## 5 Conclusions  
Nonlinear failure analysis of an SFRC T-beam was performed and compared with experimental data in order to look at the possibility to replace conventional shear reinforcements with SFs. The shear capacities yielded by various analyses were compared with the experimental results. Three 360 \(\times\) 360 mm web elements between the shear span were selected, then traced the changes in the principal axis caused by crack development and propagation. The changes in the crack angle according to the average strain of the bottom longitudinal reinforcement and the vertical strain of the web element were monitored. For verification, the strut-tie model to predict shear capacity was selected.  
* The shear capacity of the T-beam was approximately 350 kN. The nonlinear analyses of ABAQUS, Vector2, Vector3, and ATENA were in good agreement with the experimental results.
* However, the strains at the level of longitudinal reinforcing differed according to the chosen platform and the model (the continuum-damage, fracture energy-based inelasticity, and modified MCFT models). The continuum-damage model accurately predicted strain at the level of the bottom reinforcement.
* In the case of Vector2/MCFT, which is based on strain, the progressive failure of web elements is well depicted in the biaxial strain relationship. Conversely, ABAQUS result shows better failure trace of web elements under their biaxial stress state in a stress-based Mohr circle. MCFT, which analyzes changes in macro-web elements based on average strain and average stress, can be interpreted as more suitable for SFRC structures than relatively local nodal or element-based analysis. While the ABAQUS result shows better force-displacement excursion curve up to the failure. In addition, the damaged plasticity model reproduces more realistic crack patterns.
* The shear capacity yielded by the two-kinematic strut-tie model established by [PERSON] et al. was in good agreement with the experimental data. Because that model was originally developed for deep beams (a/d \(<\) 2.5), it estimates \(\epsilon_{t,avg}\) stiffer than that of the T-beam (a/d = 2.9). Since the T-beam was slender, the \(\epsilon_{t,avg}\) was approximately two-fold greater than the \(\epsilon_{t,avg}\) of the strut-tie model. Furthermore, the crack inclination angle \(\alpha_{1}\) averaged 21\({}^{\circ}\), which was less than the 35\({}^{\circ}\) of previous works ([PERSON] et al., 2013). The differences reflect the shear span variations between slender and deep beams.  
This research was supported by the National Research Fund of Korea (grant no. NRF-2021R1A2C1004567) and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) of Korea (grant no. 20193110100020).  
**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.  
Figure 13: Shear capacities: (**a**) Load-deflection curve. (**b**) Strain curve at the level of the bottom reinforcement.  
**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Data Availability Statement:** Data-sharing is not applicable here.  
This paper is dedicated to [PERSON] on the occasion of his 70 th birthday.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.