stress Prediction Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shear Stress Prediction Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 108-S29

Shear Stress Prediction: Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete

This paper develops an equation to predict steel fiber contribution

Keywords: absolute reduction factor; failure; geometry factor; shear

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 3, May-June 2011.

304 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011

only addresses shear failures in order to facilitate SFRC

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011 305

Lf ⁄ 2 Equation (3) is reported by Collins and Mitchell (1997),

306 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011 307

Fiber shear stress contribution in the z-direction is (15)

308 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011 309

310 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011 311

Fig. 14—Ability to predict shear stresses in compliance with

312 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011 313

314 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011

Long. Material failure observed and

Long. Material failure observed and

Long. Material failure observed and

Long. Material failure observed and

Long. Material failure observed and

Long. Material failure observed and

Long. Material failure observed and

Long. Material failure observed and

Long. Material failure observed and

Long. Material failure observed and

ACI Committee 544.2R-89, “Measurement of Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete”, 1999.

CNBM International Corporation, CMAX, “Product Catalog”, http://www.engineeringfiber.com, Nov, 9, 2008.

CSA A23.3, “Design For Concrete Structures”, Canadian Standard Association,

Fiberforce company, “Fiberforce Steel Fibers”, http://www.fiberforce.net, Sep, 9, 2008.

Fiberspan, “A New Way to Build in Concrete”, http://www.fibrespan.com.au, Nov,

Reinforced Engineering Hand Book. James E. Amrhein.

Sherwood G. Edward, Remarks on this paper, Carleton University, 2008-2009.

Shunya web site, “Ugarit, Syria” http://www.shunya.net/Pictures/Syria/ugarit/Ugarit.htm, July, 02, 2008.

SMD, “Structural Metal Decks”, http://www.smdltd.co.uk, Sept. 10, 2008.

SPI, Fiber Force, http://www.fiberforce.net, Sept. 10, 2008.

Used Equations From Literature:

Original RILEM Design Method:

The RILEM TC 162-TDF relation for shear strength consists of 3 components:

The first term, Vc, is defined in Eurocode 2 as:

Vc = 0.153 d k (100 ρ1 f ck ) 3 bd (2)

The second term, Vw is defined in Eurocode 2 :

V fb = k f k1τ fd bwd (4)

kf = factor of flange contribution in a T section.

V fb =k f k1 0.5 d f eqm,3bw d (6)

z = the aggregate size effect factor which is presented in the relation:

da = the maximum aggregate size.

f c' = Cylinder compressive strength. [MPa].

Calculation of the Ultimate Shear Capacity According to Modified ACI (Ashour et al

F = fiber factor = (Lf/Df)Vf df

Lf , D f and Vf already defined.

1.00 for indented fibers.

Calculation the Ultimate Shear Capacity According to Modified Zsutty (Ashour et al

You might also like