Shear strength in the new Eurocode 2. A step forward?

A. Cladera and A. R. Marı́

The shear strength of reinforced concrete beams with stirrups has been a highly controversial matter since Ritter
and Mörsh proposed the first truss models. Since then, different analytical models have been discussed, such
as truss models with concrete contribution, shear/compression theories, truss models with variable angle of
inclination, and compression field theories. However, some of these models were too complex to be implemented
in a code of practice and they had to be simplified. As Regan has pointed out, for simpler models the problem is
mostly that of the need to neglect some factors, considered secondaries. However, what is secondary in one case
may be primary in another. With the release of the new Eurocode 2 (prEN 1992-1-1:2003) the controversy has been
raised again. The EC-2 proposes a very simple formulation based on a truss model. However, the authors think that
it is a gross oversimplification of a complex problem as it neglects important key variables. In this paper the new EC-
2 shear procedure predictions are compared to empirical tests and to other simplified formulations. It is concluded
that the EC-2 procedure is very easy to use by practising engineers but it presents a great scatter of results. On the
one hand, it may be too conservative for slightly shear-reinforced beams or for prestressed beams. On the other, it
may be slightly unconservative for heavily reinforced members.
[doi: 10.1680/stco.2007.8.2.57]

Antoni Cladera
University of Balearic
Islands, Palma de
Mallorca, Spain
Antonio R. Marı́
Technical University
of Catalonia, Barcelona,
Spain
Introduction
The new Eurocode 2 Design of Concrete Struc-
tures – Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings is going to be launched in some
months.! This new Eurocode1 is adapted to
the challenges that practising engineers must
confront in their everyday work, improving
the previous code in many respects.
The shear strength procedure has changed
considerably from the previous Eurocode. For
beams with web reinforcement, the shear
strength is based on a truss model, with a vari-
able angle of inclination of the struts and
without any concrete contribution. This leads
to a very simple procedure that allows practis-
ing engineers to calculate the shear strength,
for any case, very quickly. In fact, it is almost
!
This paper was first submitted to Structural
Concrete in October 2004.
as simple as the Ritter2 and Mörsch3 models
formulated in the early 20th century.
However, it is the authors’ opinion that this
significant simplification may overlook some
important parameters affecting shear strength,
as Regan already sentenced for some simplified
models.4 The EC-2 shear procedure is based on
a truss model and it verifies the equilibrium con-
dition, therefore the EC-2 model satisfies the
lower bound theorem if the concrete and the
steel do not exceed the yield condition any-
where, and consequently the method is safe.
The latest models found in the technical litera-
ture, even the simplified models, try to satisfy
the equilibrium and the compatibility con-
ditions. In fact, complex models such as the
modified compression field theory (MCFT)5
may be explained as a truss model in which
the shear strength is the sum of the steel and
concrete contribution. The main difference
from a classic truss model with concrete contri-
bution (i.e. the procedure in the EC-2 of 19916)
is that the concrete contribution in the MCFT is
the vertical component of the shear stress trans-
ferred across the crack (Figure 1), y ci, and not
the diagonal cracking strength.
Models based on compatibility and equili-
brium conditions predict that the angle of incli-
nation of the struts at failure depends, among
other factors, on the cross-sectional dimen-
sions, the amount of longitudinal and trans-
verse reinforcement and the bending moment
concomitant with the shear force acting at
the studied section. For this reason, these
models predict a non-linear response based
on the amount of web reinforcement. The
greater the number of stirrups the less effective
they are7 because the angle of inclination of
diagonal compressive stresses with respect to
the longitudinal axis of the member increases.
The truss model of the new Eurocode 2 pro-
poses a linear response (without concrete
contribution) until the failure is governed by
crushing of the compression struts. As it will
be discussed later, this leads to very conserva-
tive results when compared with experimental
tests on lightly shear-reinforced beams and
slightly unconservative results for highly
shear-reinforced members.
Shear strength procedure for
beams with web reinforcement
in the new Eurocode 2
For reinforced concrete members with vertical
shear reinforcement, the shear resistance,
VRd,s, should be taken to be the lesser, either
Asw
VRd;s ¼ zfywd cot u ð1Þ
s
or
VRd;max ¼ ac bw znfcd =ðcot u þ tan uÞ ð2Þ
where VRd,s is the design value of the shear force
which can be sustained by the yielding shear
reinforcement; VRd,max is the design value of

1464–4177 (Print) 1751–7648 (Online) # 2007 Thomas Telford and fib

58 Cladera and Marı́
Avfy
f1
q
4 Figure 1 Concrete contribution in the MCFT
the maximum shear force which can be
sustained by the member, limited by crushing
of the compression struts; Asw is the cross-
sectional area of the shear reinforcement; s is
the spacing of the stirrups; z is the lever arm,
that may be considered as z ¼ 0.9d; fywd is the
yield strength of the shear reinforcement; u is
the angle of the inclined struts; bw is the width
of the web; fcd is the design compressive cylin-
der strength of concrete at 28 days; and ac is
a coefficient that takes into account the effect
of normal stresses on the shear strength. The
recommended value of ac follows from the fol-
lowing expressions: 1 for non-prestressed struc-
tures; (1 þ scp/fcd) for 0 , scp & 0.25fcd; 1.25
for 0.25fcd , scp & 0.50fcd; and 2.5(1 2 scp/
fcd) for 0.50fcd , scp & 1.00fcd. scp is compres-
sive stress in concrete from axial load or
prestressing. n is a coefficient that takes into
account the increase of fragility and the
reduction of shear transfer by aggregate inter-
lock with the increase of the compressive con-
crete strength. It may be taken to be 0.6 for
fck & 60 MPa, and 0.9 2 fck/200 . 0.5 for
high-strength concrete beams.
The recommended limiting values for cot u
are given by
1 & cot u & 2:5 ð3Þ
The new EC-2 proposes, as the minimum
amount of web reinforcement,
pffiffiffiffiffi
Asw fyk
' 0:08 fck ð4Þ
bs
where fck is the characteristic compressive
cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days; and
Avfy
uci
q order to avoid inaccuracies in the database.
fyk is the characteristic yield strength of
stirrups. To carry out this study, the final draft
of the Eurocode 2 prEN 1992-1-1, dated
December 2003, has been used.1 No major
amendments are assumed to be carried out
to this draft.
Comparison of the EC-2
predictions with test results
Shear database
In order to evaluate the EC-2 shear procedure for
reinforced concrete members with web
reinforcement, a database with 202 beams
was developed. It relied basically on the data-
bases developed by Bentz,8 Kuchma9 and
Zararis.10 Although all these 202 beams were
reported to have failed in shear, some may actu-
ally have failed in flexure. For this reason, and in
order to obtain a fair comparison of shear code
predictions and experimentally observed failure
loads, a filter to eliminate those beams failing
in flexure was applied to the database. All
beam specimens whose calculated flexural
strength was lower than the actual value
reached during the test (with a 5% security
margin) were removed from the database.
Finally, the database was composed of 122
beam specimens. All the beams were simply sup-
ported and loaded with one or two point loads.
The longitudinal reinforcement was constant
along the beam. The shear span to depth ratio,
a/d, for all these beam specimens was greater
than 2.49. Figure 2 shows the shear span of a
typical reinforced concrete beam specimen
tested by the authors. Table 1 summarises
the ranges of the different variables in the
database.
It is important to highlight that the main
objective of this research was not to develop
the most accurate database to justify the use
of one or another model, but to qualitatively
compare some shear procedures with different
tested beams. Great efforts were made in
Nonetheless, if any errata existed in the final
database it would affect all the compared
procedures.
All the beams in the database contain at
least the minimum amount of shear reinforce-
ment proposed by the CSA-94 provision,11
shown by
Asw fy pffiffiffi
' 0 ( 06 fc ð5Þ
bs
where fy is the yield strength of stirrups. The
previous expression was chosen because it is
the minor minimum amount of shear reinforce-
ment of the different studied codes. Yoon
et al. 12 justified that it offers an adequate
reserve of strength after the web cracking.
Comparison with the test results
Comparisons between the experimental results
and those obtained by the code procedure are
given in Table 2 and in the Appendix. The value
of the ratio Vfail/Vpred (shear force causing
failure in the empirical test/predicted shear
resistance by different compared formulations)
has been calculated for each beam specimen. If
the shear strength calculated by the EC-2 pro-
cedure was higher than the concomitant shear
force at the flexural failure load, the latter has
been considered as the value of the EC-2
shear strength.
The average Vfail/Vpred ratio for the 122
beam specimens is 1.64 with a coefficient of
variation (CoV) of 32.24% for the new EC-2
formulation.
It can be seen in Table 2 that the average of
the Vfail/Vpred ratio for the EC-2 shear pro-
cedure varies significantly for different subsets
of beams. For heavily shear-reinforced concrete
beams (rwfy . 2 MPa where r w is the
reinforcement ratio for shear reinforcement)
the EC-2 is slightly unconservative with a
Structural Concrete ( 2007 ( 8 ( No 2
 Shear strength in the new Eurocode 2 59

Comparison of the test results

with other formulations

The empirical shear strength of the 122 beam

specimens of the database has been compared
with four other formulations: the truss model
with concrete contribution of the old EC-26
(ENV 1992-1-1:1991), the equation 11-3 of
the ACI 318-02 Code,13 the draft for public
comment of the CSA14 (CSA Committee
A23.3, 2003), and a semi-analytical method
proposed by Cladera and Marı́.7 All these
methods are summarised in Table 3.
The procedure proposed by Cladera and
Marı́7 is based on a truss model with a variable
angle of inclination of the struts plus a concrete
contribution. The angle is obtained by compat-
ibility, based on the MCFT. To adjust the con-
4 Figure 2 Cracking at shear failure for a typical reinforced concrete beam crete contribution, an artificial neural network
was developed to predict the shear strength
of reinforced beams failing on diagonal
the relationship between the EC-2 shear tension failure and, based on its results, a
Table 1 Range of parameters in the
database strength predictions and the amount of web parametric study was carried out. The concrete
reinforcement is presented. contribution takes into account the main
Parameter Minimum Maximum observations of this parametric study.
The conservative results for slightly
d: mm 95 1200 reinforced concrete beams are evident as the To calculate the shear strength predicted by
rl: % 0.76 5.80 concrete contribution is neglected, a very the methods that consider the influence of the
rwfy: MPa 0.31 3.28 bending moment on the shear strength (CSA
fc: MPa 21 125.2
important factor when the steel contribution
is low. The slightly unconservative results for 200314 and Cladera and Marı́7) a critical
a/d 2.49 5.00
Vfail: kN 15.6 1172.2 highly reinforced concrete beams are due to location must be selected. This has been
the assumption of the EC-2 procedure taken as a distance 0.9d from the edge of the
that the angle of the concrete struts can be as loading plate. As the dimensions of the
Vfail/Vpred ratio equal to 0.86. On the other low as cot u ¼ 2.5; meanwhile for highly loading plate were not always known, it has
hand, for lightly reinforced concrete beams (rw- reinforced beams cot u may only reach values been considered a 150 mm wide ()6 inch)
fy & 1 MPa) the EC-2 is excessively conservative around 1.10–1.30 according to models based loading plate.
with a Vfail/Vpred ratio equal to 1.80. In Figure 3 on equilibrium and compatibility. The results shown in Table 2 indicate that
for reinforced concrete members with web
reinforcement the average of the Vfail/Vpred
Table 2 Verification of different shear procedures for reinforced concrete beams with ratio is equal to 1.19 for the old EC-2 shear
stirrups procedure, 1.38 for the ACI 318-02 shear
Beam specimens # Average Vfail/Vpred CoV Vfail/Vpred
procedure, 1.13 for the CSA formulation and
1.06 for the proposed method by Cladera
EC-2 EC-2 ACI CSA Cladera EC-2 EC-2 ACI CSA Cladera and Marı́. The coefficients of variance (CoVs)
2003 1991 11-3 2003 2004 2003 1991 11-3 2003 2004 are 17.95, 22.25, 17.27 and 15.44% respect-
All 122 1.64 1.19 1.38 1.13 1.06 32.24 17.95 22.25 17.27 15.44 ively. It can be seen that even the very simple
d ' 750 mm 9 1.20 1.04 0.97 0.93 1.07 10.04 17.41 18.83 14.15 12.08 equation 11-3 of the ACI 318-02 correlates
rwfy & 1 MPa 92 1.80 1.20 1.41 1.15 1.09 27.01 18.48 23.04 17.94 15.37 better with the empirical tests than the new
rwfy . 1 MPa, 22 1.23 1.18 1.34 1.12 1.02 17.79 14.32 15.78 11.55 10.82
EC-2 does. The old EC-2 formulation of 1991
rwfy & 2 MPa
rwfy . 2 MPa 8 0.86 1.06 1.13 0.95 0.88 12.54 18.92 17.28 13.41 13.11 also offers a better correlation with the test
fc & 70 MPa 73 1.64 1.14 1.35 1.09 1.04 30.14 14.47 14.16 19.61 12.11 results than the new EC-2 shear procedure.
fc . 70 MPa 49 1.63 1.26 1.42 1.18 1.09 35.47 20.31 25.26 19.93 18.93 The relationship between the predictions by
rl & 2 % 25 1.50 1.03 1.12 1.01 1.09 30.17 13.80 20.23 12.74 11.94
different methods considered in this paper and
the amount of web reinforcement is presented

Structural Concrete ( 2007 ( 8 ( No 2

60 Cladera and Marı́

EC-2
prEN 1992-1-1:2003 ACI 318-02 Eq.11-3
4·00
3·50
3·00
2·50
Vfail/Vpred

2·00
1·50
1·00
0·50
0·00

CSA 2003 Cladera and Mari (2004)

4·00
3·50
3·00
2·50
Vfail/Vpred

2·00
1·50
1·00
0·50
0·00
0·00 1·00 2·00 3·00 4·00 0·00 1·00 2·00 3·00 4·00
rwfy: MPa rwfy: MPa

4 Figure 3 Correlation of the EC-2, ACI 318-02, CSA 2003 and Cladera and Marı́ procedures with empirical tests. Influence of the
amount of web reinforcement

Table 3 Summary of different shear design procedures

Formulation Comments

EC-2 final draft prEN 1992-1-1:2003 VRd,s ¼ ðAsw =sÞzfywd cot u VRd,c ¼ 0 1 & cot u & 2(5
VRd, max ¼ ac bw znfcd ðcot u=ð1 þ cot2 uÞÞ
" #
EC-2 ENV 1992-1-1:1991 VRd,c ¼ tRd k(1(2 þ 40rl ) þ 0(15scp bw d fc , 50 MPa
VRd,s ¼ ðAsw =sÞ zfywd rl & 2.0
VRd, max ¼ 12 nfcd bw 0(9d tRd ¼ 0(25fctk0(05
k ¼ 1(6 * d ' 1 d(m)
pffiffiffi
Public review draft CSA Sept 2003 Vc ¼ b fc bw z b and u are given in simple design equations
Vs ¼ ðAv fy =sÞ z cot u Vmax = 0(25fc bw d as function of the longitudinal strain
$pffiffiffi % at mid-depth. fc & 64 MPa
ACI 318-02 (11-3) Vc ¼ fc =6 bw d fc , 70 MPa
pffiffiffi
Vs ¼ ðAsw =sÞ zfywd & 0(67 fc bw d Vd/M & 1
There are other expressions for prestressed beams or
for beams with axial forces
h i
Prop. Cladera and Marı́ (2004) Vc ¼ 0(17j(100rl )1=2 fc0(2 t1=3 þ 0(15scp bw d u is expressed as a equation which depends
on the longitudinal strain in the web and
Vs ¼ dv ðAw =sÞfywd cot u
the non-dimensional shear
p
j: size effect factor; j ¼ 1 þ (200/sx) & 2.75 (sx is the smallest of 0.9d or vertical distance between longitudinal distributed reinforcement, where
d is effective cross-section depth); t: t ¼ Vd/(bw 0.9d) & 3 MPa (Vd is designing (factored) shear strength)

Structural Concrete ( 2007 ( 8 ( No 2

 Shear strength in the new Eurocode 2 61

in Figure 3. In the method proposed by Cladera

and Marı́,7 the Vfail/Vpred ratio is reduced by
1.24 as the amount of stirrups increases
(Vfail/Vpred ¼ 1.09 for beams with rwfy & 1
MPa and Vfail/Vpred ¼ 0.88 for beams with
rwfy . 2 MPa). However, this ratio was
reduced by 2.09 times for the EC-2 procedure
(Vfail/Vpred ¼ 1.80 for beams with rwfy & 1
MPa and Vfail/Vpred ¼ 0.86 for beams with
rwfy . 2 MPa). The reduction for the CSA
procedure is equal to 1.21.
As other formulations could have been used
for this comparison, the authors encourage the
researchers and engineers to correlate the test
results with their national code procedure or
any other shear formulation. The basic infor-
mation of the beam specimens is presented
in the Appendix.

4 Figure 4 Typical test configuration for a prestressed beam specimen

EC-2 predictions for prestressed

concrete beams compared with
other formulations Table 4 Verification of the EC-2 shear procedure and other formulations for prestressed
beams with stirrups
To study how well the EC-2 predicts the shear
Beam specimens # Average Vtest/Vpred CoV Vtest/Vpred
strength of prestress tested beams, 40 beam
beams
specimens in the works reported by Bennett EC-2 EC-2 ACI CSA Cladera EC-2 EC-2 ACI CSA Cladera
and Balasooriya,15 Elzanaty et al.,16 Kaufman 2003 1991 11-3 2003 2004 2003 1991 11-3 2003 2004
and Ramı́rez,17 Lyngberg,18 Shahawy and
All 40 1.22 1.42 1.23 1.22 1.18 34.26 14.75 16.87 12.44 14.62
Batchelor19 and Rangan20 have been studied. Concrete crushing 22 0.98 1.37 1.34 1.20 1.18 12.87 14.21 14.17 11.84 17.15
The photograph in Figure 4 illustrates a Stirrups yielding 18 1.52 1.49 1.10 1.24 1.18 30.16 14.47 12.32 13.11 11.29
typical test configuration on a prestressed scp & 4.5 MPa 4 1.11 1.39 0.94 1.04 1.15 10.22 9.77 9.75 15.90 22.37
beam specimen. Table 4 compares the scp .4.5 MPa, 8 1.41 1.45 1.12 1.26 1.18 17.75 17.61 12.37 9.01 9.12
scp & 9 MPa
correlations of the different shear formulations scp . 9 MPa 6 1.96 1.60 1.16 1.36 1.20 24.80 10.94 6.26 5.74 4.65
with the empirical results.
If the results of all beams are studied
together, the new EC-2 shear procedure gives
a Vfail/Vpred ratio equal to 1.22 with a coefficient
of variation of 34.26%. However, it is possible This behaviour is not observed so clearly for the it neglects variables that may be primary
to divide the beam specimens into two sets other shear procedures. The proposed method for some beams, and it offers a great
(Table 4). The first set includes the beams that for prestressed beams with web reinforcement scatter of results when compared to
collapsed because of concrete crushing (22 by Cladera and Marı́ is an extension of the empirical tests. These results may be slightly
beam specimens). The second contains the method for reinforced concrete beams and it unconservative for highly shear-reinforced
beams that failed after yielding of stirrups (18 is presented elsewhere.21 members, and they are too conservative for
beams). For the second set the new EC-2 slightly reinforced beams, as no concrete con-
shear procedure is more conservative. tribution is considered. Moreover, the benefit
The new EC-2 procedure does not consider Conclusions of prestressing is not taken into account due
the influence of the prestressing force on the to the excessive simplicity of the model. Other
shear strength (Table 3). For this reason, the The new Eurocode 2 shear procedure for formulations studied in this paper offers much
average of the Vfail/Vpred ratio increases from members with web reinforcement is, indeed, better correlation to the empirical tests than
1.11 to 1.96 as the concrete compressive a very simple method to calculate the shear the new Eurocode 2, even the well known
stress at the centroidal axis due to prestressing strength for practising engineers and it verifies ACI Code formulation or the shear procedure
increases from scp & 4.5 MPa to scp . 9 MPa. the lower bound theory of plasticity. However, of the old Eurocode of 1991. Definitely, it is

Structural Concrete ( 2007 ( 8 ( No 2

 62

Appendix

Author [Source] Beam b: d: fc: rl: rv: fy: a/d Vfail: VEC-2 Vfail/ VEC-2 Vfail/ VACI Vfail/ VCSA Vfail/ VClad Vfail/ Vf,max
name mm mm MPa % % MPa kN 2003 VEC2-03 1991 VEC2-91 11-3 VACI 2003 VCSA 2004 VClad
Cladera and Marı́

Bresler and A-1 307 466 24 1.8 0.1 330 3.92 233 106 2.20 179 1.30 164 1.42 192 1.22 181 1.29 256
Scordelis10 CRA-1 305 460 25 1.69 0.1 350 3.98 168 110 1.52 179 0.94 166 1.01 188 0.90 177 0.95 239
CRB-1 229 457 24 2.28 0.15 340 4.01 173 120 1.44 151 1.14 138 1.25 167 1.04 173 1.00 201
1WCRA-1 305 457 26 1.71 0.1 350 4.01 215 110 1.96 183 1.17 168 1.28 189 1.14 178 1.21 240
1WCA-1 305 462 25 1.76 0.1 350 3.95 220 111 1.98 182 1.21 167 1.31 192 1.15 181 1.21 249
1WCB-1 231 460 27 2.34 0.15 340 3.97 202 122 1.66 162 1.25 145 1.39 175 1.15 182 1.11 228
3WCA-1 305 460 26 1.77 0.1 350 3.97 208 110 1.88 186 1.12 169 1.23 193 1.08 182 1.14 251

Bahl10 B45 240 1200 25 1.26 0.15 440 3 468 428 1.09 394 1.19 432 1.08 461 1.02 406 1.15 517

Placas and R12 152 272 34 4.16 0.21 276 3.6 117 54 2.17 82 1.43 64 1.83 90 1.30 111 1.05 129
Regan10 R25 152 272 31 4.16 0.21 276 3.6 112 54 2.07 78 1.43 62 1.80 88 1.27 109 1.02 119

Swamy and C3 76 95 29 1.97 0.16 275 3 16 7 2.18 14 1.14 10 1.61 13 1.21 16 0.99 17
10
Andriopoulos O3 76 132 28 3.95 0.12 258 3 25 7 3.63 17 1.48 12 2.12 19 1.34 26 0.97 32
Z3 76 132 26 3.95 0.34 179 3 28 14 2.02 19 1.46 15 1.90 22 1.26 30 0.94 30
O4 76 132 28 3.95 0.12 258 4 20 7 2.86 17 1.17 12 1.67 18 1.14 24 0.83 24

Mphonde and B50-3-3 152 298 22 3.36 0.12 292 3.6 76 36 2.14 63 1.21 51 1.49 74 1.04 85 0.90 95
10
Frantz B100-3-3 152 298 28 3.36 0.26 269 3.6 95 71 1.34 85 1.12 72 1.33 95 1.00 113 0.84 116
B100-7-3 152 298 47 3.36 0.26 269 3.6 121 71 1.69 109 1.10 84 1.44 106 1.14 124 0.97 150
B100-11-3 152 298 69 3.36 0.26 269 3.6 151 71 2.12 113 1.34 94 1.60 114 1.33 130 1.16 161
B100-15-3 152 298 82 3.36 0.26 269 3.6 116 71 1.62 113 1.03 95 1.22 114 1.02 133 0.87 164
B150-7-3 152 298 47 3.36 0.38 271 3.6 133 105 1.27 122 1.09 98 1.36 121 1.11 139 0.96 150
B150-15-3 152 298 83 3.36 0.38 271 3.6 150 105 1.43 126 1.19 110 1.37 128 1.17 150 1.00 164

Johnson and 1 305 539 36 2.49 0.14 525 3.1 338 271 1.25 310 1.09 286 1.18 353 0.96 361 0.94 546
22
Ramirez 2 305 539 36 2.49 0.07 525 3.1 222 136 1.64 255 0.87 225 0.99 293 0.76 274 0.81 546
5 305 539 56 2.49 0.14 525 3.1 383 271 1.41 357 1.07 325 1.18 385 0.99 384 1.00 597

Anderson et al. 10 W1 406 345 29 2.31 0.39 549 2.65 460 494 0.93 445 1.03 426 1.08 489 0.94 489 0.94 494
23
Roller and Russell 7 457 871 72 1.88 0.16 445 3 788 638 1.24 809 0.97 838 0.94 880 0.90 791 1.00 1116
9 457 762 125 2.35 0.16 483 3 749 606 1.24 739 1.01 755 0.99 845 0.89 854 0.88 1248

Structural Concrete
10 457 762 125 2.89 0.23 464 3 1172 837 1.40 831 1.41 858 1.37 994 1.18 1044 1.12 1459

Sarsam and AL2-N 180 233 40 2.23 0.09 844 4 115 72 1.60 100 1.15 76 1.50 85 1.35 96 1.19 137
Al-Musawi10 AL2-H 180 233 75 2.23 0.09 844 4 123 72 1.71 110 1.11 90 1.36 93 1.32 105 1.17 168
BL2-H 180 233 76 2.81 0.09 844 4 138 72 1.93 110 1.25 90 1.53 99 1.39 118 1.17 203

( 2007 ( 8 ( No 2
 CL2-H 180 233 70 3.5 0.09 844 4 147 72 2.05 110 1.33 90 1.63 106 1.39 129 1.14 233
BS4-H 180 233 80 2.81 0.18 543 2.5 207 92 2.24 119 1.74 99 2.08 124 1.66 139 1.49 230
CS3-H 180 233 74 3.5 0.13 543 2.5 247 67 3.71 108 2.28 88 2.81 119 2.07 135 1.83 274
CS4-H 180 233 76 3.5 0.18 543 2.5 221 92 2.39 119 1.86 99 2.22 131 1.68 150 1.47 275

Structural Concrete
Xie et al. 10 NNW-3 127 203 41 3.2 0.49 322 3 87 92 0.95 81 1.07 68 1.28 85 1.03 95 0.91 95
NHW-3 127 198 98 4.54 0.51 324 3 102 93 1.10 88 1.17 77 1.34 98 1.04 119 0.86 146
NHW-3a 127 198 90 4.54 0.65 323 3 108 119 0.91 98 1.11 88 1.23 110 0.99 129 0.84 144
NHW-3b 127 198 103 4.54 0.78 324 3 123 143 0.86 107 1.14 99 1.24 121 1.01 141 0.87 147

( 2007 ( 8 ( No 2
McGormley BUIS-3 203 419 57 3.03 0.34 426 3.27 267 277 0.96 254 1.05 230 1.16 267 1.00 286 0.93 295
10
et al. EUIS-3 203 419 56 3.03 0.34 426 3.27 267 277 0.96 254 1.05 230 1.16 267 1.00 286 0.93 295
12
Yoon et al. N1-N 375 655 36 2.8 0.08 430 3.28 457 190 2.40 357 1.28 330 1.38 438 1.04 409 1.12 685
N2-S 375 655 36 2.8 0.08 430 3.28 363 190 1.91 357 1.02 330 1.10 438 0.83 409 0.89 685
N2-N 375 655 36 2.8 0.11 430 3.28 483 261 1.85 386 1.25 362 1.33 470 1.03 460 1.05 685
M2-S 375 655 67 2.8 0.11 430 3.28 552 261 2.11 455 1.21 451 1.22 542 1.02 505 1.09 756
M2-N 375 655 67 2.8 0.16 430 3.28 689 380 1.81 502 1.37 504 1.37 591 1.17 585 1.18 756
H2-S 375 655 87 2.8 0.14 430 3.28 598 333 1.80 483 1.24 490 1.22 571 1.05 574 1.04 775
H2-N 375 655 87 2.8 0.23 430 3.28 721 547 1.32 569 1.27 585 1.23 660 1.09 695 1.04 775

Kong and S1-1 250 292 64 2.8 0.157 569 2.5 228 147 1.56 195 1.17 162 1.41 208 1.10 221 1.03 326
24
Rangan S1-2 250 292 64 2.8 0.157 569 2.5 208 147 1.42 195 1.07 162 1.28 208 1.00 221 0.94 326
S1-3 250 292 64 2.8 0.157 569 2.5 206 147 1.40 195 1.06 162 1.27 208 0.99 221 0.93 326
S1-4 250 292 64 2.8 0.157 569 2.5 278 147 1.89 195 1.43 162 1.71 208 1.33 221 1.26 326
S1-5 250 292 64 2.8 0.157 569 2.5 253 147 1.73 195 1.30 162 1.56 208 1.22 221 1.15 326
S1-6 250 292 64 2.8 0.157 569 2.5 224 147 1.53 195 1.15 162 1.38 208 1.08 221 1.01 326
S2-1 250 292 73 2.8 0.105 569 2.5 260 98 2.65 175 1.48 145 1.79 187 1.40 197 1.32 332
S2-2 250 292 73 2.8 0.126 569 2.5 233 118 1.97 183 1.27 154 1.51 195 1.19 208 1.12 332
S2-3 250 292 73 2.8 0.157 569 2.5 253 147 1.73 195 1.30 167 1.52 208 1.22 224 1.13 332
S2-4 250 292 73 2.8 0.157 569 2.5 219 147 1.50 195 1.13 167 1.31 208 1.05 224 0.98 332
S2-5 250 292 73 2.8 0.209 569 2.5 282 195 1.44 214 1.32 189 1.50 230 1.23 249 1.13 332
S3-2 250 297 67 1.65 0.101 632 2.49 178 107 1.67 171 1.04 149 1.19 166 1.07 156 1.14 207
S3-3 250 293 67 2.79 0.101 632 2.49 229 105 2.17 179 1.28 147 1.56 190 1.20 199 1.15 330
S3-4 250 293 67 2.79 0.101 632 2.49 175 105 1.66 179 0.98 147 1.19 190 0.92 199 0.88 330
S4-4 250 292 87 2.8 0.157 569 2.5 258 147 1.76 195 1.33 167 1.55 208 1.24 229 1.13 338
S4-6 250 198 87 2.78 0.157 569 2.53 203 99 2.04 139 1.46 113 1.79 143 1.42 163 1.24 225
S5-1 250 292 89 2.8 0.157 569 3.01 242 147 1.65 195 1.24 167 1.45 197 1.22 222 1.09 281
S5-2 250 292 89 2.8 0.157 569 2.74 260 147 1.77 195 1.33 167 1.56 203 1.28 226 1.15 309
Shear strength in the new Eurocode 2

(Table continued)
63
 64

Author [Source] Beam b: d: fc: rl: rv: fy: a/d Vfail: VEC-2 Vfail/ VEC-2 Vfail/ VACI Vfail/ VCSA Vfail/ VClad Vfail/ Vf,max
name mm mm MPa % % MPa kN 2003 VEC2-03 1991 VEC2-91 11-3 VACI 2003 VCSA 2004 VClad
Cladera and Marı́

S5-3 250 292 89 2.8 0.157 569 2.5 244 147 1.66 195 1.25 167 1.46 208 1.17 229 1.06 339
S7-2 250 294 75 4.46 0.126 569 3.3 205 119 1.73 184 1.11 155 1.32 205 1.00 237 0.87 365
S7-3 250 294 75 4.46 0.157 569 3.3 247 148 1.67 196 1.26 168 1.47 219 1.13 254 0.97 365
S7-4 250 294 75 4.46 0.196 569 3.3 274 184 1.48 211 1.30 184 1.48 236 1.16 273 1.00 365
S7-5 250 294 75 4.46 0.224 569 3.3 304 211 1.44 221 1.38 196 1.55 248 1.23 286 1.06 365
S7-6 250 294 75 4.46 0.262 569 3.3 311 247 1.26 235 1.32 212 1.46 264 1.18 303 1.02 365
S8-1 250 292 75 2.8 0.105 569 2.5 272 98 2.77 175 1.55 145 1.87 187 1.46 197 1.38 320
S8-2 250 292 75 2.8 0.126 569 2.5 251 118 2.13 183 1.37 154 1.63 195 1.28 209 1.20 320
S8-4 250 292 75 2.8 0.157 569 2.5 266 147 1.81 195 1.36 167 1.59 208 1.28 225 1.18 320
S8-5 250 292 75 2.8 0.196 569 2.5 289 183 1.58 209 1.38 183 1.58 225 1.29 244 1.19 320
S8-6 250 292 75 2.8 0.224 569 2.5 284 209 1.36 220 1.29 195 1.46 236 1.20 257 1.11 320

Karayiannis and A36 200 260 26 1.47 0.12 267 2.77 89 37 2.38 72 1.23 61 1.46 75 1.19 69 1.29 102
Chalioris10 A48 200 260 26 1.47 0.16 269 2.77 89 50 1.77 78 1.15 67 1.34 81 1.11 77 1.15 102
A72 200 260 26 1.47 0.25 256 2.77 93 75 1.24 87 1.06 77 1.20 91 1.02 91 1.02 102
B90 200 260 26 1.96 0.13 262 3.46 85 40 2.13 80 1.07 62 1.37 77 1.10 79 1.08 103

Collins and SE100B-M 295 920 75 1.36 0.16 500 2.5 583 489 1.19 533 1.09 596 0.98 594 0.98 510 1.14 764
25
Kuchma SE50A-M 169 459 74 1.03 0.13 500 2.72 139 113 1.23 147 0.95 154 0.90 143 0.97 122 1.14 154
SE50B-M 169 459 74 1.16 0.13 500 2.72 152 113 1.34 150 1.01 159 0.96 149 1.02 129 1.18 173
SE100A-M-69 295 920 71 1.03 0.16 500 2.5 516 489 1.06 507 1.02 586 0.88 543 0.95 447 1.15 586

Angelakos et al. 26 DB120M 300 925 21 1.01 0.791 508 2.92 282 250 1.13 278 1.01 323 0.87 345 0.82 282 1.00 446
DB140M 300 925 38 1.01 0.791 508 2.92 277 250 1.11 364 0.76 396 0.70 391 0.71 299 0.93 483
BM100 300 925 47 0.76 0.791 508 2.92 342 250 1.37 376 0.91 376 0.91 371 0.92 267 1.28 376

Adebar and ST4 290 278 49 1.95 0.11 430 2.88 158 86 1.84 183 0.86 132 1.19 159 1.00 155 1.02 256
Collins27 ST5 290 278 49 1.95 0.18 536 2.88 169 175 0.97 219 0.77 172 0.98 195 0.87 205 0.82 256
ST6 290 278 49 1.95 0.28 430 2.88 230 218 1.05 236 0.97 191 1.20 213 1.08 224 1.02 256
ST19 290 278 51 1.95 0.214 430 2.88 201 167 1.21 217 0.93 170 1.19 193 1.04 202 1.00 257

Tan et al. 28 2-2.58/0.25 110 443 55 2.58 0.48 499 2.82 155 223 0.70 185 0.84 177 0.88 193 0.80 193 0.80 223

Structural Concrete
4-5.80/2.50 110 398 74 5.8 0.48 538 3.14 265 254 1.04 177 1.50 174 1.52 219 1.21 234 1.13 335
G-2.70-5.38 110 463 43 1.23 0.333 555 2.7 105 125 0.84 125 0.84 125 0.84 125 0.84 125 0.84 125

Ozcebe et al. 29 TS36 150 310 75 2.59 0.23 255 3 156 61 2.54 110 1.42 92 1.69 109 1.42 116 1.35 164
TH39 150 310 73 3.08 0.2 255 3 143 53 2.68 107 1.34 89 1.61 111 1.28 120 1.19 181
ACI59 150 310 82 4.43 0.13 425 5 97 58 1.67 109 0.89 91 1.07 108 0.90 134 0.72 151

( 2007 ( 8 ( No 2
 TH59 150 310 75 4.43 0.18 425 5 119 80 1.49 117 1.02 100 1.19 117 1.02 144 0.83 149
TS59 150 310 82 4.43 0.27 425 5 125 120 1.04 134 0.94 118 1.06 134 0.94 151 0.83 151

Cladera and H50/2 200 353 50 2.28 0.109 530 3.06 178 92 1.94 162 1.10 124 1.43 149 1.19 150 1.18 228
30

Structural Concrete
Marı́ H50/4 200 351 50 2.99 0.239 540 3.08 246 204 1.21 206 1.19 173 1.42 209 1.18 228 1.08 281
H60/2 200 353 61 2.28 0.141 530 3.06 180 119 1.51 173 1.04 145 1.24 167 1.08 171 1.05 234
H75/2 200 353 69 2.28 0.141 530 3.06 204 119 1.72 173 1.18 150 1.36 169 1.21 174 1.17 237
H75/4 200 351 69 2.99 0.239 530 3.08 255 200 1.28 205 1.25 186 1.37 216 1.18 236 1.08 297
H100/4 200 351 50 2.99 0.239 540 3.08 267 204 1.31 206 1.29 173 1.54 209 1.27 228 1.17 281

( 2007 ( 8 ( No 2
31
Ahmad et al. LNW-3 127 216 45 2.07 0.378 421 3 63 72 0.87 72 0.87 72 0.87 72 0.87 72 0.87 72
LHW-3a 127 198 88 4.54 0.65 421 3 107 144 0.75 112 0.95 104 1.03 126 0.85 144 0.75 144
LHW-3b 127 198 87 4.54 0.78 421 3 121 143 0.84 125 0.97 118 1.03 140 0.86 143 0.84 143
LHW-4 127 198 83 4.54 0.51 421 4 95 107 0.89 99 0.96 89 1.06 103 0.92 107 0.89 107

Etxeberria32 HN-V3 200 303 42 2.99 0.166 530 3.3 177 120 1.48 148 1.20 119 1.49 148 1.19 169 1.05 217
HN-V4 200 303 42 2.99 0.118 530 3.3 188 85 2.20 134 1.40 103 1.82 133 1.41 149 1.26 217

Gonzalez- V13HC 199 307 38 2.9 0.21 500 3.25 190 144 1.32 151 1.26 127 1.50 156 1.22 176 1.08 211
33
Fonteboa V17HC 199 306 39 2.92 0.16 500 3.27 151 110 1.38 139 1.08 112 1.34 142 1.06 161 0.94 212
V24HC 195 306 39 2.99 0.12 500 3.27 128 81 1.59 126 1.02 98 1.30 128 1.00 143 0.89 212
V17HCS 200 312 45 2.86 0.16 500 3.21 200 112 1.78 152 1.31 120 1.67 149 1.34 167 1.19 226
V24HCS 200 302 44 2.95 0.12 500 3.3 150 82 1.84 135 1.11 103 1.46 132 1.14 147 1.02 216
V17HR 200 306 42 2.91 0.16 500 3.27 177 110 1.61 144 1.23 115 1.54 144 1.23 163 1.09 216
V24HR 201 306 39 2.9 0.12 500 3.27 164 83 1.98 130 1.27 101 1.63 131 1.26 145 1.13 213
V13HRS 199 305 41 2.93 0.21 500 3.28 202 143 1.41 156 1.30 129 1.57 158 1.28 178 1.14 215
V17HRS 199 305 45 2.93 0.16 500 3.28 193 109 1.77 147 1.31 116 1.66 145 1.33 164 1.18 219
V24HRS 199 307 43 2.91 0.12 500 3.25 147 82 1.79 135 1.09 104 1.42 133 1.11 147 1.00 219

Average 1.64 1.19 1.38 1.13 1.06

Standard deviation 0.53 0.21 0.31 0.19 0.16
CoV: % 32.24 17.95 22.25 17.27 15.44
Minimum 0.70 0.76 0.70 0.71 0.72
Maximum 3.71 2.28 2.81 2.07 1.83
5th percentile of 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.84 0.83
data EC-2 EC-2 ACI CSA Clad
2003 1991 11-3 2003 2004
Shear strength in the new Eurocode 2
65
66 Cladera and Marı́
the authors’ opinion that shear strength in the
new Eurocode 2 is a step forward in terms of
simplicity but, as has been shown, for specific
cases other methods are more accurate.
Acknowledgements
The research described in this paper was
financed by the Spanish Ministry of Science
and Technology’s project MAT2002-00615.
The authors wish to express their gratitude
for this financial support.
References
1. European Committee for Standardization. prEN
1992-1-1:2003. Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete
Structures, Part 1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings. Revised final draft, Brussels, Belgium,
December 2003.
2. Ritter, W. Die bauweise hennebique. Shweizer-
ische Bauzeitung, 1899, 33, No. 7, 59 –61.
3. Mörsch, E. Concrete-Steel Construction. McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1909 (English translation by
E. P. Goodrich).
4. Regan, P. Research on shear: A benefit to human-
ity or a waste of time? The Structural Engineer,
1993, 71, No. 19, 337 –347.
5. Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P. The modified
compression field theory for reinforced concrete
elements subjected to shear. ACI Structural
Journal, 1986, 86, No. 2, 219 –231.
6. European Committee for Standardization.
ENV 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete
Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules
for Buildings. Spanish Edition, Brussels,
Belgium, 1991.
7. Cladera, A. and Marı́, A. R. Shear design
procedure for reinforced normal and high-
strength concrete beams using artificial
neural networks. Part II: Beams with stirrups.
Engineering Structures, 2004, 26, No. 7,
927 –936.
8. Bentz, E. C. Sectional analysis of reinforced
concrete members. PhD thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 2000.
9. Kuchma, D. Shear Data Bank. University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, www.cee.cd.uiuc.
edu/Kuchma, 2000.
10. Zararis, P. D. Shear strength and minimum shear
reinforcement of reinforced concrete slender
beams. ACI Structural Journal, 2003, 100,
No. 2, 203– 214.
11. Canadian Standards Association. Design of
Concrete Structures CSA A23.3-94. Canadian
Standards Association, Rexdale, ON, 1994.
12. Yoon, Y. S., Cook, W. D. and Mitchell, D.
Minimum shear reinforcement in normal,
medium and high-strength concrete beams. ACI
Structural Journal, 1996, 93, No. 5, 576–584.
13. American Concrete Institute. ACI Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete. ACI,
Farmington Hills, ACI 318-02, 2002.
14. CSA Committee A23.3. Design of Concrete
Structures. Public review draft, Canadian
Standards Association, Rexdale, ON, September
2003, p. 233.
15. Bennet, E. W. and Balasooriya, B. M. A. Shear
strength of prestressed beams with thin webs
failing in inclined compression. ACI Journal,
1971, 68, No. 3, 204 –212.
16. Elzanaty, A. H., Nilson, A. H. and Slate, F. O.
Shear capacity of prestressed concrete beams
using high-strength concrete. ACI Structural
Journal,1986, 83, No. 3, 359 –368.
17. Kaufman, M. K. and Ramirez, J. A. Re-evaluation
of the ultimate shear behavior of high-strength
concrete prestressed I-beams. ACI Structural
Journal, 1988, 85, No. 3, 295 –303.
18. Lyngberg, B. S. Ultimate shear resistance of
partially prestressed reinforced concrete I-beams.
ACI Journal, 1976, 73, No. 4, 214 –583.
19. Shahawy, M. A. and Batchelor, B. D. V. Shear
behavior of full-scale prestressed concrete
girders: comparison between AASHTO specifica-
tions and LRFD code. PCI Journal, 1996, 41,
No. 3, 48 –62.
20. Rangan, B. V. Web crushing strength of
reinforced and prestressed concrete beams. ACI
Structural Journal, 1991, 88, No. 1, 12 –16.
21. Cladera, A. and Marı́, A. R. Shear design pro-
cedure for reinforced and prestressed high and
normal-strength concrete beams. Seventh
International Symposium on Utilization of
High-Strength/High-Performance Concrete, 1,
Washington, 2005, 654 –668.
22. Johnson, M. K., and Ramirez, J. A. Minimum
shear reinforcement in beams with higher
strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 1998,
86, No. 4, 376 –382.
23. Roller, J. J. and Russell, H. G. Shear strength of
high-strength concrete beams with web
reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, 1990,
87, No. 2, 191 –198.
24. Kong, P. Y. L. and Rangan, B. V. Shear strength
of high-performance concrete beams.
ACI Structural Journal, 1998, 95, No. 6,
677– 688.
25. Collins, M. P. and Kuchma, D. How safe are our
large, lightly reinforced concrete beams, slabs
and footings? ACI Structural Journal, 1999, 96,
No. 4, 482– 490.
26. Angelakos, D., Bentz, E. C. and Collins, M. P.
Effect of concrete strength and minimum stirrups
on shear strength of large members. ACI
Structural Journal, 2001, 98, No. 3, 290 –300.
27. Adebar, P. and Collins, M. P. Shear strength of
members without transverse reinforcement.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1996,
23, No. 1, 30 –41.
28. Tan, K., Kong, F., Teng, S. and Weng, L. Effect of
web reinforcement on high-strength concrete
deep beams. ACI Journal, 1997, 94, No. 5,
572– 582.
29. Ozcebe, G., Ersoy, U. and Tankut, T. Evaluation of
minimum shear reinforcement requirements for
higher strength concrete. ACI Journal, 1999,
96, No. 3, 361 –368.
30. Cladera, A. and Marı́, A. R. Experimental study
on high-strength concrete beams failing in
shear. Engineering Structures, 2005, 27, No. 10,
1519–1527.
31. Ahmad, S. H., Khaloo, A. R. and Poveda, A.
Shear capacity of reinforced high-strength
concrete beams. ACI Journal, 1986, 83, No. 2,
297– 305.
32. Etxeberria, M. Estudio experimental de la resis-
tencia a cortante en vigas de hormigón de
áridos reciclados. PhD thesis, Universidad Politéc-
nica de Cataluña, 2003.
33. González-Fonteboa, B. Hormigones con áridos
reciclados procedentes de demoliciones:
dosificaciones, propiedades mecánicas y
comportamiento estructural a cortante.
PhD thesis, Universidad de la Coruña,
2002.
Structural Concrete ( 2007 ( 8 ( No 2