{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030450669914738125, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0194884287454324, 'mean_word_length': 5.323076923076923, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Discussion of the article “From experimental evidence to mechanical modeling and design expressions: The critical shear crack theory for shear design”

In a recent article in Structural Concrete (May 2019), Muttoni and Fernández Ruiz discussed critically the previously published (March 2019) Dönmez and Bažant's justification of the energy-based size effect factor that has recently been adopted for ACI Standard 318-2019, to govern the shear strength of beams without stirrups, punching shear strength and the strength of compression struts of the strut-and-tie model. To discuss this paper's criticism, we identify six errors in their critique and in their arguments to support their own critical shear crack theory (CSCT) proposed for the fib Model Code and the Eurocode (for details, see Reference 4). In particular: