ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 107-S33
Shear Strengths of Prestressed Concrete Beams Part 2:
Comparisons with ACI and AASHTO Provisions
by Thomas T. C. Hsu, Arghadeep Laskar, and Y. L. Mo
In the previous Part 1 paper, an accurate, yet simple, equation for
the shear strengths of prestressed concrete beams was developed.
This new equation is a function of the shear span-depth ratio (a/d
or M/Vd), the strength of concrete f c′ , the web area bwd, and the
ρt ratio. New formulas are also proposed for maximum shear
strength and for the minimum stirrup requirement.
In this Part 2 paper, the new shear design method was compared
with the shear provisions of ACI 318-08 and the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications using 148 test beams. The proposed method does
not take into account the two variables, prestress force, and angle
of failure crack, that are involved in the ACI and AASHTO shear
provisions. Nevertheless, the proposed method is shown to be not
only simple but also more accurate.
Keywords: beams; prestressed concrete; shear design; shear strength.
INTRODUCTION
The paper “Shear Strengths of Prestressed Concrete Beams”
is divided into two parts and published as two papers. Part 1
(Laskar et al. 2010) derived an accurate and simple equation
for the shear strengths of prestressed concrete beams. The
upper and lower limits for the design of transverse stirrups
are given in the forms of maximum shear strength and
minimum stirrup requirement, respectively. New formulas
are also proposed for the upper and lower limits.
Part 2 compares the proposed shear design method (UH
method) with the shear design provisions of ACI 318-08
(ACI method) (ACI Committee 318 2008) and the 2007
AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO method)
(AASHTO 2007). A total of 148 I-girders tested by 14 groups
of researchers were found to fail in shear by crushing of web
concrete with or without the yielding of stirrups. The ultimate
shear strengths of these beams were analyzed by the three
methods (UH method [Laskar et al. 2010], ACI method, and
AASHTO method) and a careful comparison of the three
methods was made.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
An accurate, yet simple, method (UH method) is proposed
for the shear analysis and design of prestressed concrete
bridge girders. This method is more accurate than the ACI
method and the AASHTO method because the shear strength
equation takes into account the strong effect of shear span-
depth ratios (a/d or M/Vd). The UH method is much simpler
than these two code methods because the shear strength
calculations do not involve the two complicated but
insignificant variables: the prestress force and the angle
of failure crack.
340
TECHNICAL PAPER
UH SHEAR STRENGTH EQUATION
A simple and accurate shear strength equation was
developed in Part 1 (Laskar et al. 2010)
V u d⎞ 0.7
V n = 1.17 ⎛ -------- f c ′ ( MPa )b w d + Av f y ⎛ --- – 1⎞
d
-
⎝ Mu ⎠ ⎝s ⎠ (1)
+ V p ≤ 1.33 f c ′ ( MPa )b w d
where 1.17(Vud/Mu)0.7 ≤ 0.83.
In U.S. conventional units
V u d⎞ 0.7
V n = 14 ⎛ -------- f c ′ ( psi )b w d + Av f y ⎛ --- – 1⎞
- d
⎝ Mu ⎠ ⎝s ⎠
+ V p ≤ 16 f c ′psi bw d
where 14(Vud/Mu)0.7 ≤ 10.
Equation (1) shows that the shear strength Vn is expressed
in three terms: Vc, Vs, and Vp. The variable Vp is the vertical
component of the prestressing force in the harped or draped
strands and is usually quite small (Vp = 0 in the case of
straight strands). The variable Vs is the steel contribution
derived from the 45-degree failure cracks and from the
“minimum shear resistance” concept. The variable Vc is the
concrete contribution derived by fitting the shear test results to
three judiciously chosen variables (the shear span-depth
ratio Mu/Vud, the strength of concrete f c ′, and the web
area bwd). Equation (1) is applicable to web-shear failure
near the supports when Mu/Vud is small and to the flexural-
shear failure near the quarter span when Mu/Vud is large. The
Mu/Vud ratio is a generalization of the a/d ratio, so that Eq. (1)
can be applied to beams subjected to distributed loads, not
just concentrated loads.
Equation (1) was derived using the following semi-empirical
approach: (1) the separation of Vc and Vs is based on the
fixed-angle shear theory (Pang and Hsu 1996). In this theory,
Vc is caused by the shear resistance of concrete along the
crack direction, as indicated by the shear force S in Fig. 6 of
Part 1. Vc is not due to the tensile resistance of concrete as
assumed in the modified compression field theory (Vecchio
and Collins 1986); (2) the term Vs is derived theoretically
from the concept of minimum shear resistance and from the
ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 3, May-June 2010.
MS No. S-2009-080.R2 received August 17, 2009, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the March-
April 2011 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2010.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
Thomas T. C. Hsu, FACI, is Moores Professor in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Houston. He is the recipient of many
national awards, including the ACI Arthur J. Boase Award in 2007, the ACI Arthur R.
Anderson Award in 1990, and the ACI Wason Medal for Materials Research in 1965.
Arghadeep Laskar is an Engineer at WorleyParsons Inc., Houston, TX, working on
the design and analysis of offshore structures. He was previously a Graduate
Research Assistant in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Houston, Houston, TX. He received his PhD in May 2009.
Y. L. Mo, FACI, is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, and the Director of Thomas T. C. Hsu Structural Research Laboratory at the
University of Houston. He is a member of Joint ASCE-ACI Committees 445, Shear
and Torsion, and 447, Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures.
Fig. 1—Vexp/Vcal ratios of beams using UH method.
observation that the angle of failure cracks is approximately
45 degrees; and (3) the term Vc (for all of the beams) is calculated
by subtracting Vs and Vp from the observed shear strength Vn,
and are then plotted as a function of a/d to establish the lower
bound curve. This approach allows the trend of the test data
to follow the three carefully identified variables (Mu/Vud,
f c ′, and bwd). These variables are identified using the
mechanics principle and observed material behavior. As
such, this well-tuned semi-empirical approach allows the
UH method to be simpler and more accurate than the ACI
and AASHTO methods.
Equation (1) was used to calculate the shear strengths
(Vcal) of 148 prestressed concrete I-beams found in the
literature and to compare with the experimental shear
strength (Vexp). Then the Vexp/Vcal ratios using the UH
method will be compared to those using the shear provisions
of the ACI Building Code and the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications. Figures 1 to 5 show the advantages of
adopting a semi-empirical approach.
COMPARISON OF UH METHOD WITH
ACI METHOD AND AASHTO METHOD
The shear strengths of all the prestressed beam specimens,
including the five beams (B1 to B5) tested at UH and the 143
beams found in the literature (Hernandez 1958; MacGregor
1960; Mattock and Kaar 1961; Bruce 1962; Hanson and
Hulsbos 1965; Bennett and Balasooriya 1971; Lyngberg
1976; Elzanaty et al. 1986; Robertson and Durrani 1987;
Kaufman and Ramirez 1988; Rangan 1991; Shahawy and
Batchelor 1996; and Ma et al. 2000) were analyzed by three
methods: the UH method using Eq. (1), the ACI method
using the Vci and Vcw equations of ACI 318-08 (ACI 318
Committee 2008), and the AASHTO method using the shear
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
Fig. 2—Vexp/Vcal ratios of large beams using UH method.
Fig. 3—Vexp/Vcal ratios of large beams using ACI method.
provisions of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO
2007). The results are recorded in Table A in the Appendix.*
In Table A, the shear capacities of the UH beams were
calculated at a section at distance d from the support and at
the failure sections (loading points). The failure sections
were at 0.914 m (3 ft) from the support for the web-shear
failure of Beams B1, B2, and B3. The failure sections were
at 2.44 m (8 ft) from the support for the flexural-shear failure
of Beams B4 and B5. For beams by other researchers, only
the calculation at the load point (failure section) is given for
each beam in Table A.
The Vexp /Vcal ratios for the UH method are plotted against
a/d in Fig. 1. It can be seen that the Vexp /Vcal ratios vary from
1.0 to approximately 2.0 for all 148 beams tested by 14
groups of researchers. A closer examination of the Vexp /Vcal
ratios in Fig. 1 reveals that this strength ratio is strongly
influenced by the sizes of the test specimens.
In this study, beams with a height greater than 500 mm
(20 in.) are defined as large, and those less than 500 mm
(20 in.) are defined as small. Figure 2 includes only the Vexp/Vcal
ratios of the 58 large specimens (Mattock and Kaar 1961;
Lyngberg 1976; Robertson and Duranni 1987; Kaufman and
Ramirez 1988; Rangan 1991; Shahawy and Batchelor 1996;
Ma et al. 2000; and Laskar et al. 2006). It can be seen that the
Vexp/Vcal ratios vary from 1.0 to approximately 1.5, much
better than the scatter observed in Fig. 1. Apparently, the
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.
341

Fig. 4—Vexp /Vcal ratios of large beams using AASHTO
method.
Fig. 5—Vexp/Vcal ratios of large beams versus concrete
strengths using UH method. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
strength ratios of the 90 small specimens were more
conservative and had larger scatter. These smaller beams
tended to be those tested earlier in the 1950s and 1960s.
The Vexp/Vcal ratios of the 58 large specimens using the
ACI method are plotted in Fig. 3. The Vexp/Vcal ratios vary
from 1.0 to approximately 2.0. Obviously, the accuracy of
the ACI method in predicting the shear strengths is not as
good as the proposed UH method. This is because the ACI
method is strongly influenced by the small and older test
specimens, whereas the UH method places more emphasis
on the large and more recent specimens.
The Vexp/Vcal ratios of the 58 large specimens using the
AASHTO method are plotted in Fig. 4. The Vexp/Vcal ratios
in this figure have very large scatter ranging from 0.872 to
4.77. This scatter is much larger than those for the UH
method (refer to Fig. 2) and the ACI method (refer to Fig. 3).
The Vexp/Vcal ratios of the 58 large specimens are also
plotted in Fig. 5 as a function of concrete compressive
strength fc′ using the UH method. It can be seen that the UH
method is quite valid for fc′ ranging from approximately 28 to
75 MPa (4000 to 11,000 psi). Similar figures for ACI and
AASHTO methods can be found in Laskar (2009).
In general, the UH method provides a higher Vc term and
a lower Vs term. A higher Vc term reflects the concept that Vc
stems from the shear resistance of concrete along an inclined
failure crack, rather than the tensile resistance of concrete
across the failure crack. The reduced Vs term is due to using
342
a failure crack angle of 45 degrees and due to seeking the
minimum shear resistance of individual stirrups. As a result,
the UH method was found to be not only clearer in concept,
simpler in calculation, but also more accurate.
To understand the analyses involved in Table A and Fig. 1 to 5,
a careful explanation is made in the following sections to
identify the shear failure modes of 148 I-beams tested by 14
groups of researchers, starting with the UH beams.
SHEAR FAILURES OF UH BEAMS
Web-shear failures of Beams B1, B2, and B3
Beams B1, B2, and B3 failed in web shear mode, with the
failure zone extending from the support to the nearest load
point at a distance of 0.914 m (3 ft). This failure zone covers
the critical section defined at a distance d = 0.567 m (1.86 ft)
from the support. In principle, the shear capacities at these
two sections, 0.567 and 0.914 m (1.86 and 3 ft), should be
approximately the same and the Vexp/Vcal ratios should be
close. Looking at Table A in the Appendix, the Vexp/Vcal
ratios at these two sections are indeed identical for the UH
method, reasonably close for the ACI method, and significantly
different for the AASHTO method.
In terms of the magnitude of the Vexp/Vcal ratio, Table A
shows that the Vexp/Vcal ratio using the UH method varies
quite consistently from 1.044 to 1.196 for the predictions of
the three UH beams. This means that the trends created by
the two terms (Vc and Vs) and the two variables (a/d and ρt)
are accurately captured in the UH method.
Using the ACI method, the Vexp/Vcal ratio varies from
1.162 to 1.724. The high end of conservatism of the ACI
method occurred in Beam B1. Beam B1 has a small ρt ratio
of 0.17%, which produces a small Vs term. The lower end of
conservatism occurred in Beams B2 and B3. These beams
have a moderate ρt ratio of 0.95%, which produces a larger
Vs term.
For the AASHTO predictions of the same three beams,
however, the Vexp/Vcal ratio varies widely from 1.467 to
2.991 at a distance d = 0.567 m (1.86 ft) from the support,
and also varies widely from 1.909 to 4.004 at a distance
0.914 m (3 ft) from the support. Table A clearly shows that
the AASHTO predictions seriously underestimate the Vc
terms. In the case of Beams B2 and B3 (ρt = 0.95%), the
small Vc term was partially compensated by using small
crack angles (that is, large cotθ in the Vs term) to enlarge the
Vs term. In the case of Beam B1 (ρt = 0.17%), however, even
the use of a very small angle of 27.4 degrees could not
compensate for the weakness of the Vc terms, resulting in the
very high Vexp/Vcal ratios of 2.991 at a distance d = 0.567 m
(1.86 ft) from the support and an even higher ratio of 4.004
at 0.914 m (3 ft). It should also be mentioned that the actual
crack angle θ measured for Beam B1 was 42.1 degrees,
much larger than the 27.4 degrees calculated by the
AASHTO method.
Flexural-shear failures of Beams B4 and B5
Beams B4 and B5 failed in flexural-shear mode, with the
failure section at the load point located at a distance of 2.44 m
(8 ft) from the support. The failure zone is in the vicinity of
the load point toward the support, and covers a longitudinal
length of approximately d = 0.57 m (1.86 ft) (refer to Fig. 7
in Part 1). The failure zones for Beams B4 and B5 are
correctly identified by the UH method; Table A shows the
Vexp/Vcal ratios of 1.267 and 1.173, respectively, at the
failure sections. At the presumably critical sections at
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
distance d from the support, the Vexp/Vcal ratios were 0.673 and
0.668 for Beams B4 and B5, respectively. A Vexp /Vcal ratio
of less than unity confirms the observation that shear failures
did not occur at these sections. This is because Vexp is the
experimental shear strength at the failure section, whereas
Vcal is the calculated shear strength at any nonfailure section.
Vcal is a function of Mu /Vud, as shown in Eq. (1).
The failure zones for Beams B4 and B5 were also correctly
identified by the ACI method. At a distance d = 0.57 m
(1.86 ft) from the support, the Vexp /Vcal ratios of 0.967 and
0.914 (less than one) confirm that shear failures did not occur
at these sections. The ACI method correctly identified the
failure sections at 2.44 m (8 ft) from the support, where the
Vexp/Vcal ratios are 1.322 and 1.386 for Beams B4 and B5,
respectively. The fact that the Vexp value is more than 30%
higher than the Vcal value at the failure section can be
explained by the underestimation of the Vc term.
In contrast, the shear capacities of Beams B4 and B5
predicted by the AASHTO method at the failure section
(2.44 m [8 ft] from support) give the Vexp/Vcal ratios of 2.874 and
2.279, respectively. In other words, the AASHTO method
seriously underestimates the flexural-shear capacities at the
actual failure zones of the beams because it seriously under-
estimates the Vc term. Moreover, the AASHTO method
wrongly predicts the web-shear failures to occur at the critical
section at distance d = 0.57 m (1.86 ft) from the support, with
the Vexp/Vcal ratios greater than unity.
SHEAR FAILURES OF BEAMS IN LITERATURE
Shear failures of large beams (h > 500 mm [20 in.])
In Table A, the same trends of Vc and Vs as described in
the previous sections for UH beams can also be observed in
the tests of other researchers. In this section, additional
observations will be pointed out in other large beams.
Mattock and Kaar (1961)—Mattock and Kaar tested 15
prestressed I-beams having an overall depth of 648 mm
(25.5 in.). Thirteen of these beams failed in the web due to
shear, whereas two beams, S4 and S22, failed in flexure (by
error) and horizontal shear, respectively. The Vexp /Vcal ratios
of the 13 beams that failed in shear are calculated by the
three design methods in Table A.
The Vexp/Vcal ratios calculated by the UH method are
excellent, ranging from 0.997 to 1.425. The Vexp/Vcal ratios
calculated by the ACI method are more scattered, ranging
from 0.907 to 1.841. Two of the 13 beams, S12 and S13,
have the Vexp/Vcal ratios less than 1.0, indicating that the ACI
method may have overestimated the Vc term. The Vexp/Vcal
ratios calculated by the AASHTO method are significantly
higher than unity, ranging from 1.528 to 2.614 because the
AASHTO method seriously underestimates the Vc term.
Lyngberg (1976)—Lyngberg’s six specimens have the
same height of 600 mm (23.6 in.), the same flexural capacity,
the same transverse steel ratio of 0.53%, and the same a/d of
2.78, except that the prestressed force varies from 630 kN
(142 kips) for Specimens 2A-3 and 2B-3 to 210 kN (47.2 kips)
for Specimens 4A-1 and 4B-1. Table A shows that the
experimental strengths of all six beams are very close. This
confirms that prestressing force has an insignificant effect on
the shear strengths of the prestressed beams.
In the UH method, the Vexp/Vcal ratio for Lyngberg’s
specimens varies from 1.303 to 1.457. These UH predicted
strengths, which are somewhat on the conservative side, are
likely to be caused by the additional strength contributed by
the wide top flanges. The ACI predictions give Vexp/Vcal
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
ratios of 1.205 to 1.456, very close to those calculated by the
UH method. The AASHTO predictions give much higher
Vexp/Vcal ratios of 1.681 to 1.955 because the Vc term was
underestimated.
Robertson and Durrani (1987)—Robertson and Durrani
tested thirteen 508 mm (20 in.) deep beams using plane
sheets of welded wire fabric as shear reinforcement. Nine out
of the 13 beams failed in the web due to shear. The Vexp/Vcal
ratios of these nine beams are given in Table A. It can be
seen that the Vexp/Vcal ratios calculated using the UH method
were more accurate (varied from 1.140 to 1.324) compared
to the ACI method (varied from 1.270 to 1.602) and the
AASHTO method (varied from 2.527 to 4.770). The over-
conservative estimations of the AASHTO method are also
caused by the underestimation of the Vc term.
Kaufman and Ramirez (1988)—Kaufman and Ramirez
tested six high-strength concrete prestressed I-beams. Four
were AASHTO Type I beams, having an overall depth of
711 mm (28 in.), and the remaining two were AASHTO
Type II beams, having an overall depth of 914 mm (36 in.).
Two of the six beams, namely Beams I-1 and II-2, failed in
flexure as reported by the authors. Three other beams,
namely Beams I-3, I-4, and II-1, were reported to have failed
in shear tension, implying that the failures were due to
insufficient end anchorages. The overhangs beyond the end
supports in the three beams were only 152 mm (6 in.) long,
causing a large crack near the support and the slipping of
strands. This leaves only one beam (I-2) out of the group of
six with a desirable shear failure in the web. The Vexp/Vcal
ratios of Beam I-2 given in Table A shows that the UH
method is more accurate in comparison to the ACI method
and the AASHTO method.
Shahawy and Batchelor (1996)—Shahawy and Batchelor
investigated the effect of two variables, namely a/d (2.17,
2.60, and 3.16) and the transverse steel ratios ρt (0.229%,
0.417%, 0.646%, and 0.888%). Table A shows that the
Vexp/Vcal ratios calculated by the UH method vary in a
narrow range from 0.967 to 1.231, meaning that the UH
method can capture the trends exerted by the a/d ratios and
the ρt ratios on Vc and Vs.
The Vexp/Vcal ratios calculated by the ACI method vary in
a slightly higher range from 1.035 to 1.382. This range is still
acceptable because the effects of a/d and ρt ratios on the Vc
and Vs terms could still be discerned. In contrast, the Vexp /Vcal
ratios calculated by the AASHTO method vary from 1.499
to 2.395, an unacceptable range that drowns out the effect of
a/d. The severe inaccuracy stems primarily from the
extremely small values of the Vc term.
Shear failures of small beams (h < 500 mm [20 in.])
Hernandez (1958), MacGregor (1960), Bruce (1962)—
The specimens by Hernandez, MacGregor, and Bruce had a
height of only 305 mm (12 in.), a low concrete strength of
16.5 to 32.1 MPa (2400 to 4600 psi), and a low-to-moderate
ρt ratio of 0.165 to 2.0%. The ACI predictions of these
specimens are reasonable, with Vexp/Vcal ratios ranging from
0.890 to 1.605 (Table A). The UH predictions of these
specimens are more conservative, with Vexp /Vcal ratios
ranging from 1.005 to 1.845. In contrast, the Vexp/Vcal ratios
calculated by the AASHTO method give very high values in
the range of 1.426 to 2.961 for Hernandez’s specimens,
1.624 to 2.932 for MacGregor’s specimens, and 1.063 to
2.392 for Bruce’s specimens. Again, the AASHTO method
seriously underestimates the Vc term.
343
 Hanson and Hulsbos (1965)—Hanson and Hulsbos tested
18 PC I-beams having an overall depth of 457 mm (18 in.).
Out of these 18, only three failed by shear in the web and had
shear reinforcement. The Vexp /Vcal ratios of these three
beams calculated as per the three design methods are shown
in Table A. The Vexp/Vcal ratios calculated by the ACI
method (ranging from 1.301 to 1.572) are more accurate than
those calculated by the UH method (ranging from 1.666 to
1.845). This could be due to the fact that these three beams
had stirrup ratios that were very small (between 0.16 and
0.37%), and spacing that was quite large (203 to 254 mm
[8 to 10 in.], that is, greater than d/2), causing the Vs term to
be underestimated by the UH method. As is the case with
other beams, the Vexp/Vcal ratios (3.373 to 3.799) of the
three beams are much higher when calculated by the
AASHTO method.
Elzanaty et al. (1986)—Specimens tested by Elzanaty et al.
had a height of 356 or 457 mm (14 or 18 in.). They were
tested at high a/d ratios of 3.8 and 5.8. The UH predictions
of the Vexp/Vcal ratios are quite high, ranging from 1.765 to
2.133 (Table A).
As shown in Fig. 9 of Part 1, Elzanaty et al.’s data points
substantiated the trend of shear strengths as a function of a/d;
however, the Vc terms of these specimens lie well above the
proposed curve (refer to Eq. (4) of Part 1). This can be
explained by the small size of the specimens, which not only
induced the size effect, but also caused the bottom flange to
be very large, relative to the web. Moreover, the stirrup
spacing varied from 0.71d to 0.80d, much larger than the UH
limitation of 0.5d. This resulted in low UH predictions of
steel contribution Vs.
Beams over-reinforced in shear
Bennett and Balasooriya (1971), Rangan (1991), and Ma
et al. (2000)—These three groups of prestressed I-beams
were used to check the maximum shear strengths Vn,max as
shown in Fig. 10 in Part 1. In this figure, Vn,max is given as
Eq. (17), (7), and (8) for the UH, ACI, and AASHTO
methods, respectively. Note that the Vn,max for the ACI Code
is taken conservatively as Eq. (7), not Vs,max + Vc.
Three conclusions can be derived from Fig. 10 of Part 1.
First, the ACI Vn,max (Eq. (7)) is way too conservative and
should be significantly increased. Second, the AASHTO
Vn,max (Eq. (8)) is approximately right for the specimens
with a concrete strength less than 60 MPa (8700 psi), but
may be unsafe for higher concrete strengths. Third, the UH
Vn,max (Eq. (17)) not only follows the trend of the test data
up to 60 MPa (8700 psi), but also is likely to be applicable to
much higher concrete strengths. This is because the UH
Vn,max is expressed as a function of f c′ , predicted by the
two-dimensional panel tests discussed in the section
“Maximum Shear Strength in Panel Elements” of Part 1.
Failures of Beams G7W and G8E (Hawkins and
Kuchma 2006)
Hawkins and Kuchma (2006) conducted a series of tests
on 1.854 m (6 ft, 1 in.) high bulb-tee prestressed girders with
simply-supported spans of 15.24 m (50 ft). The cross section
has a thin web of 152 mm (6 in.) wide and a small bottom
flange of 0.660 m (26 in.) wide and a vertical thickness just
sufficient to enclose 42 prestressing strands. The transition
from flange to web is also quite abrupt. These specimens
were expected to fail in shear under uniform load.
344
Upon studying the failure patterns of these tests, it was
observed that most of the girders failed due to local
anchorage failure at the ends. Concrete crushing or splitting
occurred at the intersection between the web and the bottom
flange and spread from the end surface toward the interior of
the girder. Such a local anchorage failure in a D-region is
undesirable and remedies must be found to strengthen the
end regions. In fact, after the local anchorage failure at the
ends in the first test, two girders (G7W and G8E) had their
failed end regions strengthened to become a rectangular
cross section and were then retested.
In the second test, these two girders were observed to
undergo web-crushing of concrete, that is, a typical shear
failure. In Girder G7W, the web-crushing region was
bounded by a section 2.74 m (9 ft) from the support to a
section 3.66 m (12 ft) from the support. In Girder G8E, the
web-crushing region was bounded by a section 1.83 m (6 ft)
from the support to a section 3.05 m (10 ft) from the support.
The shear strengths of these two girders were calculated at
various sections in the failure region using the three design
methods (namely, the UH, the ACI, and the AASHTO
methods), and the results are shown in Table B in the Appendix.
Table B shows that the predictions using the UH method
are very accurate (Vexp/Vcal ratios close to unity) for these
two girders. The Vexp/Vcal ratios from the AASHTO method,
varying from 1.07 to 1.26, are also quite good. However, the
Vc values from the UH method are 3 to 4 times the Vc terms
from the AASHTO method; and the Vs values from the
AASHTO method are more than twice the Vs values from the
UH method. Again, in beams with a moderate amount of
transverse steel and analyzed by the AASHTO method, the
weakness of the Vc value is compensated by the exaggeration
of the Vs value.
The Vexp /Vcal ratios from the ACI method, varying from
1.252 to 1.422, are also acceptable. The Vc and Vs terms
are in between those calculated by the UH and the
AASHTO methods.
CONCLUSIONS
1. One hundred and forty eight prestressed concrete I-beams
tested by 14 groups of researchers were found in the literature to
have failed by shear in the web due to crushing of concrete
or due to yielding of transverse steel followed by crushing of
concrete. The shear strengths of these beams were analyzed
by the UH method employing Eq. (1), the ACI method from
ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008), and the AASHTO
method from the AASHTO Specifications (AASHTO 2007).
2. Compared to the ACI and the AASHTO shear provisions,
the UH shear equation takes into account the strong
effect of a/d or M/Vd, and ignore the weak effects of the
prestress force and the failure crack angle. Furthermore,
the UH method provides a higher Vc term and a lower Vs
term. As a result, the UH method was found to be not
only clearer in concept, simpler in calculation, but also
more accurate.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research conducted in these series of two papers was funded by the
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The prestressed concrete
beams were cast at the Texas Concrete Company, Victoria, TX. Their
generous support is gratefully acknowledged.
NOTATION
1 = direction of applied principal tensile stress
2 = direction of applied principal compressive stress
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
Aps = cross-sectional area of prestressing steel Bennett, E. W., and Balasooriya, B. M. A., 1971, “Shear Strength of
As = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel Prestressed Beams with Thin Webs Failing in Inclined Compression,” ACI
Av = cross-sectional area of stirrup (including two legs for closed stirrup) JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No. 3, Mar., pp. 204-212.
Av,min = minimum required cross-sectional area of stirrup Bruce, R. N., 1962, “An Experimental Study of the Action of Web
a = shear span of prestressed concrete beams Reinforcement in Prestressed Concrete Beams,” PhD dissertation, University
bw = width of web of prestressed I-beams of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
C1 = constant term used to express maximum design shear capacity Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O.; 1986, “Shear Capacity
of prestressed beams of Prestressed Concrete Beams Using High Strength Concrete,” ACI
d = effective depth of prestressed beams measured from centroid of JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 3, May-June, pp. 359-368.
tendons to top fiber of concrete Hanson, J. M., and Hulsbos, C. L., 1965, “Overload Behavior of
dv = lever arm between resultant compressive and tensile forces in Pretensioned Prestressed Concrete I-Beams with Web Reinforcement,”
AASHTO code Highway Research Record 76, Highway Research Board, pp. 1-31.
fc′ = cylinder compressive strength of concrete Hawkins, N. M., and Kuchma, D. A., 2006, “Application of LRFD
fc ′ = square root of cylinder compressive strength of concrete (same Bridge Design Specifications to High-Strength Structural Concrete: Shear
units as fc′) Provisions,” Final Report to National Cooperative Highway Research
fpu = ultimate strength of prestressing bars Program, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 283 pp.
fy = yield strength of bare mild steel bars Hernandez, G., 1958, “Strength of Prestressed Concrete Beams with
fyt = yield strength of transverse steel Web Reinforcement,” Report, The Engineering Experiment Station,
ΣFV = summation of stirrup forces crossing failure crack in prestressed beam University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 135 pp.
h = depth of prestressed beams
Kaufman, M. K., and Ramirez, J. A., 1988, “Re-Evaluation of Ultimate
l = direction of longitudinal reinforcements
Shear Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Prestressed I-Beams,” ACI
ln = clear span of PC beams
Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 3, May-June, pp. 295-303.
M = bending moment in prestressed beams
Laskar, A., 2009, “Shear Behavior and Design of Prestressed Concrete
Mn = nominal bending moment at given section of prestressed beams
Members,” PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental
Mu = bending moment at given section of prestressed beams
Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX.
Pe = effective prestressing force
R = normal force at failure surface in prestressed beams Laskar, A.; Hsu, T. T. C.; and Mo, Y. L., 2010, “Shear Strengths of
S = concrete shear force along inclined shear crack of prestressed Prestressed Concrete Beams Part 1: Experiments and Shear Design
beam Equations,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 3, May-June, pp. 330-339.
s = stirrup spacing Laskar, A.; Wang, J.; Hsu, T. T. C.; and Mo, Y. L., 2006, “Rational Shear
T = tensile force of tendons in prestressed beams Provisions for AASHTO LRFD Specifications,” Technical Report 0-4759-1
t = direction of transverse reinforcements to Texas Department of Transportation, Department of Civil and Environmental
V = shear resistance composed of Vc and Vs Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 216 pp.
Vcal = shear capacity of prestressed beams calculated by various methods Lyngberg, B. S., 1976, “Ultimate Shear Resistance of Partially
Vexp = experimental shear capacity of prestressed beams Prestressed Reinforced Concrete I-Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 73,
Vc = concrete contribution to shear resistance of prestressed beams No. 4, Apr., pp. 214-222.
Vn = nominal shear strength at given section of prestressed beams Ma, Z. J.; Tadros, M. K.; and Baishya, M., 2000, “Shear Behavior of
Vp = vertical component of prestressing force in beams with draped Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete Bridge I-Girders,” ACI Structural
tendons Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 185-193.
Vs = steel contribution to shear resistance of prestressed beams MacGregor, J. G., 1960, “Strength and Behavior of Prestressed Concrete
Vs,max = maximum shear capacity of stirrups in prestressed beams Beams with Web Reinforcement,” PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
Vu = ultimate shear force of prestressed beams University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 295 pp.
Vu,max = maximum shear strength of prestressed beams Mattock, A. H., and Kaar, P. H., 1961, “Precast-Prestressed Concrete
x = distance from support of prestressed beams Bridges—4: Shear Tests of Continuous Girders,” Journal of the PCA
β = factor indicating ability of diagonally cracked concrete to transmit Research Development Laboratories, pp. 19-47.
tension as per AASHTO specifications Pang, X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1996, “Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss
ε1 = principal tensile strain Model for Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 2,
θ = angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses as per Mar.-Apr., pp. 197-207.
AASHTO specifications (same as crack angle) Rangan, B. V., 1991, “Web Crushing Strength of Reinforced and
ρt = transverse steel ratio Prestressed Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.,
σc2 = compressive strength of concrete struts pp. 12-16.
ζ = softening coefficient of concrete in compression Robertson, I. N., and Durrani, A. J., 1987, “Shear Strength of
Prestressed Concrete T Beams with Welded Wire Fabric as Shear Rein-
REFERENCES forcement,” PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 2, pp. 46-61.
AASHTO, 2007, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” Shahawy, M. A., and Batchelor, B., 1996, “Shear Behavior of Full-Scale
fourth edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Prestressed Concrete Girders: Comparison Between AASTHO Specifications
Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, 1518 pp. and LRFD Code,” PCI Journal, V. 41, No. 3, pp. 48-62.
ACI Committee 318, 2008, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1986, “The Modified Compression
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI
Farmington Hills, MI, 473 pp. JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 219-231.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 345

APPENDIX

25
 Table A Calculation of Shear Capacities Using Three Methods (UH, ACI and AASHTO)
Beam I.D. Vexp f c′ UH ACI AASHTO
(kN) (MPa) Vc Vs Vn Vn,max Vexp Vci Vcw Vs Vs,max Vn Vexp θ β Vc Vs Vn Vn,max Vexp
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (deg) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal

B1 at d* 771.7 72.4 612.5 33.1 645.6 980.1 1.196 966.6 387.7 59.8 490.1 447.5 1.724 27.4 2.6 143.6 114.4 258.0 1416 2.991
B1 at 0.92m 771.7 72.4 612.5 33.1 645.6 980.1 1.196 664.9 407.8 59.8 490.1 467.6 1.650 37.3 2.08 114.8 77.9 192.7 1416 4.004
B2 at d* 894.5 74.5 622.4 234.9 857.3 995.8 1.044 970.7 391.1 358.7 497.9 749.8 1.192 32.7 2.28 128.3 481.4 609.7 1466 1.467
B2 at 0.92m 894.5 74.5 622.4 234.9 857.3 995.8 1.044 667.7 411.2 358.7 497.9 769.9 1.162 39.7 1.71 96.2 372.3 468.5 1466 1.909
UH (2006)

B3 at d* 1014.1 64.6 578.8 234.9 854.91 926.1 1.186 793.7 417.21 358.7 463.1 775.9 1.307 34.5 1.94 101.0 447.3 589.51 1261 1.720
B3 at 0.92m 1014.1 64.6 578.8 234.9 859.72 926.1 1.180 562.7 441.82 358.7 463.1 800.5 1.267 41.7 1.47 76.5 345.1 467.62 1261 2.170
B4 at d* 430.6 71.0 607.0 33.1 640.1 971.2 0.673 963.2 385.7 59.8 485.6 445.5 0.967 18.1 3.79 207.0 181.2 388.2 1387 1.109
B4 at 2.44m 430.6 71.0 306.8 33.1 339.9 971.2 1.267 265.9 405.8 59.8 485.6 325.7 1.322 43.1 1.69 92.3 57.5 149.8 1387 2.874
B5 at d* 435.9 64.5 578.5 33.1 652.81 925.6 0.668 792.6 417.11 59.8 462.8 476.9 0.914 18.1 3.79 197.2 181.1 419.51 1260 1.039
B5 at 2.44m 435.9 64.5 292.4 33.1 371.52 925.6 1.173 254.7 441.72 59.8 462.8 314.5 1.386 43.1 1.69 87.9 57.5 191.42 1260 2.279
AR05908X 2800 55.8 1035 639.8 17203 1655 1.692 2822 650.73 805.3 827.7 1456 1.923 38.6 1.38 136.9 967.8 11513 2233 2.434
Ma et als.

AVW14408X 2638 55.8 1134 822.0 1956 1814 1.454 3111 662.9 896.7 1560 1.691 35.8 1.50 163.6 1197 1361 2455 1.939
(2000)

907.0
BVW20408X 2623 74.3 1297 1552 2849 2075 1.264 3833 788.2 1694 1038 1826 1.437 30.8 2.14 267.4 2740 3007 3246 0.872
AVW14608Y 2046 55.8 1134 523.1 1657 1814 1.235 2788 627.4 597.8 907.0 1225 1.670 34.0 1.73 189.6 858 1047 2468 1.953
+ I-2 645.0 57.50 501.0 18.7 519.7 994.4 1.241 371.3 438.7 106.1 499.0 477.4 1.351 41.0 1.90 107.1 110.7 217.8 1287.4 2.961
A0-00-R-N 1392 48.3 714.4 417.0 1131 1402 1.231 1040 483.6 523.8 701.1 1007 1.382 41.7 1.47 124.6 568.8 693.4 1774 2.008
Shahawy and Batchelor

A0-00-R-S 1228 48.3 714.4 417.0 1131 1402 1.085 1040 483.6 523.8 701.1 1007 1.219 41.7 1.47 124.6 568.8 693.4 1774 1.771
A1-00-R/2-N 738.4 48.3 628.8 114.7 743.5 1402 0.993 870.9 483.6 144.0 701.1 627.6 1.177 34.4 2.26 191.5 203.5 395.0 1774 1.869
(1996)

A1-00-R/2-S 769.5 48.3 548.4 114.7 663.1 1402 1.160 720.2 483.6 144.0 701.1 627.6 1.226 41.0 1.90 161.0 160.3 321.3 1774 2.395
A1-00-R-N 934.1 48.3 628.8 208.5 837.3 1402 1.116 870.9 483.6 261.9 701.1 745.5 1.253 41.4 1.82 154.2 287.4 441.6 1774 2.115
A1-00-3R/2-N 920.7 48.3 628.8 323.2 952.0 1402 0.967 870.9 483.6 405.9 701.1 889.5 1.035 40.5 1.82 154.2 459.9 614.1 1774 1.499
B0-00-R-N 978.6 48.3 636.4 210.4 846.8 1412 1.156 836.9 475.9 263.7 706.1 739.6 1.323 42.8 1.61 137.7 276.2 413.9 1790 2.364
B0-00-R-S 916.3 48.3 555.1 210.4 765.5 1412 1.197 692.4 475.9 263.7 706.1 739.6 1.239 42.8 1.61 137.7 276.2 413.9 1790 2.214
II-1 460.9 45.0 145.8 278.6 424.4 317.7 1.451 154.8 99.5 330.4 158.8 258.3 1.784 38.6 1.38 25.1 352.2 377.3 368.3 1.252
II-2 378.8 31.5 120.1 463.6 583.7 261.6 1.448 145.5 86.8 549.8 130.8 217.6 1.741 38.6 1.38 20.0 564.5 584.5 244.5 1.550
Rangan (1991)

II-3 489.2 44.6 165.6 278.6 444.2 360.7 1.356 156.0 112.0 330.4 180.4 292.4 1.673 38.6 1.38 28.5 351.9 380.4 416.0 1.286
II-4 479.4 43.0 164.8 463.6 628.4 359.1 1.335 155.1 112.1 549.8 179.5 291.6 1.644 38.6 1.38 28.3 583.6 611.9 405.3 1.183
III-1 368.0 40.0 136.6 272.0 408.7 302.2 1.218 190.0 109.5 328.7 151.1 260.6 1.412 37.4 1.38 23.6 354.4 378.0 325.4 1.131
III-2 390.5 37.0 131.4 452.7 584.1 290.7 1.343 187.9 106.9 546.8 145.3 252.2 1.548 38.6 1.38 22.5 560.2 582.7 298.5 1.308
III-3 396.5 39.0 157.4 272.0 429.4 348.2 1.139 190.0 125.1 328.7 174.1 299.2 1.325 38.6 1.38 27.1 338.5 365.6 369.1 1.084
III-4 453.0 37.0 145.3 452.7 598.0 321.5 1.409 187.8 116.7 546.8 160.7 277.4 1.633 38.6 1.38 24.9 560.2 585.1 330.2 1.372

26
 Table A Calculation of Shear Capacities Using Three Methods (UH, ACI and AASHTO) (continued)

Beam I.D. Vexp f c′ UH ACI AASHTO

(kN) (MPa) Vc Vs Vn Vn,max Vexp Vci Vcw Vs Vs,max Vn Vexp θ β Vc Vs Vn Vn,max Vexp
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (deg) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal

IV-1 375.0 37.1 119.0 441.7 560.7 267.4 1.402 288.1 130.1 521.5 133.7 263.8 1.422 38.5 1.38 20.7 550.7 571.4 275.4 1.361
Rangan
(1991)

IV-2 337.8 33.0 115.9 265.5 381.4 260.3 1.298 285.4 130.9 313.4 130.2 261.1 1.294 35.8 1.50 21.6 360.4 382.0 249.7 1.353
IV-3 464.8 36.0 136.1 441.7 577.8 305.9 1.520 286.6 147.4 521.5 152.9 300.3 1.548 41.2 1.29 22.1 498.8 520.9 309.4 1.502
IV-4 390.6 28.7 121.6 265.5 387.1 273.1 1.430 280.8 140.2 313.4 136.6 276.8 1.411 38.6 1.38 20.5 320.0 340.5 240.1 1.627
3 154.3 46.1 120.4 15.0 135.4 279.4 1.140 83.6 93.6 24.1 139.7 107.6 1.434 41.0 1.90 29.8 24.9 54.7 321.3 2.820
Robertson and Durrani

4 165.2 44.1 117.8 15.0 132.8 273.3 1.244 89.4 95.7 24.1 136.7 113.5 1.456 42.8 1.61 24.7 23.4 48.1 307.5 3.435
5 167.0 44.6 118.5 26.5 145.0 274.8 1.152 89.1 95.8 42.4 137.4 131.6 1.270 42.8 1.61 24.9 41.2 66.1 311.0 2.527
6 155.7 41.9 114.7 3.0 117.7 266.1 1.323 87.1 93.2 12.0 133.1 99.1 1.571 40.5 1.82 27.2 12.7 39.9 291.6 3.902
(1987)

8 170.4 39.4 111.4 18.6 129.9 258.4 1.311 87.7 92.2 29.8 129.2 117.4 1.451 42.2 1.54 22.4 29.5 51.9 274.8 3.283
10 172.4 42.0 115.0 18.6 133.6 266.7 1.291 88.0 93.8 29.8 133.4 117.7 1.464 42.8 1.61 24.1 28.9 53.1 292.9 3.249
11 179.0 41.8 114.6 24.8 139.4 265.9 1.284 87.5 93.4 39.6 133.0 127.1 1.408 42.2 1.54 23.0 39.3 62.3 291.2 2.872
12 159.0 41.5 114.3 5.8 120.1 265.2 1.324 90.0 94.6 9.3 132.6 99.3 1.602 41.8 1.61 24.0 9.3 33.3 289.4 4.770
13 144.6 41.3 114.0 5.8 119.8 264.4 1.207 87.8 93.3 9.3 132.2 97.1 1.489 41.0 1.90 28.2 9.6 37.8 287.8 3.820
CI-10 141.4 73.1 67.3 12.4 79.7 246.2 1.775 52.2 102.2 39.3 122.9 91.5 1.551 43.1 1.69 23.4 41.5 64.9 356.5 2.178
CI-11 127.2 55.8 58.8 12.4 71.2 215.1 1.788 49.0 94.6 39.3 107.7 88.3 1.444 41.0 1.90 23.0 44.7 67.7 272.1 1.879
CI-12 122.3 40.0 49.8 12.4 62.2 182.1 1.968 46.4 87.6 39.3 91.2 85.7 1.432 39.7 1.71 17.5 46.8 64.3 195.1 1.902
CI-13 154.8 72.4 67.0 12.4 79.4 245.0 1.951 63.9 120.1 39.3 122,7 103.2 1.500 37.0 2.13 29.3 51.6 80.9 353.1 1.913
CI-14 164.6 73.8 67.6 38.2 105.8 247.4 1.556 64.9 121.8 62.7 123.8 127.6 1.289 41.0 1.90 26.4 71.5 97.9 359.9 1.682
Elzanaty et als (1986)

CI-15 121.0 70.3 66.0 12.4 78.4 241.5 1.544 51.4 100.7 39.3 120.9 90.7 1.333 40.8 1.93 26.2 45.0 71.2 342.9 1.699
CI-16 163.2 73.1 67.3 12.4 79.7 246.2 2.049 64.5 121.1 39.3 123.2 103.8 1.575 34.4 2.26 31.3 56.8 88.1 356.5 1.854
CI-17 129.4 69.6 65.7 5.6 71.3 240.2 1.817 63.9 119.6 17.7 120.3 81.6 1.582 30.8 2.50 33.8 29.4 63.2 339.4 2.049
CW-10 173.5 73.1 74.0 13.6 87.6 211.0 1.981 106.0 91.6 43.1 105.7 134.7 1.288 40.5 1.82 21.6 46.8 68.4 305.6 2.539
CW-11 156.6 55.8 64.7 13.6 78.3 184.4 2.002 100.9 84.8 43.1 92.4 127.9 1.224 36.8 1.96 20.3 53.4 73.7 233.3 2.125
CW-12 140.6 40.0 54.8 13.6 68.4 156.1 2.058 97.5 78.7 43.1 78.2 121.8 1.154 34.0 1.73 15.2 59.2 74.4 167.2 1.890
CW-13 182.4 72.4 73.7 13.6 87.3 210.0 2.091 134.7 108.0 43.1 105.2 151.1 1.207 34.9 2.21 26.1 57.2 83.3 302.7 2.189
CW-14 187.7 73.8 74.4 32.5 106.9 212.1 1.756 136.9 109.6 61.5 106.2 171.1 1.097 35.2 2.14 25.5 80.8 106.3 308.5 1.766
CW-15 150.3 70.3 72.6 13.6 86.2 207.0 1.745 104.2 90.0 43.1 103.7 133.1 1.129 37.3 2.08 24.2 52.4 76.6 293.9 1.962
CW-16 186.8 73.1 74.0 13.6 87.6 211.0 2.133 135.9 108.9 43.1 105.7 152.0 1.229 32.7 2.28 27.0 62.2 89.2 305.6 2.093
CW-17 142.3 69.6 72.2 6.1 78.3 205.9 1.816 135.0 107.7 19.4 103.1 127.1 1.120 25.9 2.74 31.7 37.1 68.8 290.9 2.069

27
 Table A Calculation of Shear Capacities Using Three Methods (UH, ACI and AASHTO) (continued)

Beam I.D. Vexp f c′ UH ACI AASHTO

(kN) (MPa) Vc Vs Vn Vn,max Vexp Vci Vcw Vs Vs,max Vn Vexp θ β Vc Vs Vn Vn ,max Vexp
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (deg) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal

2A-3 506.0 32.6 210.4 147.8 358.2 491.5 1.413 198.4 184.4 210.0 245.8 394.4 1.283 41.2 1.29 36.7 222.1 258.8 489.1 1.955
Lyngberg (1976)

2B-3 515.0 33.9 214.5 154.2 368.7 501.2 1.397 199.1 186.3 219.2 250.6 405.5 1.270 41.2 1.29 37.5 232.4 269.9 509.7 1.908
3A-2 489.0 31.1 205.5 159.0 364.5 480.1 1.342 149.9 156.3 226.0 240.0 375.9 1.301 41.2 1.29 35.6 237.6 273.2 463.7 1.790
3B-2 433.0 27.5 193.2 149.9 343.1 451.4 1.262 146.4 150.0 213.0 225.7 359.4 1.205 41.2 1.29 33.2 222.2 255.4 406.7 1.696
4A-1 469.0 31.5 206.8 153.3 360.1 483.1 1.303 104.4 132.1 217.8 241.6 322.2 1.456 41.2 1.29 35.9 229.3 265.2 470.3 1.768
4B-1 454.0 30.4 203.1 157.8 360.9 474.6 1.258 101.6 129.3 224.3 237.3 325.9 1.393 41.2 1.29 35.1 235.0 270.1 451.6 1.681
4A1 69.7 37.30 15.4 41.3 56.7 46.5 1.501 43.1 40.4 49.7 23.3 63.7 1.094 29.7 2.33 5.5 70.7 76.2 43.3 1.610
3A2 69.7 41.71 19.9 41.3 61.2 49.1 1.420 53.3 39.5 49.7 24.7 64.2 1.086 28.6 2.39 5.9 73.9 79.9 48.4 1.440
2A3 81.0 33.79 23.8 41.3 65.1 44.2 1.831 82.0 39.2 49.7 22.2 61.4 1.319 28.6 2.39 5.4 73.9 79.3 39.2 2.063
1A4 126.1 34.68 28.0 41.3 69.3 44.8 2.815 159.6 39.0 49.7 22.5 61.5 2.052 28.6 2.39 5.4 73.9 79.4 40.3 3.131
2B2 100.2 42.96 26.9 41.3 68.2 49.9 2.010 72.7 35.8 49.7 25.0 60.8 1.648 29.1 2.33 5.9 72.4 78.3 49.9 2.009
Bennett and Balasooriya (1971)

2B3 101.9 43.92 27.2 41.3 68.5 50.4 2.022 60.2 28.7 49.7 25.3 54.0 1.887 34.3 1.58 4.4 64.0 68.4 55.2 1.846
2B4 79.1 38.06 25.3 41.3 66.6 46.9 1.685 47.2 23.1 49.7 23.5 46.6 1.696 29.7 2.33 5.9 75.0 80.9 46.9 1.686
2B5 75.7 38.96 25.6 41.3 66.9 47.5 1.595 27.1 15.5 49.7 23.8 39.4 1.923 35.8 1.5 4.0 62.4 66.4 50.5 1.500
3C2 75.7 33.23 17.8 41.3 59.1 43.9 1.726 46.7 33.9 49.7 22.0 55.9 1.355 29.1 2.33 5.2 72.4 77.6 38.6 1.962
3C3 78.7 33.65 17.9 41.3 59.2 44.1 1.784 38.8 26.7 49.7 22.1 48.8 1.612 35.8 1.5 3.5 58.2 61.7 40.7 1.936
3C4 56.4 30.48 17.0 41.3 58.3 42.0 1.342 30.6 21.8 49.7 21.1 42.9 1.315 30.6 2.12 4.6 69.8 74.4 36.2 1.555
3C5 48.8 31.58 17.3 41.3 58.6 42.7 1.143 17.6 14.5 49.7 21.5 35.9 1.360 34.3 1.58 3.7 64.5 68.2 40.0 1.221
3D1 85.7 44.27 20.5 66.1 86.6 50.6 1.694 47.4 35.1 74.5 25.4 60.5 1.416 29.7 2.33 6.0 106.3 112.3 51.6 1.662
3D2 76.7 44.27 20.5 41.3 61.8 50.6 1.516 48.6 35.9 49.7 25.4 61.3 1.252 29.1 2.33 6.0 72.7 78.7 51.6 1.487
2F1 151.2 39.16 48.1 71.3 119.4 89.2 1.696 132.6 60.2 79.7 44.7 105.0 1.440 29.7 2.33 11.5 124.2 135.8 93.3 1.620
2F2 148.1 39.16 48.1 71.3 119.4 89.2 1.661 131.9 54.3 79.7 44.7 99.0 1.496 29.7 2.33 11.5 124.2 135.8 93.3 1.587
2F3 131.9 39.16 48.1 71.3 119.4 89.2 1.479 91.2 41.1 79.7 44.7 85.9 1.536 32.8 1.7 8.7 114.2 122.9 96.9 1.360
2F4 121.2 39.99 48.6 71.3 119.9 90.1 1.345 32.2 23.8 79.7 45.2 69.0 1.756 41.2 1.29 7.0 87.5 94.5 103.0 1.283
E.14 239.3 46.75 113.6 16.1 129.7 249.3 1.845 152.2 110.2 42.0 127.0 152.2 1.572 39.2 1.61 22.9 47.1 70.0 293.1 3.418
* E.17 169.0 45.37 91.4 10.0 101.4 245.6 1.666 112.2 107.0 23.0 125.2 169.0 1.301 40.5 1.82 25.5 24.6 50.1 284.5 3.373
E.18 172.1 45.78 91.8 5.4 97.3 246.7 1.770 112.5 107.3 18.4 125.7 172.1 1.369 40.5 1.82 25.6 19.7 45.3 287.1 3.799

28
 Table A Calculation of Shear Capacities Using Three Methods (UH, ACI and AASHTO) (continued)

Beam I.D. Vexp f c′ UH ACI AASHTO

(kN) (MPa) Vc Vs Vn Vn,max Vexp Vci Vcw Vs Vs,max Vn Vexp θ β Vc Vs Vn Vn,max Vexp
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (deg) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal

CW.14.34 80.9 27.1 30.9 22.3 53.2 83.3 1.521 29.3 35.4 29.3 41.7 58.6 1.381 41.2 1.29 5.7 28.2 33.9 68.9 2.388
CW.14.38 59.9 19.7 26.7 14.2 40.9 71.6 1.465 22.4 28.8 21.1 35.8 43.5 1.377 41.2 1.29 4.8 20.2 25.0 50.1 2.392
CW.14.40 64.5 23.2 28.5 16.4 44.8 76.5 1.439 29.0 34.4 26.3 38.3 55.3 1.166 35.8 1.50 5.9 30.0 35.8 57.0 1.799
CW.24.37 53.9 21.9 25.3 10.3 35.6 70.7 1.514 20.6 25.9 15.7 35.3 36.3 1.483 35.1 1.50 5.7 19.3 25.0 53.7 2.153
CI.14.34 69.8 27.0 30.8 21.2 52.0 82.7 1.342 29.4 35.9 27.8 41.4 57.1 1.222 38.6 1.38 6.0 29.3 35.3 68.0 1.978
CI.14.36 54.4 19.2 26.0 13.3 39.3 69.9 1.383 24.1 28.7 19.8 34.9 44.0 1.236 38.6 1.38 5.0 20.7 25.8 48.1 2.110
CI.24.39 52.5 20.5 25.7 10.3 36.0 71.4 1.459 20.4 26.8 15.8 35.7 36.2 1.449 34.3 1.58 6.1 20.0 26.1 52.5 2.014
FW.14.089 115.2 21.9 36.0 49.0 85.1 86.1 1.353 32.7 28.7 56.3 43.1 71.7 1.605 41.2 1.29 6.6 61.4 68.0 72.4 1.693
Bruce (1962)

FW.14.091 99.6 21.2 37.9 54.1 92.1 89.6 1.112 33.3 30.5 60.7 44.8 75.3 1.323 41.2 1.29 6.9 66.1 72.9 73.9 1.365
4 4 4
FV.14.063 89.5 22.6 38.1 38.2 79.9 91.4 1.120 24.7 30.8 45.4 45.7 70.2 1.275 41.2 1.29 7.1 50.1 60.9 79.0 1.469
5 5 5
FV.14.065 87.1 22.3 36.9 34.3 75.2 88.5 1.159 27.0 31.1 40.8 44.2 67.8 1.285 41.2 1.29 6.9 45.0 55.9 76.0 1.558
6 6 6
FV.14.070 72.5 21.0 31.4 24.9 65.4 78.6 1.110 23.8 32.3 31.4 39.3 55.2 1.314 41.2 1.29 6.1 34.5 49.7 65.1 1.459
CU.14.29 59.7 24.1 29.7 17.4 47.1 79.7 1.268 25.0 31.2 27.8 39.9 52.8 1.130 41.2 1.29 5.6 27.5 33.0 63.7 1.808
CU.14.31 57.8 21.9 28.1 17.4 45.5 75.5 1.271 23.5 30.2 27.8 37.7 51.4 1.126 41.2 1.29 5.2 27.1 32.3 56.6 1.791
CU.14.32 45.3 22.0 27.8 17.3 45.1 74.7 1.005 23.2 29.8 27.8 37.4 50.9 0.890 34.0 1.73 6.9 35.1 42.0 56.2 1.081
CU.14.33 57.8 21.1 28.0 17.3 45.3 75.3 1.276 24.7 30.4 27.8 37.6 52.5 1.102 41.2 1.29 5.1 26.9 32.0 55.1 1.806
CU.14.35 67.7 26.7 30.9 17.3 48.2 82.8 1.405 31.3 36.1 27.8 41.4 59.0 1.147 38.6 1.38 6.0 29.3 35.3 67.7 1.920
CU.14.37 58.7 24.8 29.5 17.3 46.8 79.2 1.254 29.2 33.9 27.8 39.6 56.9 1.031 34.3 1.58 6.5 33.8 40.2 61.6 1.458
CU.14.38 51.2 24.4 30.2 17.4 47.6 80.9 1.074 28.3 35.2 27.9 40.4 56.1 0.911 30.5 2.14 8.9 39.2 48.1 62.2 1.063
CU.14.39 65.5 24.1 30.3 17.3 47.6 81.3 1.377 29.1 35.8 27.8 40.6 56.9 1.151 36.0 1.50 6.3 31.5 37.8 61.9 1.731
S1 637.4 45.71 304.2 189.0 493.2 486.8 1.309 957.3 189.0 211.0 244.3 399.9 1.594 35.8 1.50 43.6 279.6 323.2 592.1 1.972
Mattock and Kaar

S2 449.0 45.44 261.4 189.0 450.4 485.3 0.997 438.5 188.7 211.0 243.5 399.6 1.124 39.2 1.61 46.6 247.2 293.9 588.4 1.528
S3 568.7 44.82 301.2 189.0 490.2 482.0 1.180 598.8 187.9 211.0 241.9 398.9 1.426 38.6 1.38 39.9 253.5 293.4 582.5 1.939
(1961)

S5 533.6 41.85 291.1 83.5 374.6 465.8 1.425 1051.3 184.4 105.5 233.7 289.9 1.841 32.8 1.70 47.4 156.8 204.2 543.2 2.614
S6 437.5 43.78 297.7 83.5 381.2 476.4 1.148 653.5 186.7 105.5 239.1 292.2 1.497 33.8 1.94 55.5 151.4 206.9 570.0 2.115
S7 395.1 43.65 256.2 83.5 339.7 475.6 1.163 464.6 186.5 105.5 238.7 292.0 1.353 36.8 1.96 55.9 135.4 191.3 567.9 2.065
S8 328.0 47.30 189.9 83.5 273.4 495.1 1.200 273.3 190.8 105.5 248.5 296.3 1.107 42.8 1.61 48.0 109.7 157.7 617.3 2.080
S9 446.4 44.89 301.5 48.3 349.8 482.3 1.276 1176.4 188.0 70.3 242.1 258.3 1.728 27.4 2.51 72.8 130.6 203.3 585.2 2.196

29
 Table A Calculation of Shear Capacities Using Three Methods (UH, ACI and AASHTO) (continued)

Beam I.D. Vexp f c′ UH ACI AASHTO

(kN) (MPa) Vc Vs Vn Vn,max Vexp Vci Vcw Vs Vs,max Vn Vexp θ β Vc Vs Vn Vn,max Vexp
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (deg) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal

S10 340.0 43.23 255.0 48.3 303.3 473.4 1.121 484.5 186.0 70.3 237.6 256.4 1.326 32.1 2.36 67.0 107.6 174.6 562.2 1.948
Mattock and
Kaar (1961)

S11 280.3 43.23 181.5 48.3 229.8 473.4 1.219 284.1 186.0 70.3 237.6 256.4 1.093 37.0 2.13 60.7 89.9 150.5 564.2 1.862
S12 241.0 45.37 148.1 48.3 196.4 484.9 1.227 199.7 188.6 70.3 243.4 258.9 0.931 40.8 1.93 56.3 78.5 134.8 592.1 1.788
S13 265.7 44.47 146.6 83.5 230.1 480.1 1.155 196.7 187.5 105.5 240.9 293.0 0.907 43.2 1.67 48.2 108.2 156.4 580.3 1.699
S21 329.7 46.33 264.0 48.3 312.3 490.1 1.056 486.3 189.7 70.3 245.9 260.0 1.268 32.1 2.36 69.3 107.6 177.0 602.6 1.863
BW.14.26 50.9 24.2 43.9 6.8 50.7 121.9 1.004 29.6 42.9 12.3 61.0 41.9 1.214 42.8 1.61 10.7 11.6 22.3 98.7 2.279
BW.14.34 57.6 24.5 44.7 0.0 44.7 124.4 1.288 35.2 49.0 11.4 62.2 46.6 1.236 40.5 1.82 12.1 11.4 23.5 99.2 2.453
BW.14.38 58.9 21.4 42.6 8.6 51.2 118.4 1.153 34.7 47.7 11.4 59.2 46.1 1.278 39.7 1.71 10.8 11.7 22.5 88.1 2.619
BW.14.45 55.2 18.5 39.7 3.6 43.3 110.9 1.276 33.8 46.2 14.3 55.4 48.1 1.148 39.2 1.61 9.6 15.1 24.7 77.2 2.232
BW.14.58 68.1 21.8 41.4 5.4 46.8 116.2 1.454 43.0 54.7 10.9 58.1 53.9 1.263 30.6 2.37 14.9 16.0 30.9 88.5 2.203
BW.14.60 64.9 20.9 40.2 5.5 45.7 112.9 1.420 43.0 53.9 10.9 56.4 53.9 1.204 29.0 2.43 14.8 17.1 31.9 84.0 2.033
CW.13.28 81.5 29.9 36.0 20.1 56.1 82.2 45.5 32.1 26.7 41.1 58.8 1.386 41.2 1.29 5.8 26.7 32.5 74.0 2.506
MacGregor (1960)

1.455
CW.14.17 35.1 21.7 27.2 3.1 30.3 73.6 1.160 23.0 24.0 5.9 36.8 28.9 1.215 42.8 1.61 6.7 5.8 12.5 58.8 2.796
CW.14.21 35.7 20.6 25.7 3.7 29.4 69.6 1.214 22.7 22.9 7.0 34.8 29.7 1.202 42.2 1.54 6.1 7.0 13.1 54.0 2.727
CW.14.22 61.5 32.1 30.4 13.9 44.3 84.2 1.390 36.0 32.8 18.5 42.1 51.3 1.199 39.2 1.61 7.4 19.9 27.3 79.0 2.250
CW.14.23 35.5 18.5 25.0 3.7 28.7 67.7 1.239 22.3 22.6 7.0 33.8 29.3 1.212 41.7 1.47 5.6 7.0 12.6 49.3 2.810
CW.14.35 57.3 23.6 26.3 7.0 33.3 73.3 1.723 32.5 30.1 27.5 36.6 57.6 0.995 38.6 1.38 5.4 29.6 35.0 57.5 1.635
CW.14.37 57.3 22.3 25.0 10.1 35.1 69.6 1.629 34.1 29.4 13.5 34.8 42.9 1.336 38.6 1.38 5.1 14.4 19.6 52.9 2.932
CW.14.39 48.7 20.8 24.9 8.6 33.5 69.1 1.455 33.7 29.5 11.4 34.6 40.9 1.191 34.3 1.58 5.8 14.2 20.0 50.6 2.426
CW.14.47 53.1 17.5 22.3 9.4 31.7 61.8 1.680 32.9 27.4 18.5 30.9 45.9 1.157 35.8 1.50 4.9 21.8 26.7 41.4 1.987
CW.14.50 54.0 16.5 22.3 12.2 34.5 61.9 1.565 33.4 28.2 24.0 31.0 52.2 1.034 35.8 1.50 4.9 28.3 33.2 40.4 1.624
CW.14.51 57.6 22.5 25.8 6.6 32.4 72.6 1.782 43.5 36.4 13.2 36.3 49.6 1.161 30.6 2.12 8.4 19.5 27.9 56.4 2.068
CW.14.54 59.8 22.8 25.8 6.6 32.4 72.5 1.845 41.2 34.8 13.3 36.2 48.1 1.243 31.3 1.93 7.6 18.9 26.5 56.4 2.255
G5 57.3 22.3 25.0 10.0 35.1 69.6 1.636 25.6 29.6 13.3 34.8 38.9 1.473 38.6 1.38 5.1 14.2 19.4 52.9 2.961
Hernandez

G6 48.7 20.8 24.9 8.2 33.1 69.1 1.471 25.3 29.5 10.9 34.6 36.2 1.345 34.3 1.58 5.8 13.6 19.5 50.6 2.500
(1958)

G7 61.5 32.1 30.4 13.1 43.5 84.2 1.415 27.0 33.0 17.4 42.1 44.4 1.385 39.2 1.61 7.4 18.8 26.2 79.0 2.347
G10 53.1 17.5 22.3 8.8 31.1 61.8 1.710 24.8 27.5 17.4 30.9 42.2 1.260 35.8 1.50 4.9 20.5 25.4 41.4 2.088
G13 35.1 21.7 27.2 3.0 30.2 73.6 1.163 16.7 24.0 5.7 36.8 22.4 1.563 42.8 1.61 6.7 5.6 12.4 58.8 2.837

30
 Table A Calculation of Shear Capacities Using Three Methods (UH, ACI and AASHTO) (continued)

Beam I.D. Vexp f c′ UH ACI AASHTO

(kN) (MPa) Vc Vs Vn Vn,max Vexp Vci Vcw Vs Vs,max Vn Vexp θ β Vc Vs Vn Vn,max Vexp
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal (deg) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal

G14 58.9 21.4 42.6 8.2 50.8 118.4 1.161 26.9 47.8 10.9 59.2 37.8 1.558 39.7 1.71 10.8 11.2 22.0 88.1 2.677
G15 35.7 20.6 25.7 3.6 29.3 69.6 1.217 16.6 23.0 6.9 34.8 23.4 1.524 42.2 1.54 6.1 6.9 13.0 54.0 2.755
Hernandez (1958)

G20 54.0 16.5 22.3 11.0 33.3 61.9 1.619 25.2 28.2 21.7 31.0 46.9 1.151 35.8 1.50 4.9 25.6 30.6 40.4 1.767
G21 35.5 18.5 25.0 3.6 28.6 67.7 1.242 16.3 22.7 6.9 33.8 23.1 1.534 41.7 1.47 5.6 6.9 12.5 49.3 2.840
G26 57.3 23.6 26.3 6.6 32.8 73.3 1.746 25.3 30.2 25.8 36.6 51.2 1.120 38.6 1.38 5.4 27.8 33.2 57.5 1.726
G28 59.2 26.7 47.6 0.0 47.6 133.1 1.243 27.0 50.5 15.5 66.5 42.4 1.395 40.5 1.82 13.0 15.6 28.7 111.6 2.066
G29 78.6 29.9 35.1 19.8 54.8 82.2 1.434 32.6 32.2 26.3 41.1 58.5 1.344 41.2 1.29 5.8 26.3 32.1 74.0 2.447
G33 55.2 18.5 39.7 3.5 43.1 110.9 1.281 26.2 46.2 13.8 55.4 40.0 1.382 39.2 1.61 9.6 14.6 24.2 77.2 2.286
G34 18.2 27.0 39.5 35.3 74.8 95.8 1.082 43.9 39.0 44.3 74.8 83.3 0.972 41.4 1.39 8.1 48.7 56.7 90.7 1.426
G35 9.9 24.5 38.1 4.9 43.0 129.1 1.029 22.1 50.9 9.6 64.6 31.7 1.396 41.0 1.90 13.1 9.4 22.5 102.6 1.963
Note 1: Vn,max are given by Eqs. (17) and (8) for UH and AASHTO methods, respectively, in Part 1 paper. Vs,max is given by Eq. (9) also in Part 1 paper for ACI
method..
2: In ACI method Vc is the lesser of Vci and Vcw
3: *d = 0.57m = 1.86 ft
4: 1Include Vp = 41.2 kN 2
Include Vp = 46.0 kN 3
Include Vp = 45.8 kN 4
Include Vp = 3.7 kN 5Include Vp = 4.0 kN 6Include Vp = 9.1 kN
+: Kaufman and Ramirez (1988)
*: Hanson and Hulsbos (1965)
1 kN = 0.225 kips, 1MPa = 145 psi

31
 Table B Comparison of Three Shear Analysis Methods Using Girders G7W and G8E (Hawkins and Kuchma, 2006)

Beam x (m) Vexp UH ACI AASHTO

(kN)
Vc Vs V Vexp Vc Vs V Vexp Vc Vs V Vexp
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vcal
Vcal Vcal
2.74 2871 2019 918 2937 0.977 1234 1041 2019 1.422 527 2145 2672 1.074
3.05 2866 1881 918 2799 1.024 1234 1041 2019 1.420 504 1972 2476 1.158
G7W
3.35 2861 1758 918 2676 1.069 1234 1041 2019 1.417 488 1820 2308 1.240
3.66 2656 1575 918 2493 1.065 1234 1041 2019 1.315 469 1639 2108 1.260
1.83 3041 2083 918 3001 1.013 1215 1041 2082 1.348 545 2151 2696 1.128
2.13 3035 2083 918 3001 1.011 1215 1041 2082 1.345 545 2151 2696 1.126
G8E 2.44 3030 2083 918 3001 1.010 1215 1041 2082 1.343 545 2151 2696 1.124
2.74 3025 2083 918 3001 1.008 1215 1041 2082 1.341 521 1977 2498 1.211
3.05 2825 1857 918 2775 1.018 1215 1041 2082 1.252 549 2065 2614 1.081
Note: Vp = 0 in these two girders
1m = 3.28 ft, 1 kN = 0.225 kips.

32