Shear Strength Model for Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete

Beams without Stirrup Reinforcement

Hai H. Dinh1; Gustavo J. Parra-Montesinos, M.ASCE2; and James K. Wight, ASCE3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A simple model is presented to estimate the shear strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) beams without stirrup
reinforcement. The model was developed on the basis of observations from tests of 27 large-scale beams under monotonically increased
concentrated loading. Three types of hooked steel fibers were evaluated in volume fractions ranging between 0.75% (59 kg=m3 or
100 lb=yd3 ) and 1.5% (118 kg=m3 or 200 lb=yd3 ). All but one beam failed in shear either prior to or after flexural yielding. In the proposed
model, shear in steel FRC beams is assumed to be resisted by shear stress carried in the compression zone and tension transferred across
diagonal cracks by steel fibers. Shear carried in the compression zone is estimated by using the failure criterion for concrete subjected to
combined compression and shear proposed by Bresler and Pister. The contribution from fiber reinforcement to shear strength, on the other
hand, is tied to material performance obtained through standard ASTM 1609 four-point bending tests. Comparison of predicted versus
experimental shear strengths for a large number of FRC beams tested in this and other investigations indicates that the proposed model
is capable of predicting the shear strength of steel FRC beams with reasonable accuracy; mean and standard deviation values are 0.79
and 0.12, respectively. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000362. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Reinforced concrete; Steel fibers; Shear strength; Concrete beams.
Author keywords: Fiber reinforced concrete; Steel fibers; Shear; Diagonal tension.

Introduction Code). Acceptance criteria for using fiber reinforcement as mini-

The addition of discontinuous, randomly oriented fibers to the
concrete has long been known to increase the shear strength of
reinforced concrete flexural members (see, e.g., Batson et al. 1972;
Swamy and Bahia 1985; Kwak et al. 2002; Parra-Montesinos
2006). In addition to providing postcracking diagonal tension
resistance to reinforced concrete flexural members, fibers help con-
trol the opening of diagonal cracks, which in turn enhances aggre-
gate interlock. Further, when used in sufficient amounts (typically
in the order of 0.5% by volume or greater), fiber reinforcement
leads to multiple diagonal cracking in members without stirrup
reinforcement, which enhances ductility and reduces the effect
of beam depth on shear strength (Dinh 2009).
Recognizing the effectiveness of fiber reinforcement to increase
shear strength, the 2008 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Build-
ing Code (ACI Committee 318 2008) for the first time allows the
use of deformed steel fibers as minimumpshear ffiffiffiffi reinforcement in
0 0
pffiffiffiffi when V u =ϕ does not exceed 1=6 f c bw d ( f c in MPa) or
beams
2 f 0c bw d ( f 0c in psi), where V u is the factored shear force, ϕ is
the strength reduction factor (0.75), bu is the web width, and d
is the member effective depth (Section 11.4.6.1f of 2008 ACI
1
Engineer, Moffatt and Nichol, Walnut Creek, CA. Formerly doctoral
student at Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (corresponding author). E-mail:
gjpm@umich.edu
3
Frank E. Richart, Jr. Collegiate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environ-
mental Eng., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 10, 2010; approved
on December 15, 2010; published online on December 17, 2010. Discus-
sion period open until March 1, 2012; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 10, October 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9445/2011/10-1039–1051/$25.00.
mum shear reinforcement is given in Section 5.6.6 of the 2008 ACI
Building Code, which is based on results from ASTM 1609 (2006)
four-point bending tests. The fiber amount must be greater than or
equal to 59 kg=m3 (100 lb=yd3 or 0.75% by volume). Whereas
the use of fiber reinforcement as minimum shear reinforcement
in beams represents a major step toward accounting for the contri-
bution of fiber reinforcement to shear strength, pffiffiffiffi this contribution
is neglected when V u =ϕ is greater than 1=6 f 0c bw d ( f 0c in MPa)
pffiffiffiffi
or 2 f 0c bw d ( f 0c in psi). One of the reasons for neglecting the con-
tribution of fibers in beams subjected to higher factored shear
forces is the lack of simple shear strength expressions that rely on
material properties obtained through standard tests.
To date, numerous procedures have been proposed to estimate
the shear strength of fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) beams (e.g.,
Mansur et al. 1986; Sharma 1986; Narayanan and Darwish 1987;
Khuntia et al. 1999; Kwak et al. 2002). A summary of several
models is presented as an appendix to this paper. Ideally, the shear
strength contribution of fiber reinforcement should be determined
on the basis of the postcracking tensile strength of the FRC
material. Although theoretically appealing, the determination of the
postcracking tensile strength of FRC requires specialized testing
equipment, and there is no agreement in the technical community
with regard to specimen size and boundary conditions, which are
known to affect postcracking strength. Therefore, an indirect mea-
sure of tensile strength at cracking is often used, typically based on
a split cylinder test. It is worth mentioning that measurements of
tensile strength used in the models listed in the appendix are gen-
erally not associated with a particular deformation or crack width,
which makes them independent of material ductility, and they are
not necessarily representative of the magnitude of diagonal tension
at shear failure.
A semiempirical model for estimating the shear strength of
steel FRC beams is presented. Rather than relying on a measure
of postcracking strength obtained through direct tension tests,

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 1039

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051

 the proposed model is based on an average bending stress at a target
crack width, obtained through standard ASTM 1609 four-point
bending tests, which makes the proposed model appealing from
a practical viewpoint.
Experimental Program
The proposed model was developed on the basis of experimental
evidence from the tests of 27 simply supported steel FRC beams
under monotonically increased concentrated force. Therefore, a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pattern, strength, and failure mode, can be found elsewhere (Dinh
et al. 2010; Dinh 2009).
Description of Test Specimens
A total of 27 large-scale beams without stirrup reinforcement, 24 of
them containing hooked steel fibers, were tested to failure at the
University of Michigan Structural Engineering Laboratory. Test
variables included fiber properties (length, diameter, and strength),
fiber volume fraction, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and beam
size. Fig. 1 shows the geometry of the test specimens, whereas
Table 1 lists the specimen properties and the peak average shear

brief description of this experimental program is provided in the
following. Detailed information on the testing program, including
design of test beams, state of strain throughout the test, cracking
a in the longer span. It should be noted that in most cases, pairs of
d
h
stress for each beam. In all cases, the longer span between the load
point and the support (span-to-effective-depth ratio (a=d) approx-
imately equal to 3.5) was tested. As shown in Fig. 1, stirrups were
added to the shorter span in order to ensure that failure would occur
nominally identical specimens were tested in order to increase the
reliability of the test results.
The test beams were divided into two groups on the basis of
their size. Because the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams

without shear reinforcement is known to decrease with an increase

in beam depth (Wight and MacGregor 2009), 455 mm (18 in.) and
685 mm (27 in.) deep beams were tested to evaluate potential differ-
ences in the shear strength of FRC beams with a 50% increase in
Fig. 1. Configuration of steel FRC test beams
beam depth. For comparison purposes, regular concrete beams

Table 1. Beam Properties and Summary of Test Results

pffiffiffiffi
Beam d (mm) a=d ρ (%) Lf (mm) Df (mm) f u (MPa) V f (%) f 0c (MPa) vu (MPa) vu = f 0c
B18-0a 381 3.43 2.7 — — — — 42.8 1.1 0.17
B18-0b 381 3.43 2.7 — — — — 42.8 1.1 0.17
B18-1a 381 3.43 2.0 30 0.55 1100 0.75 44.8 2.9 0.44a
B18-1b 381 3.43 2.0 30 0.55 1100 0.75 44.8 2.8 0.41a
B18-2a 381 3.50 2.0 30 0.55 1100 1.00 38.1 3.0 0.49a
B18-2b 381 3.50 2.0 30 0.55 1100 1.00 38.1 3.1 0.50a
B18-2c 381 3.50 2.7 30 0.55 1100 1.00 38.1 3.5 0.57a
B18-2d 381 3.50 2.7 30 0.55 1100 1.00 38.1 2.6 0.41
B18-3a 381 3.43 2.7 30 0.55 1100 1.50 31.0 2.6 0.46
B18-3b 381 3.43 2.7 30 0.55 1100 1.50 31.0 3.4 0.61
B18-3c 381 3.43 2.7 30 0.55 1100 1.50 44.9 3.3 0.49
B18-3d 381 3.43 2.7 30 0.55 1100 1.50 44.9 3.3 0.49
B18-5a 381 3.43 2.7 60 0.75 1050 1.00 49.2 3.0 0.43
B18-5b 381 3.43 2.7 60 0.75 1050 1.00 49.2 3.8 0.54
B18-7a 381 3.43 2.0 30 0.38 2300 0.75 43.3 3.3 0.50a
B18-7b 381 3.43 2.0 30 0.38 2300 0.75 43.3 3.3 0.50a
B27-1a 610 3.50 2.0 30 0.55 1100 0.75 50.8 2.9 0.41
B27-1b 610 3.50 2.0 30 0.55 1100 0.75 50.8 2.7 0.38
B27-2a 610 3.50 2.0 60 0.75 1050 0.75 28.7 2.8 0.53
B27-2b 610 3.50 2.0 60 0.75 1050 0.75 28.7 2.8 0.52
B27-3a 610 3.50 1.6 30 0.55 1100 0.75 42.3 2.7 0.42a
B27-3b 610 3.50 1.6 30 0.55 1100 0.75 42.3 2.8 0.43a
B27-4a 610 3.50 1.6 60 0.75 1050 0.75 29.6 2.1 0.40
B27-4b 610 3.50 1.6 60 0.75 1050 0.75 29.6 1.8 0.33
B27-5 610 3.50 2.1 30 0.55 1100 1.50 44.4 3.5 0.53a
B27-6 610 3.50 2.1 60 0.75 1050 1.50 42.8 3.4 0.52a
B27-7 610 3.50 1.6 — — — — 37.0 1.3 0.21
a
Reinforcement yielded prior to failure
Width of beams in Series B18 and B27 = 152 mm and 203 mm, respectively. Span length of beams in Series B18 = 2,134 mm, except for Beams 18-2a through
d (length ¼ 2; 235 mm). Span length for beams in Series B27 = 3,555 mm; d = beam effective depth; a = shear span; ρ = tension reinforcement ratio; Lf = fiber
length; Df = fiber diameter; Vf = fiber volume fraction; f 0c = concrete cylinder strength; vu = peak average shear stress.

1040 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051

 (a) Diagonal tension failure in FRC beam
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b) Shear compression failure in FRC beam

Fig. 2. Typical hooked steel fibers

were also tested for each beam size (beam pair B18-0 and Beam
B27-7).
As listed in Table 1, three types of hooked steel fibers were
used in volume fractions ranging between 0.75% (59 kg=m3 or
100 lb=yd3 ) and 1.5% (118 kg=m3 or 200 lb=yd3 ) in order to
evaluate the effects of fiber aspect ratio, strength, and volume frac-
tion on material postcracking behavior and beam shear strength.
(c) Diagonal tension failure in RC beam without stirrups
Fig. 2 shows a photo of the 60 mm long, 0.75 mm diameter hooked
steel fibers used in this investigation. Beam tension longitudinal Fig. 3. Cracking pattern and failure mode in test specimens
reinforcement ratio was also varied between approximately 1.6%
and 2.7% in order to evaluate the shear behavior of FRC beams
failing in shear prior to or after flexural yielding. Measurement of maximum diagonal crack width at shear failure
of the test beams suggested a dependency on fiber length. Thus, for
Test Results beams with longer fibers (60 mm or 2.4 in.), the width of the critical
All test beams failed in shear, except for Beam B27-3a, which diagonal crack was substantially greater than that for beams with
failed in flexure by crushing of the compression zone after exten- shorter fibers (30 mm or 1.2 in.). Moreover, experimental data
sive flexural yielding. Table 1 lists the average peak shear stress for indicate that the crack width at failure can be approximated as
each beam, along with an indication of whether flexural yielding 5% of the fiber length, as discussed by Dinh, Parra-Montesinos,
occurred prior to beam failure.pPeak and Wight (2010). This experimental evidence is not surprising,
ffiffiffiffi normalized
pshear
ffiffiffiffi stress was
greater than or equal to 0:33 f 0c (MPa) [4:0 f 0c (psi)] for all given the fact that the bridging efficiency of hooked fibers is
FRC beams, in contrast to the regular concrete beams without pffiffiffiffi dependent on the hook geometry, including its length, which is
stirrup reinforcement,
pffiffiffiffi which
pffiffiffiffi failed at p
a shear
ffiffiffiffi stress of 0:17 f 0c generally a function of the fiber length.
and 0:22 f 0c (MPa) [2 f 0c and 2:6 f 0c (psi)] for depths of
455 mm and 685 mm (18 in. and 27 in.), respectively.
At least two and as many as seven diagonal cracks were Shear Resisting Mechanisms in FRC Beams
observed in the FRC beams prior to failure [Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)].
On the other hand, the regular concrete beams without stirrup Shear resistance in slender (i.e., negligible arch action) reinforced
reinforcement failed soon after the first diagonal crack formed concrete beams without stirrup reinforcement has been traditionally
[Fig. 3(c)]. Once diagonal cracks formed in the FRC beams, the attributed to contributions from the beam compression zone, aggre-
presence of fibers allowed the transfer of tension across these gate interlock, and dowel action. These mechanisms are strongly
cracks, controlling their opening and helping maintain aggregate related and their relative importance has been the subject of exten-
interlock. sive debate. Although some researchers have assigned a predomi-
Ultimate failure of the FRC beams occurred as a result of either nant role to the shear carried by the compression zone (e.g., Richart
the wide opening of a diagonal crack, often connecting the support 1927; Bresler and Pister 1958; Tureyen and Frosch 2003), others
and load point [i.e. diagonal tension, see Fig. 3(a)] or by crushing of have placed aggregate interlock as the main source of shear resis-
the beam compression zone at the tip of the critical diagonal crack tance (e.g., Vecchio and Collins 1986).
[i.e. shear-compression, see Fig. 3(b)]. In some cases, these damage In FRC beams, fibers play a dual role in shear resistance. First,
patterns were accompanied by splitting along the longitudinal they transfer tension across diagonal cracks. Second, by controlling
reinforcement near the support [Fig. 3(b)]. the opening of diagonal cracks, fibers allow additional shear to be

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 1041

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051

 transferred through aggregate interlock and, to some extent, in-
creased dowel action. The relative contribution to shear strength
from diagonal tension resisted by fibers and from aggregate inter-
lock changes as the beam is loaded and diagonal cracks widen.
Immediately after diagonal cracking, a substantial contribution is
expected from both the fibers and aggregate interlock. However,
as diagonal (or flexural-shear) cracks widen, particularly as a result
of flexural yielding, shear resisted by aggregate interlock will tend
to decay at a faster rate compared to the contribution from fiber
reinforcement, particularly for beams with relatively small aggre-
gate size. Thus, for beams exhibiting flexural yielding, the fiber
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
represent a critical flexural-shear crack MNN’P, as often observed
in the steel FRC beams that failed in shear.
Just prior to failure, the crack width at the reinforcement level is
assumed to have a magnitude w [Fig. 4(b)]. The inclined crack,
which has a horizontal projection equal to cosðαÞ times the crack
length, is assumed to extend from the reinforcement level up to
point P, which defines the neutral axis depth at a section corre-
sponding to the outer edge of the loading area. At this section,
the strain in the extreme compression fiber and at the centroid
of the tension reinforcement is assumed to have a magnitude of
εcu and εs , respectively [Fig. 4(b)].

contribution will likely control the amount of shear resisted by
the beam web prior to shear failure.
Proposed Shear Strength Model
This section describes a simple model to predict the shear strength
of steel FRC beams without stirrup reinforcement, similar to those
tested in the experimental program described previously. In this
model, a steel FRC beam without stirrup reinforcement is assumed
to fail along an idealized crack MNP and over the compressed con-
crete PQ, as shown in Fig. 4(a). This idealized crack is meant to
For the failure case considered, rotation of the beam would take
place around point P. Widening of the critical diagonal crack prior
to failure, especially as a result of flexural yielding, would signifi-
cantly diminish the contribution of aggregate interlock to beam
shear strength, as discussed earlier. Shear contribution from dowel
action, on the other hand, is difficult to estimate. For slender steel
FRC beams without stirrups and underreinforced in flexure, dowel
action should play a minor role on beam shear resistance. It is there-
fore appealing, both in light of the observed behavior and for con-
servatism, to ignore the contribution of aggregate interlock and
dowel action to beam shear strength at ultimate.

(a) Assumed critical inclined crack Q

P
N’

N
M

ε cu
(b) Assumed strain distribution and crack opening
Q c
P
θ
d-c

N α

M εs
w
σcu=0.85fc′
(c) Assumed stress distribution Q vcu
β 1c C
P
Vcc “real” distribution of
σ fu compressive stress

Tf “real” distribution of
VFRC
N tensile stress
T
M
Vu

Fig. 4. Assumed failure mode and internal stresses in FRC beams

1042 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051

 According to the proposed model, the shear strength of steel
FRC beams can be calculated as
V n ¼ V cc þ V FRC
where V cc and V FRC = shear force across the compression region
and the vertical component of the diagonal tension resistance
provided by the fibers, respectively.
Prediction of Shear Force Resisted by the
Compression Region
In the proposed model, crushing of concrete above the neutral axis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
is assumed to trigger a shear failure in the beam. An infinitesimal
concrete element in the region above the neutral axis is assumed to
be subjected to a stress state that consists of a normal compressive
stress in the longitudinal direction σc and shear stress vc . We can
therefore estimate the occurrence of concrete crushing by using a
failure criterion for concrete subjected to both normal compression
and shear.
Based on the significant experimental evidence that shows
that steel fibers in low volume fractions do not significantly influ-
ence the compressive strength of steel FRC (see, e.g., Fanella and
Naaman 1985), the use of a stress-based failure criterion for plain
concrete is considered to be reasonable. In this work, the failure
criterion proposed by Bresler and Pister (1958) for concrete sub-
jected to combined normal compressive stress and shear stress was
used. This failure criterion is defined as follows (Fig. 5),
    2 1=2
vcu σcu σcu
¼ 0:1 0:62 þ 7:86
8:46 ð2Þ
f 0c f 0c f 0c
where vcu and σcu = acting shear stress and normal compressive
stress at failure, respectively.
Eq. (2) was derived from experimental data of tubular speci-
mens made of concrete with compressive strengths ranging from
20.7 to 41.3 MPa (3,000 to 6,000 psi). The specimens, which had
height, outside diameter, and inside diameter of 762, 229, and
152 mm (30, 9, and 6 in.), respectively, were subjected to axial
compression and torque at their ends. From Fig. 5, we can see that
this failure criterion predicts a normal compressive stress σcu ¼ f 0c
when concrete is subjected to uniaxial compression (i.e., vcu ¼ 0)
and a nearly constant shear strength vcu ¼ 0:16f 0c over a relatively
wide range of compressive stress, from 0.39 to 0:54f 0c .
Bresler and Pister (1958) applied their concrete failure criterion
to predict the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams without
stirrup reinforcement. In their model, a uniform compressive stress
at shear failure, which can be expressed as ðk 1 k 3 Þf 0c [Fig. 6(a)], was
assumed, where k3 f 0c represents the peak normal stress in the beam
compression zone, and k1 is equal to the average normal stress
divided by k 3 f 0c. For horizontally cast elements (i.e., beams), k 3
is typically assumed equal to 1.0. Based on the work by Hognestad,
0.3
0.2
vcu / fc′
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 (a)
σ /f ′
cu c
Fig. 5. Bresler and Pister’s failure criterion for concrete subjected to
combined compression and shear stress
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 1043
J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051
Hanson, and McHenry (1955), Bresler and Pister used the follow-
ing expression for k 1 k 3 :
ð1Þ 3; 900 þ 50:8f 0c
k1 k3 ¼ ð3Þ
3; 200 þ 145f 0c
where f 0c is in MPa.
The calculated shear strength was reported to correlate well with
available test data of beams without stirrup reinforcement that
failed in shear.
Based on the success of the Bresler and Pister model to estimate
the shear strength of regular concrete beams without stirrup
reinforcement, a similar method is proposed to calculate the shear
carried across the compression region in steel FRC beams. Because
the proposed model is intended for use in design, one can assume
that the beam is underreinforced, as required in the ACI Code (ACI
Committee 318 2008). The depth of the compression zone c for
rectangular beam behavior can therefore be calculated on the basis
of equilibrium of normal forces at the section considered, assuming
yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement, as follows:
Ts As f y
c¼ ¼ ð4Þ
k1 k3 f 0c b k1 k3 f 0c b
where Ts = tension force in the reinforcing steel; b = width of the
compression zone; As and fy = area and yield strength of the ten-
sion reinforcing steel, respectively; and k1 k3 can be obtained from
either Eq. (3) or from the ACI Code (ACI Committee 318 2008), as
follows:
k 1 k 3 ¼ 0:85β 1 ð5Þ
where β 1 ¼ 0:85 for f 0c ≤ 27:6 MPa (4,000 psi) and β 1 ¼ 0:65 for
f 0c ≥ 55:1 MPa (8,000 psi). Linear interpolation is used in between.
Dinh (2009) showed that the use of a uniform shear stress cal-
culated on the basis of an average normal stress, σcu ¼ k1 k3 f 0c , act-
ing over the depth of the beam compression zone, leads to a higher
resultant shear force compared to the force obtained by considering
the nonlinear distribution of normal stress in the compression zone.
A conservative and quick estimation of the resultant shear force,
however, can be obtained by assuming an average shear stress
corresponding to σcu ¼ 0:85k 3 f 0c acting over a depth β 1 c [i.e.
Whitney’s stress block; Fig. 6(b)]. From Eq. (2) and using
k3 ¼ 1:0 (i.e., σcu =f 0c ¼ 0:85), a uniform shear stress vcu ¼ 0:11f 0c
is obtained [Fig. 6(c)]. The shear carried by the beam compression
zone is thus calculated as
V cc ¼ 0:11f 0c β 1 cb ¼ 0:11
Ts
¼ 0:13As f y ð6Þ
0:85
0.85k 3 f c’ 0.11fc’
k3 f c’
β1c
c
k1k3 f c’
(b) (c)
Fig. 6. Modeling of beam compression zone: (a) actual versus average
compressive stress; (b) Whitney’s stress block; (c) assumed shear stress
distribution in compression zone
 Prediction of Fiber Contribution to Shear Strength where T = tensile resultant force located at a distance ðh
cÞk 2
from the extreme tension fiber, and b and h = section width and
The tensile force transferred across the critical diagonal crack
height, respectively. In ASTM 1609 tests, b ¼ h ¼ L=3, where L
through fiber tension depends on the crack width. In order to
is the beam span. Assuming k2 ¼ 0:5 (resultant force at middepth
estimate the magnitude of this force, the use of a constant tension
of tension zone)
stress is desirable, rather than trying to estimate its actual distribu-
tion. Fig. 4(c) illustrates the proposed approach, in which the actual 2M
tension stress distribution (represented by thick curve along line ðσt Þavg ¼ ð9Þ
ðh
cÞbh
NP) is replaced by an equivalent uniform tensile stress with the
same tensile force resultant. For simplicity, any tension below
the centroid of the longitudinal reinforcement is neglected. The where
contribution of fiber tension to the beam shear strength, VFRC , can 2M
c¼ ð10Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

therefore be expressed as follows:, 0:85f 0c bh

  
d
c
V FRC ¼ T f cosðαÞ ¼ ðσt Þavg b cosðαÞ As a simplification and on the basis of test results, c can
sinðαÞ simply be taken as 10% of the beam height. In this case, Eq. (9)
¼ ðσt Þavg bðd
cÞcotan ð7Þ becomes

In the test beams that failed in shear-compression, the angle α
ranged between 33° and 43°. For simplicity and conservatism, the
use of α ¼ 45° is recommended.
Considering the fact that the proposed model relies on a crack of
increasing width as the distance to the beam neutral axis increases,
an analogy can be made between this critical diagonal crack and the
single crack that typically occurs in ASTM 1609 four-point bend-
ing tests. A procedure to determine ðσt Þavg from ASTM 1609 tests
is discussed next.
Determination of Average Tensile Stress
σ t avg from
ASTM Four-Point Bending Tests
This discussion is limited to ASTM 1609 beams exhibiting a single
flexural crack (i.e., deflection softening behavior), which is the case
in most practical applications. Once a flexural crack occurs, beam
behavior can be modeled as two rigid blocks rotating an angle θ
with respect to each other (Fig. 7).
In order to determine the neutral axis depth c, a uniform com-
pressive stress of 0:85f 0c over the entire compression zone can
be assumed, regardless of the beam deflection [Fig. 7(b)]. Even
though this assumption is questionable over a wide range of deflec-
tions, the error incurred in the estimation of the neutral axis depth
has a negligible effect on the determination of the average tensile
stress, given the fact that it represents a very small percentage of
the total beam depth (on the order of 10% of the beam height).
The moment at the cracked section can then be calculated as
follows:
 
c assumed to be a function of the depth of the compression region;
M ¼ T h
k 2 ðh
cÞ

2
 
c
¼ ðσt Þavg ðh
cÞb h
k 2 ðh
cÞ
ð8Þ
2 the following expression:
ðσt Þavg ¼
2M
t ð11Þ
0:9bh2
In order to account for potential differences between the behav-
ior of FRC in ASTM 1609 beams and that in the real beam (e.g., as
a result of fiber distribution and specimen size), it is recommended
that a strength reduction factor, arbitrarily selected as 0.8, be
applied to the average tensile stress in Eqs. (9) and (11) for use
in the calculation of VFRC in Eq. (7).
The problem reduces then to the determination of the midspan
deflection in the ASTM beam at which the applied moment is to
be obtained in order to calculate ðσt Þavg according to either Eq. (9)
or Eq. (11). Defining the shortest distance between the crack
section and one of the supports as βL, where β ranges between
1=3 and 1=2, the relative rotation at the crack location, θ, can be
expressed as a function of the beam midspan deflection, δ, as
follows:
2δ
θ¼ ð12Þ
βL
The crack width at the beam bottom surface, w, is then estimated
as
2δðh
cÞ
w ¼ θðh
cÞ ¼ ð13Þ
βL
Therefore, at any given deflection, the maximum crack width is
the crack location βL; the beam height h, which is equal to 3L; and
span length L. Rearranging Eq. (13) such that the ASTM beam mid-
span deflection can be determined for a given crack width results in

P/2 P/2
0.85fc ’ C = 0.85fc ' cb
c c
h=L/3 θ T = (σt )avg (h − c )b
h-c
w
k2(h-c)
βL (1−β)L
L
(a) Crack location and width in ASTM 1609 beam (b) Magnitude and location of internal resultant forces

Fig. 7. Derivation of uniform tensile stress versus crack width relationship from four-point bending tests

1044 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051

 wβL 4. Add shear strength contributions from beam compression zone
δ¼ ð14Þ and fiber reinforcement [Eq. (1)].
2ðh
cÞ

As discussed previously, diagonal crack width measurements

taken on the large-scale test beams just prior to shear failure indi-
cate that the crack width w can be approximated as 5% of the fiber
length Lf . Also, given the randomness of the crack location within
the middle third of the ASTM 1609 beams, a value of β ¼ 0:5 (i.e.,
crack located at beam midspan) should be used to maximize the
deflection at which the average tensile stress ðσt Þavg is to be deter-
mined. Assuming c ¼ 0:1h
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Evaluation of Shear Strength Model
The ability of the proposed model to predict the shear strength of
steel FRC beams was first evaluated by applying it to the beams
tested as part of this investigation (see Table 1). Because some
of the beams were designed to fail in shear prior to flexural yield-
ing, whereas the reinforcement in others exhibited substantial
strain-hardening, the force in the tension reinforcing steel T s , taken

Lf L Lf ð3hÞ Lf as As f y in Eq. (6), was calculated as follows:,

δ¼ ¼ ≅
80ðh
cÞ 80ðh
cÞ 24
The value of M [and thus, ðσt Þavg ] at a target deflection δ can be
obtained from the fiber manufacturer for a deformed steel fiber of
length Lf . Alternatively, a designer may choose a minimum value
of M from which the fiber type and amount would be selected on
the basis of data from the fiber manufacturer. Because the moment
M depends on the size of the ASTM 1609 beams used as a refer-
ence (a cross section of 150 × 150 mm or 6 × 6 in: is typically
used), it is more practical to specify a minimum equivalent bending
strength, feq , at a midspan deflection δ ¼ Lf =24, as follows:
6M
f eq ¼
bh2
For the FRCs used in this investigation, average values of feq
ranged between approximately 3.5 MPa (500 psi) and 6.2 MPa
(900 psi).
Summary of Shear Strength Calculation
The procedure to calculate the shear strength of a steel FRC beam
can be summarized as follows:
1. Calculate shear strength of beam compression zone Vcc on the
basis of yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement [Eq. (6)];
2. Select average tensile stress ðσt Þavg to be used in design (this
should be based on manufacturer’s data and verified through
ASTM 1609 tests following the procedure outlined previously);
3. Calculate contribution of fiber reinforcement to shear strength,
V FRC [Eq. (7)], where c is the beam neutral axis depth at nom-
inal condition;
ð15Þ
Mu
Ts ¼ ð17Þ
jd
where
1 Ts
jd ¼ d
ð18Þ
2 0:85f 0c b
and M u = maximum applied moment.
Data from ASTM 1609 tests conducted on the steel FRC
materials used in the large-scale test beams were used to calculate
the equivalent bending stress ðσt Þavg at a midspan deflection ff =24.
ð16Þ As an example, ASTM 1609 test data obtained for the FRC material
used in two-beam pairs are shown in Fig. 8, along with the target
deflection at which the average bending stress was calculated.
Predicted versus experimental shear strength ratios for the
beams tested in this investigation are listed in Table 2. We found
reasonable agreement between the predicted and experimental
shear strengths for the test beams. The ratios between predicted
and experimental shear strength for the FRC beams (not including
regular concrete beams) ranged between 0.74 and 1.02 with only
one value exceeding 1.0, whereas the mean and standard deviation
were 0.80 and 0.09, respectively. When applied to Beams B18-0a
and B18-0b, and B27-7, with no fiber reinforcement, the model
significantly underestimated beam shear strength, as expected. This
is because the contribution of aggregate interlock is neglected in the
proposed model, which is a conservative assumption for RC beams,
particularly in cases when shear failure precedes flexural yielding,
as was the case for these three beams.

60 60
Lf / 24

50 50

40 40
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

30 30

20 20
Lf / 24

10 10

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Midspan Deflection (mm) Midspan Deflection (mm)
(a) 30 mm long, 0.55 diameter fiber, Vf = 0.75% (b) 60 mm long, 0.75 diameter fiber, Vf = 0.75%
(Beams B18-1a & b) (Beams B27-2a & b)

Fig. 8. ASTM test data for selected test beams

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 1045

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 2. Comparison of Predicted versus Experimental Strengths for Various Models

pffiffiffiffi V predic =V exp
bw , h, d, f 0c ’ Lf , Df , vu = f 0c
Reference Beam mm mm mm a=d ρ, % MPa mm mm Vf , % MPa (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)a
Mansur et al. A2 152 229 197 2.8 1.3 24.2 — — — 0.30 0.63 1.34 0.61 0.69 0.55 0.86 0.41
(1986) A3 152 229 197 3.6 1.3 24.2 — — — 0.26 0.71 1.47 0.65 0.74 0.64 0.76 0.53
A4 152 229 197 4.4 1.3 24.2 — — — 0.23 0.79 1.59 0.69 0.79 0.73 0.81 0.66
B2 152 229 197 2.8 1.3 29.1 30 0.50 0.5 0.32 0.89 1.26 0.94 0.83 0.75 1.16 0.87
B3 152 229 197 3.6 1.3 29.1 30 0.50 0.5 0.28 1.01 1.38 1.04 0.89 0.87 1.09 1.05
C2 152 229 197 2.8 1.3 29.9 30 0.50 0.75 0.37 0.86 1.12 0.97 0.82 0.77 1.15 0.88
C6 152 229 197 2.8 2.0 29.9 30 0.50 0.75 0.40 0.83 1.03 0.98 0.86 0.71 1.17 0.83
E2 152 229 197 2.8 1.3 20.6 30 0.50 0.75 0.33 1.03 1.23 1.20 1.01 0.85 1.39 1.02
E3 152 229 197 2.8 2.0 20.6 30 0.50 0.75 0.44 0.81 0.93 0.99 0.86 0.64 1.15 0.83
F3 152 229 197 2.8 2.0 33.4 30 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.73 0.82 0.76 0.67 0.56 0.92 0.71
Lim et al. 2=0:5=2:5 152 254 221 2.5 1.2 34.0 30 0.51 0.5 0.30 0.93 1.42 1.08 0.87 0.82 1.36 0.86
(1987) 2=0=3:5 152 254 221 3.5 1.2 34.0 — — — 0.20 0.90 1.91 0.81 0.88 0.83 0.95 0.48
4=0:5=2:5 152 254 221 2.5 2.4 34.0 30 0.51 0.5 0.32 0.92 1.29 1.21 1.00 0.75 1.50 0.81
4=0:5=3:5 152 254 221 3.5 2.4 34.0 30 0.51 0.5 0.25 1.11 1.53 1.28 1.16 0.96 1.37 1.06
4=0=3:5 152 254 221 3.5 2.4 34.0 — — — 0.18 1.11 2.18 1.19 1.26 0.95 1.36 0.48
4=1:0=2:5 152 254 221 2.5 2.4 34.0 30 0.51 1 0.42 0.91 1.00 1.17 0.96 0.75 1.37 0.82
4=1:0=3:5 152 254 221 3.5 2.4 34.0 30 0.51 1 0.34 1.06 1.12 1.23 1.05 0.92 1.25 1.03
Li et al. 127 229 203 3.0 2.2 17.8 0.39 0.55 1.04 0.63 0.66 0.43 0.74 0.47

1046 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

— — — —
(1992) — 127 229 203 3.0 2.2 22.7 30 0.50 1 0.64 0.59 0.63 0.76 0.65 0.50 0.82 0.72
— 127 229 203 3.0 2.2 26.0 50 0.50 1 0.60 0.81 0.67 1.02 0.84 0.70 1.05 0.74
Tan et al. (1993) 5 60 375 340 2.5 3.4 36.0 30 0.51 1 0.31 1.27 1.33 1.74 1.42 1.01 1.99 0.62

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051

Casanova and HSFRC1 127 254 225 2.9 3.6 68.9 30 0.50 1.3 0.66 0.64 0.61 0.69 0.59 0.55 0.80 0.64
Rossi (1999) HSFRC2 127 254 225 2.9 3.6 68.9 30 0.50 1.3 0.66 0.65 0.61 0.69 0.60 0.55 0.81 0.64
HSFRC3 127 254 225 2.9 2.2 68.9 30 0.50 1.3 0.42 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.80 0.86 1.12 0.81
Noghabai 1 type A 200 250 180 3.3 4.5 68.9 — — — 0.71 0.29 0.55 0.39 0.35 0.24 0.45 0.50
(2000) 5 type A 200 250 180 3.3 4.5 68.9 60 0.70 0.5 0.84 0.39 0.46 0.46 0.40 0.33 0.50 0.59
6 type A 200 250 180 3.3 4.5 68.9 60 0.70 0.75 0.88 0.44 0.45 0.50 0.43 0.37 0.53 0.61
1 type B 200 300 235 2.8 4.3 68.9 — — — 0.72 0.30 0.57 0.41 0.36 0.23 0.55 0.40
3 type B 200 300 235 2.8 4.3 68.9 30 0.60 1 0.79 0.45 0.51 0.53 0.46 0.37 0.65 0.56
1 type C 200 500 410 2.9 3.0 68.9 — — — 0.26 0.77 1.55 0.94 0.87 0.64 1.28 0.40
7 type C 200 500 410 2.9 3.0 68.9 60 0.70 0.5 0.39 0.83 1.04 0.92 0.79 0.71 1.13 0.67
8 type C 200 500 410 2.9 3.0 68.9 60 0.70 0.5 0.46 0.70 0.88 0.78 0.67 0.60 0.96 0.62
9 type C 200 500 410 2.9 3.0 68.4 60 0.70 0.75 0.50 0.76 0.81 0.81 0.69 0.66 0.97 0.63
10 type C 200 500 410 2.9 3.0 68.9 60 0.70 0.75 0.43 0.89 0.94 0.95 0.81 0.77 1.12 0.69
4 type D 300 700 570 3.0 2.9 68.4 60 0.70 0.75 0.36 1.05 1.11 1.11 0.94 0.91 1.28 0.75
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 2. (Continued.)
pffiffiffiffi V predic =V exp
bw , h, d, f 0c ’ Lf , Df , vu = f 0c
Reference Beam mm mm mm a=d ρ, % MPa mm mm Vf , % MPa (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)a
Kwak et al. FHB1-3 127 254 213 3.0 1.5 62.6 — — — 0.32 0.57 1.25 0.59 0.56 0.52 0.78 0.42
(2002) FHB1-4 127 254 213 4.0 1.5 62.6 — — — 0.25 0.71 1.49 0.71 0.65 0.67 0.80 0.56
FNB2-3 127 254 213 3.0 1.5 30.8 50 0.80 0.5 0.46 0.60 0.87 0.67 0.59 0.53 0.78 0.72
Rosenbusch 1:2=1 200 300 260 3.5 3.6 44.0 — — — 0.26 0.78 1.47 0.95 0.93 0.64 1.06 0.49
and Teutsch 1:2=3 200 300 260 3.5 3.6 43.7 60 0.90 0.51 0.35 0.86 1.11 1.03 0.93 0.72 1.09 0.83
(2002) 1:2=4 200 300 260 3.5 3.6 48.3 60 0.90 0.76 0.43 0.80 0.90 0.93 0.82 0.69 0.97 0.79
2:3=1 200 300 262 2.5 1.2 40.1 — — — 0.24 0.80 1.78 0.86 0.81 0.71 1.23 0.34
2:3=3 200 300 262 2.5 1.2 38.7 60 0.90 0.76 0.33 1.00 1.27 1.14 0.88 0.89 1.36 0.85
2:4=1 200 300 260 2.5 1.8 40.1 — — — 0.36 0.55 1.15 0.66 0.61 0.46 0.92 0.36
2:4=3 200 300 260 2.5 1.8 38.7 60 0.90 0.76 0.44 0.77 0.94 0.93 0.75 0.66 1.12 0.70
2:6=1 200 300 260 4.0 1.8 40.8 — — — 0.23 0.81 1.65 0.79 0.83 0.74 0.93 0.57
2:6=3 200 300 260 4.0 1.8 40.3 60 0.90 0.76 0.35 0.92 1.05 0.97 0.79 0.83 0.99 0.97
20 × 30-Plain-1 200 300 260 3.5 2.8 32.1 — — — 0.20 0.99 1.90 1.13 1.17 0.82 1.25 0.49
20 × 30-SFRC-1 200 300 260 3.5 2.8 37.7 60 0.90 0.5 0.35 0.84 1.11 0.99 0.89 0.72 1.05 0.86
20 × 45-SFRC-1 200 450 410 3.3 3.1 37.7 60 0.90 0.5 0.29 1.03 1.35 1.24 1.11 0.87 1.32 0.94
20 × 60-Plain-1 200 600 540 3.5 2.7 32.1 — — — 0.18 1.13 2.18 1.27 1.33 0.95 1.42 0.49
T10 × 50-SFRC-1 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 37.7 60 0.90 0.5 0.30 0.98 1.30 1.16 1.04 0.84 1.23 0.92
T15 × 50-SFRC-1 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 37.7 60 0.90 0.5 0.47 0.63 0.83 0.74 0.67 0.54 0.79 0.74

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051

T15 × 75-SFRC-1 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 37.7 60 0.90 0.5 0.46 0.64 0.85 0.75 0.68 0.55 0.81 0.75
T15 × 100-Plain-1 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 32.1 — — — 0.29 0.69 1.33 0.79 0.82 0.57 0.89 0.49
T15 × 100-SFRC-1 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 37.7 60 0.90 0.5 0.43 0.68 0.90 0.80 0.72 0.58 0.86 0.76
20 × 30-SFRC-2 200 300 260 3.5 2.8 38.8 60 0.90 0.5 0.41 0.72 0.95 0.84 0.75 0.62 0.89 0.80
20 × 50-SFRC-2 200 500 460 3.4 2.4 38.8 60 0.90 0.5 0.26 1.12 1.51 1.27 1.13 0.97 1.37 1.00
20 × 60-SFRC-2 200 600 540 3.5 2.7 38.8 60 0.90 0.5 0.33 0.88 1.17 1.02 0.92 0.76 1.09 0.88
T10 × 50-SFRC-2 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 38.8 60 0.90 0.5 0.27 1.07 1.42 1.26 1.13 0.92 1.34 0.96
T15 × 50-SFRC-2 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 38.8 60 0.90 0.5 0.28 1.03 1.36 1.20 1.08 0.88 1.29 0.94
T23 × 50-SFRC-2 200 500 460 3.4 2.8 38.8 60 0.90 0.5 0.44 0.67 0.88 0.78 0.70 0.57 0.83 0.75
Cuchiara A00 150 249 218 2.8 1.9 41.2 — — — 0.19 1.02 2.13 1.09 1.13 0.87 1.53 0.38
et al. (2004) A10 150 249 218 2.8 1.9 40.9 30 0.51 1 0.46 0.79 0.89 0.87 0.74 0.69 1.03 0.76
A20 150 249 218 2.8 1.9 43.2 30 0.51 2 0.48 1.11 0.85 1.18 0.96 0.98 1.28 0.87

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 1047

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 2. (Continued.)
pffiffiffiffi V predic =V exp
bw , h, d, f 0c ’ Lf , Df , vu = f 0c
Reference Beam mm mm mm a=d ρ, % MPa mm mm Vf , % MPa (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)a
This B18-0a 152 457 381 3.4 2.7 42.8 — — — 0.17 1.15 2.27 1.28 1.31 0.98 1.48 0.47
investigation B18-0b 152 457 381 3.4 2.7 42.8 — — — 0.17 1.19 2.34 1.32 1.35 1.01 1.53 0.47
B18-1a 152 457 381 3.4 2.0 44.8 30 0.55 0.75 0.44 0.69 0.88 0.74 0.63 0.61 0.78 0.77 (0.81)
B18-1b 152 457 381 3.4 2.0 44.8 30 0.55 0.75 0.41 0.74 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.66 0.83 0.79 (0.84)
B18-2a 152 457 381 3.5 2.0 38.1 30 0.55 1 0.49 0.70 0.78 0.76 0.64 0.62 0.78 0.78 (0.80)
B18-2b 152 457 381 3.5 2.0 38.1 30 0.55 1 0.50 0.68 0.77 0.75 0.63 0.61 0.77 0.77 (0.80)
B18-2c 152 457 381 3.5 2.7 38.1 30 0.55 1 0.56 0.62 0.69 0.72 0.62 0.54 0.74 0.74 (0.76)
B18-2d 152 457 381 3.5 2.7 38.1 30 0.55 1 0.41 0.85 0.94 0.98 0.85 0.74 1.01 0.85 (0.88)
B18-3a 152 457 381 3.4 2.7 31.0 30 0.55 1.5 0.46 0.94 0.84 1.13 0.96 0.81 1.11 0.85 (0.85)
B18-3b 152 457 381 3.4 2.7 31.0 30 0.55 1.5 0.61 0.71 0.64 0.86 0.73 0.61 0.84 0.76 (0.76)
B18-3c 152 457 381 3.4 2.7 44.9 30 0.55 1.5 0.49 0.87 0.79 0.95 0.80 0.76 0.95 0.77 (0.77)
B18-3d 152 457 381 3.4 2.7 44.9 30 0.55 1.5 0.49 0.87 0.80 0.95 0.80 0.76 0.96 0.77 (0.77)
B18-5a 152 457 381 3.4 2.7 49.2 60 0.75 1 0.42 0.99 0.91 1.06 0.89 0.87 1.07 0.78 (0.86)
B18-5b 152 457 381 3.4 2.7 49.2 60 0.75 1 0.54 0.78 0.72 0.83 0.70 0.68 0.84 0.71 (0.76)
B18-7a 152 457 381 3.4 2.0 43.3 30 0.38 0.75 0.50 0.70 0.77 0.75 0.62 0.63 0.77 0.73 (0.82)

1048 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011

B18-7b 152 457 381 3.4 2.0 43.3 30 0.38 0.75 0.49 0.72 0.78 0.77 0.64 0.64 0.79 0.74 (0.83)
B27-1a 203 686 610 3.5 2.1 50.8 30 0.55 0.75 0.41 0.73 0.94 0.78 0.66 0.66 0.82 0.77 (0.79)
B27-1b 203 686 610 3.5 2.1 50.8 30 0.55 0.75 0.38 0.80 1.02 0.84 0.71 0.71 0.89 0.80 (0.82)

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051

B27-2a 203 686 610 3.5 2.1 28.7 60 0.75 0.75 0.52 0.69 0.74 0.82 0.69 0.61 0.82 0.78 (0.79)
B27-2b 203 686 610 3.5 2.1 28.7 60 0.75 0.75 0.51 0.70 0.75 0.83 0.70 0.62 0.84 0.79(0.80)
B27-3a 203 686 610 3.5 1.6 42.3 30 0.55 0.75 0.42 0.71 0.92 0.74 0.62 0.64 0.77 0.80 (0.75)
B27-3b 203 686 610 3.5 1.6 42.3 30 0.55 0.75 0.43 0.70 0.90 0.73 0.61 0.63 0.76 0.79 (0.74)
B27-4a 203 686 610 3.5 1.6 29.6 60 0.75 0.75 0.39 0.90 0.98 1.02 0.82 0.80 1.02 0.88 (0.91)
B27-4b 203 686 610 3.5 1.6 29.6 60 0.75 0.75 0.33 1.08 1.17 1.22 0.99 0.96 1.22 0.98 (1.02)
B27-5 203 686 610 3.5 2.1 44.4 30 0.55 1.5 0.52 0.80 0.74 0.84 0.68 0.71 0.84 0.76 (0.76)
B27-6 203 686 610 3.5 2.1 42.8 60 0.75 1.5 0.52 1.02 0.75 1.07 0.85 0.91 1.03 0.77 (0.81)
B27-7 203 686 610 3.5 1.6 37.0 — — — 0.21 0.87 1.81 0.83 0.89 0.78 0.98 0.49
a
Values based on ðσt Þavg calculated according to Eq. (19); those in parentheses are based on experimentally obtained ðσt Þavg
(1) Mansur et al. (1986); (2) Sharma (1986); (3) Narayanan and Darwish (1987); (4) Ashour et al. (1992); (5) Khuntia et al. (1999); (6) Kwak et al. (2002); and (7) Proposed model
 Application of Shear Strength Models to Steel FRC 6. Fiber tensile strength fu ≥ 1; 030 MPa (150 ksi); and
Beams Reported in the Literature 7. Fiber length-to-diameter ratio Lf =d f between 55 and 100.
Because no data were available with regard to flexural perfor-
Results from tests of steel FRC beams without stirrup reinforce- mance of the FRC except for the beams tested in this investigation,
ment available in the literature (Mansur et al. 1986; Narayanan the following expression was used to evaluate ðσt Þavg (in MPa),
and Darwish 1987; Lim et al. 1987; Li et al. 1992; Tan et al. on the basis of results from ASTM 1609 tests performed on the
1993; Casanova and Rossi 1999; Noghabai 2000; Rosenbusch, materials used in this research:
and Teutsch 2002; Kwak et al. 2002; and Cucchiara et al. 2004)  1=4
were also used to further evaluate the adequacy of the proposed Vf
shear strength model. A total of 84 FRC beams and 12 companion ðσt Þavg ¼ 0:8 × 1:5 ½MPa ð19Þ
0:0075
RC beams were used in this evaluation (Table 2). These beams had
the following properties: where 0.8 = strength reduction factor to account for differences in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1. Shear span-to-depth ratio a=d ≥ 2:5;
2. Beam depth h between 230 mm (9 in.) and 685 mm (27 in.);
3. Longitudinal tension reinforcement ratio ρ between 1.2%
and 4.5%;
4. Concrete cylinder strength f 0c between 20.7 MPa (3 ksi) and
104 MPa (15.1 ksi);
5. Hooked steel fibers in volume fractions Vf ranging between
0.5% (39 kg=m3 or 67 lb=yd3 ) and 2% (157 kg=m3 or
267 lb=yd3 );
2 2
material behavior in small ASTM 1609 beams and large-scale
beams, as explained previously. For the beams tested in this inves-
tigation, the ratio between predicted and experimental strengths
was obtained using both the measured value of ðσt Þavg and that
obtained from Eq. (19), as shown in Table 2. For comparison pur-
poses, the shear strength models by Mansur et al. (1986), Sharma
(1986), Narayanan and Darwish (1987), Ashour et al. (1992),
Khuntia et al. (1999), and Kwak et al. (2002) were also applied
to the beams listed in Table 2.

1.5 1.5
Mean = 0.79 Mean = 0.71
St Dev = 0.12 St Dev = 0.15
exp

exp
/V

/V
predict

predict

1 1
V

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
V (%) V (%)
f f
(a) Proposed model (b) Khuntia, Stojadinovic and Goel (1999)

2 2

1.5 1.5 Mean = 0.94

Mean = 0.82 St Dev = 0.22
exp

St Dev = 0.17
exp

/V
/V

1
predict

1
predict
V

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
V (%) V (%)
f f

(c) Mansur, Ong and Paramasivan (1986) (d) Narayanan and Darwish (1987)

Fig. 9. Evaluation of proposed and existing shear strength models

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 1049

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051

 Fig. 9 shows the ratio between predicted and experimental shear
strengths versus fiber volume fraction for the proposed model with
ðσt Þavg obtained from Eq. (19), as well as the shear strength models
by Mansur et al. (1986), Narayanan and Darwish (1987), and
Khuntia et al. (1999), which led to the best predictions out of all
previous models considered. Predicted versus experimental shear
strength ratios for all models are listed in Table 2. Mean and stan-
dard deviation values for the FRC beams (excluding RC beams) are
shown in the plots, whereas the shaded region covers the strength
ratios bound by the mean  standard deviation.
As can be seen from Fig. 9, all four models were consistent
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
over the range of fiber volume fractions considered. The model
by Khuntia et al. (1999) was the most conservative of all the
models considered, with a mean and standard deviation for the
ratio between predicted and experimental strength of 0.71 and
0.15, respectively. This model underestimated the strength of all
the FRC beams except for one, in which the strength ratio was
1.02. The models by Mansur et al. (1986) and Narayanan and
Darwish (1987) were less conservative than the model by Khuntia
et al., with a higher mean (0.82 and 0.94, respectively) and stan-
dard deviation (0.17 and 0.22, respectively). The model by Mansur
et al. overestimated the strength in 16% of the beams versus 29%
for the model by Narayanan and Darwish, the maximum ratios
between predicted versus experimental strength being 1.27 and
1.74, respectively.
The mean ratio between predicted and experimental strength
for the proposed model was slightly lower than that for the model
by Mansur et al. (0.79 versus 0.82) and greater than that for the
model by Khuntia et al. However, the standard deviation in the
proposed model (0.12) was lower than that in the other models
considered. An overestimation of the beam strength occurred in
4% of the cases, but the strength was never overestimated by more
than 6%.
Limitations
Because the contribution of fiber reinforcement to beam shear
strength is based on material performance obtained through ASTM
1609 tests, the proposed model should theoretically be applicable to
beams reinforced with any type of fiber reinforcement. Support
from experimental data, however, is limited to beams with hooked
steel fibers having lengths between 30 mm (1.2 in.) and 60 mm
(2.4 in.), length-to-diameter ratios between 55 and 100, and
minimum tensile strength of 1,030 MPa (150 ksi). Fiber volume
content should not be less than 0.5% (39 kg=m3 or 67 lb=yd3 ) and,
for practical purposes, not greater than 1.5% (118 kg=m3 or
200 lb=yd3 ).
Conclusions
A simple model to predict the shear strength of steel FRC beams is
presented. Contrary to previously proposed strength models, listed
in the appendix, the contribution of fiber reinforcement to beam
shear strength is directly linked to the material performance ob-
tained through a standard ASTM 1609 four-point bending test.
From comparison of predicted and experimental strengths using
the proposed shear strength model, as well as other existing models,
the following conclusions can be drawn,
• The shear strength of steel FRC beams can be reasonably
estimated assuming that beam shear strength is provided by
shear resisted over the compression zone and tension resisted
by fibers bridging diagonal cracks, neglecting any contribution
from aggregate interlock and dowel action;
1050 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011
J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051
• The average FRC tensile stress across the critical diagonal
crack at beam shear failure can be estimated on the basis of an
equivalent bending strength obtained from ASTM 1609 four-
point bending tests. The use of an equivalent bending strength
at a deflection equal to 1=24 of the fiber length, compared to a
crack width equal to 5% of the fiber length, led to reasonable
shear strength predictions in the test beams;
• Among the existing shear strength models considered, that by
Khuntia et al. (1999) was found to be the most conservative,
with moderate scatter in the data (mean and standard deviation
values for the ratio between predicted and experimental strength
of 0.71 and 0.15, respectively). Compared to this and other
models, the proposed shear strength equations were found to
lead to more accurate predictions (mean and standard deviation
of 0.79 and 0.12, respectively) without relying on an estimation
of direct postcracking tensile strength for the fiber reinforced
concrete, which is difficult to verify experimentally.
Appendix. Summary of Selected Shear Strength
Models for FRC Beams
Reference Shear strength expression
Sharma (1986) V n ¼ kf ct ðd=aÞ1=4 bd, where k ¼ 2=3, fct is the FRC
split cylinder strength, and a is the shear span. If fct is
pffiffiffiffi
unknown, it can be taken as f ct ¼ 0:79 f 0c (MPa).
pffiffiffiffi
Mansur et al. V n ¼ f½0:16 f 0c þ 17:2ρðVd=MÞ þ σtu gbd, where V
(1986) and M are the shear and moment at the critical section
and σtu is the FRC postcracking tensile strength. For
beams with a=d ≥ 2 subjected to a concentrated force
at a distance a from support, M=V ¼ ðM max =VÞ
d ¼
a
d, where Mmax is the moment at the section where
concentrated force is applied. For the specimens tested
by Mansur et al. (1986), the reported values of σtu were
used. For all other specimens, σtu was calculated as
follows, σtu ¼ 0:41τ F, where fiber-matrix bond τ was
pffiffiffiffi
taken as 0:68 f 0c , as recommended by Khuntia et al.
(1999), and F ¼ ðLf =Df ÞV f df . Lf , Df , and Vf are the
fiber length, diameter, and volume fraction, respectively,
and df ¼ 1 for hooked steel fibers.
Narayanan and V n ¼ fe½A0 f spf c þ B0 ρðd=aÞ þ vb gbd, where e ¼ 1:0
Darwish (1987) for a=d > 2:8 and e ¼ 2:8d=a when a=d ≤ 2:8;
ρ = longitudinal reinforcement ratio. A0 ¼ 0:24;
pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi
B0 ¼ 80 MPa; f spf c ¼ ½f cuf =ð20
F Þ þ B þ C F ,
where f cuf is the FRC cube strength, B ¼ 0:7 MPa,
C ¼ 1 MPa, and vb ¼ 0:41τ F, where τ = fiber-matrix
interfacial bond, assumed equal to 4.15 MPa.
pffiffiffiffi
Ashour et al. V n ¼ ð2:11 3 f 0c þ 7FÞ½ρðd=aÞ1=3 bd, where a=d ≥ 2:5.
(1992)
pffiffiffiffi
Khuntia et al. V n ¼ ½0:167e þ 0:25F f 0c bd, where e ¼ 1:0 for
(1999) a=d > 2:5 and e ¼ 2:5d=a when a=d ≤ 2:5.
2=3
Kwak et al. V n ¼ f3:7ef spf c ½ρðd=aÞ1=3  þ 0:8vb gbd, where e ¼ 1:0
(2002) for a=d > 3:4 and e ¼ 3:4d=a when a=d ≤ 3:4.
pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi
f spf c ¼ ½f cuf =ð20
F Þ þ B þ C F , where fcuf is the
FRC cube strength, B ¼ 0:7 MPa, and C ¼ 1 MPa.
vb ¼ 0:41τ F, where τ = fiber-matrix interfacial bond,
assumed equal to 4.15 MPa.
Note: Concrete cylinder strength f 0c was taken as 0.8 times concrete cube
strength fcuf .
 Acknowledgments
The writers would like to acknowledge the support of Bekaert
Corporation, which donated the hooked steel fibers used in this
investigation.
References
ACI Committee 318 (2008). “Building code requirements for structural
concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary (ACI-318R-08).” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Ashour, S. A., Hasanain, G. S., and Wafa, F. F. (1992). “Shear behavior of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
high-strength fiber reinforced concrete beams.” ACI Struct. J., 89(2),
176–184.
ASTM (2006). “Standard test method for flexural performance of fiber-
reinforced concrete (using beam with third-point loading).” ASTM C
1609/C 1609M-05, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
Batson, G., Jenkins, E., and Spatney, R. (1972). “Steel fibers as shear
reinforcement in beams.” J. Am. Concr. Inst., 69(10), 640–644.
Bresler, B., and Pister, K. S. (1958). “Strength of concrete under combined
stresses.” J. Am. Concr. Inst., 55(9), 321–345.
Casanova, P., and Rossi, P. (1999). “High-strength concrete beams submit-
ted to shear: Steel fibers versus stirrups.” Structural applications of fiber
reinforced concrete (SP-182), American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 53–68.
Cucchiara, C., La Mendola, L., and Papia, M. (2004). “Effectiveness of
stirrups and steel fibres as shear reinforcement.” Cem. Concr. Compos.,
26(7), 777–786.
Dinh, H. H. (2009). “Shear behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete
beams without stirrup reinforcement.” Doctoral Dissertation, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, 285.
Dinh, H. H., Parra-Montesinos, G. J., and Wight, J. K. (2010). “Shear
behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams without stirrup
reinforcement.” ACI Struct. J., 107(5), 597–606.
Fanella, D. A., and Naaman, A. E. (1985). “Stress-strain properties of
fiber reinforced mortar in compression.” J. Am. Concr. Inst., 82(4),
475–483.
Hognestad, E., Hanson, N. W., and McHenry, D. (1955). “Concrete stress
distribution in ultimate strength design,” J. Am. Concr. Inst., 52(12),
455–480.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2011 / 1051
J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(10): 1039-1051
Khuntia, M., Stojadinovic, B., and Goel, S. C. (1999). “Shear strength of
normal and high-strength fiber reinforced concrete beams without
stirrups.” ACI Struct. J., 96(2), 282–289.
Kwak, Y.-K., Eberhard, M. O., Kim, W.-S., and Kim, J. (2002). “Shear
strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams without stirrups.”
ACI Struct. J., 99(4), 530–538.
Li, V. C., Ward, R., and Hmaza, A. M. (1992). “Steel and synthetic fibers as
shear reinforcement.” ACI Mater. J., 89(5), 499–508.
Lim, T. Y., Paramasivam, P., and Lee, S. L. (1987). “Shear and moment
capacity of reinforced steel-fibre-concrete beams.” Mag. Concr. Res.,
39(140), 148–160.
Mansur, M. A., Ong, K. C. G., and Paramasivam, P. (1986). “Shear strength
of fibrous concrete beams without stirrups.” J. Struct. Eng., 112(9),
2066–2079.
Narayanan, R., and Darwish, I. Y. S. (1987). “Use of steel fibers as shear
reinforcement.” ACI Struct. J., 84(3), 216–227.
Noghabai, K. (2000). “Beams of fibrous concrete in shear and bending:
Experiment and model.” J. Struct. Eng., 126(2), 243–251.
Parra-Montesinos, G. J. (2006). “Shear strength of beams with deformed
steel fibers.” Concr. Int., 28(11), 57–66.
Richart, F. E. (1927). “An investigation of web stresses in reinforced
concrete beams.” Bulletin No. 166, Univ. of Illinois Engineering Experi-
ment Station, Urbana, IL.
Rosenbusch, J., and Teutsch, M. (2002). “Trial beams in shear.” Brite/
Euram Project 97-4163, Final Rep., Sub Task 4.2, Technical Univ.
of Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
Sharma, A. K. (1986). “Shear strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete
beams.” J. Am. Concr. Inst., 83(4), 624–628.
Swamy, R. N., and Bahia, H. M. (1985). “The effectiveness of steel fibers as
shear reinforcement.” Concr. Int., 7(3), 35–40.
Tan, K. H., Murugappan, K., and Paramasivam, P. (1993). “Shear behav-
ior of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams.” ACI Struct. J., 90(1),
3–11.
Tureyen, A. K., and Frosch, R. J. (2003). “Concrete shear strength: Another
perspective.” ACI Struct. J., 100(5), 609–615.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1986). “The modified compression
field theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear.”
ACI Struct. J., 83(2), 219–231.
Wight, J. K., and MacGregor, J. G. (2009). Reinforced concrete. Mechanics
and design, 5th Ed, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
247–248.