ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 107-S32
Shear Strengths of Prestressed Concrete Beams Part 1:
Experiments and Shear Design Equations
by Arghadeep Laskar, Thomas T. C. Hsu, and Y. L. Mo
In this paper, Part 1, five full-scale prestressed concrete I-beams
were tested to study the effect of three variables: the shear span-
depth ratio (a/d), the transverse steel ratio (ρ t), and the presence of
harped strands on the web shear and the flexural shear capacity.
The results from these tests, together with those found in literature,
were used to develop an accurate, yet simple, equation for the
shear strengths of prestressed concrete beams. This new equation
is a function of the shear span-depth ratio (a/d), the strength of
concrete f c ′ , the web area bwd, and the ρ t ratio.
Although the ACI and AASHTO shear provisions include two
other variables, namely the prestress force and the angle of failure
crack, this study showed that these two variables had no significant
effect on the shear capacity. In addition, a new formula was
derived for the maximum shear strengths to preclude the web
crushing of concrete before the yielding of transverse steel. The
ACI minimum stirrup requirement was also evaluated.
In the Part 2 paper, given in this same journal issue, the proposed
shear design method will be compared to the shear provisions in
the ACI 318-08 and the 2007 AASHTO LRFD Specifications.
Keywords: beams; full-scale tests; prestressed concrete; shear design;
shear strength.
INTRODUCTION
Prestressed concrete I-beams are used extensively as the
primary superstructure components of highway bridges.
This research aims to solve one of the most troublesome
problems in prestressed concrete beams, namely the shear
problem. In fact, there is, at present, no rational model to
predict the shear behavior of prestressed concrete structures
and the various modes of shear failures. Because of this
deficiency, all of the shear design provisions, such as
those in the ACI Building Codes and the AASHTO
LRFD Specifications, are empirical, complicated, and
have severe limitations.
This paper describes the laboratory tests on five full-scale
prestressed concrete I-beams and the development of a
rational and simple method to calculate the shear strength of
prestressed concrete beams. Three of the prestressed
concrete beams were designed and tested to fail in web shear
mode and the other two in flexural shear. It was observed
that the shear span-depth ratio (a/d) was a primary variable
affecting the shear strength of prestressed concrete beams.
The concrete contribution term Vc in web shear failure was
higher than that recognized by ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee
318 2008) and much higher than that allowed by the AASHTO
LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007). The proposed Vc
term was derived from the shear resistance of concrete along
an inclined failure crack, rather than the tensile resistance of
concrete across the failure crack, as assumed in the shear
provisions of the previously referenced codes.
330
TECHNICAL PAPER
The test results and the shear analysis of the five beams, as
well as those reported in the literature, were used to develop
a new equation for the shear strength of prestressed concrete
beams. In this new equation, the shear capacity of a
prestressed beam is simply a function of the a/d ratio, the
compressive strength of concrete f c′ , the web cross section
bwd, and the ρt ratio of the beams. Notably, this study shows
that the present ACI Code and AASHTO Specifications
unnecessarily include two complicated variables, the prestress
force and the angle of failure crack. These two variables are
shown experimentally to have no significant effect on the
shear capacity (Laskar et al. 2006; Lyngberg 1976).
The maximum shear strength, which ensures the yielding
of transverse steel before the web crushing of concrete, is
very different in ACI and AASHTO. In this study, a new
formula is proposed that reduces the unwarranted conservatism
of the ACI Code, and guards against the unsafe nature of the
AASHTO Specifications for high-strength concrete.
The ACI minimum stirrup requirement is checked by the
prestressed I-beams available in literature. It was found that
the ACI requirement, shown later as Eq. (18), is not conservative
when the a/d ratios are in the range from 2 to 4.
In Part 2, the proposed shear design procedures for
prestressed concrete beams are analyzed and compared to
the shear design provisions of ACI and AASHTO.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Through the testing of five girders and the analysis of
143 girders available in literature, the shear strengths of
prestressed concrete bridge girders were found to be strongly
affected by the a/d, and weakly influenced by the prestress
force and the angle of failure crack. These findings led to the
development of an accurate, yet simple, equation for the
shear analysis and design of prestressed I-girders. This new
shear design method can replace the shear provisions in the
ACI Building Code and the AASHTO LRFD Specifications.
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Test program and specimens
Five beams having cross sections known as Texas Department
of Transportation (TxDOT) Type A and shown in Fig. 1 were
designed to study their behavior in web shear and flexural
shear. The total length of each of the beams was 7.62 m (25 ft)
whereas the span length was 7.32 m (24 ft). The position of
the vertical loads on the beams, together with the support
positions, is shown in Fig. 2. Three of the five beams
ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 3, May-June 2010.
MS No. S-2009-079.R1 received March 23, 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

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.
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.
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.
(Beams B1, B2, and B3) were designed to fail in web shear
mode with an a/d ratio of 1.61, whereas the remaining two
(Beams B4 and B5) were designed to fail in flexural shear
mode with an a/d ratio of 4.29. One web shear specimen
(Beam B3) and one flexural shear specimen (Beam B5) had
harped prestressing strands. Figure 1 shows the locations of
the strands at the end cross section. Another variable in the
test program was the amount of shear reinforcement (ρt),
which was either 0.17% (minimum) provided by No. 2
reinforcing bars at 250 mm (10 in.) spacing, or 0.95% provided
by No. 4 reinforcing bars at 178 mm (7 in.) spacing. Table 1 gives
the three test variables (a/d, ρt, strand configuration) for Beams
B1 to B5.
Twelve 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) diameter, seven-wire, low-relaxation
strands were used as the prestressing steel. The prestressing
strands had an ultimate strength of 1862 MPa (270 ksi). The
strands were prestressed by hydraulic jacks in a long-line
prestressing bed with a steel form. Hold-downs were installed
on the bed to harp the strands at the desired inclination.
One day after casting of the beams, the prestressing
strands were slowly released to minimize the bond slip
between the strands and the concrete. The compressive
strength of concrete at the release of prestress was approximately
27.6 MPa (4000 psi). For Beams B3 and B5, the anchors of
the hold-down rods were removed after the release of the
prestress, and the rod holes were grouted by mortar.
Loading equipment
The beams were subjected to vertical loading up to their
maximum shear capacity in a steel loading frame, as shown
in Fig. 3. Two of the four actuators (B and C), each attached
to a vertical steel frame, were used to apply the vertical loads
on the beams. Each of the two actuators had a capacity of
1423 kN (320 kips). Actuator frame B was installed on the
north end of the beam. Actuator frame C was installed on the
south end of the beam. The loads from Actuators B and C
were simultaneously applied at 0.914 m (3 ft) from the
supports (both north and south supports) to create an a/d
ratio of 1.61 for Beams B1, B2, and B3; and at 2.44 m (8 ft)

Fig. 1—Cross section of Beams B1 to B5. (Note: dimensions are in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Table 1—Test variables and failure loads of beams

Concrete Maximum shear Maximum moment
compressive Ultimate corresponding to corresponding to
Tendon profile Transverse cylinder strength at Failure Ultimate shear moment ultimate moment, ultimate shear,
Beam a/d (straight/harped) steel ratio, % test, MPa mode capacity, kN capacity, kN-m kN kN-m
B1-North 1.61 Straight 0.17 72.4 Web shear 840.2 — — 768.3
B1-South 1.61 Straight 0.17 72.4 Web shear 771.7 — — 705.7
B2-North 1.61 Straight 0.95 74.5 Web shear 894.5 — — 817.9
B2-South 1.61 Straight 0.95 74.5 Web shear 1040.8 — — 951.7
Flexure/
B3-North 1.61 Harped 0.95 64.6 — 927.3 1014.1 —
web shear
B4-South 4.29 Straight 0.17 71.0 Flexural shear 430.6 — — 1049.9
Flexure/
B5-North 4.29 Harped 0.17 64.5 — 1062.9 435.9 —
flexural shear
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 kN-m = 0.74 kip-ft.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 331

 from the supports to create an a/d ratio of 4.29 for Beams B4
and B5.
Actuator loads were applied through a roller assembly
consisting of two 152.4 x 304.8 x 50.8 mm (6 x 12 x 2 in.)
bearing plates and two rollers of 50.8 mm (2 in.) diameter
and 304.8 mm (12 in.) length. Lead sheets were also used
between the load bearing plates and the beam surface.
The loads and displacements of the actuators were
controlled by the MTS system. Actuators B and C were first
programmed with a load control mode of 22.2 kN/minute
(5 kips/minute). When the slope of the load-displacement
curve started decreasing, the control mode was switched to a
displacement control of 5.08 mm/hour (0.2 in./hour). This
step continued until shear failure occurred near either end of
the beam. A full test lasted 8 to10 hours. The displacement
control feature was essential in capturing the ductility/
brittleness behavior of beams failing in shear.
Instrumentations
During testing, linear voltage differential transformers
(LVDTs) were used to measure the displacements within the
failure regions of the beam adjacent to the points of load
application, as shown in Fig. 2. A set of six LVDTs forming
a rosette was installed on both faces of the beams to get the
average deformations within the failure zone (Fig. 4).
Several LVDTs were also placed vertically under the
beam, both at the supports and at the points of loading, to
measure the total and net deflections of the beam. The net
deflection of the beam was obtained by subtracting the
deflections measured under the loading points from the
support deflections, if any.
Electrical-resistance strain gauges were installed on both
legs of the vertical stirrups inside the beams to monitor the
steel strains during the load test. The locations of strain
gauges on the stirrups were selected to intersect the predicted
shear failure planes of the beams (Laskar et al. 2006). On
average, each beam was instrumented with 30 LVDTs and
16 strain gauges to record the structural behavior of the
beam. Data from these sensors were continuously monitored
during the testing and stored by an acquisition system.
Shear cracks that formed on the beam web during the load
test were marked at regular intervals by putting the test on
Fig. 2—Loading positions and LVDT rosettes in Beams B1 to B5.
(Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
332
hold. The cracks marked on one of the specimen grids is
shown in Fig. 4. The crack widths were measured using
hand-held microscopes having a measuring precision of
0.0254 mm (0.001 in.).
Further details about the test specimens and testing procedure
can be obtained from the research report by Laskar et al. (2006).
TEST RESULTS
Shear strengths
Table 1 shows the ultimate strengths at failure for the five
test beams. It can be seen that both ends of Beams B1 and B2
failed in web shear mode. It was possible to induce two web
shear failures in each of these two beams because after the
beams failed at one end, the testing could be continued in
displacement control mode until a second failure occurred at
the other end. The tests could be continued on the existing
supports of the beams because the first failure damaged only
a short length of the beams adjacent to the support.
The north half of Beam B3 failed in flexure at the hold-
down section due to poor grouting of the holes for the hold-
down rods. Because the hole extends from the hold-down
point up to the top flange of the beams, the flexural capacity
of the hold-down section was weakened. Fortunately, the
shear span at the north end almost reached its web shear
capacity because the concrete in the web region was close to
crushing at failure. The load-deformation curve of B3-North
in Fig. 5 shows that the north end had reached its flat top. The
south end of the beam could not be tested after the failure of
the north half of the beam.
Fig. 3—Test setup.
Fig. 4—LVDT setup on Beam B4.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
 Beams B4 and B5 were designed to fail in flexural shear
mode in a region adjacent to the load point at one-third of the
span. The failure destroyed one-third of the beam length, so
it was not possible to devise a loading scheme to create
another flexural shear failure on the other end. Hence, each
of these two beams could provide only one set of data.
Specimen B5 also failed in flexure at a distance of 3.35 m
(11 ft) from the end due to a weak section created by the poor
grouting of the hole for the hold-down rod. Similar to
Beam B3, Fig. 5 showed that the flexural shear failure load
of Beam B5 was very close to its failure load in flexure.
Load-deflection curves
From the shape of the load-deflection curves shown in Fig. 5, it
can be seen that the specimens designed for web shear failure
(Beams B1, B2, and B3) had much higher shear capacities
compared to the specimens designed to fail in flexural shear
(Beams B4 and B5); however, the specimens that failed in
flexural shear had higher ductility. Both the strengths and
deflections were predicted accurately by the flexural analysis
(Laskar et al. 2006).
Strains at failure
The ultimate strains at the failure regions of Beams B1 to
B5 were measured by the LVDT rosettes shown in Fig. 4.
These strains were used in the theoretical shear analysis of
the beams to rigorously calculate their ultimate capacities
(Laskar et al. 2006).
The ultimate strains of transverse stirrups in all five beams
were measured by gluing an electrical strain gauge to each of
the two stirrup legs in the failure regions. Three stirrups were
instrumented with strain gauges in Beams B1, B4, and B5,
and four stirrups were instrumented in Beams B2 and B3.
The locations of the strain gauges on the stirrups were
selected to intersect the failure plane. The ultimate strains of
the stirrups were beyond the yield strain at failure, with many
stirrups far into the strain hardening range. The stirrup forces
were also used to derive the ultimate shear capacities of the
beams in the report of Laskar et al. (2006).
failure crack, T is the tensile force in the prestressing tendons
at the ultimate load of the beams, and θ is the angle between
the failure crack and the longitudinal axis.
The crack angle θ of web shear failure in Beams B1 to B3
was observed to be less than 45 degrees by a few degrees. To
check the validity of Eq. (1), θ was also determined using an
eight-step iteration procedure described in Laskar et al.
(2006). It was found that the calculated θ angles for
Beams B1 to B3 were approximately the same as those
observed in tests.
The term (S – Tcos(θ))/sinθ in Eq. (1) is the “contribution
of concrete in shear,” Vc. To avoid the excessive complexity
involved in the calculation of S, T, and θ, it was decided to
∑
derive the Vc term directly from tests. In Eq. (1), F V is the
contribution of steel in shear, denoted as Vs. Thus
Vn = Vc + Vs (2)
Contribution of steel (Vs)
The Vs term in Eq. (2) must be based on the observed
failure crack. In beams that failed in flexural shear, such as
B4 and B5, the angle θ of the cracks would theoretically be
much less than 45 degrees according to the principal
compressive direction of concrete in the prestressed webs.
Such a crack with a small θ angle is shown in Fig. 7 by the
large crack that passed through Grid 4 at the bottom edge of
the web of Beam B4; however, this crack with a small θ

SHEAR ANALYSIS OF PRESTRESSED BEAMS

Shear model
The concept of shear resistance developed by Loov
(2002), Fig. 6, was used to derive the ultimate web shear
capacity of Beams B1 to B3. According to this model, the
contribution of concrete to the shear capacity of the beam
stems from the shear stress in the concrete along a failure Fig. 5—Load-deflection curves of Beams B1 to B5. (Note:
crack, represented by the force S. Loov’s concept is very 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
different from the concept of the existing design methods
(ACI and AASHTO), which assume that the concrete
contribution to the shear capacity of beams is derived from
the tensile stress across the cracks.
Assuming the failure surface to be an inclined plane, and
taking the force equilibrium of the free body along the crack
direction, Fig. 6, the shear capacity of the beam, Vn, can be
calculated as

S – Tcosθ
V n = ------------------------ +
sinθ ∑ FV (1)

where ∑ F V is the summation of vertical forces of the

stirrups intersected by the failure crack at the ultimate load, Fig. 6—Analytical model used for calculating web shear
S is the ultimate shear force of concrete in the direction of capacities of beams.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 333

angle did not develop to form a failure surface at ultimate
load. In fact, Fig. 7 shows another large crack with a θ angle
of approximately 45 degrees, developed and passed through
Grid 8 at the bottom edge of the web. This approximately
45-degree crack was observed to cause failure.
For design, the failure crack can simply be assumed to
incline at an angle of 45 degrees, similar to the ACI Code.
The assumption of a 45-degree failure crack can also be
supported by a study of shear energy dissipations in the
failure zone. According to Laskar (2009), a crack with
inclination close to 45 degrees would result in minimum
shear energy dissipation.
In the ACI Code, the 45-degree crack is located in a
manner as shown in Fig. 8(a). This ACI concept of smearing
the stirrups results in an average number of stirrups, d/s,
crossing the crack. In this paper, however, we used a more
realistic concept of seeking a minimum shear resistance
among a series of individual stirrups, as shown in Fig. 8(b).
Fig. 7—Flexural shear failure region in Beam B4.
Fig. 8—Determination of number of stirrups for contribution of
steel Vs.
334
This concept by Loov (2002), which was also supported by
Kim and Mander (2005, 2007), gives the number of stirrups
crossing the crack as (d/s – 1), and the Vs term as
V s = A v f y ⎛ --- – 1⎞
d
(3)
⎝s ⎠
Besides being more rational and conservative, Eq. (3) has
an additional practical advantage: all of the tedious stirrup
spacing limitations to guard against the unsafe nature of the
smeared stirrups assumption can be eliminated.
Contribution of concrete (Vc)
Two trends were observed from the test results of
Beams B1 to B5. First, the Vc term in the shear strength of
prestressed beams was observed to be a strong function of
the a/d ratio because the web shear strengths of Beams B1 to
B3 with a/d = 1.61 were much higher than the flexural shear
strengths of Beams B4 and B5 with a/d = 4.29. This parameter,
a/d, must be implemented in the new shear equation.
Second, Laskar et al. (2006) showed that the shear strength
was not significantly affected by the angle of failure plane,
both in the case of web shear failure (Beams B1, B2, and B3)
and in the case of flexural shear failure (Beams B4 and B5).
This angle variable need not be included in the new equation.
The tests conducted by Lyngberg (1976) convincingly
showed that the prestress force could also be neglected in the
new shear equation. Nine 600 mm (23.6 in.) deep beams
were tested, in which the major variable was the intensity of
prestress. The cross section, web reinforcement, ultimate
moment, and shear span were held constant. The results
showed that the shear strength was not influenced by the
amount of prestress. For practical application and to be
consistent with ACI 318-08, however, the effective prestress
force in the beams should not be less than 40% of the tensile
strength of the flexural reinforcement.
Lyngberg’s tests also provided another important
observation when compared to the UH test specimens. The
two groups of test specimens were similar in size and shape,
except that Lyngberg’s specimens had wide top flanges
(700 mm [27.6 in.]) and the UH specimens had narrow top
flanges (305 mm [12 in.]). Because good agreement in shear
strengths was observed between these two groups of tests, it
was concluded that the top flange width was not a significant
variable affecting the shear strength, and that the web region,
defined as bwd, was the primary shear-resisting component.
From the study of RC shear elements with concrete
strengths up to 100 MPa (14,500 psi) (Zhang and Hsu 1998),
it was observed that the softened compressive strength of
concrete struts is proportional to the square root of the
compressive strength, f c′ (for more details, refer to a
following section on maximum shear strength). Therefore,
the shear force that causes the crushing of concrete in the
web of a beam must be proportional to f c′ bwd. This
parameter could be used to normalize a shear force into a
nondimensional quantity.
The test results of Beams B1 to B5 reported in this
research, as well as those of Hernandez (1958), MacGregor
(1960), Mattock and Kaar (1961), Bruce (1962), Hanson and
Hulsbos (1965), Lyngberg (1976), Elzanaty et al. (1986),
Robertson and Durrani (1987), Kaufman and Ramirez
(1988), and Shahawy and Batchelor (1996) were used to
implement the parameter a/d into the new shear equation.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
The concrete shear contribution Vc of all of the specimens 25% less than the web crushing failure load of the ends with
were calculated by subtracting the steel contribution Vs as perfectly anchored strands.
per Eq. (3), from the total shear capacities of the beams. The Because shear failures at beam ends (a/d ratios less than
normalized concrete shear stress Vc/ f c′ bwd of the specimens 1.6) are significantly affected by the bond slip of prestressing
was obtained thereafter and its variation versus a/d was strands, the limitation in Eq. (4) at low a/d ratios must be a
plotted in Fig. 9. A conservative Vc/ f c′ bwd versus a/d curve function of the anchorage length of the strands. A satisfactory
has an expression of anchorage length for shear should be one that ensures the
yielding of the transverse stirrups at shear failure in the web.
1.17 The upper limit in Eq. (4) for a/d less than 1.6 appears to be
- f c ′ ( MPa )b w d ≤ 0.83 f c ′ ( MPa )b w d
V c = ------------------- (4)
(a ⁄ d)
0.7 valid for the TxDOT Type A beams tested at UH. The UH
beams have 12 seven-wire strands of 12.7 mm (0.5 in.)
diameter, with an extension of 152 mm (6 in.) beyond the
where f c′ ( MPa ) ≈ 12 f c′ ( psi ) ⋅ b w equals the width of the
support resultant and a supporting plate of 152 mm (6 in.) wide.
web of the prestressed beam; and d is the effective depth
More research is required to determine a satisfactory anchorage
from the centroid of the tendons to the top compression fiber
length of prestressed strands to prevent shear/bond failure.
of the prestressed beam. To be consistent with ACI 318-08,
the value of d is not taken to be less than 80% of the total
depth of the beam. Shear strengths
The expression Assuming that the transverse steel yields at failure, the
final equation for the shear strength of prestressed I-beams is
– 0.7 obtained by substituting Eq. (3) and (4) into Eq. (2)
V c = 1.17 ( a ⁄ d ) f c′ ( MPa )b w d
– 0.7
( V c = 14 [ a ⁄ d ] f c′ [ psi ]b w d )
V n = -------------------- f c′ ( MPa )b w d + A v f y⎛ d
--- – 1⎞
1.17
(5a)
0.7 ⎝s ⎠
(a ⁄ d)
shown in Eq. (4) was substantiated by the large-sized test
specimens of Mattock and Kaar (1961) with a beam height
of 648 mm (25.5 in.). The shear strengths of their beams where 1.17(a/d)–0.7 ≤ 0.83.
agreed very well with the proposed expression in Fig. 9 for The ratio a/d in Eq. (5a) represents the effect of moment
a/d ratios of 4.5, 3.25, 2.0, 1.5, and all the way down to 1.0. M (relative to shear V) on the shear strength Vn. This moment
The upper limit of effect was quantified by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326,
(1962) using a parameter M/Vd along the length of a beam
with a uniformly distributed load as well as other types of
V c ≤ 0.83 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( V c ≤ 10 f c′ [ psi ]b w d ) loading. The parameter M/Vd degenerated into a/d for beams
with concentrated loads, which are the easiest to apply and
in Eq. (4) is imposed for simply supported beams to ensure are employed by most researchers. Replacing a/d by M/Vd in
that the end anchorage will be sufficient to produce yielding Eq. (5a) results in the following expression for all types of
of the stirrups, as observed in the web shear failure of loading
Beams B1 to B3. Mattock and Kaar (1961) tested continuous
beams, which did not have the anchorage problems at beam
V u d⎞ 0.7
V n = 1.17 ⎛ -------- f c′ ( MPa )b w d + A v f y⎛ --- – 1⎞
ends associated with simply supported beams. d
- (5b)
⎝ Mu ⎠ ⎝s ⎠
Shear/bond failure at beam ends
Shahawy and Batchelor (1996) showed that the prestressed where 1.17(Vud/Mu)0.7 ≤ 0.83.
strands at the ends of the AASHTO Type II pretensioned
Using the U.S. Customary system, Eq. (5b) becomes
concrete beams would slip before the web crushing of shear
failures. They referred to this type of failure as shear/bond
failure. When the a/d ratio is greater than approximately 1.6,
the bond slip did not appear to have a noticeable effect on the
shear strengths; however, in their B1 series of 10 beams
where a/d ratios varying from 1.37 to 1.52, the bond slip
appeared to have reduced the shear strengths. It was not
clear, however, whether the transverse stirrups in the shear
span had yielded.
Ma et al. (2000) tested two NU1100 pretensioned beams
with a/d ratios that varied from 1.16 to 1.28. At both ends of
their Beam A, the strands were extended beyond the end
face, bent upward, and securely anchored into a large
concrete diaphragm attached to the end face. Because bond
slip was not allowed to occur, Beam A failed in web
crushing, a typical shear failure, at both ends. One failed end
of Beam A was then sawed off, leaving the ends of strands
flush with the end face. The application of shear loads then
produced a shear/bond failure, rather than a web crushing Fig. 9—Variation of normalized concrete shear with a/d.
failure. The shear/bond failure load of the saw-cut end was (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 335

 V u d⎞ 0.7
V u = 14 ( 1.17 ) ⎛ --------
- f c′ (psi) b w d + Av f y ⎛ d
⎝ Mu ⎠
where 14(Vud/Mu)0.7 ≤ 10.
In Eq. (5b) or (5c), the three quantities Mu, Vu, and d in
Vud/Mu are calculated at the same given section under
consideration.
Contribution of harped strands to shear strengths
The additional shear strengths contributed by harped
strands were studied by comparing the shear strengths of
Beam B3 (with harped strands) to that of Beam B2 (without
harped strands) in the case of web shear, and by comparing
the shear strength of Beam B5 (with harped strands) to that
of Beam B4 (without harped strands) in the case of flexural
shear. It was clear that shear capacity of prestressed concrete
beams is enhanced due to the harping of the prestressing
strands in both cases of web shear and flexural shear. The
vertical component of the effective prestressing force in the
harped strands at the section, Vp, used in the ACI Code and
the AASHTO 2007 specifications, appeared to be a
conservative estimate of the observed additional strength.
Hence, for a beam with harped strands, the ultimate shear
capacity can be conservatively taken as
Fig. 10—Variation of ultimate strength with concrete
strength. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
Fig. 11—Variation of normalized ultimate shear capacities
of beams with a/d. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
336
V u d⎞ 0.7
--- – 1⎞ (5c) V n = 1.17 ⎛ --------
- f c′ ( MPa )b w d + A v f y⎛ --- – 1⎞ + V p (6a)
d
⎝s ⎠ ⎝ Mu ⎠ ⎝s ⎠
where 1.17(Vud/Mu)0.7 ≤ 0.83.
Using the U.S. Customary system, Eq. (6a) becomes
V u d⎞ 0.7
V n = 14 ⎛ --------
- f c′ ( psi )b w d + A v f y⎛ d
--- – 1⎞ + V p (6b)
⎝ Mu ⎠ ⎝s ⎠
where 14(Vu d/Mu)0.7 ≤ 10.
It should be emphasized that the V p term in Eq. (6a) is
applicable to prestressed beams failing in web shear as well
as in flexural shear. This is not the same as the provisions of
the ACI Code, which uses the vertical component of the
prestressing force in harped strands in the case of web shear
failure only, and not in the case of flexural shear failure.
MAXIMUM SHEAR STRENGTHS
Maximum shear strengths in code provisions
Because Eq. (6a) is based on the yielding of transverse
steel reinforcement, a maximum shear strength Vn,max must
be defined to ensure that transverse steel will yield before the
web crushing of concrete. ACI Code (1963) specifies
V n, max = 0.83 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 10 f c′ [ psi ]b w d ) (7)
and AASHTO Specifications (2007) specifies
V n, max = 0.25f c′ b w d v or 0.225f c ′b w d (8)
if d v is assumed to be 0.9d
The fact that Vn,max is proportional to f c′ in the ACI Code,
Eq. (7), and is proportional to fc′ in the ASSHTO specifications,
Eq. (8), testifies to the confusion surrounding the formulas
for Vn,max. These two equations are plotted in Fig. 10.
The ACI equation
V n, max = 0.83 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 10 f c′ [ psi ]b w d )
was first proposed by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326
(1962) and was incorporated into the ACI Code (1963) for
nonprestressed beams. It was slightly liberalized in 1971 for
application to both nonprestressed and prestressed concrete
beams (ACI 1971), in the form of limiting the Vs term to a
maximum contribution of steel
V s, max = 0.66 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 8 f c′ [ psi ]b w d ) (9)
If Vc is taken conservatively as
0.17 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 2 f c′ [ psi ]b w d )
then the Vu,max in the 1971 ACI Code is identical to that in
the 1963 ACI Code. Because the Vc term could be greater than
0.17 f c′ ( MPa )b w d
( 2 f c′ [ psi ]b w d )
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
the Vn,max for prestressed beams in the 1971 ACI Code is
allowed to be somewhat greater than
0.83 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 10 f c ′ [ psi ]b w d )
The ACI formula for Vs,max has continued to be used up to
the present time (ACI 2008).
On the other hand, the AASHTO formula Vn,max =
0.225fc′ bwd was introduced into the first edition of the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications (1994), based on the truss
model concept first introduced by the Canadian Code (1977)
and the CEB-FIP Code (1978). A second edition of
AASHTO (1998) followed, and interim revisions were made
from 1999 to 2003. The analysis in this paper is based on the
fourth edition of AASHTO (2007).
Both the ACI and AASHTO formulas can be checked by
the prestressed beams of Bennett and Balasooriya (1971),
Rangan (1991), and Ma et al. (2000), which are over-
reinforced in shear (refer to Fig. 11). These experimental
data are also shown in Fig. 10. It can be seen that the ACI
formula is way too conservative. The AASHTO formula is
more reasonable when compared to the test data; however,
the AASHTO formula is expected to be unsafe for beams
with a concrete strength higher than 60 MPa (8700 psi), in
view of the panel element tests in the following section.
Maximum shear strength in panel elements
The shear resistance of a prestressed I-beam is contributed
mainly by its web. The state of stress and strain in the web can be
simulated by a two-dimensional (2D) panel element subjected to
pure shear stress. In the 45-degree direction, such an element is
also subjected to a biaxial stress condition with equal magnitude of
principal compressive stress and principal tensile stress. Such a
biaxial stress condition can be applied to an element by placing it
in a universal panel tester (Hsu et al. 1995). Using the softened
truss model (Zhang and Hsu 1998), the maximum shear strength
of the element can be expressed as
c beam is defined as under-reinforced in shear, where the
V n, max = σ 2 b w ( 0.9d )sinθcosθ (10)
c
where σ 2 is the compression strength of the concrete struts,
0.9d is the height of the truss measured from the centroid of
the steel to the centroid of the compression zone, and θ is the
angle of the failure surface with respect to the longitudinal
axis of the beam (refer to Fig. 6). The value θ equals 45 degrees
when an element is subjected to pure shear.
To develop an expression for Vn,max that is applicable to
the whole range of concrete strengths from 20 MPa
(3000 psi) to 100 MPa (14,500 psi), Zhang and Hsu (1998)
tested full-sized reinforced concrete (RC) panel elements
(1.4 x1.4 x 0.178 m [55 x 55 x 7 in.]) with concrete strengths
up to 100 MPa (14,500 psi). Because the strength of the
concrete struts in the principal compressive direction is
“softened” by the perpendicular principal tensile strain, the
c
“effective compressive strength” of concrete struts σ 2 is
c is also desirable because Rangan’s over-reinforced beams have
σ 2 = ζ f c′ (11)
where ζ is the softening coefficient. Zhang and Hsu (1998)
summarized the extensive panel tests at UH and showed that
ζ is a product of two functions, that is
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
ζ = f ( f c′ )f ( ε 1 ) (12)
where ε1 is the principal tensile strain. The function f(fc′ ) was
determined by panel element tests to be
f ( f c′ ) = -------------------------- ⎛ ----------------------⎞
5.8 0.48
(13)
f c′ ( MPa ) ⎝ f c′ [ psi ]⎠
Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (12), and then into Eq. (11) and
(10) results in
V n, max = constant f c′ f ( ε 1 )b w ( 0.9d ) ( 0.5 ) (14)
where the constant is 5.8 for fc′ in MPa (or 0.48 for fc′ in psi).
Equation (14) shows that Vn,max should be a function of f c′
for fc′ up to 100 MPa (14,500 psi).
Proposed maximum shear strength
Equation (14) can be simplified as follows
V n, max = C 1 f c′ b w d (15)
where C1 is a constant to be determined by the shear tests of
prestressed beams.
Before deciding on the constant C1 for the maximum shear
strength, we must first calibrate the balanced condition defined as
V n, b = C b f c′ b w d (16)
where Vn,b is the balanced shear force and Cb is the constant
corresponding to the balanced condition. The balanced
condition occurs when the beam is reinforced in a condition
where the yielding of the transverse steel occurs simultaneously
with the web crushing of the concrete. When Vn < Vn,b, the
transverse steel yields before the crushing of concrete. When
Vn > Vn,b, the beam is defined as over-reinforced in shear,
where the concrete crushes without the yielding of steel.
The balanced constant Cb can be calibrated by comparing
the over-reinforced beams versus the under-reinforced
beams, as shown in Fig. 11. Over-reinforced beams have
been tested by three groups of researchers (Bennett and
Balasooriya 1971; Rangan 1991; Ma et al. 2000). Under-
reinforced beams have been tested by all the other
researchers. Figure 11 plots Vn/ f c′ bwd against a/d. It can
be seen that all of the over-reinforced beams had a Vn/
f c′ bwd value above 1.5 for fc′ in MPa (or 18 for fc′ in psi)
and almost all of the under-reinforced beams have a Vn/
f c′ bwd value below 1.5 for fc′ in MPa (or 18 for fc′ in psi).
Therefore, the balanced constant can be taken as Cb = 1.5 for
fc′ in MPa (or 18 for fc′ in psi).
To provide some ductility in shear failure, the constant C1 for
maximum shear strength must be taken as less than Cb ⋅ C1 < Cb
large web stiffeners under the loads to prevent local compression
failures. In view of the fact that the prestressed beams used
in practice do not contain web stiffeners, it was decided to
choose a conservative C1 value of 1.33 for fc′ in MPa (or 16 for
fc′ in psi) and Vn,max can thus be expressed as
337
 represented by solid points whereas those that failed in a
ductile manner were represented by hollow points.
Figure 12 shows that some beams tested by Hernandez (1958),
MacGregor (1960), Hanson and Hulsbos (1965), and Robertson
and Durrani (1987) failed in a brittle manner although they had
shear stirrups greater than that required by Eq. (18) and (20). These
beams have a/d ratios in the range from 2.0 to 4.0, the region
known as “Kani’s Valley” (Kani 1964).
Two recommendations can be drawn from Fig. 12: (a) ACI
Eq. (18) is applicable to all a/d, except in the range from 2 to
4. In other words, when 0.25 < Vu d/Mu < 0.5, the ACI
minimum stirrup required by Eq. (18) should be doubled;
and (b) ACI 318-08 Eq. (19) should be removed as in the
AASHTO Specifications, because this formula could be
unconservative for prestressed I-beams.
Fig. 12—Variation of minimum shear reinforcement with a/d Notice that the six beams tested by Teoh et al. (2002) with
ratio. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.) very small amounts of stirrups (ρfy/ f c′ varying from
0.045 to 0.079 for fc′ in MPa or 0.54 to 0.95 for fc′ in psi) are
not included in Fig. 12. These 700 mm (27.5 in.) deep, high-
V n, max = 1.33 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 16 f c′ [ psi ]b w d ) (17) strength concrete I-beams were simply supported and
subjected to a single point load at midspan. The beams were
Equation (17) is also plotted in Fig. 10. It can be seen that provided with strong stiffeners at the supports and under the
the UH formula is the most reasonable for concrete strengths loading point at midspan. The large stiffeners, together with
up to 100 MPa (14,500 psi). The ACI formula is obviously the large top and bottom flanges, formed a Vierendeel truss.
too conservative, and the AASHTO formula may be A Vierendeel truss, which has rectangular openings and
seriously unsafe when fc′ is greater than 60 MPa (8700 psi). requires no diagonal bracings, can resist the midspan load
even in the absence of the webs. The large deformations
MINIMUM SHEAR REINFORCEMENT undergone by the beams were caused by the flexural
Minimum shear reinforcement in prestressed I-girders is deformations of the Vierendeel truss and were not due to
required to prevent the brittle failure of the girders due to the any shear deformations of the web. Furthermore, the beams
fracture of the shear reinforcement shortly after the formation of were symmetrically loaded and were tested using a servo-
the inclined shear cracks. The ACI Code (2008) states that control system, which helped to promote ductile failure.
the minimum area of shear reinforcement, Av,min, provided at Because of these reasons, the ductile behavior of beams
a spacing s in a member having width bw and effective depth tested by Teoh et al. (2002) should not be used to justify a
d, should be greater than the smaller of two quantities low requirement for minimum stirrups.
expressed in the following
CONCLUSIONS
1. Five full-scale prestressed concrete I-beams were
bw s bw s
A v, min = 0.0625 f c′ ( MPa ) -------
- ≥ 0.35 -------
- (18) designed, cast, and tested to study their behavior in web
fy fy shear and flexural shear failure modes. The test program
bw s b w s⎞ included three variables: the a/d, the transverse steel ratio,
⎛A = 0.75 f c′ [ psi ] -------
- ≥ 50 -------
- and the effect of harped strands.
⎝ v, min fy fy ⎠ 2. A simple and accurate shear equation, Eq. (6a), based on
Loov’s rational concept, was developed using the test results
Aps f pu s d of the five prestressed beams tested at UH, as well as the
A v, min = ----------------
- ------ (19) 143 test beams available in literature. In this equation, the
80f yt d b w
concrete contribution (Vc) term is proportional to f c′ and
inversely proportional to (a/d)0.7. For the steel contribution (Vs)
The minimum shear reinforcement in the AASHTO term, the number of transverse steel bars intersecting a
specifications (2007) is 45-degree crack is taken as (d/s – 1). In addition, the
contribution of the harped strands, Vp, is taken into account
bw s for both web shear and flexural shear failure modes.
A v, min = 0.083 f c′ ( MPa ) -------
- (20) 3. In contrast to the ACI Code and the AASHTO specifications,
fy
an accurate equation for shear strengths of prestressed concrete
⎛A b w s⎞ beams can be obtained without taking into account the amount of
= f c′ [ psi ] -------
-
⎝ v, min fy ⎠ prestressing force and the angle of failure crack.
4. A new formula, Eq. (17), was derived for the maximum shear
Equations (18) and (20) are evaluated by the test beams strength (Vn,max) to ensure the yielding of transverse steel before
the crushing of concrete. Vn,max is a function of f c′ for concrete
found in literature as follows: first, all of the I-beams having
strengths from 20 MPa (3000 psi) to 100 MPa (14,500 psi).
ρt fy less than 1.38 MPa (200 psi) were selected. Second, the
nondimensional reinforcement index ρt fy/ f c′ of these
beams were plotted against their corresponding a/d ratios, as NOTATION
1 = direction of applied principal tensile stress
shown in Fig. 12. Third, the beams that failed in a brittle 2 = direction of applied principal compressive stress
manner due to the low amount of shear reinforcement were Aps = cross-sectional area of prestressing steel

338 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

As = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel Bennett, E. W., and Balasooriya, B. M. A., 1971, “Shear Strength of
Av = cross-sectional area of stirrup (including two legs for closed stirrup) Prestressed Beams with Thin Webs Failing in Inclined Compression,” ACI
Av,min = minimum required cross-sectional area of stirrup JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No. 3, Mar., pp 204-212.
a = shear span of prestressed concrete beams Bruce, R. N., 1962, “An Experimental Study of the Action of Web
bw = width of web of prestressed I-beams Reinforcement in Prestressed Concrete Beams,” PhD dissertation, University of
C1 = constant term used to express maximum design shear capacity Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 249 pp.
of prestressed beams CSA Code, 1977, “Code for the Design of Concrete Structures and
d = effective depth of prestressed beams measured from centroid of Buildings, CAN3-A23.3-M77),” Canadian Standards Association,
tendons to top fiber of concrete Rexdale, Toronto, ON, Canada, 131 pp.
dv = lever arm between resultant compressive and tensile forces in CEB-FIP, 1978, “Model Code for Concrete Structures,” CEB-FIP
AASHTO code International Recommendation, third edition, Comite Euro-International
fc ′ = cylinder compressive strength of concrete du Beton (CEB), Paris, 348 pp.
fc ′ = square root of cylinder compressive strength of concrete (same Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., 1986, “Shear Capacity of
units as fc′) Prestressed Concrete Beams Using High Strength Concrete,” ACI
fpu = ultimate strength of prestressing bars JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 3, May-June, pp. 359-368.
fy = yield strength of bare mild steel bars
Hanson, J. M., and Hulsbos, C. L., 1965, “Overload Behavior of
fyt = yield strength of transverse steel
Pretensioned Prestressed Concrete I-Beams with Web Reinforcement,”
ΣFV = summation of stirrup forces crossing failure crack in prestressed beam
Highway Research Record 76, Highway Research Board, pp. 1-31.
h = depth of prestressed beams
l = direction of longitudinal reinforcements Hernandez, G., 1958, “Strength of Prestressed Concrete Beams with
ln = clear span of PC beams Web Reinforcement,” Report, The Engineering Experiment Station,
M = bending moment in prestressed beams University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 135 pp.
Mn = nominal bending moment at given section of prestressed beams Hsu, T. T. C.; Belarbi, A.; and Pang, X. B., 1995, “A Universal Panel
Mu = bending moment at given section of prestressed beams Tester,” Journal of Testing and Evaluations, ASTM, V. 23, No. 1, pp. 41-49.
Pe = effective prestressing force Kani, G. N. J., 1964, “The Riddle of Shear Failure and its Solution,” ACI
R = normal force at failure surface in prestressed beams JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 61, No. 4, Apr., pp. 441-468.
S = concrete shear force along inclined shear crack of prestressed beam Kaufman, M. K., and Ramirez, J. A., 1988, “Re-evaluation of Ultimate
s = stirrup spacing Shear Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Prestressed I-Beams,” ACI
T = tensile force of tendons in prestressed beams Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 3, May-June, pp. 295-303.
t = direction of transverse reinforcements Kim, J. H., and Mander, J. B., 2005, “Theoretical Shear Strength of
V = shear resistance composed of Vc and Vs Concrete Columns Due to Transverse Steel,” Journal of Structural
Vcal = shear capacity of prestressed beams calculated by various methods Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 1, Jan., pp. 197-199.
Vexp = experimental shear capacity of prestressed beams Kim, J. H., and Mander, J. B., 2007, “Influence of Transverse
Vc = concrete contribution to shear resistance of prestressed beams Reinforcement on Elastic Shear Stiffness of Cracked Concrete Elements,”
Vn = nominal shear strength at given section of prestressed beams Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 1, Jan., pp.197-199.
Vp = vertical component of prestressing force in beams with draped Laskar, A.; Wang, J.; Hsu, T. T. C.; and Mo, Y. L., 2006, “Rational Shear
tendons Provisions for AASHTO LRFD Specifications,” Technical Report 0-4759-1 to
Vs = steel contribution to shear resistance of prestressed beams Texas Department of Transportation, Department of Civil and Environmental
Vs,max = maximum shear capacity of stirrups in prestressed beams Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 216 pp.
Vu = ultimate shear force of prestressed beams Laskar, A., 2009, “Shear Behavior and Design of Prestressed Concrete
Vu,max = maximum shear strength of prestressed beams Members,” PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental
x = distance from support of prestressed beams Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 322 pp.
β = factor indicating ability of diagonally cracked concrete to transmit Loov, R. E., 2002, “Shear Design of Uniformly Loaded Beams,”
tension as per AASHTO specifications Presented at the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span
ε1 = principal tensile strain Bridges, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 515-522.
θ = angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses as per
Lyngberg, B. S., 1976, “Ultimate Shear Resistance of Partially
AASHTO specifications (same as crack angle)
Prestressed Reinforced Concrete I-Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
ρt = transverse steel ratio
V. 73, No. 4, Apr., pp. 214-222.
σc2 = compressive strength of concrete struts
ζ = softening coefficient of concrete in compression Ma, Z. J.; Tadros, M. K.; and Baishya, M., 2000, “Shear Behavior of
Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete Bridge I-Girders,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 185-193.
REFERENCES MacGregor, J. G., 1960, “Strength and Behavior of Prestressed Concrete
AASHTO, 1994, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” first Beams with Web Reinforcement,” PhD thesis, Department of Civil
edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 295 pp.
Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, 1091 pp. Mattock, A. H., and Kaar, P. H., 1961, “Precast-Prestressed Concrete
AASHTO, 1998, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” Bridges—4: Shear Tests of Continuous Girders,” Journal of the PCA
second edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Research Development Laboratories, pp. 19-47.
Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, 1116 pp. (Including interim
Rangan, B. V., 1991, “Web Crushing Strength of Reinforced and
revisions for 1999 through 2003.)
Prestressed Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 1, Jan.-
AASHTO, 2007, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,”
Feb., pp. 12-16.
fourth edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, 1518 pp. Robertson, I. N., and Durrani, A. J., 1987, “Shear Strength of Prestressed
ACI Committee 318, 1963, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete T Beams with Welded Wire Fabric as Shear Reinforcement,” PCI
Concrete (ACI 318-63) and Commentary (ACI 318R-63),” American Concrete Journal, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 32, No. 2, pp. 46-61.
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 91 pp. Shahawy, M. A., and Batchelor, B., 1996, “Shear Behavior of Full-Scale
ACI Committee 318, 1971, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Prestressed Concrete Girders: Comparison between AASTHO Specifications and
Concrete (ACI 318-71) and Commentary (ACI 318R-71),” American Concrete LRFD Code,” PCI Journal, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 41, No. 3,
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 78 pp. pp. 48-62.
ACI Committee 318, 2008, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Teoh, B. K.; Mansur, M. A.; and Wee, T. H., 2002, “Behavior of High-
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Strength Concrete I-Beams with Low Shear Reinforcement,” ACI Structural
Farmington Hills, MI, 473 pp. Journal, V. 93, No. 3, May-June, pp. 299-307.
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, 1962, “Shear and Diagonal Tension,” Zhang, L. X., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1998, “Behavior and Analysis of
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. 1, Jan., pp. 1-30 (Chapters 1-4); No. 2, 100 MPa Concrete Membrane Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
Feb., pp. 277-334 (Chapters 5-7); No. 3, Mar., pp. 352-396 (Chapter 8). ASCE, V. 124, No. 1, Jan., pp. 24-34.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 339