applied

sciences
Article
Shear Strength Prediction Equations and
Experimental Study of High Strength Steel
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Beams with Different
Shear Span-to-Depth Ratios
Wisena Perceka 1 , Wen-Cheng Liao 2, * and Yung-Fu Wu 2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Parahyangan Catholic University, No. 94,
Ciumbuleuit Road, Bandung 40141, Indonesia; [email protected]
2 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4,
Roosevelt Road, Taipei 10617, Taiwan; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 16 October 2019; Accepted: 5 November 2019; Published: 9 November 2019


Abstract: Conducting research on steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) beams without stirrups,
particularly the SFRC beams with high-strength concrete (HSC) and high-strength steel (HSS)
reinforcing bars is essential due to the limitation of test results of high strength SFRC beams with high
strength steel reinforcing bars. Eight shear strength prediction equations for analysis and design of
the SFRC beam derived by different researchers are summarized. A database was constructed from
236 beams. Accordingly, the previous shear strength equations can be evaluated. Ten high-strength
SFRC beams subjected to monotonic loading were prepared to verify the existing shear strength
prediction equations. The equations for predicting shear strength of the SFRC beam are proposed on
the basis of observations from the test results and evaluation results of the previous shear strength
equations. The proposed shear strength equation possesses a reasonable result. For alternative
analysis and design of the SFRC beams, ACI 318-19 shear strength equation is modified to consider
steel fiber parameters.

Keywords: steel fiber reinforced concrete beam; shear strength; high strength concrete;
fiber effectiveness factor; flexural-shear failure; shear failure

1. Introduction
Using high-strength concrete (HSC) with compressive strength exceeding 70 MPa and high-strength
steel (HSS) with yield stress of 685 MPa or greater can reduce the member section size and the volume of
concrete and steel bars for the entire building structure [1]. The durability of concrete can be improved,
owing to lower water-to-cementitious materials ratio of the HSC as well [2]. However, concrete
becomes more brittle as its compressive strength increases and greater transverse reinforcement is
required accordingly [2–5]. Short and discontinuous steel fiber can be used as an alternative material
to improve the ductile behavior of concrete [2,6–9]. Previous research studies have shown that adding
steel fibers to concrete beams could enhance shear resistance, toughness, promote flexural failure and
ductility, and potentially act as a substitute for conventional shear reinforcement [10–17]. In addition,
the randomly oriented steel fibers provide bridging action across the microcracks in the matrix and
improve resistance to crack opening [2,9,18–20]. The shear stress on the interface between the steel
fibers and the surrounding matrix (bond strength between steel fibers and matrix) is a key parameter
in the bridging role and in providing more tensile strength during fracturing. Concrete fails once the
steel fibers either break or are completely pulled out from the concrete.

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790; doi:10.3390/app9224790 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 2 of 38

Despite the advantages of steel fibers as reinforcement in the concrete beams, the number of
research studies on high-strength steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) beam with HSS longitudinal
bar is limited. The general behavior of SFRC beams is presented in a literature review in order to fully
describe the parameters affecting ultimate shear strength of the SFRC beams. In this study, the current
shear strength equations for design and analysis of the SFRC beams derived from different research
studies are summarized. A database is constructed from 236 beams that consist of normal reinforced
concrete and SFRC beams. Every shear strength in the database is compared with the existing shear
strength prediction equations. Furthermore, the high-strength SFRC beam specimens were provided
to be subjected to monotonic loading. Accordingly, the current shear strength prediction equations can
be verified. The new equation for predicting shear strength is proposed based on the evaluation of
shear strength equations studied in this paper.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The General Behavior of SFRC Beams

As summarized by Dinh in 2009 [21], the steel fibers perform a role similar to that of shear
reinforcement in the transversally-reinforced concrete beam. The presence of steel fibers supports the
redistribution of tensile stress, prevents the propagation and opening of diagonal cracks, and is effective
for controlling cracks and fostering the formation of multiple diagonal cracks. Furthermore, like shear
reinforcement, the steel fibers can delay early concrete splitting along the tensile reinforcing bar. It is
known that the orientation and distribution of steel fibers in concrete may not be well controlled due
to possible segregation and fiber balling issues; therefore, the shear strength analysis for an SFRC
beam faces several challenges. The proper distribution of the steel fibers for the improvement of
mechanical properties is also the most important issue related to the steel fiber reinforcement in an
SFRC member. Unlike normal concrete, the opening of wide diagonal cracks in an SFRC beam is
the result of fiber pullout rather than shear reinforcement yielding. Moreover, the pullout behavior
of steel fibers and the bond strength between the steel fibers and the concrete remain a complex
problem [21]. The shear behavior of a simply-supported SFRC beam subject to two-point concentrated
and monotonic loads is affected by beam cross section (shape and size), ratio of shear span-to-effective
depth, tensile reinforcement ratio, concrete compressive strength, size of coarse aggregate, fiber volume
fraction, and the bond stress between steel fibers and the surrounding matrix. The commonly
considered parameters for calculating SFRC ultimate shear stress are the shear span-to-effective depth,
the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio, the concrete compressive strength, the fiber volume
fraction, and the bond stress between steel fibers and the surrounding matrix.
The shear span-to-effective depth ratio has a significant effect on the SFRC ultimate shear strength,
as shown in previous research studies. The arch action occurring in a beam with smaller shear span
transfers load from the loading point to the support directly through a compressive strut. Dinh [21]
reported that Batson et al. in 1972 proposed a critical value of a shear span-to-effective depth ratio of 3
for the SFRC beams. The relationship between normalized shear strength and the shear span-to-effective
depth ratio reported by different researchers is shown in Figure 1 [11]. The symbols Vu , bw , d, f 0 c , a,
ρ, f yl , fu,SF , and Vf shown in Figure 1 stand for beam ultimate shear strength, beam section width,
section effective depth, concrete compressive strength, shear-span length, longitudinal reinforcement
ratio, yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing bar, ultimate tensile strength of steel fiber, and fiber
volume fraction, respectively. It can be seen that the beam shear strength becomes smaller, as the shear
span-to-effective depth ratio increases.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 39

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 3 of 38

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 39

MPa)MPa)
(unit:(unit:
)0.5 c)0.5
/bwc.d.(f'
/bw.d.(f'
Vc,testVc,test

Figure 1. The relationship between normalized shear stress and shear span-to-effective depth ratio [11].

Figure 1. The relationship between normalized shear stress and shear span-to-effective depth ratio [11].
Figure
The1. longitudinal
The relationship between
tensile normalized shear
reinforcement ratiostress
in anand shearbeam
SFRC span-to-effective depth ratio
was investigated as [11].
well. The
SFRCThe beam with greater
longitudinal tensilelongitudinal
reinforcement tensile
ratio reinforcement
in an SFRC beam ratio
wascan resist more
investigated ultimate
as well. shear
The SFRC
The due
strength longitudinal
to an tensileofreinforcement
increase dowel action ratioheight
and in an of SFRC beam was
compression investigated
zone [13,22]. In as well. The
general, the
beam with greater longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio can resist more ultimate shear strength
SFRCfibers
steel beammust with contribute
greater longitudinal
to improving tensile
the reinforcement
dowel strength, ratio
sincecan resist
steel more
fibers ultimate
provide shear
bridging
due to an increase of dowel action and height of compression zone [13,22]. In general, the steel fibers
strength due to
actioncontribute
across thean increase of in dowel action andand height of compression to zone [13,22]. In Swamy
general,andthe
must tomicrocracks
improving the the
dowelmatrix
strength, improve
since steelresistance
fibers provide crack opening.
bridging action across the
steel fibers must
Bahia [23] conducted contribute to improving
an experimental the
study, in todowel
which strength, since steel fibers provide bridging
microcracks in the matrix and improve resistance crackthey provided
opening. Swamy several beam[23]
and Bahia specimens.
conducted They
an
action across
reported that the
the microcracks
concrete in the
strain matrix
prior to and improve
dowel cracking resistance
varied to crack
between 600opening.
× 10 −6 to Swamy
850 × and
10 −6,
experimental study, in which they provided several beam specimens. They reported that the concrete
Bahia [23]
where prior conducted
these to values an
were experimental
relatively study,
highbetween in
compared which they provided several beam specimens. They
strain dowel cracking varied 600to×the 10maximum
−6 to 850 ×tensile
10−6 , strain
whereofthesenormal and were
values even
reported
fiber that the
reinforced concrete
concrete. Asstrain
reportedpriorbytoZarrionpour
dowel cracking and varied
Chao between
[24], the dowel600 action
× 10−6 in to the
850slender
× 10−6,
relatively high compared to the maximum tensile strain of normal and even fiber reinforced concrete.
where
SFRC these values
beams were relatively tohigh compared to the maximum tensile strain of normal and even
As reported byvaried between
Zarrionpour and10 Chao 35%
[24], of
thethe total
dowel shear
action incapacity
the slender as SFRC
the height
beamsof beam
varied varied
between
fiber
betweenreinforced concrete. As reported by Zarrionpour and Chao [24], the dowel action in the slender
10 to 35% 305of theto total
1220shear
mm, capacity
and the as shear span-to-effective
the height of beam varied depth ratio of
between 305tested
to 1220beams
mm, and ranged from
the shear
SFRCtobeams
3.45 3.6. varied between
Therefore, according 10 to
toresearch
35% of the total shear
conducted by capacity
Swamy and as Bahia
the height
[23] of beam
and varied
Zarrionpour
span-to-effective depth ratio of tested beams ranged from 3.45 to 3.6. Therefore, according to research
between
and Chao305 [24],tothe
1220 mm,action
dowel and the shear span-to-effective depth of ratio of tested beams theranged from
conducted by Swamy and Bahiacontributed to the shearand
[23] and Zarrionpour strength
Chao [24], SFRC thebeams.
dowel On action other hand,
contributed
3.45
Dinh to 3.6. Therefore, according to research conducted by Swamy and Bahia [23] and Zarrionpour
to theetshear
al. [25] reported
strength of that
SFRC thebeams.
shear contribution
On the other of hand,
dowel Dinhactionetwasal. ignored according
[25] reported that tothethe test
shear
and Chao
results of [24],
24 the dowel
beams (4 plain action contributed
concrete beams to the
and 20 shear
SFRC strength
beams). of SFRC
The failurebeams.
mode On
forthe other
plain hand,
concrete
contribution of dowel action was ignored according to the test results of 24 beams (4 plain concrete
Dinh
beamsetand al. [25]
was reported
diagonal that the
tension, shear
while 18contribution
SFRC offailed
doweldue actionshear
was ignored according to the test
beams 20 SFRC beams). The failure modebeams
for plain concretetobeams tension.
was Figure
diagonal 2 shows
tension, the
while
results of
relationship 24 beams
between (4 plain
the concrete
normalized beams
shear and 20
strength SFRC
and beams).
the The
longitudinalfailure mode
tensile for plain
reinforcement concrete
ratio
18 SFRC beams failed due to shear tension. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the normalized
beams was diagonal tension, while 18depth
for different SFRC beams
ratios. failed duebe to shear tension. Figure 2 shows the
shear strengthshear-span-to-effective
and the longitudinal tensile reinforcement It canratio seen
for that
different the longitudinal
shear-span-to-effective tensile
relationship
reinforcement between the normalized shear strength and the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio
depth ratios. It ratio
can beimproves
seen that the SFRC shear tensile
the longitudinal strength, regardless ratio
reinforcement of the contribution
improves the SFRC of dowel
shear
for different shear-span-to-effective depth ratios. It can be seen that the longitudinal tensile
action.
strength, regardless of the contribution of dowel action.
reinforcement ratio improves the SFRC shear strength, regardless of the contribution of dowel
action.
0.6 Mansur et al (1986)
(Vf = 0.75%, a/d = 2.8)
0.5
0.6 Mansur et al (1986) Ashour et al (1992)
(Vf = 0.75%, a/d = 2.8) (Vf = 1%, a/d = 4, 6)
0.4
0.5 Ashour et al (1992)
(Vf = 1%, a/d = 4, 6)
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
a/d = 2.8
0.1
0.2 a/d = 4
a/d = 6
a/d = 2.8
0.10 a/d = 4
0 1 2 3 4 a/d = 6 5
0 (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5
FigureFigure 2. Relationships
2. Relationships between
between normalized
normalized shear shear (%)
stress stress and longitudinal
and longitudinal tensiletensile reinforcement
reinforcement ratio
ratio [11,13].
[11,13].
Figure 2. Relationships between normalized shear stress and longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio
[11,13].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 4 of 38

The concrete compressive stress is one of the important parameters for ultimate shear strength
of the SFRC beam. It can be observed from research conducted by Kwak et al. [17] that when the
concrete compressive strengths were increased up to 100%, while other parameters remained the
same, the improvements of ultimate shear strength were 26%, 21%, and 20% for beams with shear
span-to-effective depth ratio of 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
In regard to the contribution of aggregate size to shear capacity, greater aggregate size in the SFRC
beam could enhance the shear resistance of the beam due to increased aggregate interlock [21]. To be
on the safe side, most researchers selected aggregate with maximum size of 9.5 mm accordingly [21].
Zarrionpour and Chao [24] measured the shear resistance from aggregate interlock at any point along
crack length with a crack width exceeding 0.2 mm. It was reported that the contribution of aggregate
interlock to shear resistance ranged from 0 to 5% [24]. Also, it was reported that the aggregate interlock
in the SFRC beams had a minor contribution at the point where the beams reached their peak strength.
The last two important parameters are the fiber volume fraction and the bond strength of the
fiber-matrix interface. The effect of fiber volume fraction on shear strength also depends on fiber
diameter and fiber length [21]. The table in Appendix A presents the shear stresses of SFRC beams
with different fiber volume fraction and aspect ratio, where those results are part of the experimental
results collected in this study. It can be seen that when the fiber volume fraction and the steel fiber
aspect ratio are varied, while other parameters remain the same, there is almost no difference in the
shear stresses. For example, it can be found from the test results conducted by Dinh et al. [25], in which
4 SFRC beams contained 2 different steel fiber aspect ratios and fiber volume fractions, while other
parameters remained the same. The specimens B18-3c, B18-3d, B18-5a, and B18-5b had similar ultimate
shear stress. This is because specimens B18-3c, B18-3d, B18-5a, and B18-5b had a similar reinforcing
index for steel fiber, RI, in which RI is a multiplication of the steel fiber aspect ratio and the fiber
volume fraction. Improving the fiber volume fraction may improve shear strength significantly, if the
fiber volume fraction is the only parameter improved, while other parameters, including steel fiber
aspect ratio, are kept to remain the same [11,26].
The bond strength of the fiber-matrix interface has usually been neglected. Swamy et al. [27] set the
bond strength between steel fibers and concrete matrix at 4.15 MPa. Liao et al. [2] and Perceka et al. [9]
conducted single-fiber pullout tests to determine the equivalent bond strength that describes the bond
strength of the fiber-matrix interface. In order to account for the equivalent bond strength, τeq , Equation
(1) that was proposed by Kim et al. [2] can be used. In addition, Liao et al. [2] and Perceka et al. [9] used
micromechanical model proposed by Xu et al. in 2011 [2,9] to verify the experimental results. Both
authors reported that the difference between the experimental and analytical results was only 10% [2].

τeq = 2Epullout/πDf L2e (1)

where Epullout is the pullout energy defined as an area under a pullout force-slip curve, Df is fiber
diameter, and Le is the length of fiber embedded in the matrix.

2.2. Shear Strength Prediction Equations

The number of equations used to predict the shear strength of SFRC beams without shear
reinforcement can be found in many research studies. Selected shear strength prediction equations
for the SFRC beam without shear reinforcement proposed by previous researchers are shown in
Equations (2)–(12).
Sharma [10]:
2
Vc,SF = ft0 (d/a)0.25 bw d (2)
3
where ft0 is the concrete tensile strength based on split-cylinder test.
Narayan and Darwish [12]:
 h i 
Vc,SF = e 0.24 fsp f c + 80ρd/a + vb bw d (3)
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 5 of 38

 √  √
With fsp f c = fcu f / 20 − F + 0.7 + 1.0 F; F = (Lf /Df )Vf df and vb = 0.41τF (4)

where fsp f c is the computed value of split-cylinder strength of fiber concrete, F is the fiber factor; fcu f is
the cube strength of fiber concrete, Lf is the steel fiber length, τ is the average fiber interfacial bond
stress that can be taken as 4.15 MPa [17], df is the bond factor: 0.5 for round fibers, 0.75 for crimped
fibers, and 1.00 for indented fibers, vb the shear stress provided by steel fibers, e is the arch action that
is equal to 1.0 for da greater than 2.80 and equal to 2.8 da for da less than 2.80.
Ashour et al. [13]:
The first equation (Equations (5a) and (5b)):
 q 
for a/d ≥ 2.5, Vc,SF = 2.11 f c + 7F (ρd/a)0.333 bw d
3 0 (5a)

" #
2.5
q 
for a/d < 2.5, Vc,SF = 2.11 3
f 0 c + 7F (ρd/a)0.333 + vb (2.5 − a/d) bw d (5b)
(a/d)
The second equation (Equation (6)):
 q  
Vc,SF = 0.7 f 0 c + 7F d/a + 17.2ρd/a bw d (6)

Parra-Montesinos [15]:
Parra-Montesinos in 2006 summarized the test data from beams subjected to shear force and
reported the use of deformed steel fibers as an alternative minimum stirrups for beams subjected
p p
to factored shear forces ranging from 0.085 f 0 c bw d to 1.7 f 0 c bw d (in SI units). The range of those
values corresponds to 0.5Vc and Vc . The SFRC beams with a fiber volume fraction of 0.75% or greater
p
exhibited ultimate shear stresses that were greater than the conservative lower bound value of 0.3 f 0 c
MPa. Therefore, the shear strength of SFRC beam can be expressed in Equation (7).
q
Vc,SF = 0.3 f 0 c bw d (N) (7)

Kwak et al. [17]:

Kwak et al. in 2002 conducted an experimental program and proposed equations to predict the
shear strength of SFRC beams, as shown in Equation (8). The shear strength prediction equation is
expressed in Equation (8a).
 2 
Vc,SF = 3.7 e fsp3 f c (ρd/a) /3 + 0.8vb bw d
1
(8a)

where e is shown in Equation (8b).

e = 1.0 for a/d > 3.4, and 3.4 d/a for a/d ≤ 3.4 (8b)

Dinh [21]:
The proposed shear strength is expressed in Equation (9), where the first and second terms are the
contribution of the beam compression zone to shear strength and shear strength provided by steel
fibers, respectively. It shall be noted that 0.11 f 0 c is the uniform shear stress that is associated with
the normal stress of 0.85 f 0 c . This shear stress is assumed to act over the depth of the compression
zone. Furthermore, the contribution of steel fibers to shear strength was derived by assuming the
transferred tensile force across the critical crack through fiber tension depending on the crack width.
The magnitude of that tensile force was estimated by using the constant stress rather than actual
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 6 of 38

distribution. In order to simplify the derivation process, the tensile force below the tensile longitudinal
reinforcing bar was ignored.
0
 0.11 f c β1 c + (σt )avg (d − c)cot(α) 
 
Vc,SF =  bw d (9)
d 

 14
Vf

with : (σt )avg = 0.8 × 1.5 (10)
0.0075
where c is the depth of neutral axis; β1 is the ratio of equivalent rectangular compressive stress block
depth-to-neutral axis depth; α is the angle for critical inclined crack (set as 45 degree); and (σt )avg is the
average tensile stress.
Wu [28]:
Wu modified Dinh’s shear strength model (2014). The uniform shear stress is 0.12f’c instead of
0.11f’c . This uniform shear stress corresponded with the normal stress of 0.80f’c . In addition, the strain
in the extreme layer of the concrete compression zone was assumed to be 0.004 rather than 0.003 from
the regression results of SFRC cylinder tests. The shear strength model proposed by Wu is given in
Equation (11), in which the parameters λ1 , λ2 , and λ3 are defined as 0.25, 1.2, and 1, respectively.

0.12 f 0 c β1 c + σpc (h − c)cot(α)

!
Vc,SF = bw d (11)
d

Lf
with σpc = λ1 λ2 λ3 V τeq (12)
Df f
where h is the beam section height; σpc is the post-cracking stress; and λ1 λ2 λ3 is the factor relating
fibers pullout ratio, efficiency factor of orientation in the crack state, and the number of fibers pulling
out per unit area.

2.3. Evaluation of Shear Strength Prediction Equations

Eight equations are compared with test results. Two-hundred thirty-six test results from reinforced
concrete and SFRC beams without shear reinforcement and with concrete compressive stress ranging
from 20.6 to 194 MPa, shear span-to-effective depth ratio ranging from 1.0 to 6.0, and fiber volume
fraction ranging from 0 to 2%, are collected [11,13,17,21,24–26,29–39]. The relationship between
measured and predicted shear strengths using previous shear strength prediction equations is shown
in Figure 3. The statistic evaluation results, namely mean and coefficient of variation (COV) values
for comparison between measured and predicted strengths are summarized in Table 1 and shown in
Figure 3 as well. If a data point appears above the solid line, the measured strength is greater than the
predicted stress; otherwise, the predicted strength is greater than the measured strength. Two dashed
lines are shown as boundaries with 20% offset from the predicted shear strength.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 7 of 38
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 39

Average = 0.94
COV = 0.45
8
SFRC beams
RC beams
6

0
0 2 4 6 8
vc,predicted or vc,SFRC,predicted (MPa)
or
Vc,predicted or Vc,SFRC,predicted (kN)
(a) Sharma (1986)

(b) Narayanan and Darwish (1987)

Figure 3. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 8 of 38
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 39

(c) Ashour et al. (1992) [Equation (5a)]

(d) Ashour et al. (1992) [Equation (6)]

Figure 3. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 9 of 38
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 39

(e) Parra-Montesinos (2006)

(f) Kwak et al. (2002)

Figure 3. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 10 of 38
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 39

(g) Dinh (2011)

(h) Wu (2014)

Figure 3. Comparison between measured and predicted shear strengths.

Figure 3. Comparison between measured and predicted shear strengths.

Table 1. Statistical evaluation results for comparison between measured and predicted shear
strengths.

Shear Strength Model Mean of Vc,exp/Vc,pre COV

Sharma (1986) 0.94 0.45
Narayanan and Darwish (1987) 1.27 0.35
Equation (5a) 1.64 0.38
Ashour et al. (1992)
Equation (6) 1.34 0.39
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 11 of 38

Table 1. Statistical evaluation results for comparison between measured and predicted shear strengths.

Shear Strength Model Mean of Vc,exp /Vc,pre COV

Sharma (1986) 0.94 0.45
Narayanan and Darwish (1987) 1.27 0.35
Equation (5a) 1.64 0.38
Ashour et al. (1992)
Equation (6) 1.34 0.39
Parra-Montesinos (2006) 1.28 0.51
Kwak et al. (2002) 1.37 0.37
Dinh (2011) 1.47 0.63
Yung-Fu Wu (2014) 1.43 0.58

The shear strength model proposed by Sharma (Equation (2)) tends to overestimate the shear
strength of SFRC beam. One-hundred specimens appear below the lower dashed line, which means that
the measured shear strength values of 100 specimens are less than 80% of the corresponding predicted
shear strength values. On the other hand, the measured shear strength values of 57 specimens are greater
than 120% of the corresponding predicted shear strength values. Calculated shear strength values using
the model proposed Narayanan and Darwish (Equation (3)) and Ashour et al. (Equations (5) and (6))
show conservative results compared to results from Sharma’s equation (Equation (2)). This may have
occurred due to the former three equations considering explicitly the parameters affecting the shear
strength of SFRC beams. By contrast, Sharma’s model misses the effects of longitudinal reinforcement
ratio and steel fiber parameters. By using Equations (3) and (5), most of the data appears above the lower
dashed line; by contrast, using the second equation of Ashour et al. (Equation (6)) exhibits more data
appearing below the bottom dashed line (Figure 3d) compared to results from Equations (3) and (5).
Parra-Montesinos [15] constructed a database by considering the shear span-to-effective depth
ratio, cylinder concrete compressive strength, fiber volume fraction, steel fiber tensile strength, and fiber
p
aspect ratio. Parra-Montesinos [15] set 0.3 f 0 c (Equation (7)) as a lower bound for evaluating the
application of steel fibers in SFRC beams and for supporting the use of deformed steel fibers as
the minimum shear reinforcement regardless of the shear span-to-effective depth ratio, concrete
compressive strength, or the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio. Parra-Montesinos [15] reported
that the shear stress values of SFRC beams with fiber volume fraction of 0.75% or greater (based
p
on Parra-Montesinos’s database) were greater than 0.3 f 0 c (MPa). Figure 3e shows that there are
60 specimens located below the lower dashed line. In general, the shear strength model from
Parra-Montesinos (Equation (7)) is more conservative than that derived by Sharma (Equation (2)).
The equation proposed by Kwak et al. (Equation (8)) appears to be superior to the equations
proposed by Sharma (Equation (2)), Narayanan and Darwish (Equation (3)), and Ashour et al.
(Equation (5)). Only 18 points appear below the lower dashed line. This number is slightly greater than
the number exhibited by using Equation (6). The shear model proposed by Kwak et al. involves the
important parameters affecting shear strength. Dinh’s shear strength model is not as conservative as
the shear strength model proposed by Kwak et al., since the former has 131 specimens appearing above
the upper dashed line, while the latter shows 137 specimens appearing above the upper dashed line.
Wu’s shear strength model is simillar to Dinh’s shear strength model; however, the latter shows better
results. Using Wu’s equation leads 32 specimens to lie below the bottom dashed line, while Dinh’s
equation results in 30 specimens lying below the bottom dashed line. Among the eight equations
reviewed, the shear strength prediction equation proposed by Narayan and Darwish (Equation (3)) [12]
shows the smallest coefficient of variation (COV). Therefore, out of these eight equations, Equation (3)
can show more precise results.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 12 of 38

3. Experimental Program
The purpose of the experimental program is to verify the shear strength prediction equations
collected in this study. Ten SFRC specimens were prepared. A detailed experimental program is shown
in the next three sub-chapters.

3.1. Specimen Design

The specimens were divided into two series, designated as B1 and B2. There were 6 beams for
series B1 and 4 beams for series B2. The beams were tested up to failure, in order to evaluate the
effects of shear span-to-effective depth ratio and longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio, and to verify
the proposed equation. Those varied parameters were selected because the shear span-to-effective
depth and longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratios were superior to other parameters in affecting the
shear strength of SFRC beam. Moreover, the shear-span-to-effective depth ratios were selected in such
way that the specimens were classified as specimens with short to long shear spans. In the case of a
specimen with intermediate shear span-to-effective depth ratio, the failure mode can be either shear
failure or flexural failure.
Table 2 shows the details of specimen design. The beams in series B1 that had a section size of
100 mm × 200 mm were divided into three types on the basis of their length. The beam lengths of
980 mm, 1320 mm, and 1660 mm corresponded with shear span-to-effective depth ratios of 2, 3, and 4,
respectively. Every beam in series B1 was reinforced longitudinally by using a longitudinal bar with a
diameter of 13 mm (#4). Also, each beam of each length in series B1 had two types of longitudinal
reinforcing bar ratios, that amounted to 0.75% and 1.5%. The first ID denotes the series number
with the two numbers following the series number denoting the shear span-to-effective depth and
longitudinal reinforcement ratios. For beams in series B2, the section size for all beams tested was 100
mm × 250 mm and the beams were divided into two types on the basis of their length. The lengths of
1480 mm and 1700 mm corresponded with shear span-to-effective depth ratios of 2.5 and 3, respectively.
A longitudinal bar with a diameter of 25.4 mm (#8) was provided for each beam in series B2. The
first ID in series B2 show the series number and is followed by three numbers. The first, second and
third numbers following the series ID are the shear-span-to-effective depth ratio, the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, and the specimen number, respectively. It is worth mentioning that there are two
specimens for each shear span-to-effective depth ratio.

Table 2. Details of specimen design.

Longitudinal Reinforcing Steel Fibers

Specimen b h d L
ID (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) fy,specified Vf Lf Df fsu,SF
ρ (%) n-Size
(MPa) (%) (mm) (mm) (MPa)
B1-2-0.75 980
B1-3-0.75 1320 0.75 1-#4
B1-4-0.75 1660
100 200 176.35 785 1.5 30 0.38 2300
B1-2-1.5 980
B1-3-1.5 1320 1.5 2-#4
B1-4-1.5 1660
B2-2.5-2.5-1
1480
B2-2.5-2.5-2
100 250 197.3 685 2.5 1-#8 1.5 30 0.38 2300
B2-3-2.5-1
1700
B2-3-2.5-2

No stirrups were provided for both series, so the high-strength hooked-end steel fibers with a
fiber volume fraction of 1.5% were used instead. It is noteworthy that the fiber volume fraction or fiber
volume ratio is defined as the fiber volume percentage in the entire volume of a fiber reinforced concrete.
The longitudinal reinforcing bars were extended over the supports, hooked upward, and enclosed
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 13 of 38

with stirrups with diameter of 10 mm and yield stress of 420 MPa in each end of each beam. Figure 4
shows the details of specimens.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 39

(a) Beam specimens in series B1

3-#3@3cm-SD420

2.5 cm

Strain gauge

ρ = 2.57% 3 cm

14.5 cm 14.5 cm
L = 148 cm, 167 cm
#8SD685

(b) Beam specimens of series B2

P ( from actuator )

optical sensor
P /2

roller

100 mm

shear span 200mm shear span

(c) Test setup

(d) Selected beam specimen subjected to two point vertical loads

Figure 4. Specimen
Figure design,
4. Specimen test
design, testsetup
setupand
and configuration
configuration ofofinstruments,
instruments,andand a beam
a beam subjected
subjected to to
monotonic two two
monotonic point vertical
point loads.
vertical loads.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 14 of 38

3.2. Materials
The designed concrete compressive strength was 70 MPa. The concrete specimens were made of
ASTM type I Portland cement, granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), fly ash (series B1), silica fume
(series B2), coarse aggregates with a nominal maximum size of 19.05 mm (series B1) and 9.5 mm (series
B2), natural river sands as fine aggregate with finesses modulus of 2.8, and superplasticizer, which was
used to improve the workability of fresh concrete. The longitudinal reinforcement was high-strength
reinforcing bars with specified yield strength of 685 MPa and 785 MPa for bars #8 and #4, respectively.
Furthermore, the steel fibers were high-strength, hooked-end steel fibers with an ultimate tensile
strength of 2300 MPa, a diameter of 0.38 mm, a length of 30 mm, a specific gravity of 7.85, and an
elastic modulus of 200 GPa. Table 3 presents two mix proportions for series B1 and B2. The weight
of steel fibers in 1 m3 of concrete is determined by multiplying fiber volume fraction with density of
steel fibers.

Table 3. Details of mix proportions (kg/m3 ).

Silica Coarse Steel

Series Cement GGBS Fly Ash Sand Water SP
Fume Aggregate Fibers
B1 373 203 102 - 993 462 230 5 118
B2 372 255 - 50 1000 400 215 9.3 118

3.3. Test Setup

Along with each beam, control cylinders were prepared. Compression tests were conducted on
100 × 200 mm cylindrical specimens according to ASTM C39. A servo-hydraulic, closed-loop testing
machine with a capacity of 1000 kN applying a monotonically increasing displacement loading with
a constant rate of 0.01 mm/s performed compression tests on concrete cylinders. This machine was
also used to perform tensile tests on longitudinal bars in order to measure yield and ultimate stress.
The beam specimen testing arrangement is shown in Figure 4. Two concentrated loads were applied at
the top of the beam specimens. The beam tests were performed with a servo-hydraulic, closed-loop
testing machine with a capacity of 5000 kN and a displacement rate of 0.01 mm/s. The beams were
supported by a hinge on one end and roller at the other. In order to record specimen deformation,
an optical motion tracking system was used to detect the movement of 18 optical sensors attached on
specimens, as shown in Figure 4c. The selected beam specimen experiencing bending test is shown in
Figure 4d.

4. Experimental Results

4.1. Material Test Results

Tables 4 and 5 show the test results from the compression tests of concrete cylinders and the
tensile tests on reinforcing bars, respectively. The compression tests were performed on the same day
with testing specimens. It can be seen that concrete cylinders corresponding to specimens B1 had
compressive strength greater than 70 MPa. For concrete cylinders corresponding to B2, it showed that
these concrete compressive strengths were slightly less than 70 MPa. The tensile test results show that
bars with diameters of 13 mm and 25 mm had yield stresses larger than their specified yield stresses.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 15 of 38

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 39

Table 4. Compression test results for concrete cylinders.
Table 4. Compression
Specimen ID test resultsCompressive
Concrete for concrete cylinders.
Stress (MPa)
Specimen
B1-2-0.75, ID
B1-2-1.50 Concrete Compressive Stress (MPa)
82.4
B1-3-0.75, B1-3-1.5
B1-2-0.75, B1-2-1.50
82.4
B1-3-0.75,
B1-4-0.75,B1-3-1.5
B1-4-1.5 78.2
B1-4-0.75, B1-4-1.5
B2-2.5-2.5-1, B2-2.5-2.5-2 61.578.2
B2-2.5-2.5-1,
B2-3-2.5-1,B2-2.5-2.5-2
B2-3-2.5-2 62.461.5
B2-3-2.5-1, B2-3-2.5-2 62.4
Table 5. Tensile test results for reinforcing bars.
Table 5. Tensile test results for reinforcing bars.
ReinforcingBarBar Size
Size Specified Yield Stress Test Results (MPa)
Reinforcing Specified Yield Test Results (MPa)
(Diameter [mm]) (MPa) Yield Stress Ultimate Stress
(Diameter [mm]) Stress (MPa) Yield Stress Ultimate Stress
#4#4(12.7
(12.7mm)
mm) 785
785 785
785 978
978
#8 (25.4 mm) 685 703 907
#8 (25.4 mm) 685 703 907

4.2.
4.2. Specimen
Specimen Failure
Failure
The
The total
total vertical
vertical load-midspan
load-midspan deflection
deflection relationship
relationship for for selected
selected specimens
specimens is is presented
presented in in
Figure
Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the final appearance of all specimens. Almost all beams in series B1B1
5. Figure 6 shows the final appearance of all specimens. Almost all beams in series failed
failed in
in flexural
flexural followedbybyshear
followed shear(flexural-shear
(flexural-shearfailure),
failure),except
except B1-2-1.5.
B1-2-1.5. The
The specimen
specimen B1-2-1.5
B1-2-1.5 showed
showed
arch
arch action instead of beam action. The inclined cracking in specimen B1-2-1.5 claimed that the load
action instead of beam action. The inclined cracking in specimen B1-2-1.5 claimed that the load
was
was transferred
transferred directly
directly to
to the
thesupport
supportthrough
throughcompression
compressionstrut. strut. Therefore,
Therefore, the the failure
failure mode
mode of of
specimen
specimen B1-2-1.5
B1-2-1.5 was
was compression
compression strutstrut failure.
failure. For the beam failing in flexural or flexural-shear,
the
the strain
straingauge
gaugeattached
attached onona longitudinal
a longitudinal reinforcing
reinforcingbar proved
bar provedthat the
thatyield
the strain occurred
yield strain when
occurred
the
when peakthestrength of a specimen
peak strength was reached.
of a specimen In general,
was reached. flexural flexural
In general, and shear andcracks
shearappeared and the
cracks appeared
crack
and the crack opening at the middle of beam gradually increased as the vertical load increased.can
opening at the middle of beam gradually increased as the vertical load increased. It be
It can
seen in Figure 6, that the beams of series B1 (except B1-4-1.5) showed cracks
be seen in Figure 6, that the beams of series B1 (except B1-4-1.5) showed cracks around the around the concentrated
load. Specimen
concentrated B1-4-1.5
load. showed
Specimen a horizontal
B1-4-1.5 showed crack and a vertical
a horizontal crackcrack
and that opened
a vertical gradually
crack at the
that opened
middle of the specimen. The failure mode of specimen B1-4-1.5-1 consisted
gradually at the middle of the specimen. The failure mode of specimen B1-4-1.5-1 consisted of flexural-shear and bond of
splitting failures.
flexural-shear and bond splitting failures.

300
250
200
Force (kN)

150
100
a/d = 2 to 2.5
50 B2-2.5-2.5-1
B1-2-1.50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deflection (mm)

(a) a/d of 2 and 2.5

Figure 5. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 16 of 38
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 39

(b) a/d of 3

(c) a/d of 4

Figure 5. The
The force-middle
force-middle span deflection curves for selected specimens.
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 17 of 38
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 39

(a) B1-2-0.75 (b) B1-2-1.5

(c) B1-3-0.75 (d) B1-3-1.5

(e) B1-4-0.75 (f) B1-4-1.50

(g) B2-2.5-2.5-1 (h) B2-2.5-2.5-2

Figure 6.
Figure 6. The
The final
final appearance
appearance of
of beam
beam specimens
specimens at
at the
theend
endof
oftests.
tests.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 18 of 38

Specimens series B2 consisted of 4 SFRC beams. Three of four specimens failed in shear. The failure
mode of B2-3-2.5-1 was a combination of compression failure due to flexural and web crushing, where
yielding of the longitudinal reinforcing bars occurred. For beam B2-2.5-2.5-1, the diagonal cracks
appeared as the load gradually increased. Small flexural cracks also appeared. A large diagonal
crack and horizontal crack appeared on one of the shear spans, followed by the crushing of concrete
directly at the top of the beam (around the concentrated load). These failure modes show that
beam B2-2.5-2.5-1 had a combination of diagonal tension and shear compression failures. For beam
B2-2.5-2.5-2, the diagonal cracks appeared as the load gradually increased. The crushing of concrete
occurring around the concentrated load and large diagonal crack in one of shear spans occurred
simultaneously. The final appearance of beam B2-2.5-2.5-2 shows that the beam failed due to a
combination of diagonal tension and shear compression failures. For beam B2-3-2.5-1, cracks started
appearing from the middle of both shear spans (left and right shear spans); it then propagated to the
middle span around the concentrated loads. Cracks on the middle span became larger, and crushing
of concrete at the top of beam occurred. In addition, it was found that yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement occurred in specimen B2-3-2.5-1. Therefore, beam B2-3-2.5-1 failed due to web shear
crushing and flexural failure. Beam B2-3-2.5-2 failed due to diagonal tension and shear compression
failures. As the vertical load gradually increased, cracks appeared on both shear spans. Cracks tended
to propagate to the middle span around concentrated loads. The crushing of concrete at the top of the
beam occurred first, and width of diagonal crack became larger accordingly.
In general, based on the failure modes, a beam with shear-span-to-effective depth ratio of 2
to 2.5 refers to beam with a short shear span-to-effective depth ratio, and the most failure mode is
shear failure. For a beam with a shear-span-to-effective depth ratio of 4, the failure mode expected
is flexure or flexure-shear failure. In addition, this beam can be classified as a beam with long
shear-span-to-effective depth ratio. Meanwhile, two possibilities of failure mode can occur in beams
with a shear span-to-effective depth ratio of 3. As mentioned, two beams with a shear span-to-effective
depth ratio of 3 showed different failure modes. According to the failure modes, this study indicates
that the minimum shear span-to-effective depth ratio for a flexural member is 3.

4.3. Ultimate Shear Strength

The shear strengths corresponding to nominal flexural strength, the test results for SFRC beams,
and the predicted shear strengths based on previous shear strength prediction models are summarized
in Table 6. The shear strength a specimen was defined as half of the maximum force (Vc,test = 0.5Pu,max ).
The symbol Pu,max denotes the maximum of vertical load applied by the vertical actuator, while the
symbol Vn,f * stands for the shear strength corresponding to flexural strength. The effect of shear
span-to-effective depth and longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratios can be observed from beam B1.
For beam B2, only the effect of shear span-to-effective depth ratio was observed. Moreover, the mean
and COV values for measured-to-predicted strengths are shown in Table 6.
From beams B1 with a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 0.75%, the shear strength of beams
B1-2-0.75, B1-3-0.75, and beams B1-4-0.75 were 72.6 kN, 46.50 kN, and 35.70 kN, respectively. For series
B1 with a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 0.75%, the decrease of the ultimate shear stress due
to the change of the shear span-to-effective depth ratio from 2 to 3, and 3 to 4 were about 36% and
23%, respectively. In series B1, with a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 1.50%, the ultimate shear
strength decrease was about 24% when the shear span-to-effective depth ratio increased from 2 to 3,
and the shear span-to-effective depth ratio increasing from 3 to 4 led the shear strength to decrease
by about 21%. In addition, improving the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio increased ultimate
shear strength by about 46%, 73%, and 71% for beams with span-to-effective depth ratios of 2, 3, and 4,
respectively. From series B2, the improvement of the shear span-to-effective depth ratio from 2.5 to 3
decreased ultimate shear strength by about 12%.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 19 of 38

Table 6. Comparison between measured and predicted strengths.

Predicted Shear Strengths (kN)

Specimen Vn,f Vc,test Narayanan Ashour et al. (1992) Parra- Kwak

Sharma Dinh Wu
ID (kN) (kN) and Darwish Equation Equation Montesinos et al.
(1986) (2009) (2014)
(1987) (5a) (6) (2006) (2002)

B1-2-0.75 60.71 72.6 70.90 71.41 28.49 67.62 48.02 57.31 39.58 70.84
B1-2-1.50 104.15 106.1 70.90 78.84 35.89 68.76 48.02 64.81 49.18 78.83
B1-3-0.75 40.48 46.50 64.06 59.40 24.89 45.08 48.02 53.66 39.58 70.84
B1-3-1.50 69.43 80.50 64.06 62.93 31.35 45.84 48.02 60.21 49.18 78.83
B1-4-0.75 30.17 35.70 58.08 57.48 22.27 33.09 46.78 50.57 39.37 69.44
B1-4-1.50 51.72 63.30 58.08 60.13 28.05 33.66 46.78 56.32 48.76 77.16
B2-2.5-2.5-1 114.81 120.55 64.81 76.93 40.87 56.16 46.42 68.96 59.30 92.10
B2-2.5-2.5-2 114.81 114.63 64.81 76.93 40.87 56.16 46.42 68.96 59.30 92.10
B2-3-2.5-1 97.09 95.10 62.37 70.49 38.62 47.06 46.76 67.11 59.78 92.95
B2-3-2.5-2 97.09 114.63 62.37 70.49 38.62 47.06 46.76 67.11 59.78 92.95
Mean of Vc,test /Vc,predicted 1.32 1.21 2.50 1.70 1.80 1.35 1.65 1.02
COV 0.34 0.28 0.19 0.29 0.36 0.27 0.25 0.28

In general, the test results present the effect of the shear span-to-effective depth ratio and the
longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. According to Figure 1, increasing
the shear span-to-effective depth ratio decreases the normalized ultimate shear strength by 14 to
24%. Therefore, the trend showing the decrease of ultimate shear strength with the increase of
shear-span-to-effective depth ratio shown in Figure 1 agrees with the experimental results. Figure 2
shows the effect of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio on the SFRC beam shear strength.
It shows that improving the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio may increase the ultimate shear
strength by approximately 60% or more. This agrees with the improvement of the shear strength from
improving the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio that has been shown in this study. Furthermore,
it can be known that the presence of the high longitudinal reinforcement ratio tends to decrease the
rate of decrease of shear strength due to the increase of shear span-to-effective depth ratio.
No effect of yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement was observed in the experimental
program in this study. However, it can be predicted that varying the yield strength of longitudinal bar
has no effect on shear strength of a normal reinforced concrete or SFRC beam that is designed to fail
in shear.

5. Comparison between Measured Shear Strength and Shear Strength Corresponding to Nominal
Flexural Strength
The shear corresponding to the flexural capacity of each beam is presented. The nominal flexural
strength was calculated based on ACI ITG-4.3R-07 [40], and the tension stress of beam due to the
presence of steel fibers was considered as well. By referring to research conducted by Naaman [41],
the strain and stress distribution and internal force acting on the SFRC beam section are shown in
Figure 7. The rectangular stress block is used
 for compression zone, while the nonlinear distribution
starting from maximum tensile stress σpc near the neutral axis to minimum value at the extreme
tension fiber is the actual tensile stress [41]. For simplification, the tensile stress distribution can be
assumed as an inverse triangle with the maximum tensile stress on the neutral axis [41]. For any RC
beams, the cracks appear at the extreme tension fiber first and continue developing from the extreme
tension fiber to upper parts in tension zone. Therefore, it is acceptable to define the maximum tensile
stress to be near the neutral axis and the smallest tensile stress to be at the extreme tension fiber.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 20 of 38
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 39

α1.f’ c
εcu

½.β1.c
β1.c
c Cc
M

d σpc N.A
h df f’ s
Tsf

εs Ts
fs
εsf
Actual compression
bw stress distribution
Actual tensile stress
distribution

Figure7.7.General
Figure Generalstrain, idealized
strain, stress
idealized distribution,
stress and internal
distribution, force offorce
and internal steel fiber-reinforced concrete
of steel fiber-reinforced
(SFRC) beam
concrete section
(SFRC) beam [41].
section [41].

As mentioned in ACI Committee 544 [42] and reported by Wu [28], the compressive strain at the
As mentioned in ACI Committee 544 [42] and reported by Wu [28], the compressive strain at
extreme layer of the compression zone ranged from 0.0035 to 0.004. Since the depth of the neutral axis
the extreme layer of the compression zone ranged from 0.0035 to 0.004. Since the depth of the neutral
is still unknown, the first key step in section analysis is to accomplish section equilibrium. Therefore,
axis is still unknown, the first key step in section analysis is to accomplish section equilibrium.
by assuming the beam to be only subjected to the bending (with axial force of zero), the sum of the
Therefore, by assuming the beam to be only subjected to the bending (with axial force of zero), the
compression force can be set to be equal to the sum of the tension force, as shown in Equation (13).
sum of the compression force can be set to be equal to the sum of the tension force, as shown in
Solving Equation (13) can be based on a trial and error procedure in order to determine the depth of
Equation (13). Solving Equation (13) can be based on a trial and error procedure in order to
the neutral axis. The nominal moment strength is expressed as the sum of the tension force multiplied
determine the depth of the neutral axis. The nominal moment strength is expressed as the sum of the
by the moment arm, as shown in Equation (14).
tension force multiplied by the moment arm, as shown in Equation (14).
For all series B1, the shear strength corresponding to the flexural strength is less than the measured
For all series B1, the shear strength corresponding to the flexural strength is less than the
shear strength. By contrast, for all series B2, the measured strength tended to be similar to shear
measured shear strength. By contrast, for all series B2, the measured strength tended to be similar to
strength corresponding to flexural strength. Figure 6 shows that three out of four beams in series B2
shear strength corresponding to flexural strength. Figure 6 shows that three out of four beams in
experienced shear failure. The horizontal crack near support and the diagonal cracks from the middle
series B2 experienced shear failure. The horizontal crack near support and the diagonal cracks from
of shear span to the top of the beam around the concentrated load could be discerned. Only specimen
the middle of shear span to the top of the beam around the concentrated load could be discerned.
B2-3-2.5-1 failed due to the combination of flexural and web-crushing with yielding of the longitudinal
Only specimen B2-3-2.5-1 failed due to the combination of flexural and web-crushing with yielding
reinforcing bar. By referring to flexural analysis, the compression force acting on the top of the beam
of the longitudinal reinforcing bar. By referring to flexural analysis, the compression force acting on
due to bending might contribute to produce crushing of concrete on the top of the beams. Therefore,
the top of the beam due to bending might contribute to produce crushing of concrete on the top of
the shear failure and compression failure due to bending might occur simultaneously.
the beams. Therefore, the shear failure and compression failure due to bending might occur
simultaneously.
Cc = Ts + TSF
(13)
or α1 f 0 c bβ1 cC=
c =T
Ass+T + σpc b(h − c)/2
fs SF
h-c (13)
or α1 𝑓′ bβ1 c=A s fs +σpc b  2
1 1 1
 
Mn = Ts d − β1 c + TSF (h − c) + c − β1 c (14)
21 31 1 2
Mn =Ts d- β1 c +TSF h-c + c- β1 c (14)
2 3 2
6. Comparison between Experimental and Predicted Results
The measured ultimate shear strengths were verified using shear prediction equations presented
6. Comparison between Experimental and Predicted Results
in this study. For beams of series B1 with a shear span-to-effective depth of 2, the measured shear
strengths
The were greaterultimate
measured than theshear
shear strengths
strengths predicted
were verifiedby using equations
using summarized
shear prediction in this
equations
study. On the
presented in other hand, the
this study. For measured
beams ofshearseriesstrengths
B1 withofaseries
shearB1 with 3 and 4 anddepth
span-to-effective a longitudinal
of 2, the
reinforcement
measured shear ratiostrengths
of 0.75% were less than than
greater the predicted
the shear shear strengths
strengths proposed
predicted bybyusing
Sharma (1986),
equations
Narayanan and Darwish (1987), and Kwak et al. (2002), Parra-Montesinos (2006),
summarized in this study. On the other hand, the measured shear strengths of series B1 with 3 and 4 and Wu (2014).
In
andcontrast, the equation
a longitudinal proposed by
reinforcement Dinh
ratio of (2011)
0.75%exhibited
were lessa result that predicted
than the was slightly less strengths
shear than the
measured
proposed shearby strength
Sharma for specimen
(1986), B1-1-0.75.and
Narayanan In addition,
Darwish the (1987),
shear strength
and Kwakequationet proposed by
al. (2002),
Wu (2014) slightly overestimated
Parra-Montesinos (2006), and Wuthe shearInstrength
(2014). contrast,ofthe
specimen
equation B1-4-1.5.
proposedForbyspecimens
Dinh (2011)in series B1,
exhibited
the comparison
a result that was between
slightlymeasured
less thanand
the predicted
measuredstrengths showed
shear strength that
for most equations
specimen overestimated
B1-1-0.75. In addition,
the
the shear
shear strength
strengthofequation
SFRC beam specimens,
proposed by Wuwhile only
(2014) both equations
slightly proposed
overestimated by Ashour
the shear et al.
strength of
specimen B1-4-1.5. For specimens in series B1, the comparison between measured and predicted
strengths showed that most equations overestimated the shear strength of SFRC beam specimens,
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 21 of 38

(1992) gave results smaller the than test results. Among specimens B1, only specimen B1-2-1.5 failed in
shear. For series B2, all strengths obtained by using shear strength equations reviewed in this study
were less than those obtained from the experimental program.
It can be expected that the shear strength prediction equations proposed by previous researchers
were developed by using their own test results or a beam database dominated by beam specimens
failing in shear. Therefore, for a specimen with flexural or flexural-shear failure, it is absolutely normal
if the predicted shear strength is greater than the measured shear strength. Meanwhile, as shown
in Table 6, only the Equation (11) could give results closer to the test results of series B2. In general,
Equation (11) can show more precise and reasonable results compared to the other reviewed equations.
The mean and COV values exhibited by using Equation (11) are 1.02 and 0.28, respectively.

7. Proposed Prediction Equations

Based on the test results summarized in Table 6, only the shear strength model proposed by Wu
in 2014 (Equation (11)), tends to be closer to the test results of series B2 compared to other proposed
equations. The predicted results obtained by using Equation (11) are more precise and reasonable than
the predicted results obtained by other researchers. However, based on examination of shear strength
equations by using the shear strength database, Equation (11) is not as accurate as Equation (3). This is
because the former exhibits the mean and COV of 1.43 and 0.58, respectively, while the latter shows
the mean and COV of 1.27 and 0.35, respectively. The inability and inconsistency of previous equations
in predicting the shear strength of SFRC beams prove that the need for a reliable equation to predict
the shear strength of SFRC beams must be realized. Moreover, besides the agreement between the
test and the predicted results, all previous prediction equations are still expressed as the summation
of concrete contribution and steel fiber contribution. No study clearly presented the real mechanism
of steel fibers in concrete nor expressed the steel-fiber and concrete beam parameters as one term.
However, combining steel-fiber and RC beam parameters in one term can be assumed to be acceptable,
since the steel fibers are also part of the materials in the SFRC beam, and it can only be expected that
there must be an interaction between steel fibers and concrete.
In this study, the prediction equation for SFRC beams is proposed by expressing the concrete and
steel fiber parameters in one term. Also, the prediction equation is proposed such that in the absence
of steel fibers, the equation is applicable to reinforced concrete beam without the steel fibers. Therefore,
the prediction equation is expressed as the multiplication between the shear strength equation for
normal RC beams and fiber effectiveness factor. The ACI 318-14 detailed equation for prediction
shear strength [5] is adopted in this study, since this equation is a function of the tensile longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, the shear span-to-effective depth ratio, and the square-root of concrete strength.
In addition, the detailed shear strength equations provided in ACI 318-14 or older versions were
developed based on the analysis reported in the ACI-ASCE Committee 326 report [5,43], where the
discussed failure modes were shear and diagonal tension. Therefore, developing the proposed equation
for SFRC beams from an equation derived based on shear and diagonal tension is reasonable.
The fiber effectiveness factor must contain the fiber aspect ratio, the fiber volume fraction, the bond
strength along fiber-matrix interface, and the concrete strength. The relationship between ratios of shear
stress of SFRC beam specimen-to-plain concrete beam (control specimen) and ratios of multiplication
among the fiber aspect ratio, the fiber volume fraction, the bond strength along fiber-matrix interface
to square-root of concrete strength are presented in Figure 8, in which the fiber effectiveness factor
equation is derived through regression analysis. Based on test results summarized in Table A1, it is
noteworthy that some authors only showed the shear strengths of SFRC beams without providing
the shear strengths of plain concrete beams. Therefore, only 107 test results are involved in Figure 8a.
Figure 8b shows the comparison between ratios of shear stress of SFRC beam specimen-to-plain
concrete beam (control specimen) and predicted fiber effectiveness factors. The proposed equation is
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 39
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 22 of 38

appear below the bottom dashed line in Figure 8b. This may lead the prediction equation to give a
conservative
given result.(16), that was proposed such that only few data appear below the bottom dashed
in Equation
line in Figure 8b. This may lead the prediction equation to Vugive
d a conservative result.
V , = 0.16 𝑓′ +17.2ρw F b d (15)
Mu eff w
V d
 q
u
Vc,SF = 0.16 f 0 c + 17.2ρw L Feff bw d (15)
Mu f
τeq V fd
, where Feff = 1+ f (16)
Lf
τeq V𝑓′
0.75 f df
, where Feff = 1 + p (16)
0.75 f 0 c

(a) The relationship between between Vc,SFRC/Vc,pc and steel fiber parameter

(b) Comparison between Vc,SFRC/Vc,pc and fiber effectiveness factor

Figure 8. Proposed fiber effectiveness factor equation and comparison between SFRC shear
Figure 8. Proposed
strength-to-normal fiber shear
concrete effectiveness
strengthfactor equation
ratios and andfiber
proposed comparison between
effectiveness factor. SFRC shear
strength-to-normal concrete shear strength ratios and proposed fiber effectiveness factor.
Figure 9 shows the relationship between the normalized shear strength and multiplication between
Figurelongitudinal
the tensile 9 shows the relationship ratios
reinforcement between
andthe
the normalized shear strength and depth
ratios of shear-span-to-effective multiplication
divided
between the tensile longitudinal reinforcement ratios and the ratios of shear-span-to-effective depth
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 23 of 38
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 39
!
V.d
divided
by by the square-root
the square-root of concreteofstrength V.d
concreteρ.strength ρ. upper
√ 0 . The . The
boundupper bound
for SFRC for SFRC
beam beam as
is proposed is
M f c M

proposed as multiplication
multiplication between 0.29 between
p
f 0 c (MPa)0.29
and the𝑓′ fiber
(MPa) and the fiber
effectiveness effectiveness
factor factorthe
instead of setting instead of
value to
setting the value to be nearer the average value given by test data.
be nearer the average value given by test data. This consideration is based This consideration is based on the
on the limitation of the
! V.d
limitation of the SFRC beam database, where no test data with a higher value of ρ. appeared.
SFRC beam database, where no test data with a higher value of ρ. V.d √ 0 appeared. MTherefore,
𝒇𝒄 in the
M f c
Therefore, in the absence of steel fibers, the limit of concrete stress remains p equal to 0.29 𝑓′ (MPa),
absence of steel fibers, the limit of concrete stress remains equal to 0.29 f 0 c (MPa), as set in ACI 318-14
as set in ACI 318-14 and previous ACI 318 codes. Using the shear p stress of RC 0.29 𝑓′ (MPa) also
and previous ACI 318 codes. Using the shear stress of RC 0.29 f 0 c (MPa) also reconfirms test data
reconfirms test data constructed by Parra-Montesinos [15], that set the lower boundpshear stress as
constructed by Parra-Montesinos [15], that set the lower bound shear stress as 0.30 f 0 c (MPa) for
0.30 𝑓′
SFRC (MPa)
beam for SFRC beam design.
design.

Figure
Figure 9. The relationship
9. The relationship normalized
normalized beam
beam shear
shear strengths
strengths and
and beam
beam parameters.
parameters.

The proposed shear strength equation is given in Equation (17). Two lines corresponding to the
The proposed shear strength equation is given in Equation (17). Two lines corresponding to the
fiber volume fraction of 0.75% and 1.50% are shown as well. The upper limit of 0.3 in. dashed line,
fiber volume fraction of 0.75% and 1.50% are shown as well. The upper limit of 0.3 in. dashed line,
that corresponds to fiber effectiveness factor for fiber volume fraction of 0.75%, is only passed by few
that corresponds to fiber effectiveness factor for fiber volume fraction of 0.75%, is only passed by few
data points, which correspond with specimens with fiber volume fraction in the range of 0.75% to
data points, which correspond with specimens with fiber volume fraction in the range of 0.75% to
0.80%. Meanwhile, only two data points with a fiber volume fraction of 1.50% pass the upper limit
0.80%. Meanwhile, only two data points with a fiber volume fraction of 1.50% pass the upper limit of
of 0.1 in. dashed line, that corresponds to the fiber effectiveness factor for the fiber volume fraction
0.1 in. dashed line, that corresponds to the fiber effectiveness factor for the fiber volume fraction of
of 1.50%. For practical application, it is highly recommended to use a fiber volume fraction of not
1.50%. For practical application, it is highly recommended to use a fiber volume fraction of not
greater than 1.50%. According to Liao et al. in 2017 and Perceka in 2019 [44], the SFRC material
greater than 1.50%. According to Liao et al. in 2017 and Perceka in 2019 [44], the SFRC material needs
needs fiber volume fraction to be less than 2% to meet tensile strain hardening criteria. With tensile
fiber volume fraction to be less than 2% to meet tensile strain hardening criteria. With tensile strain
strain hardening behavior, a loaded SFRC member experiencing bending moment and shear has more
hardening behavior, a loaded SFRC member experiencing bending moment and shear has more
resistance to crack opening, can avoid strain localization, and improve energy absorbing capability
resistance to crack opening, can avoid strain localization, and improve energy absorbing capability
through showing multiple cracks on its surface. Furthermore, the fiber effectiveness factor shall not
through showing multiple cracks on its surface. Furthermore, the fiber effectiveness factor shall not
exceed 2.6. The maximum number of the fiber effectiveness factor is taken based on the nearest number
exceed 2.6. The maximum number of the fiber effectiveness factor is taken based on the nearest
to the largest value, shown in Figure 8a.
number to the largest value, shown in Figure 8a.
V dd
0 + 17.2ρ Vuu
 q  q
Vc,SF
Vc,SF 0.16 f𝑓′
= =0.16 c +17.2ρ w FF b
eff bwdd ≤
≤ 0.29
0.29 𝑓′f 0Fceff
Feffbwbd
wd (N)
(N) (17)
(17)
w MMuu eff w

8. Evaluation of Proposed Shear Strength Prediction Equation

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 24 of 38

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 39

8. Evaluation of Proposed Shear Strength Prediction Equation

Equation (17) is verified by using 236 test results. The relationship between the test results of
Equation
236 beams and(17)
the is verified results
predicted by using 236 on
based testthe
results. The prediction
proposed relationship betweenisthe
equations test results
shown in Figure of
236 beams
10. The and the
number of predicted resultsbelow
data appearing based the
on the proposed
bottom dashed prediction equations
line is less than 13, is while
shownthere
in Figure
are 15110.
The
test number of data appearing
results appearing above the below the bottom
upper dashed dashed line compared
line. Also, is less thanto 13,Equation
while there(3),are 151 test
using the
results
proposed appearing
predictionabove the upper
equation dashed
results in line.
littleAlso,
loss compared
of accuracy to Equation
of about(3), using
11.43 the proposed
percent, where
prediction
Equations equation results
(3) and (17) in little losswith
corresponds of accuracy
COV of of 0.35
aboutand11.43 percent,
0.39, where Equations
respectively. With mean (3) and (17)
values
corresponds
obtained by withusingCOV of 0.35 (3)
Equations andand0.39, respectively.
(17) corresponding With with
mean1.27values
andobtained by using Equations
1.44, respectively, it can be
(3) and (17)
proven thatcorresponding
the proposedwith 1.27 and
equation is 1.44,
morerespectively,
conservative it can
thanbe proven
Equation that(3).
theTable
proposed equation
7 shows the
is more conservative than Equation (3). Table 7 shows the comparison between
comparison between the shear strength of beam specimens tested and the shear strengths calculated the shear strength of
beam
by usingspecimens
Equation tested
(17).and
For the
theshear
beams strengths
of seriescalculated by using
B1, specimens Equation
B1 with a/d of(17). For the
3 with beams of
longitudinal
series B1, specimens
reinforcement B10.75%
ratio of with a/d
andofa/d3 with longitudinal
of 4 with reinforcement
longitudinal ratio of
reinforcement 0.75%
ratios of and
0.75%a/dand
of 41.50%
with
longitudinal
show that the reinforcement
measured shearratiosstrengths
of 0.75% and were1.50%
less show
than that the measured
the predicted shearshear strengths
strengths. were less
Compared
than
with the
the predicted shear strengths.
shear strengths Compared
of series B2, the oneswith the shear
obtained strengths
by using of series B2,
the proposed the ones equation
prediction obtained
by using the proposed prediction equation shows lower results. The
shows lower results. The mean and COV obtained by using Equation (17) are 1.14 and mean and COV obtained by using
0.30,
Equation (17) are 1.14 and 0.30, respectively.
respectively.

Figure 10. Comparison between experimental and proposed prediction results (Equation (17)).
Figure 10. Comparison between experimental and proposed prediction results (Equation (17)).

Table 7. Comparison between measured and predicted strengths.

strengths.

Specimen ID Vn,f (kN)

Vc,test Vc,proposed Vc,(Equation18a
Vc ,(Equation18a or Equation19) Vc ,(Equation18b
or V c,(Equation18b or
or Equation19)
Vn,f (kN) Vc,test(kN) Vc,proposed(kN) (kN)
Specimen ID Equation19) Equation19)
B1-2-0.75 (kN)
60.71 72.6 (kN)70.75 (kN)69.09 52.56
B1-2-1.50 104.15 106.1 76.48 69.09
(kN) 66.23
(kN)
B1-2-0.75
B1-3-0.75 60.71
40.48 46.50 72.667.89 70.7569.09 69.09 52.56 52.56
B1-3-1.50
B1-2-1.50 69.43
104.15 80.50 106.170.75 76.4869.09 69.09 66.23 66.23
B1-4-0.75 30.17 35.70 65.57 67.63 51.45
B1-3-0.75
B1-4-1.50 40.48
51.72 63.30 46.5067.49 67.8967.63 69.09 64.83 52.56
B1-3-1.50
B2-2.5-1 69.43
114.81 120.55 80.5079.30 70.7568.39 69.09 78.34 66.23
B2-2.5-2 114.81 114.63
B1-4-0.75
B2-3-1
30.17
97.09 95.10
35.7079.30
76.03
65.5768.39
68.89
67.63 78.34
78.91
51.45
B1-4-1.50
B2-3-2 51.72
97.09 114.63 63.3076.03 67.4968.89 67.63 78.91 64.83
B2-2.5-1
Mean of Vc,test114.81
/Vc,predicted 120.551.14 79.30 1.24 68.39 1.24 78.34
B2-2.5-2 COV 114.81 114.630.30 79.30 0.35 68.39 0.24 78.34
B2-3-1 97.09 95.10 76.03 68.89 78.91
B2-3-2 97.09 114.63 76.03 68.89 78.91
Mean of Vc,test/Vc,predicted 1.14 1.24 1.24
COV 0.30 0.35 0.24
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 25 of 38

The evaluation results show that the proposed shear strength prediction equation can be applied
to predict the shear strength of RC or SFRC beams with a concrete compressive strength, fiber volume
fraction, yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing bar, and shear-span-to-effective depth ratio ranging
from 20 MPa to 194 MPa, 0% to 1.5%, 420 MPa to 785 MPa, and 2.5 to 6.0. The shear strength of a beam
with shear-span-to-effective depth ratio less than 2.5, particularly a beam without steel fibers, shall be
calculated or predicted by using other methods, since that beam is classified as deep beam and has
different behavior with beams tested in this study.

9. Examination of Shear Strength Equation Provided in ACI 318-19 Code

According to ACI 318-19 [45], the shear strength of non-prestressed members is a function of
concrete strength, axial load acting on section, size effect, section area, effective depth, member width,
and longitudinal reinforcement ratio. In ACI 318-19, Equations (18a) and (18b) are the equations for
calculating the shear strength of RC members containing the shear reinforcement greater than the
minimum shear reinforcement. For other cases, Equation (19) shall be used. The parameter λs is the
size modification factor that shall be determined by Equation (20), in which the effective depth of beam
to determine λs shall be expressed in inch unit.
!
Nu
q
Vc,SF = 0.17 f0 c + 6A Feff bw d (18a)
g
!
Nu
1
q
Vc,SF = 0.66(ρw ) 3 f 0c +F bw d (18b)
6Ag eff
!
Nu
1
q
Vc,SF = 0.66λs (ρw ) 3 0
f c+ F bw d (19)
6Ag eff
s
2
λs = d
(20)
1+ 10

Due to the absence of shear reinforcing bars in this study, the SFRC beam with a fiber volume
fraction of 0.75% or greater is classified as a RC beam with minimum shear reinforcement; otherwise,
SFRC beams are classified as RC beams with the shear reinforcement less than the minimum shear
reinforcement. Multiplying Equation (18) or (19) with the fiber effectiveness factor is performed to
examine the applicability of the shear strength equation provided in ACI 318-19 as the basic equation
for predicting the shear strength of SFRC beam.
The relationship between measured strengths and predicted shear strengths using the
multiplication between ACI 318-19 and the fiber effectiveness factor is shown in Figure 11. The shear
strength database is used to evaluate the accuracy of the equations. The predicted shear strength shown
in Figure 11a is determined by either Equation (18a) or (19), while Figure 11b shows the predicted
shear strength determined by either Equation (18b) or (19). Figure 11a,b show similar results. Both the
mean and COV shown in those figures are greater than the mean and COV shown in Figure 10.
In addition, the number of data appearing above the upper dashed line in Figure 11a,b is 174 and
171, respectively, and the number of data appearing below the upper dashed line is 14 and 13 for
Figure 11a,b, respectively.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 26 of 38
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 39

(a) Either Equation (18a) or (19)

(b) Either Equation (18b) or (19)

Figure 11.
Figure Comparison between
11. Comparison between experimental
experimental and
and prediction
prediction results
results based
based on
on ACI
ACI 318-19
318-19 Equations.
Equations.

In Table 7, the mean and COV values exhibited by Equation (18) can be seen. Since the fiber
volume fraction in the experimental program was 1.50%, Equation (18) governed the prediction of
shear strengths for all SFRC beam specimens. It can be seen that the prediction results obtained by
using either Equations (18a) or (18b) are not as accurate as the results obtained by using Equation
(17); however, it can be proved that Equation (18) is more conservative than Equation (17).
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 27 of 38

In Table 7, the mean and COV values exhibited by Equation (18) can be seen. Since the fiber
volume fraction in the experimental program was 1.50%, Equation (18) governed the prediction of
shear strengths for all SFRC beam specimens. It can be seen that the prediction results obtained by
using either Equations (18a) or (18b) are not as accurate as the results obtained by using Equation (17);
however, it can be proved that Equation (18) is more conservative than Equation (17).

10. Conclusions
This study presents the results of comparison between the shear strengths of RC and SFRC
beams obtained from experimental and the shear strengths obtained by using previous shear strength
equations. Ten high-strength SFRC beams were prepared and tested to verify the shear strength
prediction equations. The new shear strength model is proposed. In summary, the following conclusions
can be drawn:

(1) Eight equations for predicting the shear strength of SFRC beams proposed by different researchers
were evaluated by using test results obtained from 236 beams. The equations considering the
beam parameters affecting the shear strength are more reasonable than those not considering the
parameters affecting the shear strength.
(2) Ten high-strength SFRC beams were prepared to evaluate and verify the reviewed shear strength
equations. Five of six specimens of series B1 failed in flexural followed by shear (flexural-shear
failure) and one failed in shear. For the specimens of series B2, 3 specimens failed in shear prior
to flexural, where the failure mode was a combination of diagonal tension and shear compression.
By contrast, another beam in series B2 failed due to combination of web crushing and flexural with
crushing on the top of the specimen (around the vertical load) with yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcing bar.
(3) From beams in series B1 with a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 0.75% and 1.50% and beams
in series B2, the ultimate shear strength decreased as the shear span-to-effective depth ratio
increased. In addition, based on the observation of beams in series B1, improving the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio increased the ultimate shear strength.
(4) For series B1, the shear strength corresponding to the flexural strength is less than the measured
shear strengths. These results almost agree with failure modes found in specimens B1, except
specimen B1-2-1.5. On the other hand, the shear strength measured in series B2 tend to be
similar to the shear strength corresponding to flexural strength. By referring to flexural analysis,
the compression force from flexural might contribute to exhibiting crushing of the concrete on top
of specimens of series B2. Accordingly, in series B2, the shear failure and compression failure due
to flexure might occur simultaneously.
(5) The basic proposed prediction equation was derived by following ACI-ASCE 326. The shear
strength of SFRC beam is defined as the multiplication between shear strength of RC beam
provided in ACI 318-14 and fiber effectiveness factor, inpwhich the upper limit of shear strength
of the SFRC beam is set as multiplication between 0.29 fc0 (MPa) and fiber effectiveness factor.
Combining steel fiber and RC beam parameters in one term is reasonable, since there must be an
interaction between steel fibers and concrete. In the absence of steel fibers, the proposed equation
is exactly the same as the detailed equation for predicting shear strength of RC beam, as provided
in ACI 318-14.
(6) Based on the results of comparison between the test results of beams provided in database and
the proposed shear strength prediction equation, the results calculated by using proposed shear
strength prediction equation is more conservative than those calculated by using previous shear
strength equations.
(7) The proposed shear strength prediction equation was used to predict the shear strength of beam
specimens. For series B1, half of the measured shear strengths were less than the proposed
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 28 of 38

prediction shear strengths. Compared to the shear strengths of series B2, the shear strengths
obtained from the proposed shear strength equation show lower results.
(8) The proposed shear strength prediction equation can be applied for beams with a concrete
compressive strength, fiber volume fraction, yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing bar,
and shear span-to-effective depth ratio ranging from 20 MPa to 194 MPa, 0% to 1.5%, 420 MPa to
785 MPa, and 2.5 to 6.0, respectively.
(9) The proposed shear strength prediction equation in this study is developed based on fiber
reinforced concrete (FRC) beam with steel fiber (fiber made of steel material). Therefore, the use
of proposed equation to predict FRC beam with fiber made of other materials should be further
verified by conducting more experimental program on FRC beams with other types of fiber.
(10) For alternative analysis and design of the SFRC beam, the ACI 318-19 shear strength equation is
multiplied by fiber effectiveness factor. Multiplying ACI 318-19 shear strength equations with
fiber effectiveness factor shows conservative results, compared to the results obtained by using
proposed shear strength prediction equation.

Author Contributions: The research project described in this paper was parts of Taiwan NEW RC Project.
These parts were supervised by W.-C.L.; The experimental works were conducted by W.P. and Y.-F.W.; W.P. wrote
the manuscript and proposed the new equations for analysis and design of SFRC beams.
Funding: This research was sponsored by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) of Taiwan under Grant
Nos. 108-2221-E-002-019-MY3 and 108L892503. The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the sponsor.
Acknowledgments: The National Centre for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE) of Taiwan is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors would like to thank Shyh-Jiann Hwang from the Department of Civil Engineering at
National Taiwan University. The authors would also like to appreciate Agie Vianthi who received her Master
Degree in Civil Engineering in 2015 from the Department of Civil Engineering at National Taiwan University
for her contribution to the experimental program. Appreciation is also extended to the Centre for Earthquake
Engineering Research (CEER) at National Taiwan University.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflict of interest.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 29 of 38

Appendix A

Table A1. Normal reinforced concrete and steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) beam database.

Longitudinal
Reinforcement 0 Steel Fibers vu,exp
ID bw (mm) h (mm) d (mm) a/d f c (MPa) Ref.
fyl (a) (c)
fu,SF (MPa)
ρ (%) Type (b) Lf /Df Vf (%)
(MPa) (MPa)
B18-0a 152 455 381 3.43 2.70 448 42.83 - - 0.00 - 1.10
B18-0b 152 455 381 3.43 2.70 448 42.83 - - 0.00 - 1.10
B18-1a 152 455 381 3.43 2.00 496 44.80 H 55 0.75 1100 2.90
B18-1b 152 455 381 3.43 2.00 496 44.80 H 55 0.75 1100 2.80
B18-2a 152 455 381 3.50 2.00 496 38.10 H 55 1.00 1100 3.00
B18-2b 152 455 381 3.50 2.00 496 38.10 H 55 1.00 1100 3.10
B18-2c 152 455 381 3.50 2.70 448 38.10 H 55 1.00 1100 3.50
B18-2d 152 455 381 3.50 2.70 448 38.10 H 55 1.00 1100 2.60
B18-3a 152 455 381 3.43 2.70 448 31.00 H 55 1.50 1100 2.60
B18-3b 152 455 381 3.43 2.70 448 31.00 H 55 1.50 1100 3.40
B18-3c 152 455 381 3.43 2.70 448 44.90 H 55 1.50 1100 3.30
B18-3d 152 455 381 3.43 2.70 448 44.90 H 55 1.50 1100 3.30
B18-5a 152 455 381 3.43 2.70 448 49.20 H 80 1.00 1100 3.00 [21,25,29]
B18-5b 152 455 381 3.43 2.70 448 49.20 H 80 1.00 1100 3.80
B18-7a 152 455 381 3.43 2.00 496 43.30 H 80 0.75 2300 3.30
B18-7b 152 455 381 3.43 2.00 496 43.30 H 80 0.75 2300 3.30
B27-1a 205 685 610 3.50 2.00 455 50.80 H 55 0.75 1100 2.90
B27-1b 205 685 610 3.50 2.00 455 50.80 H 55 0.75 1100 2.70
B27-2a 205 685 610 3.50 2.00 455 28.70 H 80 0.75 1100 2.80
B27-2b 205 685 610 3.50 2.00 455 28.70 H 80 0.75 1100 2.80
B27-3b 205 685 610 3.50 1.60 448 42.30 H 55 0.75 1100 2.80
B27-4a 205 685 610 3.50 1.60 448 29.60 H 80 0.75 1100 2.10
B27-4b 205 685 610 3.50 1.60 448 29.60 H 80 0.75 1100 1.80
B27-5 205 685 610 3.50 2.10 455 44.40 H 55 1.50 1100 3.50
B27-6 205 685 610 3.50 2.10 455 42.80 H 80 1.50 1100 3.40
B27-7 205 685 610 3.50 1.60 448 37.00 - - 0.00 - 1.30
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 30 of 38

Table A1. Cont.

Longitudinal
Reinforcement 0 Steel Fibers vu,exp
ID bw (mm) h (mm) d (mm) a/d f c (MPa) Ref.
fyl (a) fu,SF (c) (MPa)
ρ (%) Type (b) Lf /Df Vf (%)
(MPa) (MPa)
A00 150 250 219 2.80 1.91 610 41.20 - - 0.00 - 1.23
A10 150 250 219 2.80 1.91 610 40.85 H 60 1.00 1115 2.93
A20 150 250 219 2.80 1.91 610 43.20 H 60 2.00 1115 3.14
[30]
B00 150 250 219 2.00 1.91 610 41.20 - - 0.00 - 1.51
B10 150 250 219 2.00 1.91 610 40.90 H 60 1.00 1115 3.50
B20 150 250 219 2.00 1.91 610 43.20 H 60 2.00 1115 3.52
FHB1-2 125 250 212 2.00 1.52 442 62.60 - - 0.00 - 3.02
FHB2-2 125 250 212 2.00 1.52 442 63.80 H 62.5 0.50 1079 5.09
FHB3-2 125 250 212 2.00 1.52 442 68.60 H 62.5 0.75 1079 5.44
FHB1-3 125 250 212 3.00 1.52 442 62.60 - - 0.00 - 2.53
FHB2-3 125 250 212 3.00 1.52 442 63.80 H 62.5 0.50 1079 3.09
FHB3-3 125 250 212 3.00 1.52 442 68.60 H 62.5 0.75 1079 3.40 [17]
FHB1-4 125 250 212 4.00 1.52 442 62.60 - - 0.00 - 1.98
FHB2-4 125 250 212 4.00 1.52 442 63.80 H 62.5 0.50 1079 2.41
FHB3-4 125 250 212 4.00 1.52 442 68.60 H 62.5 0.75 1079 2.74
FNB2-2 125 250 212 2.00 1.52 442 30.80 H 62.5 0.50 1079 4.04
FNB2-3 125 250 212 3.00 1.52 442 30.80 H 62.5 0.50 1079 2.55
FNB2-4 125 250 212 4.00 1.52 442 30.80 H 62.5 0.50 1079 2.00
A1 150 225 197 2.00 1.34 462 24.20 - - 0.00 - 2.03
A2 150 225 197 2.80 1.34 462 24.20 - - 0.00 - 1.52
A3 150 225 197 3.60 1.34 462 24.20 - - 0.00 - 1.30
A4 150 225 197 4.40 1.34 462 24.20 - - 0.00 - 1.14
B1 150 225 197 2.00 1.34 462 29.10 H 60 0.50 1260 2.54
B2 150 225 197 2.80 1.34 462 29.10 H 60 0.50 1260 1.78 [11]
B3 150 225 197 3.60 1.34 462 29.10 H 60 0.50 1260 1.52
B4 150 225 197 4.40 1.34 462 29.10 H 60 0.50 1260 1.29
C1 150 225 197 2.00 1.34 462 29.90 H 60 0.75 1260 2.88
C2 150 225 197 2.80 1.34 462 29.90 H 60 0.75 1260 2.03
C3 150 225 197 3.60 1.34 462 29.90 H 60 0.75 1260 1.61
C4 150 225 197 4.40 1.34 462 29.90 H 60 0.75 1260 1.39
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 31 of 38

Table A1. Cont.

Longitudinal
Steel Fibers
Reinforcement 0 vu,exp
ID bw (mm) h (mm) d (mm) a/d f c (MPa) Ref.
fyl (a) fu,SF (c) (MPa)
ρ (%) Type (b) Lf /Df Vf (%)
(MPa) (MPa)
C5 150 225 197 2.80 0.79 462 29.90 H 60 0.75 1260 1.27
C6 150 225 197 2.80 2.00 462 29.90 H 60 0.75 1260 2.20
D1 150 225 197 2.00 1.34 462 30.00 H 60 1.00 1260 3.15
D2 150 225 197 2.80 1.34 462 30.00 H 60 1.00 1260 2.20
D3 150 225 197 3.60 1.34 462 30.00 H 60 1.00 1260 1.71
D4 150 225 197 4.40 1.34 462 30.00 H 60 1.00 1260 1.49 [11]
E1 150 225 197 2.80 0.79 462 20.60 H 60 0.75 1260 1.18
E2 150 225 197 2.80 1.34 462 20.60 H 60 0.75 1260 1.52
E3 150 225 197 2.80 2.00 462 20.60 H 60 0.75 1260 2.03
F1 150 225 197 2.80 0.79 462 20.60 H 60 0.75 1260 1.58
F2 150 225 197 2.80 1.34 462 20.60 H 60 0.75 1260 2.54
F3 150 225 197 2.80 2.00 462 33.40 H 60 0.75 1260 2.91
A-HSC 200 250 180 3.33 4.50 590 80.00 - - 0.00 - 5.86
A-NSC 200 250 195 3.08 3.10 590 45.90 - - 0.00 - 4.38
A-NSCmix 200 250 195 3.08 3.10 590 39.40 S 75 1.00 1850 4.85
B-HSC 200 300 235 2.77 4.30 500 85.40 - - 0.00 - 5.96
B-HSCS30/0.6 200 300 235 2.77 4.30 500 91.40 H 50 1.00 1100 6.60
C-HSCS60/0.7/0.5 200 500 410 2.93 3.06 590 69.30 H 86 0.50 2200 3.21 [31]
C-HSCS60/0.7/0.5 200 500 410 2.93 3.06 590 69.30 H 86 0.50 2200 3.80
C-HSCS60/0.7/0.75 200 500 410 2.93 3.06 590 60.20 H 86 0.75 2200 4.13
C-HSCS60/0.7/0.75 200 500 410 2.93 3.06 590 75.70 H 86 0.75 2200 3.56
D-HSCS6/0.15 300 700 570 2.98 2.90 590 76.80 S 40 1.00 2600 2.60
D-HSCSmix 300 700 570 2.98 2.90 590 72.00 S 75 1.00 1850 3.33
D-HSCS60/0.7/0.75 300 700 570 2.98 2.90 590 62.00 H 86 0.75 2200 2.98
2/1.0/1.5 152 254 221 1.50 1.10 448 34.00 H 60 1.00 1345 3.16
2/1.0/2.5 152 254 221 2.50 1.10 448 34.00 H 60 1.00 1345 1.79
2/1.0/3.5 152 254 221 3.50 1.10 448 34.00 H 60 1.00 1345 1.38
[32]
2/0.5/1.5 152 254 221 1.50 1.10 448 34.00 H 60 0.50 1345 3.17
2/0.5/2.5 152 254 221 2.50 1.10 448 34.00 H 60 0.50 1345 1.72
2/0.5/3.5 152 254 221 3.50 1.10 448 34.00 H 60 0.50 1345 1.34
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 32 of 38

Table A1. Cont.

Longitudinal
Steel Fibers
Reinforcement 0 vu,exp
ID bw (mm) h (mm) d (mm) a/d f c (MPa) Ref.
fyl (a) fu,SF (c) (MPa)
ρ (%) Type (b) Lf /Df Vf (%)
(MPa) (MPa)
2/0/1.5 152 254 221 3.50 1.10 448 34.00 - - 0.00 - 1.93
2/0/3.5 152 254 221 3.50 1.10 448 34.00 - - 0.00 - 1.17
4/1.0/1.5 152 254 221 3.50 2.39 448 34.00 H 60 1.00 1345 4.38
4/1.0/2.5 152 254 221 3.50 2.39 448 34.00 H 60 1.00 1345 2.45
4/1.0/3.5 152 254 221 3.50 2.39 448 34.00 H 60 1.00 1345 2.00 [32]
4/0.5/1.5 152 254 221 3.50 2.39 448 34.00 H 60 0.50 1345 4.00
4/0.5/2.5 152 254 221 3.50 2.39 448 34.00 H 60 0.50 1345 1.89
4/0.5/3.5 152 254 221 3.50 2.39 448 34.00 H 60 0.50 1345 1.47
4/0/1.5 152 254 221 3.50 2.39 448 34.00 - - 0.00 - 2.37
4/0/3.5 152 254 221 3.50 2.39 448 34.00 - - 0.00 - 1.03
B-2-1.0-L 125 250 215 2.00 0.37 500 92.00 H 75 1.00 260 1.68
B-4-1.0-L 125 250 215 4.00 0.37 500 92.60 H 75 1.00 260 0.89
B-6-1.0-L 125 250 215 6.00 0.37 500 93.70 H 75 1.00 260 0.56
B-1-0.5-A 125 250 215 1.00 2.84 460 99.00 H 75 0.50 260 9.09
B-2-0.5-A 125 250 215 2.00 2.84 460 99.10 H 75 0.50 260 4.82
B-4-0.5-A 125 250 215 4.00 2.84 460 95.40 H 75 0.50 260 2.27
B-6-0.5-A 125 250 215 6.00 2.84 460 95.83 H 75 0.50 260 1.95
B-1-1.0-A 125 250 215 1.00 2.84 460 95.30 H 75 1.00 260 12.74
B-2-1.0-A 125 250 215 2.00 2.84 460 95.30 H 75 1.00 260 6.06 [13]
B-4-1.0-A 125 250 215 4.00 2.84 460 97.53 H 75 1.00 260 3.17
B-6-1.0-A 125 250 215 6.00 2.84 460 100.50 H 75 1.00 260 1.96
B-1-1.5-A 125 250 215 1.00 2.84 460 96.40 H 75 1.50 260 13.95
B-2-1.5-A 125 250 215 2.00 2.84 460 96.60 H 75 1.50 260 7.21
B-4-1.5-A 125 250 215 4.00 2.84 460 97.10 H 75 1.50 260 3.51
B-6-1.5-A 125 250 215 6.00 2.84 460 101.32 H 75 1.50 260 1.98
B-2-1.0-M 125 250 215 2.00 4.58 470 94.50 H 75 1.00 260 6.73
B-4-1.0-M 125 250 215 4.00 4.58 470 93.80 H 75 1.00 260 3.88
B-6-1.0-M 125 250 215 6.00 4.58 470 95.00 H 75 1.00 260 2.93
1.2/1 200 300 260 3.50 3.56 420 44.00 - - 0.00 - 1.74
1.2/2 200 300 260 3.50 3.56 420 46.90 H 67 0.25 1000 2.11
[33]
1.2/3 200 300 260 3.50 3.56 420 43.70 H 67 0.51 1000 2.31
1.2/4 200 300 260 3.50 3.56 420 48.30 H 67 0.76 1000 2.98
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 33 of 38

Table A1. Cont.

Longitudinal
Steel Fibers
Reinforcement 0 vu,exp
ID bw (mm) h (mm) d (mm) a/d f c (MPa) Ref.
fyl (a) fu,SF (c) (MPa)
ρ (%) Type (b) Lf /Df Vf (%)
(MPa) (MPa)
2.2/1 200 300 260 1.50 1.81 420 40.80 - - 0.00 - 4.03
2.2/2 200 300 260 1.50 1.81 420 41.20 H 67 0.25 1000 5.38
2.2/3 200 300 260 1.50 1.81 420 40.30 H 67 0.76 1000 5.76
2.3/1 200 300 262 2.50 1.15 420 40.10 - - 0.00 - 1.50
2.3/2 200 300 262 2.50 1.15 420 40.00 H 67 0.25 1000 1.57
2.3/3 200 300 262 2.50 1.15 420 38.70 H 67 0.76 1000 2.06
2.4/1 200 300 260 2.50 1.81 420 40.10 - - 0.00 - 2.30
2.4/2 200 300 260 2.50 1.81 420 40.00 H 67 0.25 1000 2.07
2.4/3 200 300 260 2.50 1.81 420 38.70 H 67 0.76 1000 2.77
2.6/1 200 300 260 4.00 1.81 420 40.80 - - 0.00 - 1.44
2.6/2 200 300 260 4.00 1.81 420 41.20 H 67 0.25 1000 1.58
2.6/3 200 300 260 4.00 1.81 420 40.30 H 67 0.76 1000 2.25 [33]
20x30-Plain-1 200 300 260 3.50 2.83 420 32.10 - - 0.00 - 1.15
20x30-SFRC-1 200 300 260 3.50 2.83 420 37.70 H 67 0.50 1000 2.13
20x60-Plain-1 200 600 540 3.50 2.73 420 32.10 - - 0.00 - 1.00
20x60-SFRC-1 200 600 540 3.50 2.73 420 37.70 H 67 0.50 1000 1.42
T15x100-Plain-1 200 500 460 3.40 2.80 420 32.10 - - 0.00 - 1.65
T15x100-SFRC-1 200 500 460 3.40 2.80 420 37.70 H 67 0.50 1000 2.65
20x30-SFRC-2 200 300 260 3.50 2.83 420 38.80 H 67 0.50 1000 2.53
20x60-SFRC-2 200 600 540 3.50 2.73 420 38.80 H 67 0.50 1000 2.05
T10x50-SFRC-2 200 500 460 3.40 2.80 420 38.80 H 67 0.50 1000 1.70
T15x50-SFRC-2 200 500 460 3.40 2.80 420 38.80 H 67 0.50 1000 1.78
T23x50-SFRC-2 200 500 460 3.40 2.80 420 38.80 H 67 0.50 1000 2.74
V-0-0 150 390 324 2.50 3.23 570 46.30 - - 0.00 - 3.55
V-1-0 150 390 324 2.50 3.23 570 58.87 H 65 1.00 1150 5.35 [34]
V-2-0 150 390 324 2.50 3.23 570 51.67 H 65 2.00 1150 5.98
A-S28-VF0 120 220 178 3.30 5.88 520 34.52 - - 0.00 - 2.47
A-S28-VF1 120 220 178 3.30 5.88 520 34.52 H 65 0.40 1150 2.96
A-S28-VF2 120 220 178 3.30 5.88 520 34.52 H 65 0.80 1150 3.67
[26]
B-S60-VF0 120 220 178 3.30 5.88 520 61.70 - - 0.00 - 3.79
B-S60-VF1 120 220 178 3.30 5.88 520 61.70 H 65 0.40 1150 5.73
B-S60-VF3 120 220 178 3.30 5.88 520 61.70 H 65 1.20 1150 4.99
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 34 of 38

Table A1. Cont.

Longitudinal
Steel Fibers
Reinforcement 0 vu,exp
ID bw (mm) h (mm) d (mm) a/d f c (MPa) Ref.
fyl (a) fu,SF (c) (MPa)
ρ (%) Type (b) Lf /Df Vf (%)
(MPa) (MPa)
C-S100-VF0 120 220 178 3.30 5.88 520 95.14 - - 0.00 - 3.04
C-S100-VF1 120 220 178 3.30 5.88 520 95.14 H 65 0.40 1150 3.93
[26]
C-S100-VF2 120 220 178 3.30 5.88 520 95.14 H 65 0.80 1150 4.77
C-S100-VF3 120 220 178 3.30 5.88 520 95.14 H 65 1.20 1150 5.91
NSC1-PC 200 480 435 2.51 1.04 512 24.80 - - 0.00 - 0.79
NSC1-FRC1 200 480 435 2.51 1.04 512 24.80 H 50 0.38 1100 1.54
NSC2-PC 200 480 435 2.51 1.04 512 33.50 - - 0.00 - 0.97
NSC2-FRC1 200 480 435 2.51 1.04 512 33.50 H 50 0.38 1100 1.38
NSC2-FRC2 * 200 480 435 2.51 1.04 512 33.50 H 64 0.50 1450 1.63
NSC-3PC 200 480 435 2.51 1.04 512 38.60 - - 0.00 - 0.95
NSC3-FRC1 200 480 435 2.51 1.04 512 38.60 H 50 0.38 1100 1.62
HSC1-PC 200 480 435 2.51 1.04 512 60.50 - - 0.00 - 1.30 [35]
HSC1-FRC1 200 480 435 2.51 1.04 512 61.10 H 48.00 0.64 1250 2.20
NSC4-PC-500 200 500 455 2.51 0.99 512 25.90 - - 0.00 0.00 1.22
NSC4-FRC-500-1 200 500 455 2.51 0.99 512 24.40 H 50.00 0.25 1100 2.13
NSC4-FRC-500-2 200 500 455 2.51 0.99 512 24.40 H 50.00 0.25 1100 1.69
NSC4-PC-1000 200 1000 910 2.50 1.03 530 25.90 - - 0.00 0.00 1.07
NSC4-FRC-1000 200 1000 910 2.50 1.03 530 24.40 H 50.00 0.25 1100 1.42
HSC2-PC-1000 200 1000 910 2.50 1.03 530 55.00 - - 0.00 0.00 1.14
HSC2-FRC-1000 200 1000 910 2.50 1.03 530 55.00 H 50.00 0.25 1100 1.86
SFRC12W6 152 305 254 3.50 2.5 420 29.00 H 67.11 0.75 1096 3.10
SFRC12W24 610 305 254 3.50 2.5 420 29.00 H 67.11 0.75 1096 3.10
SFRC18a 152 457 394 3.61 2.82 420 39.00 H 67.11 0.75 1096 2.70
SFRC18b 152 457 394 3.61 2.82 420 39.00 H 67.11 0.75 1096 3.20
SFRC24a 203 610 541 3.45 2.64 420 50.00 H 67.11 0.75 1096 2.40 [24]
SFRC24b 203 610 541 3.45 2.64 420 50.00 H 67.11 0.75 1096 3.50
SFRC36a 254 914 813 3.50 2.72 420 50.00 H 67.11 0.75 1096 3.30
SFRC36b 254 914 813 3.50 2.72 420 50.00 H 67.11 0.75 1096 3.40
SFRC48a 305 1219 1118 3.50 2.65 420 50.00 H 67.11 0.75 1096 3.10
SFRC48b 305 1219 1118 3.50 2.65 420 50.00 H 67.11 0.75 1096 3.00
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 35 of 38

Table A1. Cont.

Longitudinal
Steel Fibers
Reinforcement 0 vu,exp
ID bw (mm) h (mm) d (mm) a/d f c (MPa) Ref.
fyl (a) fu,SF (c) (MPa)
ρ (%) Type (b) Lf /Df Vf (%)
(MPa) (MPa)
B-1-L 125 250 215 1.00 0.37 500 91.00 - - 0.00 - 2.13
B-2-L 125 250 215 2.00 0.37 500 90.10 - - 0.00 - 1.14
B-2.5-L 125 250 215 2.50 0.37 500 92.00 - - 0.00 - 0.85
B-3-L 125 250 215 3.00 0.37 500 90.40 - - 0.00 - 0.74
B-4-L 125 250 215 4.00 0.37 500 91.70 - - 0.00 - 0.56
B-6-L 125 250 215 6.00 0.37 500 89.50 - - 0.00 - 0.34
B-1-A 125 250 215 1.00 2.84 460 94.80 - - 0.00 - 7.09
B-2-A 125 250 215 2.00 2.84 460 94.90 - - 0.00 - 3.35
B-2.5-A 125 250 215 2.50 2.84 460 93.7 - - 0.00 - 2.07 [36]
B-3-A 125 250 215 3.00 2.84 460 91.5 - - 0.00 - 2.05
B-4-A 125 250 215 4.00 2.84 460 92.3 - - 0.00 - 1.90
B-6-A 125 250 215 6.00 2.84 460 92 - - 0.00 - 1.49
B-1-M 125 250 215 1.00 2.84 470 93 - - 0.00 - 10.27
B-2-M 125 250 215 2.00 2.84 470 90.4 - - 0.00 - 4.65
B-2.5-M 125 250 215 2.50 2.84 470 91.2 - - 0.00 - 2.55
B-3-M 125 250 215 3.00 4.58 470 90.1 - - 0.00 - 2.13
B-4-M 125 250 215 4.00 4.58 470 90.5 - - 0.00 - 2.05
B-6-M 125 250 215 4.00 4.58 470 90.3 0.00 - 1.91
NSC-I 200 300 250 3.00 3.04 750 38 - - 0.00 - 1.5
NSC-II 200 300 250 3.50 3.04 750 38 - - 0.00 - 1.56
NSC-III 200 300 250 4.00 3.04 750 36 - - 0.00 - 1.53
HSC-I 200 300 250 3.00 3.04 750 133 - - 0.00 - 2.84
HSC-II 200 300 250 3.50 3.04 750 116 - - 0.00 - 1.86 [37]
HSC-III 200 300 250 4.00 3.04 750 114 - - 0.00 - 1.7
HSC-IV 200 300 250 3.00 3.04 750 165 - - 0.00 - 4.52
HSC-V 200 300 250 3.50 3.04 750 194 - - 0.00 - 1.6
HSC-VI 200 300 250 4.00 3.04 750 183 - - 0.00 - 2.11
A1 127 254 203.20 4.00 3.93 420 66.12 - - 0.00 - 2.24
A2 127 254 203.20 3.00 3.93 420 66.12 - - 0.00 - 2.67
[38]
A3 127 254 203.20 2.70 3.93 420 66.12 - - 0.00 - 2.67
A7 127 254 208.03 4.00 1.77 420 66.12 - - 0.00 - 1.77
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 36 of 38

Table A1. Cont.

Longitudinal
Steel Fibers
Reinforcement 0 vu,exp
ID bw (mm) h (mm) d (mm) a/d f c (MPa) Ref.
fyl (a) fu,SF (c) (MPa)
ρ (%) Type (b) Lf /Df Vf (%)
(MPa) (MPa)
A8 127 254 208.03 3.00 1.77 420 66.12 - - 0.00 - 1.85
A9 127 254 208.03 2.70 1.77 420 66.12 - - 0.00 - 3.03
B1 127 254 201.68 4.00 5.04 420 72.81 - - 0.00 - 2.00
B2 127 254 201.68 3.00 5.04 420 72.81 - - 0.00 - 2.69
B3 127 254 201.68 2.70 5.04 420 72.81 - - 0.00 - 3.91
B7 127 254 208.03 4.00 2.25 420 72.81 - - 0.00 - 1.69
B8 127 254 208.03 3.00 2.25 420 72.81 - - 0.00 - 1.77 [38]
B9 127 254 208.03 2.70 2.25 420 72.81 - - 0.00 - 3.03
C1 127 254 184.15 4.00 6.64 420 69.92 - - 0.00 - 2.32
C2 127 254 184.15 3.00 6.64 420 69.92 - - 0.00 - 3.23
C3 127 254 184.15 2.70 6.64 420 69.92 - - 0.00 - 2.95
C7 127 254 206.50 4.00 3.26 420 69.92 - - 0.00 - 1.73
C8 127 254 206.50 3.00 3.26 420 69.92 - - 0.00 - 1.70
C9 127 254 206.50 2.70 3.26 420 69.92 - - 0.00 - 1.73
FC1 150 610 558 1.60 2.12 420 60 - - 0.00 - 1.78
FC2 150 610 558 1.60 2.12 420 54.10 H 60 0.75 1200 3.30
FC3 150 610 558 1.60 2.12 420 49.90 H 60 1.50 1200 3.87
FC4 150 610 558 1.60 2.12 420 60 - - 0.00 - 0.59
FC5 150 610 558 1.60 2.12 420 54.1 H 60 0.75 1200 2.83
FC6 150 610 558 1.60 2.12 420 49.9 H 60 1.50 1200 3.32 [39]
FC7 150 610 558 1.60 2.12 420 57 - - 0.00 - 1.46
FC8 150 610 558 1.60 2.12 420 54.8 H 60 0.40 1200 2.44
FC9 150 610 558 1.60 2.12 420 56.5 H 60 0.60 1200 2.77
FC10 150 610 558 1.60 2.12 420 46.9 H 100 0.40 1200 2.95
FC11 150 610 558 1.60 2.12 420 40.8 H 100 0.60 1200 2.83
(a) In the absence of yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing bar, f yl is assumed as 420 MPa
(b) Fiber type: H = hooked-end steel fiber, S = straight steel fiber
(c) Fu = steel fiber tensile strength
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 37 of 38

References
1. Lee, H.J.; Chen, J.H. Testing of Mechanical Splices for Grade 685 Steel Reinforcing Bars; TTK Report; NCREE:
Taipei, Taiwan, 2014; pp. 54–88.
2. Liao, W.C.; Perceka, W.; Liu, E.J. Compressive Stress-Strain Relationship of High Strength Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2015, 13, 379–392. [CrossRef]
3. Cusson, D.; Paultre, P. High Strength Concrete Column Confined by Rectangular Ties. J. Struct. Eng. 1994,
120, 783–804. [CrossRef]
4. Cusson, D.; Paultre, P. Stress-Strain Model for Confined High-Strength Concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 1995, 121,
468–477. [CrossRef]
5. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary; American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2014.
6. Fanella, D.A.; Naaman, A.E. Stress-Strain Properties of Fiber Reinforced Mortar in Compression. J. Tech. Pap.
1985, 82, 475–483.
7. Hsu, L.S.; Hsu, C.T. Stress-Strain behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete under compression. Struct. J.
1994, 91, 448–457.
8. Mansur, M.A.; Chin, M.S.; Wee, T.H. Stress-Strain Relationship of High Strength Fiber Concrete in
Compression. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1999, 11, 21–29. [CrossRef]
9. Perceka, W.; Liao, W.C.; Wang, Y.D. High Strength Concrete Columns Under Axial Compression Load:
Hybrid Confinement Efficiency of High Strength Transverse Reinforcement and Steel Fibers. Materials 2016,
9, 264. [CrossRef]
10. Sharma, A.K. Shear Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams. J. Tech. Pap. 1986, 83, 624–628.
11. Mansur, M.A.; Ong, K.C.G.; Paramasivam, P. Shear Strength of Fibrous Concrete Beams without Stirrups.
J. Struct. Eng. 1986, 112, 2066–2079. [CrossRef]
12. Narayanan, R.; Darwish, I.Y.S. Use of Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement. Struct. J. 1987, 84, 216–227.
13. Ashour, S.A.; Hasanain, G.S.; Wafa, F.F. Shear Behavior of High Strength Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams.
Struct. J. 1992, 89, 176–184.
14. Imam, M.; Vandewalle, L.; Mortelmans, F.; Gemert, D.V. Shear Domain of Fiber Reinforced High Strength
Concrete Beams. Eng. Struct. 1997, 19, 738–747. [CrossRef]
15. Parra-Montesinos, G.J. Shear Strength of Beams with Deformed Steel Fibers. Concr. Int. 2006, 28, 57–67.
16. Aoude, H.; Belghiti, M.; Cook, W.D.; Mitchell, D. Response of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Beams with
and without Stirrups. Struct. J. 2012, 109, 359–367.
17. Kwak, Y.K.; Eberhard, M.O.; Kim, W.S.; Kim, J. Shear Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams
without Stirrups. Struct. J. 2012, 99, 530–538.
18. Naaman, A.E.; Najm, H. Bond-Slip Mechanisms of Steel Fibers in Concrete. Mater. J. 1992, 88, 135–145.
19. Cho, S.H.; Kim, Y.I. Effects of Steel Fibers on Short Beams Loaded in Shear. Struct. J. 2003, 100, 765–774.
20. Thomas, J.; Ramaswamy, A. Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete. J. Mater. Eng. 2007,
19, 385–392. [CrossRef]
21. Dinh, H.H. Shear Behavior of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrup Reinforcement.
Ph.D. Dissertation, College of Engineering—Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2009.
22. Swamy, R.N.; Jones, R.; Chiam, A.T.P. Influence of Steel Fibers on The Shear Resistance of Lightweight
Concrete I-Beams. Struct. J. 1993, 90, 103–114.
23. Swamy, R.N.; Bahia, H.M. Influence of Fiber Reinforcement on the Dowel Resistance to Shear. Symp. Pap.
1979, 327–355.
24. Zarrinpour, M.R.; Chao, S.H. Shear Strength Enchantment Mechanisms of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Slender Beams. Struct. J. 2017, 114, 729–742. [CrossRef]
25. Dinh, H.H.; Parra-Montesionos, G.J.; Wight, J.K. Shear Strength Model for Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Beams without Stirrup Reinforcement. J. Struct. Eng. 2011, 137, 1039–1051. [CrossRef]
26. Al Rawashdeh, O.J.Z. Shear Behavior of Steel-Fiber Reinforced Ultra-High-Strength Self-Compacted Concrete
Beams. Master’s Thesis, College of Engineering—Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
United Arab Emirates University, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2015.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4790 38 of 38

27. Swamy, R.N.; Mangat, P.S.; Rao, C.V.S.K. The Mechanic of Fiber Reinforcement of Cement Matrices; Detroit:
Fiber Reinforced Concrete—Special Publication (SP-44); American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI,
USA, 1974.
28. Wu, Y.F. Evaluation of Flexural and Shear Capacity of High Strength Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Beams
without Stirrups. Master’s Thesis, College of Engineering—Department of Civil Engineering, National
Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2014. (In Chinese).
29. Dinh, H.H.; Parra-Montesionos, G.J.; Wight, J.K. Shear Behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Beams
without Stirrup Reinforcement. Struct. J. 2010, 107, 597–606.
30. Cucchiara, C.; La-Mendola, L.; Papia, M. Effectiveness of Stirrups and Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement.
Cem. Concr. Comp. 2004, 26, 777–786. [CrossRef]
31. Noghabai, K. Beams of Fibrous Concrete in Shear and Bending: Experiment and Model. J. Struct. Eng. 2000,
126, 243–251. [CrossRef]
32. Lim, T.Y.; Paramasivam, P.; Lee, S.L. Shear and Moment Capacity of Reinforced Steel-Fiber Concrete Beams.
Mag. Concr. Res. 1987, 39, 148–160. [CrossRef]
33. Lin, A.L. Prediction of Shear Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beam of Intermediate Shear Span.
Master’s Thesis, College of Engineering—Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University,
Taipei, Taiwan, 2013. (In Chinese)
34. Araujo, D.d.L.; Nunes, F.G.T.; Filho, R.D.T.; de Andrade, M.A.S. Shear Strength of Steel Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete Beams. Acta Sci. Tech. Mar. 2014, 36, 380–397. [CrossRef]
35. Minelli, F.; Plizzari, G.A. On the Effectiveness of Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement. Struct. J. 2013, 110,
379–390.
36. Wafa, F.F.; Ashour, S.A.; Hasanain, G.S. Shear Behavior of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Beams without
Shear Reinforcement. Eng. J. Qatar Univ. 1994, 7, 91–113.
37. Perera, S.V.T.J.; Mutsuyoshi, H. Shear Capacity of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams without Web
Reinforcement. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth East Asia-Pacific Conference Structural Engineering and
Construction (EASEC-13), Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan, 11–13 September 2013.
38. Ahmad, S.H.; Khaloo, A.R.; Poveda, A. Shear Capacity of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams. J. Tech.
Pap. 1986, 83, 297–305.
39. Adebar, P.; Mindess, S.; St.-Pierre, D.; Olund, B. Shear Test of Fiber Concrete Beams without Stirrups. Struct. J.
1997, 94, 68–76.
40. ACI Innovation Task Group 4. Report on Structural Design and Detailing for High-Strength Concrete in Moderate
to High. Seismic Applications (ITG-4.3R-07); American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2007.
41. Naaman, A.E. Toughness, Ductility, Surface Energy, and Deflection-Hardening FRC composites. Tokyo,
Japan. Proceeding: Ductile Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites (DFRCC). J. Concr. Inst. 2002, 33–57.
42. ACI Committee 544. Guide to Design with Fiber-Reinforced Concrete; American Concrete Institute: Farmington
Hills, MI, USA, 2018.
43. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326. Shear and Diagonal Tension. J. Proc. 1962, 59, 279–333.
44. Perceka, W. Shear Behavior of High Strength Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Columns. Doctoral Dissertation,
College of Engineering—Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2019.
(In English)
45. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary; American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2019.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).