Assessing Reduction in Concrete Shear Strength Contribution

Structures and Buildings
Volume 169 Issue SB4

Assessing reduction in concrete shear
strength contribution
Arslan, Alacali and Sagiroglu
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Structures and Buildings 169 April 2016 Issue SB4
Pages 237244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.14.00102
Paper 1400102
Received 10/10/2014
Accepted 01/09/2015
Published online 09/12/2015
Keywords: beams & girders/failures/risk & probability analysis
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
Assessing reduction in concrete

shear strength contribution
Guray Arslan
Ali Sagiroglu
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Yildiz Technical University,

Istanbul, Turkey (corresponding author: aguray@yildiz.edu.tr;
gurayarslan@yahoo.com)
Civil Engineer, Civil Engineering Department, Yildiz Technical University,

Istanbul, Turkey
Sema Alacali
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Yildiz Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey
Design codes use a strength reduction factor that is less than unity. This factor reflects the degree of uncertainty
associated with the probability of under-strength members and inaccuracies in the design equations, the importance
of the member in the entire structure and the behaviour of a member at ultimate load. A failure probability based on
a second moment probabilistic analysis procedure is used in this study to compute the strength reduction factor in
predicting the contribution of concrete to shear strength of reinforced-concrete beams according to the American
Concrete Institute code ACI 318. For different coefficients of variation of concrete and failure probabilities, the shear
strength reduction factor is investigated using experimental studies available in the literature. It is assumed that
the random variables are statistically independent, and the correlation effects are not taken into account. It is found
that a strength reduction factor of 075 for shear is valid in design according to ACI 318 for a coefficient of variation
of concrete compressive strength of 018 and a failure probability of 105.
Notation
a/d
fc
g (X )
mN
Xi
mXi
pF
V fc
vc
vc,exp
vn
vs
vu
xi
i
N
Xi
Xi
1.
slenderness ratio
compressive strength of concrete
performance function
equivalent mean value of random variable Xi
mean value of random variable Xi
failure probability
coefficient of variance of concrete compressive strength
contribution of concrete to nominal shear strength
experimental cracking shear strength
nominal shear strength
contribution of stirrup to the nominal shear strength
ultimate shear strength
most probable failure point
sensitivity factor
reliability index
partial safety factor
flexural reinforcement ratio
equivalent standard deviation of random variable Xi
standard deviation of random variable Xi
strength reduction factor
Introduction
In ACI 318, the strength reduction factors, , are intended

to allow for the probability of under-strength members and inaccuracies in the design equations and to reflect the degree of
ductility and required reliability of the member under the load
effects being considered, the importance of the member in the
entire structure and other constructional inaccuracies.
The 1995 edition of ACI 318 Building code requirements for

reinforced concrete suggests a value of 085 for shear.
However, in ACI 318 (ACI, 2002, 2011), the value for shear
is decreased to 075. The resistance factors have to be verified
and in some cases developed using updated data (Rakoczy and
Nowak, 2014). The reliability of shear strength prediction
equations is assessed based on the performance functions by
using a second-moment approach (Arslan et al., 2014). This
paper assesses ACI 318s response to the change of in predicting the contribution of concrete to shear strength by using
a second-moment approach. The change in against the coefficient of variation of concrete compressive strength (V fc ) and
the failure probability ( pF) was investigated using a database
of 279 shear test results, as used by Keskin and Arslan (2013).
The results are limited to the consideration of beams with a
slenderness ratio (a/d ) greater than 25.
It is essential to predict the parameters affecting the strength
of reinforced-concrete (RC) members accurately in order to provide the target failure probability. The target reliability level
depends on the consequences of failure and the cost of increasing or decreasing the safety margin by a unit (marginal cost of
safety) (Rakoczy and Nowak, 2014). The target reliability
index () is established in terms of the acceptable probability
of failure varying with the considered loading condition, type
of failure mode and material. In EN 1990 (CEN, 2002) and
ISO 2394 (ISO, 1998), the basic recommendation concerning
a required reliability level is often formulated in terms of
related to a certain design service life. According to the study
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF MORATUWA] on [14/11/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
237


of Nowak and Szerszen (2003) that is the basis of ACI 318

calibration, the target values are 35 (range 3436) and
40 (3841) for RC beams and columns, respectively. Beck
et al. (2009) indicated that the target of structures designed
according to NBR8800 (ABNT, 2008) lie in the range from 23
to 45. The AS 5104 (Standards Australia, 2005) and ISO 2394
(ISO, 1998) suggest that the lifetime target ranges from 31
to 43 for ultimate (strength) limit states design. According
to EN 1990 (CEN, 2002), target for ultimate states, and for
reference periods of 1 year and 50 years, are taken as 47 and
38, respectively. Hence, there are considerable differences in
defined by current codes. These differences illustrate why a
family of prescribed target is the only feasible and acceptable
objective for a code (Nowak and Collins, 2000). According to
ACI 318, the contribution of concrete to shear strength is
obtained by reducing diagonal cracking strength with . It will
be beneficial for engineering practice to determine the contribution of concrete to shear strength according to a given coefficient of variation and failure probability.
3.
2.
Design recommendations
ACI 318 (ACI, 2011) asserts that the strength design philosophy states the design shear capacity of a member must exceed
the shear demand, as shown in Equation 1.
1:
The most general design format is to apply a design factor on

each of the basic design variables (Ang and Tang, 1984). Thus,
the limit state function must satisfy Equation 4.
4:
g 1 mX1 ; 2 mX2 ;...; i mXi 0 i 1; 2; . . .; n
vn vu
in which is given as 075 for shear, vu is the ultimate shear

strength and vn is the nominal shear strength. The nominal
shear strength is derived from two components: the concrete
and the stirrups. This relationship is given as follows
2:
Determination of partial safety factors
In the last four decades, several probability-based design codes

have been elaborated, such as ASCE/ANSI (2010), the National
Building Code of Canada (NBCC, 2010), the Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) (CSA, 2006), EN 1990
(CEN, 2002), DS 409 (Danish Standards Association, 2002)
and JCSS-PMC (2001). The design factors are determined by
reliability methods such as the full probabilistic and first-order
second-moment approach. Full probabilistic methods give sensitive results to the reliability problem. However, the first-order
second-moment approach leads to results that can be considered sufficiently accurate for most cases in structural buildings. In this study, the determination of the partial safety factor
according to the probability-based design is described by the
first-order second-moment approach. In this approach, it is
necessary to find the design point (i mXi ) corresponding to the
target . In the space of the reduced variates, is defined as the
shortest distance from the failure surface to the origin (Nowak
and Collins, 2000).
vn vc vs
xi i mXi is the most probable failure point on the failure

surface and the determination of xi requires an iterative solution. In the space of the reduced variates, the most probable
failure point is xi 0 i . Sensitivity coefficient i is defined
by using Equation 5 (Ang and Tang, 1984).
5:
i h
P
n
i1
in which vs is the contribution of the stirrup to the nominal

shear strength based on yield and vc is the contribution of concrete to the nominal shear strength. vc is calculated by taking
into consideration aggregate interlock and dowel action.
ACI 318 (ACI, 2011) recommends a simplified equation for
the cracking shear strength of a RC beam without stirrup, as
follows
3:
vc
1 p
fc
6
a
25
d
in which fc is the concrete cylinder compressive strength

(MPa).
In the present study, the change in the shear strength reduction
factor considered in predicting the contribution of concrete to
shear strength according to ACI 318 (ACI, 1995) and ACI 318
(ACI, 2011) is investigated and compared for different V fc
and pF.
238
@g=@Xi0
@g=@X 0 2
i1=2
The partial safety factors required for the given are

defined as i xi =mXi . The original variates are given
by xi mXi 1 i VXi , in which mXi and VXi are the mean
value and the variance coefficient of the original variable Xi
with normal distribution, respectively. VXi is the ratio of standard deviation ( Xi ) to the mean value mXi . The partial
safety factors are calculated as i 1 i VXi .
In this study, it is assumed that the distributions of variables
in performance function are lognormal. In lognormal distributions, mXi and Xi should be replaced by the equivalent
N
normal mean mN
Xi and standard deviation Xi . In addition, it is
also assumed that the random variables are statistically independent. The performance function is expressed as
6:
g X 1 vc;ACI 318 2 vc;exp


in which vc,exp is the experimental cracking shear strength and

vc,ACI 318 is the cracking shear strength defined in Equation 3.
1 and 2 are the safety factors corresponding to the related
variables and it is assumed that the safety factor 1 corresponds to the shear strength reduction factor (). The change
in the strength reduction factor considered in predicting the
contribution of concrete to shear strength according to ACI
318 (ACI, 1995) and ACI 318 (ACI, 2011) against the different
values of coefficient of variation V fc (010, 012, 015, 018)
and different failure probabilities pF (107, 106, 105, 104,
103 and 102) was investigated by using experimental studies
available in the literature. Equation 6 is a function of concrete
compressive strength and independent of any load. ISO 2394
(ISO, 1998) recommends the use of a lognormal or Weibull
distribution for strength when deriving the target . Tabsh and
Nowak (1991), Du and Au (2005), Schlune et al. (2011) and
Akiyama et al. (2012) used lognormal distribution for strength
in their studies. Accordingly, a lognormal distribution for
strength is used in this study.
in the literature and the codes. The coefficient of variation

of concrete compressive strength (V fc ) ranges from 010 to 021
(Arslan et al., 2015). ACI 318 (ACI, 2011) recommends
increasing the value of standard deviation in the case where
the number of samples is fewer than 30, and proposes 52 MPa
for fc < 21 MPa, 634 MPa for 21 MPa fc 35 MPa and a
value larger than 634 MPa based on the fc. According to the
CEBFIP Model Code (CEB, 1993), the V fc may be taken as
8/(1645fc). The V fc is taken as 010 by Nowak and Szerszen
(2003) and Ribeiro and Diniz (2013); 011 by Hao et al.
(2010); 012 by Neves et al. (2008); 013 by Val et al. (1997);
015 by Mirza (1996), Mirza et al. (1979) and Mirza
and MacGregor (1979a, 1979b); 016 by Val and Chernin
(2009); 020 by Melchers (1999); and 021 by Ellingwood
(1978). In the studies of Hognestad (1951) and Mirza
(1996), it is assumed that the coefficient of variation of
strength due to test procedure is 004, which is the value used
in this study.
Statistical variations of the variables
5.
Analysis of shear strength reduction

factor
In general the variations in the properties of RC beams

depend on the construction quality control and environmental
conditions. The parameters related to the shear strength were
modelled as random variables, and the values of coefficient
of variation were determined based on the studies available
The shear strength reduction factors () were calculated

for the 279 beams collected from 22 sources (Table 1).
These beams were subjected to single- or two-point loads
at mid-span. The beams have a broad range of design
parameters: 607 MPa fc 9183 MPa, 033% 664% and
4.
Investigator
Moody et al. (1954)
Diaz and Siess (1960)
Taylor (1960)
Van den Berg (1962)
Bresler and Scordelis (1963)
Mathey and Watstein (1963)
Taylor and Brewer (1963)
Krefeld and Thurston (1966)
Mattock (1969)
Mphonde and Frantz (1984)
Ahmad et al. (1986)
Elzanaty et al. (1986)
Pendyala and Mendis (2000)
Kwak et al. (2002)
Cho (2003)
Cladera and Mari (2005)
Shah and Ahmad (2007)
Sneed and Ramirez (2010)
Hamrat et al. (2010)
Garip (2011)
Slowik and Nowicki (2012)
Slowik and Smarzewski (2012)
Number of beams
fc: MPa
24
5
29
32
3
9
12
63
6
13
18
7
3
2
2
4
25
7
4
5
3
3
607 to 4116
2151 to 3668
1754 to 3508
1630 to 7117
2255 to 3758
2351 to 3054
2800 to 3787
1220 to 3903
1614 to 4689
2059 to 9183
6239 to 6871
6345 to 7931
3400 to 8700
6260
5200 to 7300
4990 to 8700
5654
6480 to 7480
4420 to 8550
2500
3270
3270
a/d
292
302
273
270
397
284
378
287
274
250
270
400
500
300
250
301
300
297
300
250
250
250
to 341
to 604
to 616
to 470
to 694
to 378
to 379
to 852
to 514
to 357
to 400
to 600
to 400
to 600
to 300
to 340
to 410
: %
081 to 240
335
090 to 233
172 to 497
181 to 274
047 to 255
124 to 194
080 to 501
103 to 310
232 to 336
177 to 664
119 to 321
202
150
377
224
033 to 200
120 to 130
116 to 231
058 to 220
180
180
vc,exp.: MPa
042 to
132 to
092 to
108 to
093 to
049 to
097 to
069 to
080 to
083 to
136 to
093 to
143 to
126 to
192 to
132 to
041 to
067 to
148 to
065 to
063 to
071 to
141
165
134
181
110
095
129
154
136
234
243
158
156
148
233
164
168
121
207
101
077
085
Table 1. Properties of beams
239


Failure probability ( pF) of beams
V fc
010
012
015
018
010
012
015
018
010
012
015
018
Beams
pF = 107
( = 520)
pF = 106
( = 475)
pF = 105
( = 427)
pF = 104
( = 372)
pF = 103
( = 309)
pF = 102
( = 233)
0861
0822
0765
0712
0840
0799
0741
0688
0855
0816
0758
0705
0870
0833
0779
0728
0851
0812
0757
0706
0864
0827
0773
0722
0880
0846
0795
0747
0863
0827
0776
0727
0875
0841
0790
0742
0892
0861
0815
0771
0877
0845
0798
0754
0888
0857
0810
0766
0907
0880
0840
0801
0895
0867
0826
0787
0904
0877
0836
0797
0927
0905
0873
0840
0917
0895
0862
0830
0924
0902
0870
0838
NSC (201 beams)
HSC (78 beams)
NSC and HSC (279 beams)
095
= 427
Vfc = 012
090
085
080
NSC
HSC
075
070
0
050 100 150 200 250 300

Experimental shear strength, vc,exp
Shear strength reduction factor,
Table 2. The average values of shear strength reduction factors
095
= 427
Vfc = 012
090
085
080
NSC
HSC
075
070
0
20
40
095
= 427
Vfc = 012
090
085
080
NSC
HSC
075
070
10
20
30
80
100
120
(b)
40
50
60
Reinforcement ratio: %
(a)
60
Compressive strength of concrete, fc
095
= 427
Vfc = 012
090
085
080
NSC
HSC
075
070
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Slenderness ratio, a/d
(c)
(d)
Figure 1. Influences of vc,exp, fc, and a/d on for = 427

( pF = 105) and V fc 012
25 a/d 852. The beams with fc 50 MPa are considered as

high-strength concrete (HSC) beams and the rest of them are
normal-strength concrete (NSC) beams.
240
Table 2 summarises the change in the shear strength reduction

factors obtained from the analysis. As shown in Table 2,
decreases as increases, and the reduction in increases with


V fc . According to ACI 318 (ACI, 1995), the considered in

predicting the contribution of concrete to shear strength is
equal to 085. It is indicated that this value corresponds to
the target values of pF = 105 ( = 427) and V fc 012. It is
observed that this value is on the safe side for pF > 105 and a
variation coefficient of 012. It can be noted that it is conservative for pF in the range 107102 and a variation coefficient
of 010. It can also be stated that the resulting pF is less than
the one obtained by Nowak and Szerszen (2003). In ACI 318
(ACI, 2011), the considered in predicting the contribution
of concrete to shear strength is updated as 075, which corresponds to the target values of pF = 105 ( = 427) and
V fc 018. It is observed that this value is conservative for
pF > 105 and a variation coefficient of 018, and it can also be
noted that it is conservative for pF in the range 107102 and
for V fc , 015. The effects of experimental cracking shear
strength (vc,exp), concrete cylinder compressive strength ( fc),
slenderness ratio (a/d) and flexural reinforcement ratio ()
on the shear strength reduction factors are discussed below.
variation of shear strength reduction factor is shown in Figure

1(a) for pF = 105, V fc 012 and in Figure 2(a) for pF = 105,
V fc 018. 27% of the tests (76 of 279 tests) delivered relatively low cracking shear strength values (vc,exp 100 MPa),
where the corresponding shear strength reduction factors
are mostly less than 085 for pF = 105, V fc 012 and 075
for pF = 105, V fc 018. It is observed that the shear strength
reduction factor increases with experimental cracking shear
strength for HSC beams. Based on the results of analyses,
ACI 318 provisions are non-conservative for low values of the
experimental cracking shear strength (vc,exp 100 MPa) and,
therefore, pF is higher than 105. The shear strength reduction
factor for existing test data yields large scatter in the results,
especially for the beams with vc,exp > 100 MPa.
090
= 427
Vfc = 018
085
080
075
NSC
HSC
070
065
050 100 150 200 250 300

Experimental shear strength, vc,exp
The value is calculated for each experimental beam using the

performance function given by Equation 6, and the results
are shown in Figure 1 for V fc 012 and = 427. The experimental cracking shear strength for existing test data with the
Figure 1(b) and Figure 2(b) show the shear strength reduction
factor with the variation of fc for pF = 105, V fc 012 and
pF = 105, V fc 018, respectively. 20% of the NSC beam tests
(40 of 201 tests) were conducted for fc 20 MPa. Only 10%
of the HSC beam tests (8 of 78 tests) were conducted for
fc 80 MPa. Since the test data for HSC members are very
limited, further research is required to verify the obtained pF
for HSC beams. The shear strength reduction factor is not
influenced significantly by fc for all (NSC and HSC) beams.
090
= 427
Vfc = 018
085
080
075
NSC
HSC
070
065
0
20
40
60
80 100 120
Compressive strength of concrete, fc
090
(b)
= 427
Vfc = 018
085
080
075
NSC
HSC
070
065
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
(a)
090
= 427
Vfc = 018
085
080
075
NSC
HSC
070
065
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Reinforcement ratio: %
Slenderness ratio: a/d
(c)
(d)
Figure 2. Influences of vc,exp, fc, and a/d on for = 427

( pF = 105) and V fc 018
241

According to Leonhardt and Walter (1962), shear failure

becomes more critical than flexural failure for slenderness
ratios between 1 and 7 when the reinforcement ratio exceeds
approximately 18%. Figure 1(c) and Figure 2(c) show the
shear strength reduction factor with the variation of reinforcement ratio for pF = 105, V fc 012 and pF = 105, V fc 018,
respectively. According to ASCEACI 445 (1998), the strength
of members with low reinforcing ratios has rarely been investigated in the past and is often overestimated in the present
codes. However, based on the results for pF = 105 and
V fc 012, the shear strength reduction factors according to
ACI 318 are non-conservative for < 10% (24 of 279 tests)
and, therefore, unsafe for beams without stirrups. The shear
strength reduction factor increases with for < 10%. 56%
of the tests (156 of 279 tests) were conducted for 20%. The
shear strength reduction factor yields large scatter in the
results, when the is higher than 15% ( 15%). Similar
observations are made for pF = 105 and V fc 018.

&
&
HSC beams. Based on the results of analyses, ACI 318

provisions are non-conservative for low values of the
experimental cracking shear strength (vc,exp 100 MPa)
and, therefore, pF is higher than 105.
It can be stated that the shear strength reduction factors
according to ACI 318 are non-conservative for < 10%.
The shear strength reduction factor increases with for
< 10%.
The reliability of the probabilistic approach is related to
the amount of data. Also, the value of considered in
predicting vc must be examined for more beams made of
different materials and having different geometric features.
In particular for HSC beams, experimental data are
limited; therefore, further research should be conducted
to verify the results.
REFERENCES
Figure 1(d) and Figure 2(d) show the shear strength reduction
factor with the variation of slenderness ratio for pF = 105,
V fc 012 and pF = 105, V fc 018, respectively. The shear
strength reduction factor for existing test data yields large
scatter in the results for all (NSC and HSC) beams. The results
of shear strength reduction factor of beams with slenderness
ratios higher than 6 (a/d 60) are limited for all (NSC and
HSC) beams; further research is therefore required to verify the
obtained pF.
6.
Conclusions
This study was conducted to calculate the shear strength reduction factor () for RC beams without stirrups. On the basis of
results obtained in this study, the following conclusions are
drawn.
&
&
&
In design according to ACI 318 (ACI, 1995), it has been

shown that a strength reduction factor of 085 considered
in predicting the contribution of concrete to shear strength
is valid for a V fc of 012 and a failure probability of 105.
Also, it has been observed that this factor is on the safe
side for pF > 105 and a variation coefficient of 012.
On the other hand, it has been shown that a strength
reduction factor of 075 for shear is valid for a V fc of 018
and a failure probability of 105 in design according to
ACI 318 (ACI, 2011). This value is conservative for
pF > 105 and a variation coefficient of 018.
For a given V fc , decreases as increases, and the
reduction in increases with increasing V fc . For a
particular pF, the value is reduced with the increase
of coefficient of variation related to fc. Thus, a reduction
in results in an increase in the shear reliability of the
beam; in contrast, increasing results in a reduction in the
shear reliability of the beam.
It is observed that the shear strength reduction factor
increases with experimental cracking shear strength for
242
ABNT (Brazilian Association of Technical Codes) (2008)
NBR8800:2008: Design of steel and steelconcrete

composite structures: procedures. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil (in Portuguese).
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (1995) ACI 318M-95:
Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318M-95) and commentary. American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI (2002) ACI 318: Building code requirements for structural
concrete (ACI 318M-02) and commentary. American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI (2011) (ACI 318): Building code requirements for
structural concrete (ACI 318M-11) and commentary.
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Ahmad SH, Khaloo AR and Poveda A (1986) Shear capacity of
reinforced high-strength concrete beams. American
Concrete Institute 83(2): 297305.
Akiyama M, Matsuzaki H, Dang HT and Suzuki M (2012)
Reliability-based capacity design for reinforced concrete
bridge structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
8(12): 10961107.
Ang AHS and Tang WH (1984) Probability Concepts in
Engineering Planning and Design. Vol. II Decision, Risk,
and Reliability. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
Arslan G, Ibis A and Alacali SN (2014) Assesment of reliability
of existing equations predicting the shear strength of
reinforced concrete beams without stirrups. Teknik Dergi
25(1): 66016623.
Arslan G, Alacali SN and Sagiroglu A (2015) Investigating the
strength reduction factor in predicting the shear strength.
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Poland
53(2): 371381.
ASCEACI 445 (1998) Recent approaches to shear design of
structural concrete. State-of-the-art-report by ASCEACI
Committee 445 on shear and torsion. Journal Structural
Engineering, ASCE 124(12): 13751417.


ASCE/ANSI (2010) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
ISO (1998) ISO 2394: General principles on reliability for
and Other Structures. American Society of

Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA, ASCE/
ANSI 7-10.
Beck AT, Oliveira WLA, DeNardim S and ElDebs ALHC (2009)
Reliability-based evaluation of design code provisions for
circular concrete-filled steel columns. Engineering
Structures 31(10): 22992308.
Bresler B and Scordelis AC (1963) Shear strength of
reinforced concrete beam. ACI Journal Proceedings 60(1):
5174.
CEB (Comit Euro-International du Bton) (1993) CEBFIP
Model Code 1990. CEB, Lausanne, Switzerland.
CEN (European Committee for Standardisation) (2002)
EN 1990: Eurocode 0: basis of structural design. CEN,
Brussels, Belgium.
Cho SH (2003) Shear strength prediction by modified plasticity
theory for short beams. ACI Structural Journal 100(1):
105112.
Cladera A and Mari AR (2005) Experimental study on
high-strength concrete beams failing in shear.
Engineering Structures 27(10): 15191527.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association) (2006) Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code. CSA, Toronto, Canada.
Danish Standards Association (2002) DS 409: Code of practice
for the safety of structures. Danish Standards Association,
Nordhavn, Denmark.
Diaz CR and Siess CP (1960) Behavior and strength in shear
of beams and frames without web reinforcement.
ACI Journal Proceedings 56(8): 695735.
Du JS and Au FTK (2005) Deterministic and reliability analysis
of prestressed concrete bridge girders: comparison of the
Chinese, Hong Kong and Aashto LRFD Codes. Structural
Safety 27(3): 230245.
Ellingwood B (1978) Reliability Basis of Load and Resistance
Factors for Reinforced Concrete Design. National Bureau of
Standards, Washington, DC, USA, Building Science Series
No. 110.
Elzanaty AH, Nilson AH and Slate FO (1986) Shear capacity of
reinforced concrete beams using high strength concrete.
ACI Journal Proceedings 83(2): 290296.
Garip E (2011) Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams
without Stirrups. MSc thesis, Yildiz Technical University,
Istanbul, Turkey (in Turkish).
Hamrat M, Boulekbache B, Chemrouk M and Amziane S (2010)
Shear behaviour of RC beams without stirrups made of
normal strength and high strength concretes. Advances in
Structural Engineering 13(1): 2941.
Hao H, Stewart MG, Li ZX and Shi Y (2010) RC column failure
probabilities to blast loads. International Journal of
Protective Structures 1(4): 571591.
Hognestad E (1951) A Study of Combined Bending and Axial
Load in Reinforced Concrete Members. University of
Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA, Engineering Experiment
Station Bulletin No. 399.
structures. International Organization for Standardization,

Geneva, Switzerland.
JCSS-PMC (2001) Probabilistic Model Code. Part 1 to 4. Basis
of Design. Load and Resistance Models. Examples. Joint
Committee on Structural Safety, see http://www.jcss.byg.
dtu.dk/Publications/Probabilistic_Model_Code.
Keskin RSO and Arslan G (2013) Predicting diagonal cracking
strength of RC slender beams without stirrups using
ANNs. Comp and Conc 12(5): 377392.
Krefeld WJ and Thurston CW (1966) Studies of the shear
and diagonal tension strength of simply supported
reinforced concrete beams. ACI Journal Proceedings 63(4):
451476.
Kwak Y, Eberhard MO, Kim W and Kim J (2002) Shear strength
of steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams without stirrups.
ACI Structural Journal 99(4): 530538.
Leonhardt F and Walter R (1962) Schubversuche an einfeldriegen
stahlbeton-balken mit und ohne schubbewehrung zur
ermittlung der Schubtragfhigkeit und der Oberen
Schubspannungsgrenze. Deutscher Ausschuss fr
Stahlbeton, W. Ernst u. Sohn, Berlin, Germany, Heft 151.
Mathey RG and Watstein D (1963) Shear strength of beams
without web reinforcement. ACI Journal Proceedings 60(2):
183208.
Mattock AH (1969) Diagonal tension cracking in concrete
beams with axial forces. ASCE Journal of the Structural
Division 95(9): 18871900.
Melchers RE (1999) Structural Reliability Analysis and
Prediction. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Mirza SA (1996) Reliability-based design of reinforced concrete
columns. Structural Safety 18(2/3): 179194.
Mirza SA and MacGregor JG (1979a) Variability of mechanical
properties of reinforcing bars. ASCE Journal of the
Structural Division 105(ST5): 921937.
Mirza SA and MacGregor JG (1979b) Variations in dimensions
of reinforced concrete members. ASCE Journal of the
Mirza SA, Hatzinikolas M and MacGregor JG (1979) Statistical
descriptions of strength of concrete. ASCE Journal of the
Moody KG, Viest IM, Elstner RC and Hognestad E (1954)
Shear strength of reinforced concrete beams part 1 tests
of simple beams. ACI Journal Proceedings 51(12):
317332.
Mphonde AG and Frantz GC (1984) Shear tests of high and
low-strength concrete beams without stirrups. ACI Journal
Proceedings 81(4): 350357.
NBCC (National Building Code of Canada) (2010) National
Building Code of Canada. National Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Neves RA, Chateauneuf AM and Venturini WS (2008)
Component and system reliability analysis of nonlinear
reinforced concrete grids with multiple failure modes.
Structural Safety 30(3): 183189.
243


Nowak A and Szerszen M (2003) Calibration of design code
Sneed LH and Ramirez JA (2010) Influence of effective depth
for buildings (ACI 318): part 1 statistical models for

resistance. ACI Structural Journal 100(3): 377382.
Nowak AS and Collins KR (2000) Reliability of Structures.
McGraw Hill, Boston, MA, USA.
Pendyala RS and Mendis P (2000) Experimental study on shear
strength of high-strength concrete beams. ACI Structural
Journal 97(4): 564571.
Rakoczy AM and Nowak AS (2014) Resistance factors for
lightweight concrete members. ACI Structural Journal
111(1): 103111.
Ribeiro SEC and Diniz SMC (2013) Reliability-based design
recommendations for FRP-reinforced concrete beams.
Engineering Structures 52: 273283.
Schlune H, Plos M and Gylltoft K (2011) Safety formats for
nonlinear analysis tested on concrete beams subjected
to shear forces and bending moments. Engineering
Structures 33(8): 23502356.
Shah A and Ahmad S (2007) An experimental investigation
into shear capacity of high strength concrete beams.
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 8(5): 549562.
Slowik M and Nowicki T (2012) The analysis of diagonal
crack propagation in concrete beams. Computational
Materials Science 52(1): 261267.
Slowik M and Smarzewski P (2012) Study of the scale effect
on diagonal crack propagation in concrete beams.
Computational Materials Science 64: 216220.
on shear strength of concrete beams -experimental study.

ACI Structural Journal 107(5): 554562.
Standards Australia (2005) AS 5104: General principles on
reliability for structures. Standards Australia International,
Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tabsh SW and Nowak AS (1991) Reliability of highway girder
bridges. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 117(8):
23722388.
Taylor R (1960) Some shear tests on reinforced concrete beams
without shear reinforcement. Magazine of Concrete
Research 12(36): 145154.
Taylor R and Brewer RS (1963) The effect of the type of
aggregate on the diagonal cracking of reinforced
concrete beams. Magazine of Concrete Research 15(44):
8792.
Val D, Bljuger F and Yankelevsky D (1997) Reliability evaluation
in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete structures.
Structural Safety 19(2): 203217.
Val DV and Chernin L (2009) Serviceability reliability
of reinforced concrete beams with corroded
reinforcement. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering
135(8): 896905.
Van den Berg FJ (1962) Shear strength of reinforced concrete
beams without web reinforcement part 2 factors affecting
load at diagonal cracking. ACI Journal Proceedings 59(11):
15871600.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing
papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
244

Assessing Reduction in Concrete Shear Strength Contribution

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Assessing Reduction in Concrete Shear Strength Contribution

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Structures and Buildings

Volume 169 Issue SB4

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers