726

Shear strength of reinforced concrete beams with

a fiber concrete matrix1
Fariborz Majdzadeh, Sayed Mohamad Soleimani, and Nemkumar Banthia

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of fiber reinforcement on the shear capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) beams. Both steel and synthetic fibers at variable volume fractions were investigated. Two series of tests were performed: structural tests, where RC beams were tested to failure under an applied four-point load;
and materials tests, where companion fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) prisms were tested under direct shear to obtain
material properties such as shear strength and shear toughness. FRC test results indicated an almost linear increase in
the shear strength of concrete with an increase in the fiber volume fraction. Fiber reinforcement enhanced the shear
load capacity and shear deformation capacity of RC beams, but 1% fiber volume fraction was seen as optimal; no benefits were noted when the fiber volume fraction was increased beyond 1%. Finally, an equation is proposed to predict
the shear capacity of RC beams.
Key words: shear strength, fiber-reinforced concrete, RC beam, stirrups, energy absorption capacity, steel fiber, synthetic fiber.
Rsum : Cette tude visait examiner linfluence du renforcement par fibres sur la capacit de rsistance au cisaillement des poutres en bton arm. Des fibres dacier et des fibres synthtiques en diverses proportions de volume ont t
tudies. Deux sries dessais ont t ralises : des essais structuraux, dans lesquels les poutres en bton arm ont t
amenes la rupture sous une charge applique quatre points, et des essais des matriaux, dans lesquels les prismes
de bton arm renforc de fibres ont t soumis un cisaillement direct afin dobtenir les proprits des matriaux, telles que la rsistance et la robustesse du bton au cisaillement. Les rsultats des essais sur le bton renforc de fibres
indiquent une augmentation quasi linaire de la rsistance au cisaillement du bton avec une augmentation de la fraction de fibres par volume. Le renforcement par fibres a amlior la capacit de la charge en cisaillement ainsi que la
capacit de rsistance la dformation en cisaillement des poutres en bton arm, mais une fraction de 1 % en volume
de fibres sest avr tre optimale; aucun avantage na t not lorsque la fraction de fibres par volume tait hausse
au-del de 1 %. Finalement, une quation a t propose afin de prdire la rsistance au cisaillement des poutres en
bton arm.
Mots cls : rsistance au cisaillement, bton renforc de fibres, poutre en bton arm, triers, capacit dabsorption
dnergie, fibre dacier, fibre synthtique.
[Traduit par la Rdaction]

Majdzadeh et al.

734

Introduction
Because of the brittle behaviour of plain concrete in tension, shear failure in reinforced concrete (RC) beams is generally catastrophic. Although this type of failure can be
avoided with proper shear reinforcement, in many instances,
including earthquakes, the loading direction cannot always
be predicted, and the load configuration can be quite differReceived 14 March 2005. Revision accepted 28 November
2005. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at
http://cjce.nrc.ca on 25 August 2006.
F. Majdzadeh, S.M. Soleimani, and N. Banthia.2
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British
Columbia, 10126250 Applied Science Lane, Vancouver, BC
V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 31 October 2006.
1

This article is one of a selection of papers published in this

Special Issue honouring Dr. M. Saeed Mirza.
2
Corresponding author (e-mail: banthia@civil.ubc.ca).
Can. J. Civ. Eng. 33: 726734 (2006)

ent from the one the element is designed for. Despite every
effort, therefore, shear failure remains a distinct possibility
in RC elements and one of the primary reasons for building
collapse during earthquakes. There is another issue with reinforcement congestion and lack of concrete quality itself.
Shear reinforcements, such as stirrups, that are placed too
closely in an element, interfere with concrete compaction,
resulting in honeycombing and poor-quality concrete.
It follows, therefore, that if the shear strength and shear
toughness of concrete as a material could be improved,
shear failure in RC beams could be avoided, and the mode
of failure in RC beams could be changed from brittle to
ductile. It is now well known that fiber reinforcement is
one of the most effective means of enhancing the fracture
toughness in all three modes of failure (opening, sliding,
and tearing), and research in the past three decades has
clearly established the potential use of fiber reinforcement
for enhancing the shear capacity of RC beams (Batson et
al. 1972; Swamy and Bahia 1985; Li et al. 1992; Khuntia et
al. 1999; Calixto et al. 2002; Dupont and Vandewalle
2003).

doi:10.1139/L05-118

2006 NRC Canada

Majdzadeh et al.

727

Two approaches have been proposed for determining the

shear capacity of RC beams containing fiber reinforcement.
In the first approach, an empirical equation is proposed for
calculating the contribution of concrete and fiber to the shear
capacity of the RC beam, and the contribution of stirrups is
calculated on the basis of the design codes (Narayanan and
Darwish 1987; Imam et al. 1997). In the second approach, a
more deterministic methodology is adopted. The contribution of fibers to shear capacity is independently computed
using toughness enhancement in flexure by the fibers
(RILEM TC 162-TDF 2000).
In the empirical approach of Narayanan and Darwish
(1987), an equation is proposed that could be used to predict
the shear capacity of steel-fiber-reinforced RC beams:
[1]

vu = e 0.24 fspfc + 80 + v b
a

where vu is the shear capacity (MPa) of the steel-fiberreinforced RC beam; is the flexural reinforcement ratio; d
is effective depth of the beam; a is the shear span; e is the
arch action factor (1.0 for a/d > 2.8 and 2.8d/a for a/d 2.8);
and fspfc is the split cylinder strength (MPa) of FRC, defined
as
[2]

fspfc = fcuf /(20 F ) + 0.7 +

in which fcuf is the cube strength of fiber concrete; and

[3]

F = (Lf /Df )Vf df

where Lf is fiber length; Df is fiber diameter; Vf is the volume fraction of the steel fiber; and df is the bond factor
(0.50 for round, 0.75 for crimped, and 1.00 for indented fibers). In addition,
[4]

v b = 0.41F

where is the average fibermatrix interfacial bond stress

(Narayanan and Darwish (1987) assumed a value of 4.15 MPa).
In eq. [1], the first and second terms inside the parentheses account for fiber contribution to splitting and dowel action, respectively; and the term vb accounts for the
contribution of fibers across an inclined crack.
Imam et al. (1997) proposed an alternative empirical expression based on the concepts developed by Baant and
Sun (1987) for predicting the shear strength of concrete
beams. Baant and Sun had used nonlinear fracture mechanics to develop their expressions, and they showed that the
shear capacity depended on maximum aggregate size (da)
and the ratio of beam depth to maximum aggregate size
(d/da). Imam et al. (1997) proposed the following expression
for predicting the ultimate shear capacity of steel-fiberreinforced RC beams:
[5]

0.44

Vu = 0.6 3 fcm
+ 275
bd + Vw
(a /d) 5

where fcm is the mean cylinder compressive strength (MPa);

a is the shear span; d is the effective depth of the beam
(mm); Vw is the contribution of stirrups to the shear capacity
of the beams based on Eurocode 2 (CEN 1992); and

[6]

1 + (5.08 /da )
1 + d /(25da )

(size effect factor)

in which da is the maximum aggregate size (mm).

The parameter shows the combined effects of longitudinal reinforcement and steel fibers:
[7]

= (1 + 4F)

in which is As/bd (in which As is the area of tension reinforcement in the beam section); and
[8]

F = (Lf /Df )Vf df

in which Lf/Df is the aspect ratio of the fiber (length/diameter); Vf is the volume fraction of fibers; and df is the efficiency coefficient (1 for hooked fiber, 0.5 for straight fiber).
The only difference between the expressions proposed by
Imam et al. (1997) and Baant and Sun (1987) is in the reinforcement factor (), which replaces the flexural reinforcement ratio () in the Baant and Sun equation. These
methods do not divide the contribution of fibers and concrete in carrying the shear load into two separate terms but
instead consider them concurrently.
The second, more deterministic approach (RILEM TC
162-TDF 2000) is based on Eurocode 2 (CEN 1992). The
shear capacity of the RC beam with steel fiber is given by
[9]

V = Vc + Vw + Vf

where V is the shear capacity of the member; Vc is the contribution of concrete to the shear capacity; Vw is the contribution of the stirrups to the shear capacity; and Vf is the
contribution of the fibers to the shear capacity. (In eq. [9], Vc
and Vw are calculated as per Eurocode 2).
[10]

Vc = [0.12k (100 1 ffck )1/ 3 + 0.15 cp ] bd

where k = 1 + (200/d)1/2 (d in mm); cp = Nsd/Ac (in which

Nsd is the longitudinal force in the section due to loading or
prestressing (MPa) and Ac is the cross sectional area of prestressed concrete beam); 1 = As/bd (in which As is the area
of tension reinforcement in the beam section); b is the minimum width of the section over the effective depth, d; and ffck
is the compressive strength of FRC. For Vf, the use of the
equivalent flexural strength of FRC, as obtained from
notched prisms loaded in flexure, is proposed:
[11]

Vf = 0.7kf k1fd bd

where kf = 1 + n(hf/bw)/(hf/d) for T-section beams (in which

n = (bf bw)/hf 3, and k1 = (1600 d)/1000 (d in mm)) and
k1 1.0; hf is the height of the flanges (mm); bf is the width
of the flanges (mm); bw is the width of the web (mm); and
[12]

fd = 0.12 feq,3

where feq,3 is the equivalent flexural tensile strength derived

using the load-deflection curve of notched-beam FRC specimens under three-point loading (RILEM TC 162-TDF 2000).
There are two deficiencies in the approach taken by the
Runion internationale des laboratoires et experts des
matriaux, systmes de construction et ouvrages (RILEM).
First, because FRCs behave differently in shear than in flexure (Mirsayah and Banthia 2002), the use of flexural properties to determine the shear response makes limited sense.
2006 NRC Canada

728

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Table 1. Fiber properties.

Fiber type

Fiber length
(mm)

Aspect
ratio, L/D

Tensile strength
(MPa)

Elastic modulus
(GPa)

Material
density (kg/m3)

Geometry

Steela
Synthetic1b
Synthetic2c

60
54
50

80
360
85

1000
375
620

200.0
3.5
9.5

7850
900
900

Hooked
Self-fibrillating
Straight

Shape

Dramix 80/60 , Bekaert, Belgium. 80/60: (aspect ratio/length).

MaxTen Fiber, PSI Corporation, USA.
c
Strux 85/50 Fiber, Grace Construction Products, USA. 85/50: (aspect ratio/length).
b

Fig. 1. (a) Test setup for reinforced concrete beams; (b) beam
cross section.

Second, since fibers are an integral part of any FRC, their

shear response should not be separated from that of plain
concrete. This paper proposes an alternative approach,
where the material properties of FRC in shear are determined by performing direct shear tests and then correlated
with the shear capacity of RC beams with an FRC matrix.
The proposed approach is more rational, and the model predictions are closer to experimental findings.

that they would always fail in shear. When fibers were

added to the concrete mix, it was anticipated that the failure
would either change from shear to flexure or remain in shear
but with greater load capacity and energy absorption. All
beams were tested in four-point loading with a shear span /
effective depth ratio (a/d) of 3. Because shear failure was
the principal mode of failure, maximum displacement of the
beam after peak load did not occur at the midspan location.
Consequently, displacements were recorded at three locations along the beam with three linear variable displacement
transducers (LVDTs), as shown in Fig. 1a.
To determine material properties in shear, FRC specimens
were tested in accordance with the Japan Society of Civil
Engineers standard test procedure JSCE-SF6 (JSCE 1990),
with some modifications (Fig. 2). The shear load was applied by a loading block with two loading edges 150 mm
apart. The specimen was supported on two rigid blocks
155 mm apart. To predefine the shear failure plane, a 10 mm
deep notch was sawed all around the specimens in between
the loading and the supporting edges, as shown in Fig. 2a
(Mirsayah and Banthia 2002). To capture the real behaviour
of the FRC specimen in direct shear tests, the end parts of
the specimen were secured against rotation by means of two
adjustable yokes (Figs. 2b and 2c). A quasi-static load was
applied at a shearing stress rate of 0.060.10 MPa/s, in accordance with JSCE SF6 (JSCE 1990). Displacement was
measured by averaging signals from the two LVDTs attached to the bottom surface of the specimen (Fig. 2b). A
typical specimen after failure is shown in Fig. 2c. Note the
clear shear failure. All tests were conducted in a Baldwin
testing machine with a capacity of 1.78 MN. Load and displacement data were recorded at a frequency of 1 Hz.

Experimental program
Three types of fibers, one steel and two synthetic, were investigated (Table 1). A mixture with a water/cement ratio of
0.6 and ingredients in the following proportions (kg/m3) was
used throughout: cement, 350; sand, 850; coarse aggregate
(10 mm maximum size), 850; and water, 210.
Figure 1 shows the arrangement for testing the beams. In
addition to 14 RC beams (150 mm 150 mm 1000 mm;
Table 2), 40 FRC specimens (100 mm 100 mm
350 mm), cast with the 10 mixes given in Table 3 (four replicates per mix), were tested. For each mix, four concrete
cylinders (100 mm 200 mm) were also cast and tested in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials
standard test method C39 (ASTM 1998) to determine the
compressive strength ( fc ) of the various mixes.
The RC beams (Fig. 1) were designed with a stirrup spacing of 75 mmagainst a code requirement of 50 mmsuch

Results and discussion

Compressive strengths of concrete in beams and FRC
specimens used for shear tests are reported in Table 2 and
Table 3, respectively. Representative load versus displacement curves for all FRC specimens in direct shear are shown
in Fig. 3. In the figure, each curve is an average of four tests.
Shear failure in all plain concrete specimens was sudden and
catastrophic. Each specimen lost its capacity to carry load
precipitously at the occurrence of the peak load, without a
postpeak load-carrying capacity.
Since the FRC specimens in direct shear contained two
shear failure planes (Fig. 2c), the ultimate shear strength of
the FRC specimens was calculated using the following equation:
[13]

max = Pmax / 2 Aeff

2006 NRC Canada

Majdzadeh et al.

729

Table 2. Details of RC beams.

Fiber volume fraction (%)
Beam No.

Steel

Synthetic1

Synthetic2

Stirrups

Compressive
strength (MPa)

B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14

0.5

0.5
1.0
1.5

0.5

0.5
1.0
1.5

0.5

0.5
1.0
1.5

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

45.3
47.1
37.8
44.1
41.3
43.9
44.2
43.1
43.4
44.8
42.0
45.5
44.6
40.9

Table 3. Details of FRC mixes for direct shear tests.

Fiber volume fraction (%)
Specimen
No.

Steel

Synthetic1

Synthetic2

Compressive
strength (MPa)

S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10

0.5
1.0
1.5

0.5
1.0
1.5

0.5
1.0
1.5

41.6
39.5
39.8
43.7
43.5
39.2
38.7
41.8
38.8
42.0

Fig. 2. (a) Test setup for direct shear tests; (b) FRC specimen
before failure; (c) FRC specimen after failure.

where max is the ultimate shear strength; Pmax is the average

peak load supported by the specimen; and Aeff is the effective area of the shear plane on either side. The ultimate shear
strength as a function of fiber volume fraction is shown in
Fig. 4 and plotted in Fig. 5. For all fiber types, an almost linear increase in shear strength of the composite with increasing fiber volume fraction can be noted. It can also be noted
that steel fibers enhance shear strength more effectively than
synthetic fibers do. Between the two synthetic fibers, however, differences were insignificant.
Load versus displacement curves for all RC beams are
shown in Fig. 6. The displacement values plotted in these
curves are the maximum displacement values recorded by
the three LVDTs. Maximum loads carried by these beams
are plotted in Fig. 7. As seen in Figs. 6 and 7, in RC beams,
the performance of the steel fibers was superior to that of the
synthetic fibers. This is in agreement with the findings of the
direct shear tests (see Figs. 4 and 5), with one prominent exception: although the shear strengths of FRC specimens containing 1.5% fibers in direct shear tests were higher than
those containing 1.0% (Figs. 4 and 5), peak load in RC
beams showed a decrease with the increase in the fiber vol 2006 NRC Canada

730

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Fig. 3. Load versus displacement curves from direct shear tests

of Fig. 2: (a) steel-FRC; (b) synthetic1 FRC; (c) synthetic2 FRC.

Fig. 4. Shear strength of FRC from direct shear tests.

Fig. 5. Shear strength versus fiber volume fraction for FRC specimens in direct shear.

ume fraction beyond 1%, and this was true for all fiber types
(see Figs. 6 and 7). It is likely that at the high dosage of
1.5% fiber volume, the workability of the concrete was inadequate (fibers are known to decrease workability) and full
compaction was not achieved. It emerges, therefore, that the
optimal volume fraction of fibers for reinforcing concrete elements against shear is around 1%. Pictures of shear failure
in beams with stirrups and in beams with fiber reinforcement are compared in Fig. 8.
The ultimate shear strength of RC beams can be calculated with the following approximate formula:
[14]

= Pmax / 2bd

where is the ultimate shear strength; Pmax is the peak load;

b is the breadth of the RC beam; and d is the effective depth

of the beam. The ultimate shear strength of the RC beams is

plotted as a function of material shear strength, obtained
from direct shear tests, in Fig. 9a. There are a number of interesting observations to be made. As noted before, at a
given fiber volume fraction, steel fibers are clearly more efficient than the two synthetic fibers. However, for a given
material shear strength, the two synthetic fibers are more efficient than the steel fiber in a certain region of the curve
(note a crossover between the curves). The reasons for this
are not clear but are likely related to the deflection hardening observed in synthetic FRC (Bindiganavile and Banthia
2001a, 2001b). Further research is clearly needed to understand this interesting phenomenon.
Steel fiber contributions to the shear strength of FRC
specimens and RC beams were calculated, and a perfect linear relationship (R2 = 0.99) up to 1.0% steel fiber volume
fraction was observed between FRC specimens and RC
beams, as shown in Fig. 9b. This clearly indicated that test
results obtained from direct shear tests can be used to predict the shear capacity of steel-fiber-reinforced RC beams.
Unlike steel fiber, synthetic fibers showed a less than perfect
linear trend (R2 = 0.52).
To identify the presence of synergy, the performances of
beams B3 and B5 (see Table 2), each carrying stirrups and
2006 NRC Canada

Majdzadeh et al.
Fig. 6. Load versus maximum displacement curves for RC
beams with (a) steel fiber; (b) synthetic1 fiber; (c) synthetic2

731
Fig. 7. Peak loads in plain and fibrous RC beams.

Fig. 8. Failure of RC beams in shear: (a) plain concrete with

stirrups; (b) fibrous concrete.

0.5% fiber, are compared in Fig. 10: beam B5 carried a

maximum load of 149 kN. Considering B2 (no fiber, no stirrup) carrying 76 kN, B1 (no fiber + stirrup) carrying 112
kN, and B12 (0.5% steel fiber) carrying 102 kN, a total of
11 kN (7%) synergy was observed in beam B5. Beam B3
(0.5% synthetic2 fiber + stirrups) carried a maximum load of
136 kN. Considering B6 (0.5% synthetic2 fiber) carrying 86
kN, a total of 14 kN (10%) synergy was observed in beam
B3 (Fig. 10). This synergy can be considered a safety factor
if shear strengths of RC beams are calculated from direct
shear test results, as given in Fig. 9b.
Adding fibers would prevent the growth of concrete
cracks and bridge them after they are created. This, in turn,

would provide a more confined concrete around the shear

reinforcement and explain why synergy was observed when
fibers were used in conjunction with shear reinforcement.
The area under the curves in Figs. 3 and 6 were computed
to a common displacement of 20 mm to obtain energy absorption values in each case. The energy absorption in direct
shear tests (also called material shear toughness) is given in
Fig. 11a; that in RC beam tests is given in Fig. 11b; and the
two are compared in Fig. 11c. Note that all fibers demonstrated a substantial improvement in shear toughness and
that a proportional increase in energy absorption capacity of
the RC beams occurred with increasing material shear
toughness. Steel fibers performed better than the two synthetic fibers, but synthetic fibers were also effective.
2006 NRC Canada

732
Fig. 9. (a) Shear strength of RC beams versus material shear
strength of FRC, as obtained from direct shear tests; (b) contribution to shear strength of FRC specimens by fibers versus that
of RC beams.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Fig. 11. Energy absorption up to 20 mm displacement for specimens in direct shear (termed shear toughness): (a) FRC beams;
(b) RC beams. (c) Relationship between material shear toughness
and energy absorption by RC beams.

Fig. 10. Synergy in fibrous RC beams containing stirrups.

(see Fig. 9b) was used. Finally, to account for contribution

of the stirrups, the expression provided by Eurocode 2 was
used. In other words,

Proposed equation
A new equation to predict shear strength is proposed. The
new equation contains three terms: the shear contributions of
concrete, fibers, and stirrups. For the contribution of the concrete, a modified version of Eurocode 2 (CEN 1991) expression was used. For the contribution of the fiber, an equation
based on the results of direct shear tests on FRC specimens

[15]

1/ 3

3d
Vu = 0.173 (100fc )1/ 31 +
a

200
+ kf,FRC

bd + Vw[N]

where d/a is the beam depth to shear span ratio; is the percentage of tension reinforcement in the RC beam cross sec 2006 NRC Canada

Majdzadeh et al.

733

Table 4. Comparison of experimental and theoretical results.

Predicted shear capacity proposed in this paper (kN)
Contribution from fiber
reinforcement to shear
capacity
Beam
No.

Experimental
shear
capacity (kN)

Contribution from
plain concrete to
shear capacity

Steel

Synth1

B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14

112
76
136
115
149
86
113
104
82
100
99
102
125
119

75.7
76.7
71.3
75.0
73.4
74.9
75.1
74.5
74.6
75.4
73.8
75.8
75.3
73.2

29

29
47
70

15.7

15.7
18.8
24.0

Synth2

Contribution
from stirrups to
shear capacity

Total
predicted
load

Shear capacity ratio

(experimental/
predicted)

21.9

21.9
24.0
31.3

40
0
40
40
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

115.7
76.7
133.2
130.7
142.7
96.8
99.1
105.8
90.3
94.2
97.8
105.1
122.3
143.3

0.97
0.99
1.02
0.88
1.04
0.89
1.14
0.98
0.91
1.06
1.01
0.97
1.02
0.83

Note: Synth, synthetic.

Fig. 12. Comparison of proposed equation with Narayanan and

Darwish (1987) and Imam et al. (1997).

tion; 1 + (200/d)1/2 is the size effect in the shear strength of

RC beams; k = 0.216 for steel fiber, limited to a maximum
of 1% volume fraction; k = 0.290 for synthetic fibers; and
[16]

f,FRC = FRC plain

in which FRC and plain are the shear strength of FRC and
plain concrete, respectively, as determined by direct shear
tests; and
[17]

Vw =

Asw
0.9dFy
S

in which Asw is the cross-sectional area of the shear reinforcement (mm2); S is the spacing between the shear reinforcement measured along the longitudinal axis (mm); Fy is
the yield strength of the shear reinforcement (MPa); and all
other parameters are as previously defined.

The experimental results and model predictions (eq. [15])

are compared in Table 4. Note the excellent agreement between the experimental and predicted values for RC beams
carrying up to 1% fiber volume. One could predict such an
agreement from the perfectly linear relationship (R2 = 0.99)
between direct shear and RC beam test results for steel fibers (Fig. 9b). Because the same relationship for the two
synthetic fibers (Fig. 9b) was less than perfectly linear, theoretical predictions for the synthetic fibers are not as reliable.
In Table 5, the model predictions based on the proposed
equation are compared with those based on other previously
proposed equations. Because feq,3 (in eq. [12]) was not available for the FRC specimens in this study, the RILEM
method could not be judged and included in this table. However, two other methods (Narayanan and Darwish 1987;
Imam et al. 1997) were considered. Since in other methods
only steel fibers with a maximum volume fraction of 1%
were studied, RC beams B1, B2, B5, B12, and B13 were
considered for comparison. It can be seen that predictions
based on the equation proposed in this study are closer to
the experimental findings and hence more reliable than predictions based on the previously proposed equations. A comparative assessment is also shown in Fig. 12, where it can be
seen that the equation proposed by Imam et al. (1997)
underpredicts the shear capacity and that the equation proposed by Narayanan and Darwish (1987) overpredicts it. The
predictions based on the proposed equation are closest to reality.

Conclusions
In direct shear tests on FRC specimens, for all fiber types
an almost linear increase in shear strength of the composite with increasing fiber volume fraction was noted. Steel
fibers performed better than the two synthetic fibers, and
2006 NRC Canada

734

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Table 5. Comparison of the results obtained by the proposed equation and other methods.
Beam configuration

Predicted shear capacity (kN) (Vexp/Vcalc)

Beam
No.

Stirrups

Steel fiber

Experimental shear
capacity (kN)

Present study

Imam et al.
(1997)

Narayanan and
Darwish (1987)

B1
B2
B5
B12
B13

Yes
No
Yes
No
No

No
No
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%

112
76
149
102
125

115.7 (0.97)
76.7 (0.99)
142.7 (1.04)
105.1 (0.97)
122.3 (1.02)

123.5 (0.91)
84.4 (0.90)
151.9 (0.98)
114.6 (0.89)
140.5 (0.89)

102.3 (1.09)
63.3 (1.20)
116.8 (1.28)
79.1 (1.29)
92.7 (1.35)

the differences between the two synthetic fibers were insignificant.

Fiber reinforcement enhanced the shear capacity of RC
beams, but a 1% fiber volume fraction is seen as optimal;
no benefits were noted when the fiber volume fraction
was increased beyond 1%. At a given fiber volume fraction, steel fibers are more efficient than the two synthetic
fibers. However, in a particular range of material shear
strength, the two synthetic fibers are more efficient than
the steel fiber. The exact reasons for this are not clear but
are likely related to the deflection hardening observed in
synthetic FRC at large displacement.
Synthetic fibers, especially synthetic2, carried noticeable
shear load in fibrous RC beams. Also, steel and synthetic2
fibers in conjunction with stirrups showed synergistic effects.
Energy absorption capacity, as obtained by integrating the
area under the loaddisplacement curves in direct shear
tests to a displacement of 20 mm, indicated that all fibers
substantially improved shear toughness and that a proportional increase in energy absorption capacity of RC beams
occurred with an increase in material shear toughness.
Steel fibers performed better than the two synthetic fibers,
but synthetic fibers were also effective.
An equation was proposed for predicting the shear capacity of FRC beams based on direct shear tests performed
on FRC prisms. An excellent agreement between the experimental shear capacity and that predicted by the proposed equation was noted.

Acknowledgement
The continued support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.

References
ASTM. 1998. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. Standard ASTM C39-96, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), West
Conshohocken, Pa.

Batson, G., Jenkins, E., and Spatney, R. 1972. Steel fibers as shear
reinforcement in beams. Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 69(10): 640644.
Baant, Z., and Sun, H. 1987. Size effect in diagonal shear failure:
influence of aggregate size and stirrups. ACI Materials Journal,
84(4): 259272.
Bindiganavile, V., and Banthia, N. 2001a. Polymer and steel fiberreinforced cementitious composites under impact loading. Part
1: Bond-slip response. ACI Materials Journal, 98(1): 1016.
Bindiganavile, V., and Banthia, N. 2001b. Polymer and steel fiberreinforced cementitious composites under impact loading. Part
2: Flexural toughness. ACI Materials Journal, 98(1): 1724.
Calixto, J.M., Filho, L.V., and Goncalvez, C.M. 2002. Shear behaviour of reinforced concrete beams with the addition of short
steel fibers. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference
on High-Performance Concrete: Performance and Quality of
Concrete Structures, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil, 46 October
2002. Edited by V.M. Malhorta. American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich. SP-207, pp. 449466.
CEN. 1992. Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures. Part 1:
General rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
Dupont, D., and Vandewalle, L. 2003. Shear capacity of concrete
beams containing longitudinal reinforcement and steel fibers. In
Proceedings of Innovations in Fiber-Reinforced Concrete for
Value, Detroit, Mich. Edited by N. Banthia. American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich. SP-216, pp. 7994.
Imam, M., Vandewalle, L., Mortelmans, F., and Van Gemert, D.
1997. Shear domain of fiber-reinforced high-strength concrete
beams. Engineering Structures, 19(2): 738747.
JSCE. 1990. Method of test for shear strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC). Standard JSCE-SF6, Japan Society of
Civil Engineers (JSCE), Tokyo.
Khuntia, M., Stojadinovic, B., and Goel, S.C. 1999. Shear strength
of normal and high strength fiber reinforced concrete beams
without stirrups. ACI Structural Journal, 96(2): 282289.
Li, V.C., Ward, R., and Hamza, A.M. 1992. Steel and shear fibers
as shear reinforcement. ACI Materials Journal, 89(5): 499508.
Mirsayah, A.A., and Banthia, N. 2002. Shear strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 99(5): 473479.
Narayanan, R., and Darwish, I.Y.S. 1987. Use of steel fibers as
shear reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, 84(3): 216227.
RILEM TC 162-TDF. 2000. Recommendations of RILEM TC 162TDF: sigmaepsilon design method. Materials and Structures,
33: 7581.
Swamy, R.N., and Bahia, H.M. 1985. The effectiveness of steel fibers as shear reinforcement. Concrete International, 7(3): 3540.

2006 NRC Canada