ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 93-S54

Minimum Shear Reinforcement in Normal, Medium,

and High-Strength Concrete Beams

by Young-Soo Yoon, William D. Cook, and Denis Mitchell

This paper presents the evaluation of minimum shear reinforcement culating the minimum amount of shear reinforcement for
requirements in normal, medium, and high-strength reinforced concrete beams with concrete strengths greater than 69 MPa. The
beams. Twelve shear tests were conducted on full-scale beam specimens
having concrete compressive strengths of 36, 67, and 87 MPa. Different
1994 CSA Standard10 introduced a new equation for calcu-
amounts of minimum shear reinforcement were investigated, including the lating the minimum amount of shear reinforcement as a
traditional amounts required by older codes and the amounts required by function of the square root of fc ′.
the 1989 ACI Code (revised 1992) and the 1994 CSA Standard. The perfor-
mance of the different amounts of shear reinforcement are discussed in
This paper examines the adequacy of the minimum shear
terms of shear capacity, ductility, and crack control at service load levels. reinforcement requirements in beams constructed with nor-
An assessment of the 1989 ACI and 1994 CSA provisions for minimum mal, medium, and high-strength concretes having the mini-
shear reinforcement is also presented. mum amount of shear reinforcement determined according
to two older codes, that of the 1983 ACI Code11 (ACI 83)
Keywords: beams (supports); crack control; ductility; high-strength con-
and the 1984 CSA Standard12 (CSA 84), and according the
crete; minimum shear reinforcement; shear strength; splitting cracks; stirrups.
provisions of the 1989 ACl Code (revised 1992)9 (ACI 89)
INTRODUCTION and the 1994 CSA Standard10 (CSA 94).
With the advent of higher concrete compressive strengths
and the corresponding increase in concrete tensile strengths, RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
there is concern that traditional amounts of minimum shear A comparison and evaluation of the minimum shear rein-
reinforcement may not be sufficient in high-strength forcement provisions of the 1989 ACI Code (revised 1992)
concrete beams. and the 1994 CSA Standard are made. The influence of nor-
Minimum shear reinforcement must prevent sudden shear mal, medium, and high-strength concretes, as well as differ-
failure on the formation of first diagonal tension cracking ent amounts of shear reinforcement, are investigated. In
and, in addition, must adequately control the diagonal ten- particular, the mode of failure, the ductility, the ability to re-
sion cracks at service load levels. To prevent a brittle failure, distribute the stresses in the stirrups, and the effectiveness on
adequate reserve of strength must be provided by the shear crack control at service load level are studied.
reinforcement after diagonal cracking of reinforced concrete
beams. To control crack widths at service load levels, not MINIMUM SHEAR REINFORCEMENT
only must a minimum amount of shear reinforcement be pro- REQUIREMENTS
vided, but the maximum stirrup spacing must also be limited. The 1983 ACI Code11 and the 1984 CSA Standard 12 re-
Due to the higher tensile strength of high-strength concrete, quired a minimum amount of shear reinforcement capable of
a higher cracking shear is expected and hence, would require resisting a shear stress of 0.33 MPa (50 psi) (0.35 MPa in the
a larger amount of minimum shear reinforcement.1-3 CSA Standard) if the factored shear force exceeded one-half
A number of experimental studies have been carried out to of the shear strength provided by the concrete. In these
investigate the influence of high-strength concrete on the codes, the minimum area of shear reinforcement Av is
shear behavior of beams.4-7 ACI Committee 3638 has sug-
gested that there is a need for more data on the minimum ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 5, September-October 1996.
Received Jan. 19, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
amount of shear reinforcement required to prevent brittle right  1996, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
failure after the formation of diagonal cracking. The 1989 of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent dis-
cussion will be published in the July-August 1997 ACI Structural Journal if received
ACI Code (revised 1992) 9 provided a new procedure for cal- by Mar. 1, 1997.

ACI Structural Journal / September-October 1996 1

ACI member Young-Soo Yoon is a senior research engineer in the Research and
Development Center, Samsung Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea.
He received his PhD from McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, specializing
in dynamic analysis of torsional coupling in asymmetric wall-frame structures. His
research interests include shear behavior and structural use of high-performance con-
crete elements and the design of prestressed concrete structures.

ACI member William D. Cook is a research engineer in the Department of Civil Engi-
neering and Applied Mechanics at McGill University. He received his PhD from
McGill University, specializing in the behavior and design of regions near discontinu-
ities in reinforced concrete members. His research interests include nonlinear analysis
of reinforced concrete structures and the structural use of high-strength concrete.

Denis Mitchell, FACI, is a professor in the Department of Civil Engineering and

Applied Mechanics at McGill University. He is a member of ACI Committee 408,
Bond and Development of Reinforcement; ACI Committee E 901, Scholarships; and of
joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. He is Chairman of the Canadian
Standards Association Committee A23.3, Design of Concrete Structures.

Fig. 2—Details of beam specimens and instrumentation

bw s
but not greater than -------- (3)
fy

and the shear carried by the concrete Vc is calculated from

Eq. (2) using the specified fc′.
The 1994 CSA Standard requires a minimum amount of
shear reinforcement A v as given by

bw s
A v = 0.06 fc ′ -------- (N, mm units) (4)
fy

In addition, this standard permits the use of the specified

Fig. 1—Comparison of minimum shear reinforcement concrete strength fc ′ in the calculation of Vc. The simplified
requirements in ACl Code and CSA Standard expression for determining the shear carried by the concrete
Vc reduces to that given by Eq. (2) when the low density con-
bw s crete factor and the material resistance factor are removed
A v = 0.33-------- (N, mm units) (1)
fy and the coefficient has been adjusted to correspond to the
ACI Code format.
where Av is the area of shear reinforcement within a distance The older code requirements for the amount of minimum
s, b w is the web width, and s is the spacing of stirrups and the shear reinforcement and the newer code requirements are
compared in Fig. 1. In the ACI Code, for members subjected
shear carried by the concrete Vc is
to relatively low shear stress levels, the spacing of shear re-
inforcement shall not exceed d/2 in nonprestressed members,
Vc = 0.167 f c ′b w d (N, mm units) (2) or 600 mm. For the same situation, the 1994 CSA Standard
specifies that the spacing of transverse shear reinforcement
The 1989 ACI Code (revised 1992)9 requires a minimum shall not exceed 0.7d or 600 mm.
amount of shear reinforcement for nonprestressed members,
TEST PROGRAM
as given by Eq. (1). Although Eq. (1) is independent of the
Description of beam specimens
concrete strength used, if this amount of minimum reinforce- Six full-scale beam specimens having different amounts of
ment is provided, then the code limits the square root of the shear reinforcement at each end were tested to provide a total
compressive strength to 8.3 MPa when calculating Vc in Eq. (2). of 12 shear tests. After failing one end of a beam specimen
Hence, this method does not take advantage of concrete (e. g., End N1-S of Beam N1), this end was heavily rein-
strengths above 69 MPa (10,000 psi) in the calculation of Vc . forced with external shear clamps to enable increasing the
To take advantage of concrete strengths greater than 69 MPa load to obtain failure at the other end (e. g., End N1-N of
in calculating Vc , the ACl Code requires a minimum amount Beam N1). Fig. 2 shows the details of the 375-mm wide x
of shear reinforcement of 750-mm deep specimens that were tested with a clear shear
span of 2000 mm. This depth of section was chosen because
it is the largest depth allowed by the ACI Code and the CSA
f ′ b w s
A v = ----c--  0.33-------- (N, mm units) Standard without requiring longitudinal skin reinforcement
35  fy  to control cracking. The flexural tension reinforcement for

2 ACI Structural Journal / September-October 1996

Table 1—Details of beam specimens Table 2—Composition and properties of three
Shear reinforcement
concretes
Normal-strength Medium-strength High-strength
A v fy
fc′, Stirrup size and spacing, --------- Concrete (N-Series) (M-Series) (H-Series)
Specimen MPa mm bws Comments Cement, kg/m 3 355 470* 520*
N-Series:
Water, L/m 3 160 140 125
N1-S — 0.00 No stirrups
N1-N 36 8.0 mm diameter at 325 0.35 Min Av, s = d /2 Sand, kg/m 3 790 870 800
N2-S 9.5 mm diameter at 465 0.35 Min Av, s = 0.7 d
N2-N 9.5 mm diameter at 325 0.50 Coarse
> Min Av, s = d/2 1040 990 1050
aggregate, kg/m 3
M-Series:
M1-S — 0.00 No stirrups Water-reducing
1110 — 650
M1-N 8.0 mm diameter at 325 0.35 ACI 83, ACI 89,* CSA agent, mL/m 3
67 84 Air-entraining
Min Av, s = d/2 200 — —
agent, mL/m 3
M2-S 9.5 mm diameter at 325 0.50 CSA 94 min Av, s = d/2
M2-N 9.5 mm diameter at 230 0.70 ACI 89† min Av, s < d/2 Superplasticizer,
— 11.0 18.0
L/m3
H-Series :
H1-S — 0.00 No stirrups Water-cement
0.45 0.30 0.24
H1-N 8.0 mm diameter at 325 0.35 ACI 83, ACI 89,* CSA ratio
87 84 Coarse aggregate
Min Av, s = d/2 5 to 20 5 to 10 5 to 10
size, mm
H2-S 9.5 mm diameter at 325 0.60 CSA 94 min Av, s < d/2
H2-N 8.0 mm diameter at 325 1.00 ACI 89† min Av, s < d/2 Slump, mm 115 165 200
Air, percent 6.0 1.5 2.5
*Lower amount of minimum A v provided when fc ′ ≤ 69 MPa in design. 2345 2470 2495
Density, kg/m3
†Upper amount of minimum Av provided when fc′ ≤ 69 MPa in design. *Blended cement containing 7 to 8 percent silica fume.
Note: f y for all stirrups is 430 MPa; area of 8.0-mm-diameter bar = 50 mm 2 ; area of
9.5-mm-diameter bar = 71 mm2 .

all of the specimens consisted of 10 No. 30 bars in two layers,

giving a reinforcement ratio of 0.028. This amount of flexural
reinforcement was chosen to insure that a shear failure
would occur before a flexural failure.
The test program consisted of three series of beams: 1) the
N-Series, designed for a concrete strength of 35 MPa; 2) the
M-Series, designed for a concrete strength of 70 MPa; and 3)
the H-Series, designed for a concrete strength of 100 MPa.
Table 1 gives the details of the shear reinforcement provided
in the specimens and gives the values of the measured aver-
age concrete compressive strengths. This table also indicates
the criteria used to choose the shear reinforcement in each of
the specimens. Two different bar sizes were used for the stir-
rup reinforcement to meet the minimum reinforcement criteria.

Material properties
Table 2 gives the composition of the three types of con-
crete used and Fig. 3 shows typical compressive stress-strain
Fig. 3—Typical compressive stress-strain responses of nor-
responses of the normal, medium, and high-strength con- mal, medium, and high-strength concretes
cretes having average compressive strengths fc′ at the time of
testing of 36, 67, and 87 MPa, respectively. Concrete com-
formed reinforcing bars were heat-treated to reduce the yield
pressive strengths were obtained by testing standard cylin-
strength and to provide a yield plateau.
ders having a diameter of 150 mm and a height of 300 mm.
The average splitting tensile strengths fsp were 3.1, 4.6, and
6.1 MPa for the N-, M-, and H-Series, respectively. The Instrumentation
splitting tests were carried out on 150-mm-diameter x 300- The specimens were heavily instrumented to provide de-
mm-long cylinders. The average moduli of rupture fr were tailed strain readings. As shown in Fig. 2, a strain gage was
4.0, 5.9, and 6.9 MPa for the N-, M-, and H-Series, respec- installed on each stirrup and strain gages were attached to
tively. These tests were carried out on 150 x 150 x 600-mm- one of the No. 30 longitudinal bars in the bottom layer. Three
long beams that were subjected to third-point loading over linear voltage differential transducers (LVDTs) were used to
spans of 450 mm. measure the midspan deflection and support settlements.
Fig. 4 shows typical stress-strain responses and the aver- Fig. 2 also shows the LVDT strain rosettes attached to the
age yield strengths for the three different sizes of reinforcing side-face of the beam to enable the determination of the prin-
bars used in the specimens. The 8- and 9.5-mm diameter de- cipal strains and the principal angles of compression.
ACI Structural Journal / September-October 1996 3
Table 3—Shears at cracking and stirrup yield and
crack widths at “service” load
w max at
Vy /Vcr, Vservice , Vservice,
Specimen Vcr, kN V y, kN kN V n ,* kN kN mm
N1-S 245 — — 123† 74 —
N1-N 260 320 1.23 332 199 —
N2-S 200 325 1.62 332 199 —
N2-N 254 349 1.37 369 221 —
M1-S 289 — — 168† 101 —
M1-N 289 316 1.09 422 253 —
M2-S 289 383 1.32 459 275 —
M2-N 289 463 1.60 508 305 0.15
H1-S 311 — — 171† 103 —
H1-N 311 334 1.07 428 257 —
H2-S 311 480 1.54 489 293 —
H2-N 334 516 1.54 628 377 0.25
*Permitted by ACI.
†Nominal resistance for member without stirrups = 0.5V c.

Fig. 4—Typical stress-strain responses of reinforcing steel

Table 4—Comparison of predicted and measured
shear capacities for specimens
adequate reserve of strength after cracking, even before the
Specimen V test, kN V MCFT, kN Vtest /VMCFT, kN VACI, kN Vtest /VACI onset of strain hardening in the stirrups. As can be seen from
N1-S 249 253 0.98 246 1.01 Table 3, the ratio of the shear at stirrup yielding Vy to the
N1-N 457 391 1.17 332 1.38 shear at cracking Vcr is 1.23. Specimen N2-S, with a stirrup
N2-S 363 368 0.99 332 1.09 spacing of 465 mm (0.7d), corresponding to the maximum
N2-N 483 420 1.15 369 1.31 spacing permitted by the 1994 CSA Standard, performed as
M1-S 296 305 0.97 336 0.88 well as Specimen N1-N, which had a stirrup spacing of
M1-N 405 437 0.93 422 0.96 0.5d, up to a principle tensile strain of about 10 millistrain.
M2-S 552 455 1.21 459 1.20 However, Specimen N2-S exhibited a much smaller crack-
M2-N 689 538 1.28 508 1.36 ing shear and also exhibited a shear failure crack that was
H1-S 327 331 0.99 342 0.96
different from the other specimens in that it spiralled around
H1-N 483 475 1.02 428 1.13
the beam, indicating that the loading introduced torsion (see
H2-S 598 539 1.11 489 1.22
Fig. 7). Because of the lower cracking shear, Vy/Vcr was 1.62
H2-N 721 729 0.99 628 1.15
for this specimen.
The response of Specimen N2-N is also shown in Fig. 5(a).
Crack widths were determined at each load stage using a This specimen contained an area of shear reinforcement Av =
crack width comparator and photographs at each load step 0.50 bw s/fy , that is, more than the minimum amount of shear
enabled the crack development to be followed. reinforcement required by the codes.
Fig. 5(b) illustrates the shear-versus-principal tensile
BEHAVIOR OF TEST SPECIMENS strain response of four specimens made with concrete having
Tables 3 and 4 give the measured shears at shear cracking, a compressive strength of 67 MPa. Specimen M1-S, without
stirrup yield, and ultimate for the specimens. Fig. 5 illus- stirrups, failed in a brittle manner on the formation of a sig-
trates the measured shear responses in the form of shear ver- nificant shear crack. Specimen M1-N contained the mini-
sus principal tensile strain ε1 plots for the series of specimens mum shear reinforcement requirements specified in the 1983
having different concrete strengths. Fig. 6 shows the shear- ACI Code and the 1984 CSA Standard and also conformed
versus-maximum measured shear crack width for all of the to the 1989 ACl Code because fc ′ is less than 69 MPa. Al-
specimens tested. The crack patterns observed at maximum though this specimen displayed significant ductility and
load level for all 12 specimens tested are given in Fig. 7. some reserve of strength after cracking, it may not have had
Fig. 5 demonstrates that the provision of even small significant reserve of strength if the stirrup reinforcement did
amounts of shear reinforcement significantly improves the not have significant strain hardening (see Fig. 4). As can be
ductility and increases the shear strength. The specimens seen from Table 3, the stirrups yielded at a shear only slightly
without stirrups (N1-S, M1-S, and H1-S) failed in a brittle above the cracking shear, that is, with a ratio, Vy/Vcr of only
manner on the formation of significant shear cracking. 1.09. Specimen M2-S containing the minimum shear rein-
The series of beams made with concrete having a com- forcement conforming to the 1994 CSA Standard displayed
pressive strength of 36 MPa demonstrates that the amount ductile response and had a shear at stirrup yield of about 1.32
of minimum shear reinforcement (i.e., Av = 0.35 b ws/fy) in times the cracking shear (see Table 3). Also shown in Fig. 5(b)
the existing ACI and CSA codes is appropriate for this lower is the response of Specimen M2-N, which contained the min-
concrete strength [see Fig. 5(a)]. Specimen N1-N showed imum amount of shear reinforcement according to the 1989
4 ACI Structural Journal / September-October 1996
Fig. 5—Shear force versus principal tensile strain responses Fig. 6—Shear force versus maximum shear crack width for
for specimens with different strength concretes specimens with different strength concretes

ACI Structural Journal / September-October 1996 5

Fig. 7(a)—Observed crack patterns in specimens after failure

ACI Code, assuming that the concrete strength is greater the higher strength concretes, result in higher shear capaci-
than 69 MPa and that the full account of this higher concrete ties and hence, higher service load levels. In both cases, the
strength is taken in determining the shear capacity. This measured shear crack widths are below what is considered
specimen had a ratio of Vy/Vcr equal to 1.60. acceptable.
Fig. 5(c) shows the responses of the four specimens made One feature of high-strength concrete that affects the
with concrete having a compressive strength of 87 MPa. structural response is the tendency for cracks to pass through
Specimen H1-S, having no stirrups, failed in a very brittle instead of around the aggregates. This creates smoother
manner and Specimen H 1-N exhibited a shear at yielding of crack surfaces, reducing the aggregate interlock and hence,
the stirrups, which was only 7 percent above the shear at di- reducing the shear carried by concrete 8 Vc . Because of the re-
agonal cracking (see Table 3). Specimens H2-S and H2-N, duced aggregate interlock, higher dowel forces occur in the
containing transverse reinforcement in accordance with the longitudinal reinforcing bars. 2 These higher dowel forces,
1994 CSA Standard and the 1989 ACI Code, respectively, together with the highly concentrated bond stresses in higher
displayed significant reserve of strength over cracking, both strength concrete beams, result in higher bond-splitting
with ratios of Vy/Vcr equal to 1.54. stresses where the shear cracks cross the longitudinal tension
bars. 13 These combined effects can lead to brittle shear-split-
Cracking behavior ting cracks in the end regions of beams, as shown by the hor-
The plots of shear-versus-maximum shear crack widths izontal cracks at the level of the bottom bars in the
for nine specimens reinforced with different amounts and photograph of Specimen M1-N in Fig. 7. This effect can lead
spacings of stirrup reinforcement are shown in Fig. 6. As ex- to brittle shear failures.13,14 The inclusion of an appropriate
pected, for a given load level, smaller shear crack widths amount of minimum shear reinforcement controlled these
were observed in the specimens with larger amounts of shear horizontal splitting cracks and resulted in improved shear re-
reinforcement. Table 3 provides the values of experimentally sponse.
determined cracking shears and compares these shears with
the expected service load shears and the shears correspond- Predicted capacities
ing to yielding of the stirrups. The service load shear is as- The predicted capacities of the 12 beam specimens, com-
sumed to be 60 percent of the nominal shear permitted by the puted using a computer program and based on the modified
ACI Code. For those specimens without shear reinforce- compression field theory (MCFT)15 and using the expres-
ment, the ACI Code limits the nominal strength to 0.5Vc. As sions of the 1989 ACl Code, are given in Table 4. The com-
can be seen from Table 3, only two specimens are expected puter program combines a plane section analysis for flexure
to crack at the approximate service load level. For these two with the modified compression field theory for shear that ac-
specimens, the larger amounts of minimum shear reinforce- counts for strain compatibility and uses tensile and compres-
ment required by the ACI Code, when taking full account of sive stress-strain relationships for diagonally cracked
6 ACI Structural Journal / September-October 1996
Fig. 7(b)—Observed crack patterns in specimens after failure

concrete. In this method, the spacing of the shear cracks is tions with effective depths greater than 300 mm and with no
accounted for in determining Vc. The crack spacing is a func- transverse reinforcement or less than minimum amounts of
tion of the spacing of the longitudinal and transverse rein- transverse reinforcement. This expression is
forcement.15 In making the MCFT predictions shown in
Table 4, it was assumed that the longitudinal crack spacing
V c =  ---------------------  fc ′b w d (N, mm units)
220
was equal to the effective depth d and that for beams with  1000 + d 
stirrups, the transverse crack spacing was equal to the stirrup
spacing s. The calculations were performed at a section lo-
cated at a distance d from the face of the loading plate, that but not less than 0.0835 f c ′b w d (5)
is, where the shear-to-moment ratio is 1.42 m. Although the
1989 ACl Code limits the yield stress of shear reinforcement It must be noted that in the previous equation, the low den-
to 400 MPa, the measured yield stress of 430 MPa was used sity concrete factor and the material resistance factor for con-
in determining the shear capacities in Table 4. crete in the CSA Standard have been omitted and the
The predictions using the MCFT and ACI Code agree well coefficients have been adjusted to correspond with the ACI
with the experimental results except that the ACI Code is un- Code format. Table 5 compares the values of Vc predicted us-
conservative for Specimen M1-S. One of the contributing ing this equation and using the ACI Code expression, along
factors for the unconservative nature of this prediction may with the values from the test results. The CSA approach
be the size effect (see discussion below). gives conservative predictions of the strength of all three
beams, while the ACI method overestimates the strength of
the specimen with a concrete compressive strength of 67 MPa.
Accounting for size effect
The 1994 CSA Standard takes account of the size of a
Assessment of code provisions for minimum
member in the calculation of Vc, both with the general method shear reinforcement
and with a simplified expression for members either without Fig. 8 and 9 demonstrate the influence of the different
stirrups or less than the minimum amount of shear reinforce- amounts of minimum shear reinforcement on the shear re-
ment. The general method is based on the modified compres- sponse of the specimens tested. Fig. 8(a) shows the responses
sion field theory15 that reduces the shear stress carried by the of the specimens containing minimum shear reinforcement
concrete as the spacing between the shear cracks becomes in accordance with the older codes (i.e., the 1983 ACI Code
larger. The spacing of the shear cracks increases as the mem- and the 1984 CSA Standard), that is, with Av fy /bw s equal to
ber size gets larger, and hence, for larger members, this 0.35 MPa without regard to the strength of the concrete.
method predicts lower shear stresses at failure. The responses of these specimens are surprisingly similar
The simplified expression for shear strength in the 1994 even though the concrete strength varies considerably.
CSA Standard accounts for size effects and applies to sec- These specimens have shear capacities that do not take ad-
ACI Structural Journal / September-October 1996 7
 Fig. 9—Ultimate shear capacities of specimens as function
of concrete compressive strength

Table 5—Comparisons of Vc calculated using ACI

Code and simplified method of 1994 CSA Standard
for specimens without stirrups
Specimen V test, kN VCSA , kN Vtest/V CSA VACI, kN V test/VACI
N1-S 249 193 1.29 246 1.01
M1-S 296 264 1.12 336 0.88
H1-S 327 301 1.09 342 0.96

vantage of the higher strength concrete [see Fig. 8(a)] and

rely on strain hardening to have an adequate reserve of
strength after cracking.
Specimens containing an amount of minimum shear rein-
forcement as required by the 1994 CSA Standard result in
shear capacities that increase with increasing concrete
strength [see Fig. 8(b) and 9] and have adequate reserve of
strength after cracking without requiring strain hardening in
the stirrups.
The two-level approach of the 1989 ACI Code for mini-
mum shear reinforcement is apparent in the responses shown
in Fig. 8(c) and the shear capacities shown in Fig. 9. For the
members designed accounting for the concrete strength, that
is, with the upper level of minimum shear reinforcement,
there is a significant reserve of strength after cracking. The
specimens having concrete strengths of 67 and 87 MPa and
reinforced so that Av fy /b ws is equal to 0.35 MPa develop ad-
equate reserve of strength after cracking, only after signifi-
cant strain hardening in the stirrups.
Fig. 9 shows how the different approaches for determining
minimum shear reinforcement influence the shear capacities
of the specimens tested. Requirements in the 1994 CSA
Standard result in increasing shear capacities as the concrete
compressive strength increases since the minimum shear re-
inforcement required is a function of the square root of the
concrete compressive strength. The two-level approach of
the 1989 ACI Code gives a significant jump in the shear ca-
Fig. 8—Influence of amount of minimum shear reinforce- pacity, depending on whether or not the upper or lower
ment required by different codes on shear response amounts of shear reinforcement are provided.

8 ACI Structural Journal / September-October 1996

 CONCLUSIONS VCSA = nominal shear capacity calculated from 1994 CSA Standard
The tests on the full-scale beams resulted in the following expressions
conclusions: VMCFT = nominal shear capacity from modified compression field theo ry
w max = maximum diagonal crack width
a. The 1983 ACI Code and 1984 CSA Standard both con-
ε1 = principal tensile strain in cracked concrete
tained an expression for the minimum amount of shear rein-
forcement that did not depend on the concrete strength (i.e.,
Av fy /b ws equal to 0.35 MPa). This leads to shear strengths of CONVERSION FACTORS
1 kg/m 3 = 1.685 lb/yd3
higher strength concrete members that may in fact be lower 1 kN = 0.2248 kip
than comparable lower strength concrete members and may 1 kNm = 0.737 ft/kip
result in shear responses without adequate reserve of 1 L/m 3 = 1.688 lb/yd3
strength after cracking. 1 mm = 0.039 in.
1m = 39.37 in.
b. The 1994 CSA Standard provides an expression for the
1 MPa = 145 psi
minimum amount of shear reinforcement that is a function of
the square root of the concrete compressive strength. There-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
fore, as the concrete strength increases, the required amount The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Networks
of minimum shear reinforcement increases in a gradual manner. of Centers of Excellence Program on High-Performance Concrete funded
The specimens tested indicate that these requirements pro- by the Minister of State, Science, and Technology in Canada. The efforts of
vide adequate reserve of strength after cracking. Ron Sheppard, Nick Vanelli, Isabelle Villemure, and Glenn Marquis in pre-
paring the tests, and Kent Harries and Marco DiFranco in testing the speci-
c. For concrete strengths up to 69 MPa (10,000 psi), the
mens are greatly appreciated.
1989 ACI Code requires a minimum amount of shear rein-
forcement that is not a function of the concrete strength (i.e.,
Av fy/b ws equal to 0.35 MPa). For concrete strengths above 69 REFERENCES
1. Krauthammer, T., “Minimum Shear Reinforcement Based on Interface
MPa, a two-level approach for determining the amount of Shear Transfer,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1992, pp.
minimum shear reinforcement is provided, depending on 99-105.
whether or not a full account is made of the concrete com- 2. Johnson, M. K., and Ramirez, J. A., “Minimum Shear Reinforcement
pressive strength above 69 MPa. Taking account of higher in Beams with Higher Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal , V. 86,
No. 4, July-Aug. 1989, pp. 376-382.
concrete compressive strengths requires a significant in-
3. Collins, M. P.; Mitchell, D.; and MacGregor, J. G., “Structural
crease in the amount of minimum shear reinforcement and Design Consideration for High-Strength Concrete,” Concrete Interna-
results in shear responses that had significant reserve of tional, V. 15, No. 5, May 1993, pp. 27-34.
strength after shear cracking. If the square root of the com- 4. Roller, J. J., and Russel, H. G., “Shear Strength of High-Strength Con-
pressive strength is limited to 6 9 MPa (i. e., 8.3 MPa) in crete Beams with Web Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr. 1990, pp. 191-198.
design, then the lower level of minimum shear reinforcement
5. Clarke, J. L., “Shear Capacity of High-Strength Concrete Beams,”
is permitted by the 1989 ACI Code. For high-strength
Journal of the Concrete Society, V. 21, No. 3, Mar. 1 987, pp. 24-26.
concrete members, this amount of minimum shear reinforce- 6. Salandra, M. A., and Ahmad, S. H., “Shear Capacity of Reinforced
ment may not provide adequate reserve of strength after Lightweight High-Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal ,
shear cracking unless the shear reinforcement can develop V. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1989, pp. 697-704.
significant strain hardening. 7. Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., “Shear Capacity of
d. The provision of an appropriate amount of minimum Reinforced Concrete Beams Using High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 290-296.
shear reinforcement also helps to control bond splitting
8. ACI Committee 363, “State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Con-
cracks that otherwise could lead to brittle shear-bond failures. crete,” Committee Report ACI 363R-92, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1992.
NOTATION 9. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Av = cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement within distance s Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318M-89/ACI 318R-89),” American
bw = minimum effective web width within depth d Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 353 pp.
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of longi 10. Canadian Standard Association, “Design of Concrete Structures,”
tudinal reinforcement CSA A23.3- 94, Rexdale, Ontario, 1994, 199 pp.
fc ′ = specified compressive strength of concrete
11. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
fr = modulus of rupture
Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-83),” American Concrete Institute,
fsp = splitting tensile strength of concrete Detroit, 1983, 111 pp.
fy = specified yield strength of reinforcement
12. Canadian Standards Association, “Design of Concrete Structures for
s = spacing of stirrups
Buildings,” CAN3-A23.3-M84, Rexdale, Ontario, 1984, 281 pp.
Vc = shear resistance provided by concrete
V cr = cracking shear resistance of concrete 13. Azizinamini, A.; Stark, M.; Roller, J. J.; and Ghosh, S. K., “Bond
Vn = nominal shear strength Performance of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in High-Strength Concrete,”
V service = approximate service load shear, taken as 0.6 times Vn permit- ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1993, pp. 554-561.
ted by ACI Code 14. Abrishami, H. H.; Cook, W. D.; and Mitchell, D., “Influence of
V test = applied shear at failure Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement on the Response of Normal and High-
Vy = applied shear at stirrup yield Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal. (accepted for publication)
VACI = nominal shear capacity calculated from 1989 ACI Code 15. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., Prestressed Concrete Structures,
expressions Prentice Hall, 1991, 766 pp.

ACI Structural Journal / September-October 1996 9