ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 110-S48
Strength Modeling of Concrete Deep Beams Reinforced
with Internal Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
by Matthias F. Andermatt and Adam S. Lubell
It is well-known that arch action in deep concrete members
provides a beneficial increase in strength. However, while specific
design code provisions are available for steel-reinforced deep
members that account for this influence, current design code provi-
sions for members containing internal fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) reinforcement do not consider the capacity obtained from
arch action. Strut-and-tie-based modeling approaches for FRP-
reinforced members were developed through the adaptation of
existing models for steel-reinforced concrete deep members.
When compared to test results for large-scale members with
small shear span-depth ratios (a/d), the recommended strut-and-
tie model (STM) is shown to be in better agreement than existing
shear provisions for FRP-reinforced members. The proposed STM
is also shown to accurately account for influences on capacity
from the reinforcement ratio, reinforcement stiffness, and overall
member height.
Keywords: deep beams; fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement; reinforced
concrete; shear; shear span-depth ratio (a/d); strut and tie.
INTRODUCTION
The shear behavior of reinforced concrete members
without transverse reinforcement has been studied exten-
sively by many researchers over the last century.1 For steel-
reinforced concrete members, it has long been established
that there is a substantial change in the primary load-carrying
mechanisms as the shear span-depth ratio (a/d) approaches
2.5.2,3 Design codes and guidelines for steel-reinforced
construction acknowledge this difference in behavior and
specify different analytical capacity methods depending
on the a/d.4-7 So-called “slender members” are commonly
defined as having an a/d greater than approximately 2.5 and
are assumed to have axial strain distributions that vary linearly
over the height of the cross section according to the well-
known principle that plane sections remain plane. Design
code provisions typically use sectional models to determine
the shear and flexural capacities of slender members.1 When
the a/d is less than approximately 2.5—herein termed “deep
beams”—a nonlinear distribution of strains dominates the
response and arch action becomes the primary force-transfer
mechanism following diagonal cracking.1 Strut-and-tie
models (STMs) represent one technique commonly adopted
to design steel-reinforced deep beams.8-10
While different shear models are used to analyze the
capacity of slender and deep steel-reinforced concrete
members, current codes and guidelines for the design of
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforced concrete members
do not differentiate between these member types.4,11-13 Only
sectional shear design methods are provided and no sepa-
rate analytical models are given to directly account for the
arching action observed to occur in deep concrete members
internally reinforced with FRP.14 CAN/CSA S806-0211 even
states that “analysis by strut and tie models is not permitted.”
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
TECHNICAL PAPER
Lack of design provisions to acknowledge the additional
capacity resulting from arch action may result in uneco-
nomical designs with excessively large cross sections for
members without web reinforcement, especially in cases
where large concentrated loads are located close to support
locations. Further, ignoring the contribution from arch action
may suggest that unneeded strengthening is required when
evaluating the shear capacity of existing FRP-reinforced
deep members.
A companion paper14 presented new test data for 12 large-
scale deep beams with internal FRP reinforcement that
confirmed the presence of arch action. This paper reports
the development of appropriate modeling strategies for
FRP-reinforced members with small a/d.15 A strut-and-tie
modeling approach is developed for use in predicting the
capacity of FRP-reinforced deep beams through mechanics-
based modifications to existing STMs applicable to steel-
reinforced concrete construction. The proposed STM is vali-
dated with the new test results for large-scale members14 and
other data available from moderate-scale tests reported in
the literature.16,17 Comparisons are also made to capacity
predictions using existing sectional shear design models for
FRP-reinforced slender members.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Internal FRP reinforcement has been used in concrete
structures that are exposed to aggressive environments,
where use of corrosion-susceptible steel reinforcement may
introduce concerns regarding long-term durability. These
structures may include bridges, parking garages, founda-
tions, or those located in marine environments. Based on
the member geometry or the loading conditions, members
within these structures may contain so-called disturbed
regions, where sectional design methods do not apply due
to the nonlinear distribution of strains. There is currently no
guidance for the special design of these disturbed regions
in members containing internal FRP reinforcement.4,11-13 By
considering the case of so-called deep beams with small a/d,
this paper develops a modeling approach based on the strut-
and-tie method. The model is validated for different FRP
reinforcement types and a range of common beam design
configurations, with the results compared to strength predic-
tions using currently available sectional models.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 4, July-August 2013.
MS No. S-2011-227.R1 received May 2, 2012, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2013, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published in the May-June 2014 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received
by January 1, 2014.
595
ACI member Matthias F. Andermatt is a Bridge Engineer at AECOM, Edmonton,
AB, Canada. He received his BSc in civil engineering and his MSc in structural engi-
neering from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. His research interests
include large-scale testing of structural components and shear transfer in concrete.
ACI member Adam S. Lubell is a Project Engineer at Read Jones Christoffersen
Ltd., Vancouver, BC, Canada, and an Associate Adjunct Professor of civil engineering
at the University of Alberta. He received his PhD from the University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, Canada. He is Secretary of ACI Subcommittee 445A, Shear and Torsion-
Strut and Tie; and a member of ACI Committees 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement; 544, Fiber-Reinforced Concrete; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee
445, Shear and Torsion. His research interests include the design and rehabilitation
of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, and the development of structural
detailing guidelines to allow the use of high-performance materials.
EXISTING SECTIONAL SHEAR MODELS
As noted previously, there are no separate analytical
models provided in current design standards4,11-13 that
allow direct consideration of the arch action observed in
FRP-reinforced members with small a/d.14,16,17 Instead, all
designs should be checked with sectional models for shear
and flexure.
Five existing sectional shear design models for concrete
members reinforced with internal FRP are examined in this
paper to understand their applicability for use in predicting
the shear capacity of FRP-reinforced members with small
a/d. The models are shown with the resistance factors taken
as unity and are provided in SI units (1 mm = 0.0394 in.;
1 N = 0.225 lb; 1 MPa = 145 psi).
CSA S6-06 (Clause 16)4,18
The CSA S6-064,18 method for determining the shear
capacity of FRP-reinforced concrete beams is a mechanical
model based on simplifications to the Modified Compres-
sion Field Theory (MCFT).19 This model is similar to the
technique used in the shear design of slender steel-reinforced
concrete members,4,5 as described elsewhere.20 The nominal
shear capacity of FRP-reinforced slender beams without
transverse reinforcement Vc is given as
effective crack spacing sze. The parameter sze accounts for
the reduction in aggregate interlock that occurs as the crack
spacing increases with member depth and as the aggregate
size ag decreases. Because cracks in high-strength concrete
tend to go through the aggregate rather than around, ag is
linearly reduced to zero as fc′ increases from 60 to 70 MPa
(8700 to 10,150 psi).
Hoult et al.21
The CSA S6-0618 and CSA A23.3-045 shear models for
steel-reinforced members use a so-called first-order (that
is, linear) approximation to the crack-width-versus-longitu-
dinal-strain relationship. This simplification is appropriate for
steel-reinforced concrete members due to the limited range
of axial strains encountered for traditional reinforcing steel
strengths.20 To better account for the typically higher axial
strains in FRP-reinforced members, Hoult et al.21 developed
a so-called second-order (that is, nonlinear) approximation
to the diagonal crack width relationship. This model predicts
the shear capacity for members reinforced with only longitu-
dinal reinforcement as
0.30 1300
Vc = ⋅ fc′bw dv (5)
0.5 + (1000 e x + 0.15)
0.7
(1000 + sze )
31.5d
sze = ≥ 0.77d (6)
16 + ag
The effective depth dv is taken as 0.9d and ex is given in
Eq. (2).
CAN/CSA S806-0211
For FRP-reinforced concrete members having an effective
depth not exceeding 300 mm (11.8 in.), the shear capacity is
calculated as

1/3
0.40 1300 (1)  Vd 
Vc = 2.5 ⋅ f b d Vc = 0.035  fc′rEfrp bw d > 0.1 fc′bw d (7)
(1 + 1500e x ) (1000 + sze ) cr w v  M 

where the quantity Vd/M at the section under consideration

M dv + V is not to be taken as greater than 1.0; and Vc is not to exceed
ex = ≤ 0.003 (2) 0.2 fc′bw d .
2 E frp A frp
The shear capacity of members having an effective depth
exceeding 300 mm (11.8 in.) is calculated using Eq. (8),
which accounts for the observed decrease in shear strength
35dv with member depth.
sze = ≥ 0.85dv (3)
15 + ag
 130 
Vc =  fc′ bw d ≥ 0.08 fc′ bw d (8)
 1000 + d 
fcr = 0.4 fc′ ≤ 3.2 MPa (4)

ISIS Design Manual No. 3, Version 212

where dv is the effective shear depth taken as the greater of
0.72h and 0.9d. The values for the moment M and shear V
in Eq. (2) are always taken as positive with M not taken as
less than Vdv. The model assumes that the shear capacity can
be predicted by the aggregate interlock mechanism for shear
force transfer across a crack. The aggregate interlock mecha-
nism is dependent on the axial strain at midheight ex and the
This shear model is similar to the CSA A23.3-9422 simplified
method of determining the shear capacity in steel-reinforced
members but incorporates a reduction factor to account for
the stiffness of the longitudinal FRP reinforcement relative to
steel. The model predicts the shear capacity of FRP-reinforced
members containing no transverse reinforcement and having
an effective depth less than 300 mm (11.8 in.) as

596 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

 Fig. 1—Beams in four-point bending.

equal to the member depth. Thus, in the case of a deep beam

E frp with an a/d of less than 2, the entire shear span will be a
Vc = 0.2 fc′ bw d (9)
Es D-region (refer to Fig. 1(a)). Strut-and-tie modeling is a
widely used technique to analyze D-regions and is described
For beams that have an effective depth greater than 300 mm in detail elsewhere.1,8-10,24,25 Note that STMs can also be used
(11.8 in.), Vc is calculated as to represent the so-called B-region further away from the
discontinuity where the axial strain distribution is assumed
to be linear and sectional shear models would also apply.1
 260  E frp The use of STMs allows for easy visualization of the
Vc =  fc′ bw d (10)
 1000 + d  Es flow of forces. In addition, these truss models represent all
internal force effects and do not require separate flexure and
shear models, as is the case for slender members analyzed
with sectional approaches. Strut-and-tie modeling is based
ACI 440.1R-0613
The ACI 440.1R-0613 shear model was developed23 such on the lower-bound theory of plasticity and the capacity of
that the shear capacity of both steel- and FRP-reinforced the model is always less than the true capacity if the truss is in
members could be predicted by a similar approach that equilibrium and has sufficient deformation capacity to allow
directly accounts for the reinforcement stiffness. The shear redistribution of forces into the assumed truss elements.10
capacity of concrete members is given as For the STM technique, the flow of forces in a simply
supported deep member after cracking is idealized using
a pin-jointed truss consisting of compression struts and
2 tension ties (Fig. 1(b)). The struts and ties intersect at nodes.
Vc = fc′ bwc (11)
5 Struts are used to represent the assumed compressive stress
fields in the concrete. Ties represent the primary tension
where c = kd is the cracked transformed section neutral axis reinforcement with the tie location made to correspond to
depth with k given by Eq. (12); and nf is the modular ratio of the centroid of the reinforcement. While the tie also consists
the FRP to the concrete. of the concrete surrounding the reinforcement, this concrete
is not directly considered in the design but will reduce the tie
elongation.6 It is assumed that no bond exists between the tie
( )
2
k = 2rn f + rn f − rn f (12) and surrounding concrete between nodal locations giving a
constant tie force between adjacent nodes. For the STM of a
deep beam under four-point bending shown in Fig. 1(b), this
allows use of a tied-arch analogy to represent the forces in
STRUT-AND-TIE MODELS the struts and main tension tie.
Nonlinear strain distributions in concrete members are The STM technique requires that all ties, struts, and
caused by changes in geometry or loading and are commonly nodal regions have sufficient strength relative to the forces
referred to as disturbed regions or D-regions.10 According to imposed on these elements by the selected model geometry.
ACI 318-086 and other codes of practice for steel-reinforced With reference to Fig. 2, the axial strength of a tie is given by
concrete members, the D-region will typically extend longi-
tudinally from the discontinuity for a distance approximately Ft = At ft (13)

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013 597

 Fig. 2—Nodal region of STM shown in Fig. 1.
where At is the cross-sectional area of reinforcement; and ft
is the limiting stress in the reinforcement. The strength of a
strut is given by
Fs = Acs fc (14)
where Acs is the applicable cross-sectional area of concrete
taken perpendicular to the strut axis; and fc is the maximum
permitted stress in the concrete strut. Note that the appli-
cable cross-sectional area and the compression stress limit
may both be different at each end of the strut. The strength
of nodal regions must be such that the stress is kept below a
fraction of fc′ where the fraction is dependent on the number
of ties crossing a nodal zone, as described in a later section.
The nodal stresses are calculated using the area of the nodal
zone face that is perpendicular to the force acting on the face.
While the basic strut-and-tie modeling principles are
similar in each design code for steel-reinforced concrete
members,4-7 they can differ significantly with respect to the
evaluation of the limiting capacities of each element. Three
different STMs were evaluated in this study. Two of the
models were based on the CSA A23.3-045 provisions, while
the third model was based on the STM provisions given
in ACI 318-08,6 Appendix A. These models were selected
because they can highlight inherent model assumptions that
may impact their applicability for FRP-reinforced members,
as FRP mechanical properties can be significantly different
than conventional steel reinforcing bars.
CSA A23.3-045 STM provisions
The CSA A23.3-045 STM does not impose a limitation
on the angle between adjoining struts and ties. Instead, a
MCFT-based approach is used to establish the maximum
compressive stresses permitted in struts by considering
the influence of cracking caused by coexisting transverse
tensile strains.19 It is noted that the STM provisions in
CSA S6-064 and AASHTO LRFD7 use a similar MCFT-
based approach. The limiting compressive stress in a strut
crossed by a tie is given by
fc′
fc = ≤ 0.85 fc′ (15)
0.8 + 170 e1
where e1 is the transverse tensile strain calculated as
598
e1 = e s + ( e s + 0.002) cot 2 q (16)
where the parameter q represents the angle between the strut
axis and the axis of the adjoining tie; and es is the tensile
strain in the tie crossing the strut at the strut location. From
Eq. (15) and (16), it is observed that as the strut angle
decreases or as the tensile reinforcement strain increases, the
compressive load-carrying capacity of the strut is reduced.
Thus, the member capacity can decrease with increases in
the a/d if the member capacity is governed by the strength of
the diagonal strut in Fig. 1(b). Further, the member capacity
can be influenced by the axial stiffness of the reinforcement.
For steel-reinforced concrete members, the tie strength
in the CSA A23.3-045 STM is evaluated based on the yield
strength of the steel. In adapting these provisions to FRP-
reinforced members, it is necessary to directly consider the
linear elastic stress-strain response of the FRP to evaluate
efrp. Note that efrp is the strain in the FRP reinforcement away
from the nodal zone (that is, to the right of Location d in
Fig. 2(a)).
For the STM shown in Fig. 1(b), the midspan tie strain (that
is, at Location a in Fig. 1(b)) is taken as efrp and calculated
directly from the corresponding tie force and reinforcement
properties, as described in a later section. For simplicity (and
referred to herein as “CSA Approach 1”), the tie strain es in
Eq. (16) is set equal to efrp. Shear capacities calculated with
CSA Approach 1 are given the notation Vcsa1. According to
CSA A23.3-04,5 Commentary Clause N11.4.2.3, the value
of es can be taken as the tie strain magnitude at the center-
line of the strut in cases where the strain varies across the
strut width. Thus, for the case in Fig. 2(a) where the tie force
changes from zero at Location b to the maximum tie force
at Location d, the tie strain at the intersection with the strut
centerline (Location c) is approximated as es = 0.5efrp. This
is referred to as “CSA Approach 2” and the corresponding
capacity predictions are given the notation Vcsa2.
CSA A23.3-045 also requires that the stresses in the nodal
zones not exceed 0.85fc′ for CCC nodes (compression only),
0.75fc′ for CCT nodes (compression with one tie), and
0.65fc′ for CTT nodes (compression with ties in more than
one direction). For new construction, an orthogonal grid of
crack control reinforcement is required near each face of the
member. The ratio of the reinforcement area to the gross
concrete area is to be at least 0.002 in each direction and the
maximum bar spacing is not to exceed 300 mm (11.8 in.).
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
However, this reinforcement need not be directly consid-
ered within the truss model calculations and the potential
impact of omitting this reinforcement on the overall capacity
is ignored for the members without web reinforcement under
consideration in this paper.
ACI 318-086 STM provisions
Unlike the CSA A23.3-045 STM, the ACI 318-086 STM
limits the minimum angle q between the axis of any strut
and tie entering a node to 25 degrees. This limit is to avoid
incompatibilities due to the shortening of the strut and
lengthening of the ties. The limiting compressive stress in
a strut containing no longitudinal reinforcement and regard-
less of whether it is crossed by a tension tie is given by
fc = 0.85b s fc′ (17)
where bs = 1.0 for struts of uniform cross-sectional area
over its length, 0.75 for bottle-shaped struts with distrib-
uted reinforcement, and 0.6 for bottle-shaped struts without
distributed reinforcement. The limiting strut stress is inde-
pendent of the strut inclination (a/d) and the strain in the
tension ties crossing a strut. However, Eq. (17), which was
empirically derived for steel-reinforced deep beams, does
account for the reduced strut capacity if the strut is located
such that the compression forces can spread (that is, a
bottle-shaped strut), as is the case with the diagonal struts
in Fig. 1(b).
Similar to the CSA A23.3-045 STM for steel-reinforced
concrete members, the tie strength in the ACI 318-086 STM
is evaluated based on the yield strength of the steel. In
adapting these provisions to FRP-reinforced members, it is
necessary to consider the linear elastic stress-strain response
of the FRP when determining the capacity of the STM.
ACI 318-086 requires that the stresses in the nodal zones
not exceed 0.85bnfc′, where bn is 1.0 for CCC nodes,
0.80 for CCT nodes, and 0.60 for CTT nodes. Contrary to the
CSA A23.3-045 STM, the ACI 318-086 STM does not require
distributed reinforcement if the appropriate bs factor is used
in Eq. (17). If bs = 0.75 is used in Eq. (17), the axis of the
strut must be crossed by reinforcement proportioned to resist
the tensile forces caused by the spreading of the compres-
sion forces. Alternatively, if fc′ does not exceed 41 MPa
(6000 psi), the reinforcement ratio of the strut needs to be
at least 0.3%, as calculated with ACI 318-08,6 Clause A3.3.
However, the specimens under consideration in this paper
contained no distributed web reinforcement, which was
accounted for by using bs = 1.0 or 0.6, depending on the
strut type.
Applying STMs to FRP-reinforced members
The first step in strut-and-tie modeling involves the selec-
tion of a suitable truss model to transfer the loads to the
supports. In design, the selection of an appropriate model
typically involves some iteration or trial and error of the
truss geometry to ensure that the stresses in all struts, ties,
and nodal regions are within the permitted stress limits, as
defined in the following sections. For use in analysis, an
iterative solution technique is typically required to solve the
maximum capacity of a given truss model.
A simple truss model with direct diagonal compression
struts between the load and support locations was adopted
for predicting the capacities of the members examined in this
study (Fig. 1(b)). The centerline location of the tie coincided
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
Fig. 3—Flowchart to solve capacity of FRP-reinforced deep
beam using STMs. (Note: V = P/2.)
with the centroid of the FRP reinforcement. The height of the
bottom node ha is defined by the location of the reinforce-
ment and is taken as twice the distance from the bottom of
the beam to the centroid of the reinforcement. The heights
of the top nodes/compression zone da and the corresponding
inclination angle q of the diagonal struts were defined during
the calculations. In all instances, the shear capacity was
determined iteratively by incrementing the total applied load
P. A flowchart defining the calculation procedure is shown
in Fig. 3 for the case of the CSA A23.3-045 model and is
briefly described herein.
For a given applied load P, the force in each STM element
(that is, the struts, ties, and nodes) was compared to the
limiting capacities. This required that the truss geometry be
established. For the selected P, the moment at midspan was
calculated. By assuming that the stress in the top horizontal
strut was at its maximum permitted value of 0.85fc′, the top
strut height da and the force in the FRP tie Ft were calculated
simultaneously. With the dimension of the top strut known,
the diagonal strut angle q was calculated based on the
centerline geometry of the strut. The forces in the diagonal
struts were determined from equilibrium. The FRP strain
at midspan efrp was calculated by dividing the previously
determined FRP tensile force by the axial stiffness EfrpAfrp.
Equation (16) was used to calculate the appropriate trans-
verse tensile strain across the diagonal strut. Subsequently,
the limiting compressive strut stress fc was calculated using
Eq. (15) at the bottom of the diagonal strut and compared to
the applied strut stress at this location. A similar calculation
at the top of the diagonal strut was completed. These steps
were repeated as the load was incremented, with the strain
in the FRP being recalculated each time due to its linear
elastic response. The maximum predicted load was defined
by reaching one of the stress limits. The maximum predicted
capacity (Vcsa1 or Vcsa2) for all specimens examined in this
study was limited by the diagonal strut capacity near the
lower support and not by tie failure or nodal failure.
For capacity predictions using the ACI 318-086 STM
approach, a similar iterative approach was required to estab-
599
Table 1—Capacity predictions of specimens in current study using STMs and sectional models
STMs Sectional models

CAN/
CSA A23.3-045 ACI 318- ACI ISIS CSA CSA Hoult
STM 086 STM 440.1R-0613 Canada12 S806-0211 S6-064,18 et al.21
Spec- h, d, bw, fc′, Efrp*, Vexp,
imen mm mm mm MPa a/d r, % GPa kN Vexp/Vcsa1 Vexp/Vcsa2 Vexp/Vaci Vexp/Vc Vexp/Vc Vexp/Vc Vexp/Vc Vexp/Vc
A1N 306 257 310 40.2 1.07 1.49 41.1 407 1.39 1.09 1.00 11.1 8.9 5.0 6.1 5.2
A2N 310 261 310 45.4 1.44 1.47 41.1 236 1.15 0.90 0.66 6.1 4.8 2.8 3.4 3.0
A3N 310 261 310 41.3 2.02 1.47 41.1 122 1.11 0.88 0.55 3.2 2.6 1.5 1.9 1.7
A4H 310 261 310 64.6 2.02 1.47 41.1 96 0.67 0.52 0.28 2.3 1.6 1.0 1.4 1.2
B1N 608 503 300 40.5 1.08 1.70 37.9 637 1.10 0.87 0.80 8.9 8.8 7.7 5.5 4.8
B2N 606 501 300 39.9 1.48 1.71 37.9 400 1.11 0.87 0.68 5.6 5.6 4.9 3.5 3.2
B3N 607 502 300 41.2 2.07 1.71 37.9 216 1.04 0.82 0.52 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.0 1.8
B4N 606 496 300 40.7 1.48 2.13 41.1 415 1.01 0.80 0.69 5.1 5.5 5.0 3.2 3.0
B5H 607 497 300 66.4 1.48 2.12 41.1 531 0.94 0.73 0.54 5.7 5.5 5.0 3.9 3.6
B6H 610 505 300 68.5 2.06 1.70 37.9 188 0.65 0.50 0.27 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.5
C1N 1003 889 301 51.6 1.10 1.58 42.3 1135 1.11 0.87 0.68 8.2 9.3 7.4 5.8 5.3
C2N 1005 891 304 50.7 1.49 1.56 42.3 662 1.04 0.82 0.53 4.8 5.4 4.3 3.4 3.2
Mean—all specimens 1.03 0.81 0.60 5.53 5.25 4.07 3.47 3.12
Standard deviation 0.20 0.16 0.20 2.75 2.68 2.19 1.63 1.41
Coefficient of variation (COV) 0.20 0.20 0.34 0.50 0.51 0.54 0.47 0.45
Mean—specimens with fc′≈ 40 MPa 1.12 0.88 0.68 6.23 5.98 4.56 3.86 3.46
Standard deviation 0.11 0.09 0.15 2.68 2.51 2.08 1.58 1.35
COV 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.43 0.42 0.46 0.41 0.39
*
Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcement.
Notes: Lb = 100 mm for A specimens, 200 mm for B specimens, and 330 mm for C specimens; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

lish the member capacity due to the linear elastic response
of the FRP. At each iteration, the tie force Ft must be
compared to the limiting capacity. However, unlike the CSA
A23.3-045 models, the tie strain does not directly influ-
ence the capacity of the adjacent diagonal strut. The cross-
sectional dimension of the strut is influenced by the diagonal
strut angle q, which varies at each iteration. For all specimens
examined in this study, the maximum predicted capacity Vaci
was limited by the diagonal strut capacity at the upper end
of the diagonal strut and not by tie failure or nodal failure.
SHEAR CAPACITY PREDICTIONS
A database of 36 test results was assembled for concrete
beams with a/d < 2.4 and containing internal longitudinal FRP
reinforcement but no transverse reinforcement. This database
included the 12 large-scale tests reported in the companion
paper14 (Table 1) and 24 moderate-scale tests reported by
El-Sayed16 and Nehdi et al.17 (Table 2). Specimens contained
either glass FRP14,16,17 or carbon FRP.16,17 Concrete strengths
ranged between 34 and 69 MPa (4.9 and 10 ksi). As-built
dimensions and measured material properties were used in
all calculations. The shear capacities of each specimen were
determined using the sectional and STM models.
CAPACITY PREDICTIONS USING SECTIONAL
SHEAR MODELS
The experimental-to-predicted shear capacity ratios for the
five sectional shear models are provided in Tables 1 and 2 for
the large-scale and moderate-scale specimens, respectively.
The critical section used in the analysis was typically taken
at a distance of dv (d for the CAN/CSA S806-0211 model)
from the point load toward the support if a/d > 2.0. For spec-
imens with a/d ≤ 2.0, the critical section was assumed to be
at the midpoint of the shear span. The relationships between
the experimental-to-predicted shear capacities and a/d are
shown in Fig. 4 for the five sectional models.
In general, all of the sectional shear models were inca-
pable of properly modeling the shear capacity for the
members with a/d < 2.4. The models all became increasingly
conservative as the a/d decreased due to their neglect of arch
action. All models were able to account for decreases in the
shear stress at failure as the member depth increased, but
the CAN/CSA S806-0211 model—with different equations
depending on the magnitude of d—gave higher Vexp/Vc ratios
as d increased (Fig. 4(c)). Note that Fig. 4(c) only shows
the specimens from the companion paper14 for ease of size
comparison. The ACI 440.1R-0613 shear model had the
worst overall predictions with Vexp/Vc ratios of up to 12.8 and
an average value of 5.69 for the 36 members considered. The
Hoult et al.21 model gave the best overall predictions with
a mean Vexp/Vc of 2.97 for the 36 data points. Nevertheless,
this model still demonstrates that substantial improvement in
model accuracy is required to properly consider the behavior
of members with a small a/d.

600 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

Table 2—Capacity predictions of specimens from previous research programs using STMs and
sectional models
STMs Sectional models

CAN/
CSA A23.3- ACI 318- ACI 440.1R ISIS CSA CSA Hoult et
045 STM 086 STM -0613 Canada12 S806-0211 S6-064,18 al.21
Refer- d, fc′, FRP Efrp, Vexp, Vexp/ Vexp/
ence Specimen mm MPa a/d r, % type* GPa kN Vcsa1 Vcsa2 Vexp/Vaci Vexp/Vc Vexp/Vc Vexp/Vc Vexp/Vc Vexp/Vc
II-C-0.7/1.6 326 40 1.69 0.78 C 134 179.5 0.98 0.79 0.82 3.76 2.17 3.55 2.14 2.05
II-C-1.2/1.3 326 40 1.3 1.24 C 134 372 1.16 0.95 1.30 6.38 4.50 7.37 3.75 3.61
II-C-1.2/1.6 326 40 1.69 1.24 C 134 195 0.92 0.76 0.89 3.35 2.36 3.86 1.97 1.95
II-C-1.7/1.6 326 40 1.69 1.71 C 134 233.5 1.00 0.84 1.07 3.52 2.82 4.62 2.12 2.14
†
16 II-G-0.8/1.6 326 40 1.69 0.78 G 42 164.5 1.37 1.05 0.75 5.81 3.55 3.26 3.13 2.72
II-G-1.2/0.9 326 40 0.92 1.24 G 42 450.5 1.33 1.04 1.22 12.83 9.73 8.92 7.05 5.90
II-G-1.2/1.3 326 40 1.3 1.24 G 42 269 1.25 0.97 0.94 7.66 5.81 5.33 4.21 3.67
II-G-1.2/1.6 326 40 1.69 1.24 G 42 175 1.22 0.95 0.80 4.99 3.78 3.47 2.74 2.48
II-G-1.7/1.6 326 40 1.69 1.71 G 42 196 1.21 0.96 0.89 4.84 4.23 3.88 2.70 2.51
CF-B-1 150 34.7 1.55 1.13 C 134 92.6 1.31 1.08 1.49 6.26 4.27 3.49 3.39 3.12
CF-B-1.5 150 38.9 1.83 1.13 C 134 77.5 1.32 1.08 1.34 5.06 3.37 2.76 2.74 2.56
CF-B-2 150 40.6 2.33 1.13 C 134 45.8 1.16 0.96 1.04 2.95 1.95 1.62 1.71 1.59
CF-pl-1.5 150 37.4 1.83 1.69 C 134 81.2 1.26 1.06 1.46 4.53 3.61 2.95 2.53 2.44
CF-pl-2.0 150 39.6 1.83 2.26 C 134 92.8 1.28 1.10 1.57 4.55 4.00 3.28 2.59 2.53
CF-d-250 250 41.7 1.41 1.35 C 134 149.1 1.21 1.01 1.75 5.30 3.76 3.08 3.04 2.95
CF-d-350 350 37.6 1.36 1.21 C 134 234.1 1.77 1.49 2.92 6.34 4.61 7.55 3.84 3.72
‡
17 CF-fc′-60 150 63.1 1.83 1.13 C 134 113.5 1.40 1.12 1.21 6.45 3.87 3.18 3.50 3.22
F-B-1 150 35.5 1.55 1.29 G 40.8 67.8 1.36 1.06 1.06 7.21 5.60 3.24 3.70 3.12
F-B-1.5 150 48 1.83 1.29 G 40.8 64.3 1.39 1.08 0.90 6.30 4.56 3.78 3.22 2.75
F-B-2 150 48 2.33 1.29 G 40.8 28.9 0.96 0.74 0.55 2.83 2.05 1.38 1.57 1.33
F-pl-1.5 150 48 1.83 1.72 G 40.8 73.6 1.43 1.12 1.03 6.34 5.22 2.90 3.27 2.86
F-pl-2.0 150 35.2 1.83 2.31 G 40.8 61.0 1.30 1.04 1.17 5.04 5.04 2.41 2.65 2.40
F-d-250 250 42 1.41 1.39 G 40.8 121.6 1.46 1.14 1.42 7.19 5.53 3.22 3.83 3.38
F-d-350 350 48 1.36 1.25 G 40.8 211.3 1.99 1.55 2.06 9.03 6.69 6.04 4.99 4.34
Mean 1.29 1.04 1.24 5.77 4.29 3.92 3.18 2.89
Standard deviation 0.24 0.19 0.50 2.16 1.69 1.86 1.16 0.95
Coefficient of variation (COV) 0.18 0.18 0.40 0.37 0.39 0.47 0.37 0.33
*
C is carbon; G is glass.
†
Specimens from El-Sayed16 had bw = 250 mm and Lb = 100 mm.
‡
Specimens from Nehdi et al.17 had bw = 150 mm and Lb = 50 mm.
Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

CAPACITY PREDICTIONS USING STRUT-AND-
TIE MODELS
Capacity predictions relative to the test results for
the 12 large-scale specimens reported in the companion
paper14 are provided in Fig. 5. Results for the full data set
of 36 members are provided in Fig. 6.
CSA Approach 1
The mean test-to-predicted capacity ratio Vexp/Vcsa1 of the
12 specimens reported in Table 1 using CSA Approach 1 (that
is, es = efrp) was 1.03 with a coefficient of variation (COV)
of 20%. It can be observed in Fig. 5(a) that the prediction
quality was similar for the range of a/d values studied and
for the member depths, but the average statistics were influ-
enced by the concrete strength. For the subset of specimens
with normal-strength concrete (fc′ ≈ 40 MPa [5800 psi]),
the mean Vexp/Vcsa1 was 1.12 with a 10% COV and all speci-
mens had Vexp/Vcsa1 > 1.0. The specimens with high-strength
concrete (fc′ ≈ 66 MPa [9570 psi]) had Vexp/Vcsa1 ratios of less
than 1.0, especially Specimens A4H and B6H, which had
a/d = 2.1. These two specimens exhibited crack patterns that
prevented full direct compression struts from forming.14,15
Specimen B5H with a/d = 1.48 had Vexp/Vcsa1 = 0.94, but
unlike Specimens A4H and B6H, this beam developed a
complete arching mechanism.14,15
Predictions for all 36 specimens using this model are
shown in Fig. 6(a). It can be observed that the prediction
quality is similar regardless of FRP type (glass or carbon)

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013 601

Fig. 4—Shear capacity predictions using: (a) ACI 440.1R-0613; (b) ISIS Design Manual 312; (c) CAN/CSA S806-0211; (d) CSA S6-064,18;
and (e) Hoult et al.21 sectional shear models. Figure 4(c) only shows specimens in current study. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa
= 145 psi.)

Fig. 5—Comparison of experimental shear capacity to predicted capacity from CSA A23.3-045 STM using (a) Approach 1 and
(b) Approach 2; and (c) ACI 318-086 STM for specimens reported in Table 1. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
or member size. The average Vexp/Vcsa1 ratio was 1.20 with studied. While the average statistics were influenced by the
a 21% COV for the 36-member data set and 1.24 and 18%, concrete strength, all specimens except for Specimen A1N
respectively, for the subset of 32 normal-strength concrete had Vexp/Vcsa2 ≤ 1.0. The subset of specimens with normal-
(fc′ ≈ 40 MPa [5800 psi]) members. strength concrete (fc′ ≈ 40 MPa [5800 psi]) had an average
Vexp/Vcsa2 of 0.88 and a COV of 10%.
CSA Approach 2
The mean test-to-predicted capacity ratio Vexp/Vcsa2 of the Predictions for all 36 specimens using this model are
12 specimens reported in Table 1 using CSA Approach 2 (that shown in Fig. 6(b). It can be observed that the prediction
is, es = 0.5efrp) was 0.81 with a 20% COV. Similar to CSA quality is similar regardless of FRP type (glass or carbon)
Approach 1 and as shown in Fig. 5(b), the prediction quality or member size. The average Vexp/Vcsa2 ratio was 0.96 with
was similar for the range of a/d values and member depths a 22% COV for the 36-member data set and 0.99 and 18%,

602 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

Fig. 6—Comparison of experimental shear capacity to predicted capacity for all specimens using CSA A23.3-045 STM using
(a) Approach 1 and (b) Approach 2; and (c) ACI 318-086 STM. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
respectively, for the subset of 32 normal-strength concrete
(fc′ ≈ 40 MPa [5800 psi]) members.
ACI 318-086 predictions
The mean test-to-predicted capacity ratio Vexp/Vaci of
the 12 specimens reported in Table 1 using the ACI 318-086
STM was 0.60 with a 34% COV. All specimens had
Vexp/Vaci ≤ 1.0. It is shown in Fig. 5(c) that the prediction
quality decreased as the a/d increased, indicating poor
modeling correlation with the a/d. The average statistics
were also influenced by the concrete strength. For the subset
of specimens with normal-strength concrete (fc′ ≈ 40 MPa
[5800 psi]), the mean Vexp/Vaci was 0.68 with a 22% COV.
The three specimens with high-strength concrete (fc′ ≈
66 MPa [9570 psi]) had a mean Vexp/Vaci of 0.36.
Predictions for all 36 specimens are shown in Fig. 6(c).
It can be observed that the prediction quality is poor, with
a large amount of scatter, and is dependent on the FRP type
(glass or carbon). The average Vexp/Vaci ratio was 1.02 with
a 51% COV for the 36-member data set and 1.08 and 47%,
respectively, for the subset of 32 normal-strength concrete
(fc′ ≈ 40 MPa [5800 psi]) members. The average Vexp/Vaci
ratio was 1.40 with a 39% COV for the carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer (CFRP) reinforced members and 0.83 and 46%,
respectively, for the subset of glass fiber-reinforced polymer
(GFRP) reinforced members.
Comparison of strut-and-tie models
Based on Tables 1 and 2 and Fig. 6, the CSA A23.3-045 STM
where the diagonal strut capacity is calculated using the full
midspan tie strain (that is, CSA Approach 1 with es = efrp),
gave the best predictions for all specimens analyzed. This
model had a mean Vexp/Vcsa1 ratio of 1.20 with a COV of
21% for the 36-member data set. Only 17% of the specimens
had Vexp/Vcsa1 < 1.0. CSA Approach 2 with es = 0.5efrp had
a mean Vexp/Vcsa2 ratio of 0.96 with a COV of 22%. While
this gave an average value closer to unity than the CSA
Approach 1 results, the majority of the specimens (56%)
had Vexp/Vcsa2 < 1.0 with 28% having Vexp/Vcsa2 < 0.85. The
ACI 318-086 STM had a mean Vexp/Vaci ratio of 1.02 with
a COV of 51%. Using the ACI 318-086 model resulted in
predictions where 53% of the specimens had Vexp/Vaci <
1.0 and 42% had Vexp/Vaci < 0.85. Further, Fig. 5(c) and
6(c) demonstrate the variability in the prediction quality
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
as a/d changes, indicating that the ACI 318-086 STM was
incapable of accurately modeling FRP-reinforced concrete
members for all practical a/d.
In addition, CSA Approaches 1 and 2 were able to account
for the different FRP types, while the ACI 318-086 STM
was not able to provide similar prediction quality as the
reinforcement stiffness changed. The ACI 318-086 strut
capacity equation (Eq. (17)) was empirically derived for
steel-reinforced concrete deep beams and does not directly
account for the strain in the tie crossing a strut (that is, the
stiffness of the reinforcement). The influence of the reinforce-
ment axial stiffness EfrpAfrp normalized by the a/d on the
capacity predictions is shown in Fig. 7 for all specimens.
CSA Approaches 1 and 2 were able to account for the influ-
ence of the reinforcement axial stiffness (Fig. 7(a) and (b)),
while the ACI 318-086 STM (Fig. 7(c)) showed poor corre-
lation between the capacity prediction and axial stiffness of
the reinforcement.
All models gave poor predictions for the specimens with
high-strength concrete. As noted previously and in the
companion paper,14 some of these specimens had crack
patterns that prevented full direct compression struts from
forming. In addition, research on steel-reinforced concrete
deep beams has established that the ACI 318-086 STM
and the AASHTO LRFD7 STM, which is similar to the
CSA A23.3-045 STM, give unconservative predictions when
fc′ exceeds 41 and 48 MPa (6000 and 7000 psi), respectively.26
RECOMMENDED ANALYSIS APPROACH
FOR DEEP BEAMS
As discussed previously, the sectional shear models became
increasingly conservative as the a/d decreased and were inca-
pable of modeling the shear capacity of members with a/d <
2.4. In general, the CSA STM models were able to effectively
account for the a/d, member height, and reinforcement stiff-
ness, with CSA Approach 1 providing the best prediction
quality. The ACI 318-086 STM gave poor predictions and was
incapable of producing consistent capacity predictions as the
a/d or reinforcement stiffness changed.
Because the intent of this study was to provide a method
for predicting the shear capacity of full-scale members, the
experimental data from the large-scale specimens should be
given greater consideration. Therefore, this study considered
members with h > 300 mm (11.8 in.) and up to 1000 mm
(39.4 in.) to be more representative of the beam sizes used
603
Fig. 7—Influence of axial stiffness of reinforcement on experimental shear capacity to predicted capacity for all specimens
using CSA A23.3-045 STM using (a) Approach 1 and (b) Approach 2; and (c) ACI 318-086 STM. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 N
= 0.225 lb.)
in the industry. The best STM predictions for the large-
scale specimens tested in this study were obtained by using
CSA Approach 1 (es = efrp).
CAUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Unlike steel reinforcement, which exhibits a yield plateau
and substantial elongation prior to rupture, FRP reinforcing
bars exhibit a linear stress-strain response prior to brittle
failure. Further, most design codes for the use of internal
FRP reinforcement in concrete structures require that
the stress in the FRP be kept below a relatively low frac-
tion of the guaranteed tensile strength due to concerns
regarding long-term material performance and/or degrada-
tion. Thus, the FRP will behave elastically, even at failure
of the member, and the dominant mechanism to achieve a
ductile structural response must be through the deformation
capacity of the concrete. Because the recommended STM
approach for deep concrete members reinforced with FRP
evaluates the performance at the ultimate limit state condi-
tion, this approach gives rise to several cautions and limita-
tions. The linear elastic nature of the FRP must be taken into
account when using the strut-and-tie modeling technique.
In steel-reinforced concrete members, the steel provides
the required plastic deformation to allow redistribution
of internal stresses into the adopted truss model. In FRP-
reinforced concrete members, the concrete can only provide
limited ductility, which may not be enough in truss models
more complex than those discussed in this study. The simple
truss model used in this study (Fig. 1(b)) was determinant
and closely followed the internal forces, as indicated by
the theory of elasticity. Limited ductility was required in
this instance, which may not be the case in more complex
STMs. Additional research is required to ensure that the
STM can be adopted for more complex members containing
FRP reinforcement.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
All of the sectional shear models analyzed in this study
gave poor predictions of capacity for specimens having an
a/d of less than 2.5. The sectional shear models increas-
ingly underpredicted the shear capacity as the a/d decreased.
These models are incapable of accounting for arch action.
As is the case with steel-reinforced members, the
shear capacity of deep members must be computed using
604
an alternative method to consider the arch action. The
ACI 318-086 STM provisions overpredicted the shear
capacity of the specimens by up to 250% because they do not
account for the influence on capacity related to the reinforce-
ment strain magnitudes.
The CSA A23.3-045 STM was able to directly account
for the influences of the reinforcement strain and the a/d
(through the strut angle)—two parameters that have a large
impact on the shear capacity of deep members. To properly
apply the CSA A23.3-045 STM, the elastic stress-strain
response should be directly computed using an equilibrium-
based approach.
Two methods for calculating the CSA A23.3-045 strut
capacity were discussed in this paper. The strut capacity can
either be calculated using efrp or 0.5efrp. Using efrp in calcu-
lating the strut capacity gave experimental-to-predicted shear
capacity (Vexp/Vcsa1) ratios greater than 1.0 for the majority of
the specimens tested. Using 0.5efrp resulted in the majority
of the specimens having Vexp/Vcsa2 < 1.0.
The CSA A23.3-045 STM, where the strut capacity is
calculated by assuming that the strain in the FRP passing
through the strut is the same as the midspan FRP strain (efrp),
is the recommended model for calculating the shear capacity
of deep beams reinforced with FRP and having no distrib-
uted reinforcement. Using sectional models to determine the
shear capacity of FRP-reinforced deep beams is a safe alter-
native but can have adverse effects on the member economy
as the a/d decreases.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this project was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Alberta Ingenuity, and the
University of Alberta.
NOTATION
Acs = cross-sectional area at one end of strut, taken perpendicular to
strut axis
Afrp = area of FRP reinforcing bars on flexural tension side of member
At = cross-sectional area of tension tie reinforcement
a = dimension of shear span measured between centerlines of loading
and reaction plates
ag = nominal maximum size of coarse aggregate
bw = member width
c = distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis
d = effective depth measured from extreme compression fiber to
centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
da = top strut height
dv = effective shear depth
Efrp = modulus of elasticity of FRP reinforcement
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement
Fs = strut capacity
Ft = tie reinforcement axial capacity
fc = limiting compressive stress in strut
fc′ = compressive strength of concrete
fcr = cracking strength of concrete
ft = stress in reinforcement
h = overall member height
ha = height of bottom node
k = ratio of depth of neutral axis to reinforcement depth
Lb = bearing plate dimension in direction of span
M = moment
nf = modular ratio of FRP to concrete
P = total load applied on member
sze = crack spacing parameter that allows for influence of aggregate size
V = shear force
Vc = shear resistance attributed to concrete
Vexp = experimental shear resistance of reinforced concrete member
bn = factor to account for effect of anchorage of ties on effective
compressive strength of nodal zone
bs = factor to account for effect of cracking and confining reinforce-
ment on effective compressive strength of concrete in strut
e1 = principal tensile strain in cracked concrete due to loads
efrp = tensile strain in tie reinforcement at midspan
efrpu = rupture strain of FRP
es = tensile strain in tie reinforcement at center of strut due to loads
ex = longitudinal strain at middepth of member due to loads
q = angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses to axis of
longitudinal reinforcement
r = longitudinal reinforcement ratio Afrp/bdw
REFERENCES
1. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, “Recent Approaches to Shear
Design of Structural Concrete (ACI 445R-99) (Reapproved 2009),” Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 55 pp.
2. Zsutty, T., “Beam Shear Strength Prediction by Analysis of Existing
Data,” ACI Journal, V. 65, No. 11, Nov. 1968, pp. 943-951.
3. Kani, M. W.; Huggins, M. W.; and Wittkopp, R. R., Kani on Shear in
Reinforced Concrete, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1979,
225 pp.
4. CAN/CSA S6-06, “Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code,” Cana-
dian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2006, 788 pp.
5. CSA A23.3-04, “Design of Concrete Structures,” Canadian Standards
Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2004, 232 pp.
6. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
7. AASHTO, “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, SI Units, 4th
Edition,” American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials, Washington, DC, 2007, 1518 pp.
8. Marti, P., “Basic Tools of Reinforced Concrete Beam Design,” ACI
Journal, V. 82, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1985, pp. 46-56.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
9. Rogowsky, D. M., and MacGregor, J. G., “Design of Reinforced
Concrete Deep Beams,” Concrete International, V. 8, No. 8, Aug. 1986,
pp. 49-58.
10. Schlaich, J.; Schäfer, K.; and Jennewein, M., “Towards a Consis-
tent Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures,” PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 3,
1987, pp. 74-150.
11. CAN/CSA S806-02, “Design and Construction of Building Compo-
nents with Fibre-Reinforced Polymers,” Canadian Standards Association,
Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2002, 177 pp.
12. ISIS Canada Research Network, “Reinforcing Concrete Structures
with Fibre Reinforced Polymers—Design Manual 3, Version 2,” ISIS
Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2007, 129 pp.
13. ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-06),” Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006, 44 pp.
14. Andermatt, M. F., and Lubell, A. S., “Behavior of Concrete Deep
Beams Reinforced with Internal Fiber-Reinforced Polymer—Experimental
Study,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 4, July-Aug. 2013, pp. 585-594.
15. Andermatt, M. F., “Concrete Deep Beams Reinforced with Internal
FRP,” MSc thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2010,
266 pp.
16. El-Sayed, A. K., “Concrete Contribution to the Shear Resistance of
FRP-Reinforced Concrete Beams,” PhD dissertation, Université de Sher-
brooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada, 2006, 252 pp.
17. Nehdi, M.; Omeman, Z.; and El-Chabib, H., “Optimal Efficiency
Factor in Strut-and-Tie Model for FRP-Reinforced Concrete Short Beams
with (1.5 < a/d < 2.5),” Materials and Structures, V. 41, No. 10, 2008,
pp. 1713-1727.
18. CSA S6S1-10, “Supplement #1 to CAN/CSA S6-06 Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code,” Canadian Standards Association, Missis-
sauga, ON, Canada, 2010, 278 pp.
19. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression
Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI
Journal, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
20. Bentz, E. C., and Collins, M. P., “Development of the 2004 Cana-
dian Standards Association (CSA) A23.3 Shear Provisions for Reinforced
Concrete,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 33, No. 5, 2006,
pp. 508-520.
21. Hoult, N. A.; Sherwood, E. G.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P.,
“Does the Use of FRP Reinforcement Change the One-Way Shear Behavior
of Reinforced Concrete Slabs?” Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, V. 12, No. 2, 2008, pp. 125-133.
22. CSA A23.3-94, “Design of Concrete Structures,” Canadian Stan-
dards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 1994, 199 pp.
23. Tureyen, A. K., and Frosch, R. J., “Concrete Shear Strength: Another
Perspective,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2003,
pp. 609-615.
24. Wight, J. K., and MacGregor, J. G., Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics
and Design, fifth edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
2009, 1126 pp.
25. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., Prestressed Concrete Structures,
Response Publications, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1997, 720 pp.
26. Bahen, N., and Sanders, D. H., “Investigation of Strut Strength Using
a Deep-Beam Database,” Thomas T.C. Hsu Symposium: Shear and Torsion
in Concrete Structures, SP-265, A. Belarbi, Y. L. Mo, and A. Ayoub, eds.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2009, pp. 385-404.
605
One Click... One Entire Journal

Introducing
a new feature on ACI’s website!
VOL. 108, NO. 6 VOL. 108, NO. 6
NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2011 NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2011

ACI ACI
MATERIALS STRUCTURAL J O U R N A L
J O U R N A L

A JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE A JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE

215 Long-Term Behavior of Cracked Steel Fiber-Reinforced 215 Long-Term Behavior of Cracked Steel Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete Beams under Sustained Loading Concrete Beams under Sustained Loading

Now, with one click of the mouse, subscribers of the

ACI Structural and Materials Journals digital editions can
download an Adobe Acrobat PDF of an unabridged
issue at www.concrete.org/pubs/electronicjournals/
esjindexnew.asp and ww.concrete.org/pubs/
electronicjournals/emjindexnew.asp.