IntroductionWhereas the flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete (RC) beams is now well understood, accurate prediction of shear behaviour remains a challenge due to the complexity associated with the shear transfer mechanism [1]. Shear failure is rather brittle and sudden, and usually occurs with no advance warning of distress. It is thus highly undesirable and should be avoided if a ductile behaviour is achievable.Over the past three decades, significant attention has been devoted to developing mathematical models for predicting the behaviour and ultimate shear capacity of sheardominated RC beams. The models included those based on compression field theory (CFT), the rotating angle softened truss model (RA-STM), the fixed angle softened truss model (FA-STM), the softened membrane model (SMM) and the strut-and-tie model (STM). Moreover, experimentally validated non-linear finite element-based models [2][3][4] can further help in the accurate application of the design and analysis models available.The strut-and-tie model is reported to provide reasonable predictions of the shear strength, shear transmission mechanism and shear failure behaviour of shear-critical beams and deep beams, but the method cannot be used to predict beam deformations [5]. Although CFT has been used to predict the non-linear behaviour of cracked reinforced concrete membrane elements, the theory ignores the effect of concrete tension stiffening [6]. Later, the effect of concrete tension stiffening was introduced in modified compression field theory by imposing a concrete tensile stress across the shear crack, and as a result the accuracy significantly improved [7]. The effect of concrete tension stiffening was also included in the RA-STM by assuming a shear stress in the crack direction [1,8,9]. However, the RA-STM suffered a number of drawbacks, including the inaccurate prediction of the shear stress-shear strain behaviour of RC elements tested under pure shear and combined shear and flexure, and the inability to predict shear ductility [10]. Further, the RA-STM pays no attention to either the shear resistance of concrete struts or the Poisson's effect. On the other hand, the FA-STM can predict the 'contribution of concrete' V c , but the model implements a complicated empirical constitutive relationship of cracked concrete in shear and still ignores the Poisson's effect [10][11][12].The main difference between the latter two models is that the RA-STM is based on the assumption that the direction of cracks is perpendicular to the principal tensile stress in the concrete element. In contrast, the FA-STM is based on the assumption that the direction of subsequent cracks is perpendicular to the applied principal tensile stress. Further, the softened membrane model takes account of the stresses and strains in a biaxial condition due to the Poisson's effect and could be used to provide accurate predictions of both the pre-and post-peak behaviour of concrete elements tested under pure shear [13][14][15]. Both the RA-STM and the FA-STM were used...