21-0046 Shin JF23

Modifications to ACI 318
shear design method for prestressed

concrete members: Detailed method
Hyunjin Ju, Meirzhan Yerzhanov, Deuckhang Lee,

Hyeongyeop Shin, and Thomas H.-K. Kang
T
hrough extensive research studies conducted in the
past few decades, it is known that the shear strength
of a concrete beam depends on various design param-
eters, including the following:
• compressive strength of concrete f c′
• effective beam depth d
• shear span-to-depth ratio a/d or Mu/Vud, where a is shear

span, Mu is factored flexural moment, and Vu is factored
shear force
• longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio ρwt
• axial force or prestress Nu/Ag or fpc, where Ag is gross

area of concrete section, fpc is concrete compressive
■ This study reviews and proposes improvements stress after allowance for prestress losses, and N is fac-
related to the American Concrete Institute’s Building tored flexural moment
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19) shear design pro- • shear reinforcement ratio ρv fyt/ f c , where fyt is yield
visions for prestressed concrete one-way members. strength of transverse reinforcement and ρv is transverse
reinforcement ratio
■ Proposed modifications for the ACI 318-19 detailed
method were verified using up-to-date shear Also, the effects of size, crack surface roughness, crack
databases to evaluate analytical accuracy and safety width, flange, longitudinal reinforcement strain, and depth
levels. of compression zone have been under discussion. To ac-
count for intricate shear behavior, major design standards
■ Three shear design examples were developed to include one-way shear design provisions, especially for the
elaborate on the proposed changes. shear strength provided by concrete Vc, with the differences
60 PCI Journal | January–February 2023

in the standards reflecting their different theoretical back- While there have been minor updates in current shear design
grounds. provisions for prestressed concrete one-way members since
ACI 318-63,13 as summarized chronologically in Table 1, the
Eurocode 21 proposes integrated shear strength equations that do underlying design philosophy did not change until ACI 318-19.
not distinguish between reinforced concrete and prestressed con- That design method also had been adopted in the AASHTO
crete. This standard suggests an empirical formula for a cracked Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges14 until its last
section and a formula derived from the elastic stress distribution edition in 2002. Whereas the shear design method for conven-
considering the axial force for an uncracked section. tional reinforced concrete changed in ACI 318-19, the ACI
standard still has two design methods to calculate Vc, which
The CSA Group’s Design of Concrete Structures (CSA are appropriately called detailed and approximate methods. In
A23.3)2 and the American Association of State Highway and the detailed method, the lesser of web shear strength Vcw and
Transportation Officials’ AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design flexure shear strength Vci is taken as Vc for prestressed concrete
Specifications3 also provide an integrated shear strength mod- components. Shear strength Vcw was derived by using Mohr’s
el for reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete one-way stress circle on the web or at the junction between flange and
members, which is based on the modified compression field web subjected to biaxial stress state. This approach was simpli-
theory by Vecchio and Collins.4 In this model, the concrete fied to its current form in ACI 318-19 by Mattock.15 Concern
contribution factor β and the angle of diagonal compression was raised by Kuchma et al.16 regarding the sudden increase in
field θ are the key parameters, which are determined by the strength Vcw, regardless of prestress level when compared with
strain of longitudinal tensile reinforcement εs under a given that of reinforced concrete components (from 0.17 f c to 0.29
bending moment, shear force, axial force, and prestress. The f c MPa [2 f c to 3.5 f c psi]). Meanwhile, the origin of Vci
first edition of the AASHTO LRFD specifications5 required can be traced back to Sozen and Hawkins,17 where its semiem-
iterative calculations or design aid charts to obtain β and θ. pirical derivation process can be found. Since Vci separately
Hawkins et al.6,7 and Hawkins and Kuchma8 have made efforts considers the effect of dead load Vd, including self-weight apart
to simplify the unnecessarily complex procedures. Currently, from externally applied loads, its computational procedures to
CSA A23.3 and the AASHTO LRFD specifications provide compute all force and stress terms excluding the effect of Vd are
explicit expressions for β and θ. cumbersome and difficult to code in commercial software used
in practice. Kamara et al.18 note that the exact meanings of and
A similar design approach is also proposed in fib Model Code computational methods for each force and stress term excluding
2010.9 It introduces four different levels of simplification (in the effect of dead load Vd are still confusing when the Vci equa-
other words, parameter assumptions) according to levels 1 to tion is applied to even simple design examples.19,20
4, allowing the designer to select a reasonable level of calcu-
lation convenience and prediction accuracy. To simplify the Vci equation, ACI 318 has included since the
1971 edition an alternative method (the approximate method
Although most design standards suggest reinforced con- specified in Table 22.5.6.2 of ACI 318-19), based on a 1970
crete-prestressed concrete unified shear strength models, the proposal by MacGregor and Hanson.21 However, application
American Concrete Institute’s Building Code Requirements of the approximate method is strictly limited to situations
for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI when the effective prestressing force fse times the area of pre-
318R-19)10 presents separate shear design provisions for rein- stressed reinforcement Aps is greater than 40% of the tensile
forced concrete and prestressed concrete one-way members. capacity provided by all the longitudinal reinforcements.
The original ACI 318 reinforced concrete provision—which
was found in editions up to ACI 318-1411—was complex and Professionals working with prestressed concrete industry, in
involved many equations (eight equations for Vc) taking the key design and construction practices and academia, have pointed
parameters f c′, ρwt, and Mu/Vud into account. These complexities out that the current shear provisions require considerable
were somewhat alleviated in ACI 318-19 through the coopera- computational efforts due to interrelated parameters such as
tion of Joint ACI-American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) design forces and section properties, particularly for Vci.18,19
Committee 445 and ACI Subcommittee 318-E, as elucidated The criticism demonstrates why modification of the pre-
in Kuchma et al.12 In ACI 318-19, the following changes were stressed concrete shear provision is desirable.
made:
This paper describes a study, which was briefly reported in ACI’s
• Eight approximated or detailed equations were reduced to Concrete International,22 that sought to improve upon the ACI
three integrated equations. 318 shear design provisions for prestressed concrete components.
The aim was to retain the ACI 318 design philosophy as well as
• The moment and shear demand term Mu/Vud was excluded. the safety levels related to analytical accuracy inherent in ACI
318 while expanding the applicability of the design provisions.
• A more realistic dependency of reinforcement ratio was The paper begins with a review of the detailed method of current
considered (that is, shear strength proportional to ρwt1/3). ACI shear design approach, followed by discussion of technical
issues raised by professionals during the derivation process.
• The size effect coefficient λs was newly introduced. Proposed modifications for the ACI 318 detailed method were
PCI Journal | January–February 2023 61

Table 1. History of shear design expressions for prestressed concrete members in American Concrete Institute’s
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318)
Edition Shear design expressions Edition Shear design expressions
⎛ V d⎞
Mcr Vc = ⎜ 0.05 fc′ + 4.8 u ⎟ bw d
Vci = 0.05 fc′b′d + + Vd ⎝ Mu ⎠
M d
− Vi Mcr
ACI 318-63 V 2 ACI 318-71* Vci = 0.05 fc′bw d + Vd +
Mmax
( )
Vcw = 0.29 fc′ + 0.3fpc b′d + Vp
( )
Vcw = 0.29 fc′ + 0.3fpc bw d + Vp
⎛ V d⎞ ⎛ Vd ⎞
Vc = ⎜ 0.05 fc′ + 4.8 u ⎟ bw d Vc = ⎜ 0.05 fc′ + 4.8 u p ⎟ bw d
⎝ Mu ⎠ ⎝ Mu ⎠
ACI 318-02 Vi Mcr ACI 318-05† Vi Mcre

Vci = 0.05 fc′bw d + Vd + Vci = 0.05 fc′bw d p + Vd +
Mmax Mmax
( )
Vcw = 0.29 fc′ + 0.3fpc bw d + Vp ( )
Vcw = 0.29 fc′ + 0.3fpc bw d p + Vp
Vc = 0.05 fc + 4.8
Vu d p
Mu
bw d (0.05 )
fc + 4.8 bw d
⎛ Vd ⎞
Vc = ⎜ 0.05 fc′ + 4.8 u p ⎟ bw d 0.17λ fc′bw d ≤ Vc ≤ 0.42λ fc′bw d
⎝ Mu ⎠
ACI 318-08,
318-11, and Vi Mcre ACI 318-19‡ Vi Mcre
Vci = 0.05 fc′bw d p + Vd + Vci = 0.05λ fc′bw d p + Vd +
318-14 Mmax Mmax
( )
Vcw = 0.29 fc′ + 0.3fpc bw d p + Vp For components with Apsfse < 0.4(Apsfpu + Asfy), Vci ≥ 0.14λ fc′ bwdp
For components with Apsfse ≥ 0.4(Apsfpu + Asfy), Vci ≥ 0.17λ fc′ bwdp
Vcw = (0.29λ fc′ + 0.3fpc)bwdp + Vp
Note: Equations are for use with International System units. For fc in MPa, use fc′ . For fc in psi, use 12 fc′ . Aps = area of prestressed longitudinal tension
reinforcement; As = area of nonprestressed longitudinal tension reinforcement; b′= minimum width of web of a flanged component according to ACI 318-
63; bw = web width of component; d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement; dp = distance from
extreme compression fiber to prestressed longitudinal reinforcement; fc = compressive strength of concrete; fpc = compressive stress in concrete after al-
lowance for all prestress losses; fpu = tensile strength of prestressed reinforcement; fse = effective prestress in prestressed reinforcement; fy = yield strength
of nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement; M = bending moment due to externally applied load, according to ACI 318-63; Mcr = cracking moment; Mcre
= moment causing flexural cracking due to externally applied loads; Mmax = maximum factored moment at section due to externally applied loads; Mu =
factored flexural moment; V = shear force due to externally applied load, according to ACI 318-63; Vc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete; Vci =
flexure shear strength; Vcw = web shear strength; Vd = shear force at section due to unfactored dead load; Vi = factored shear force; Vp = vertical compo-
nent of effective prestress force; Vu = factored shear force at section; λ = lightweight concrete factor. 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
*MacGregor introduced approximate method.
†dp first appeared in the code, and Mcr was modified to Mcre.
‡The minimum limit of Vci has been updated depending on prestress level; the ACI 318 detailed method was adopted in strength estimations of pre-
stressed components, and fc′ is limited to 8.4 MPa, if the minimum shear reinforcement is not provided. For pretensioned component, transfer length
is considered as 50 times the diameter of prestressing strand in the end region.
verified by using up-to-date shear databases to evaluate analytical the sum of contributions of concrete Vc and stirrup Vs (Eq. [1]
accuracy and safety levels. Finally, three shear design examples and [2]). The designer can calculate Vc using either the de-
were developed to elaborate on the proposed changes. tailed or approximate method.
Review of the ACI 318-19 For f c′ in MPa,

detailed shear design method
Vn = Vc + Vs ≤ Vc + 0.66 f c bwd(1)
General requirements
where
According to ACI 318-19,10 the nominal shear strength of
prestressed concrete one-way members Vn can be estimated as bw = web width of component

For f c′ in psi, For f c′ in psi,
Vi M cre
Vn = Vc + Vs ≤ Vc + 8 f c bwd(2) Vci = 0.6λ f c′bw d p + Vd + (5)
M max
As suggested by Kuchma et al.,16 it may be reasonable to For f c′ in MPa, when Aps fse ≥ 0.4(Apsfpu + Asfy),
use Eq. (3) to define d, based on the centroid of resultant
tension force, which needs not be taken less than 0.8h, Vci ≥ 0.17λ f c bwd
where h is member height or thickness, in accordance with
ACI 318-19. where
As f s ds + Ap f py d p
d= (3) fpu = tensile strength of prestressed reinforcement
As f s + Ap f py
where For f c′ in psi,
As = area of nonprestressed longitudinal tension rein- Vci ≥ 2λ f c bwd

forcement
For f c′ in MPa, when Aps fse < 0.4(Aps fpu + As fy),
fy = yield strength of nonprestressed longitudinal rein-
forcement Vci ≥ 0.14λ f c bwd
dp = distance from extreme compression fiber to pre- For f c′ in psi,

stressed longitudinal reinforcement
Vci ≥ 1.7λ f c bwd
ds = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid
of nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement For f c′ in MPa,
Aps = area of prestressed longitudinal tension reinforce-

ment
M cre =
I
(
yt
)
0.5λ f c′ + f pe − f d (6)
where
fpy = yield strength of prestressed reinforcement
fd = compressive stress due to unfactored dead load
Detailed method at extreme fiber of section where tensile stress is
caused by externally applied loads
The detailed method specified in ACI 318-19 defines shear
contribution provided by concrete Vc in prestressed concrete fpe = compressive stress in concrete due to effective pre-
components as the lesser of Vci and Vcw. The former failure stress forces only
mechanism develops when flexural cracking propagates and
merges into inclined shear cracking in the shear span. No yt = distance from centroidal axis to top surface of gross
major changes to the flexure shear strength equation Vci have (composite) section
been introduced since it was first introduced into ACI 318 in
1963 (Table 1). For f c′ in psi,
For f c′ in MPa, M cre =

I
yt
( )
6λ f c′ + f pe − f d (7)
Vi M cre
Vci = 0.05λ f c′bw d p + Vd + (4) The first term in Eq. (4) and (5)—that is, 0.05λ f c bwdp for
M max f c′ in MPa and 0.6λ f c bwdp for f c′ in psi—represents the
where additional shear force required to transform flexural cracks
into a critical shear crack. It was empirically obtained based
λ = lightweight concrete factor on past test observations, taking into account the tenden-
cy proportional to the square root of concrete compressive
Vi = factored shear force at section due to externally strength f c .17 The last two terms in Eq. (4) and (5) in-
applied loads occurring simultaneously with Mmax dicate the shear force existing at the time and location of
flexural cracking: Vd is the shear force due to dead load and
Mmax = maximum factored moment at section due to exter- ViMcre/Mmax is the shear force due to externally added loads,
nally applied loads which cause the tensile stress in the extreme tensile fiber to
reach 0.5λ f c for f c′ in MPa and 6λ f c for f c′ in psi.
Mcre = moment causing flexural cracking due to externally
applied loads Recent investigations identified other critical influential

factors that affect the shear capacity of prestressed concrete with and without shear reinforcement. All of the hollow-core
beams.23–26 These factors include the longitudinal reinforce- slab specimens collected for evaluation were not reinforced in
ment ratio ρwt. The method in ACI 318-19 does not consider shear because of their unique production process (the extrusion
ρwt, but this study considers it in the modification. Also, method). The study excluded prestressed concrete specimens
interdependent variables related to design forces and section with fiber-reinforced polymer shear reinforcement,32,33 external
properties make design cumbersome for the calculation of Vci, prestressing,34 or self-consolidating concrete.35 Also excluded
which provides a motivation to improve the current design were one-way components with steel-concrete composite,36
equation. steel fibers,37 recycled concrete aggregates,38 or impact load,39
as well as two-way components.40 For the evaluation database,
Web shear strength Vcw is estimated as the point where the the filtration criteria included the following:
principal tensile stress in the centroid of the section reaches
the tensile strength of concrete. The equation for Vcw is quite • compressive strength of concrete f c′ equal to or greater
straightforward and its basis relies on the theory of elastici- than 12 MPa (1740 psi)
ty.27–29 In ACI 318-19, the web shear strength of prestressed
concrete beams is calculated as • shear span-to-depth ratio a/d equal to or greater than 2.4
For f c′ in MPa, • member height h equal to or greater than 70 mm (2.76 in.)
Vcw = (0.29λ f c + 0.3fpc)bwdp + Vp(8) • web width bw equal to or greater than 50 mm (1.97 in.)
where • ratio between shear strength and shear force estimated at

the flexural strength βflex less than or equal to 1.1
Vp = vertical component of effective prestress force
The final version of the ACI-DAfStb database used in this
For f c′ in psi, study contained 332 shear test results for prestressed concrete
beams with a straight tendon profile subjected to point load(s),
Vcw = (3.5λ f c + 0.3fpc)bwdp + Vp(9) with the specimens divided into 118 with shear reinforcement
and 214 with no shear reinforcement (Fig. 1). The specimens
Note that ACI 318-19 section 22.5.6.3.3 allows taking Vcw as in the data set can also be classified as 163 pretensioned
the shear force resulting in a principal tensile stress of 0.33λ beams and 169 post-tensioned beams. The database also
f c in MPa and 4λ f c in psi). The tensile strength of con- included unbonded post-tensioned beams and variations in
crete can vary between 0.17 f c and 0.29 f c in MPa (2 f c section shapes, such as rectangular, bulb tee, and tee.
to 3.5 f c in psi), depending on the level of prestress and
axial compression, if any. The web shear strength presented The compressive strength of collected test specimens ranged
in Eq. (8) and (9) implies an abrupt increase in concrete shear from 12.9 to 102.9 MPa (1870 to 14,924 psi). The compres-
strength even at low levels of prestress and a variable angle sive strengths for most of the prestressed concrete beam
of shear cracking (that is, not 45 degrees). This inconsisten- specimens were between 30 and 50 MPa (4350 and 7250 psi)
cy between the reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete (Fig. 1). The effective depth d of the specimens, which was
design equations needs to be reconsidered in subsequent ACI calculated by using Eq. (3), ranged for the most part from 150
modifications and is the study subject in this research. to 350 mm (6 to 14 in.). In a few cases, effective depth d up
to roughly 1363 mm (54 in.) was also included. Of the 332
Shear database prestressed concrete beams included in the database, 184 fully
prestressed members with no bonded nonprestressed rein-
This study used observed data from prestressed concrete beam forcement were included.
shear tests to verify the ACI 318-19 shear design methods and
the proposed modifications. Prestressed concrete beam failure To address impacts of modifications on the hollow-core slab
in shear has drawn the research community’s attention since the industry, pretensioned hollow-core slab specimens (Fig. 2)
beginning of the 21st century.30 Collected test results are often produced by dry-casting (extrusion method) from Park et
used for the evaluation of various design code models.20 Results al.27 and Lee et al.28 were compiled with the ACI-DAfStb
cover a full range of practical experimental data, including var- shear database. A total of 145 prestressed hollow-core slab
ious geometries, material properties, and loading and boundary specimens were added. None of these specimens included a
conditions. This study primarily used the ACI-DAfStb database, cast-in-place concrete topping. The collected hollow-core slab
which has been officially established by joint ACI-ASCE Com- specimens were also not reinforced in shear. Their concrete
mittee 445 and German Committee of Reinforced Concrete31 compressive strengths ranged from 40 to 114 MPa (5802 to
for reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete test specimens. 16,534 psi), and the vast majority had concrete compressive
Two major groups in the database were used in this study: strengths between 50 and 70 MPa (7250 and 10,150 psi). All
prestressed concrete beams and extruded hollow-core slabs, the specimens reported in hollow-core slab test database27,28
with the prestressed concrete beams further divided into those failed due to web shear cracking.

Figure 1. Distribution of key influential factors in shear database. Note: PC = prestressed concrete. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa =
0.145 ksi.
Per ACI 318-19 section 7.6.3.1, minimum shear reinforce-

ment should be provided if the factored shear force Vu exceeds
half of the design web shear strength 0.5ϕVcw , where ϕ is
the strength reduction factor, for prestressed hollow-core
slab components with an untopped depth exceeding 315 mm
(12.5 in.). In other words, the minimum shear reinforcement
provision can be directly interpreted for web shear capacity
of hollow-core slab components and Vcw of hollow-core slab
members is taken as half of the strength calculated by Eq. (8)
and (9) in this study. Of the collected hollow-core slab speci-
mens, 41% (60 specimens) should have been subjected to this
rule because those specimens had a component height greater
than 315 mm (12.5 in.). However, it should be noted that ACI
318-19 section 7.6.3.2 allows shear strength evaluation by
testing, and that method is preferred in practice.
The prestressed concrete beam and hollow-core slab database

for verification consisted of a total of 477 specimens. Only 9
specimens (2%) were over-reinforced in flexure (that is, they
had a compression-controlled section per ACI 318-19 section
Figure 2. Hollow-core slabs produced by extrusion method.
21.2.2), whereas 435 specimens (91%) had a tension-con-

trolled section. As most specimens were under-reinforced in to unfactored dead load at the extreme fiber of section fd can
flexure, the database specimens are considered to reasonably also be removed. Subsequently, Mcre may be replaced with
represent design components in practice. the following equation for cracking moment Mcr, which is
consistent with the flexural cracking moment typically used in
Modification of the shear design serviceability design.
method
For f c′ in MPa,
Flexural shear strength Vci
The first modification of Vci is linked to the effect of dead load

(
Mcr M cr = 0.63λ f c′ + f pe ) yI t
Vd. MacGregor and Hanson21 proposed the removal of Vd to where

simplify the calculation process and this change was made to the
ACI 318 method in ACI 318-71 (Table 1). For the purpose of I = moment of inertia of section about centroidal axis
simplicity, the influence of Vd in the equation for flexure shear
strength described in Eq. (4) and (5) may likewise be eliminated. For f c′ in psi,
The contribution of Vd to Vci of all prestressed concrete beams
and hollow-core slabs (total 477 specimens) is shown in Fig.
3. The contribution of Vd is up to 7.3% of the shear capacity
(
Mcr M cr = 7.5λ f c′ + f pe ) yI
t
provided by the shear-flexure equation Vci specified in ACI 318- Figure 3 shows the ratios between ViMcre/Mmax and its simpli-
19. For most of the test specimens, the Vd contribution ranged fied form VuMcr/Mu for the test specimens in the shear database
from 0.5% to 3.5%, with a mean value of 1.58%. By observa- against the normalized magnitude of beneficial compressive
tion, the influence of dead load effect Vd is marginal and can be stress induced in extreme concrete fiber due to prestress fpe/ f c′.
disregarded for simplicity with little impact in terms of accuracy. As fpe increases, VuMcr/Mu approaches ViMcre/Mmax. Even for very
A similar expression is presented in Eq. (R22.5.6.3.1.d) of ACI small magnitude cases of fpe (such as partial prestressing), re-
318-19 section R22.5.6.3.1 for noncomposite prestressed con- moval of the dead load effect causes a 10% difference on the un-
crete beams subjected to uniformly distributed loads. conservative side when compared to the original. However, this
effect is counteracted by excluding Vd from the shear strength.
By removing Vd from Eq. (4) and (5), Mcre in Eq. (6) and (7) is By replacing Mmax and Vi with factored design forces Mu and Vu,
no longer affected by the dead load and, likewise, stress due computation of Vci becomes more intuitive and simpler.
Figure 3. Effect of modification on flexure-shear capacity. Note: fci = compressive strength of concrete; fpe = compressive stress
in concrete due to effective prestress forces only; Mcr = cracking moment; Mcre = moment causing flexural cracking due to exter-
nally applied loads; Mmax = maximum factored moment at section due to externally applied loads; Mu = factored flexural moment;
PC = prestressed concrete; Vci = flexure-shear strength; Vd = shear force at section due to unfactored dead load; Vi = factored
shear force at section due to externally applied loads occurring simultaneously with Mmax; Vu = factored shear force at section.

The first term of Eq. (4) and (5) is empirically derived as a According to ACI 318-19 section 22.5.5.1, for nonpre-
function of compressive strength of concrete f c′ based on test stressed reinforced concrete members with minimum shear
observations until 1962.17 Though this formula predicts flexur- reinforcement (Av ≥ Av,min where Av is area of shear reinforce-
al-shear strength accurately, many recent investigations24,25,41–46 ment and Av,min is minimum area of shear reinforcement), Vc
reveal that the shear capacity of prestressed concrete members is defined by either an approximate formula (Eq. [10]) or a
is also significantly affected by the longitudinal reinforcement detailed formula (Eq. [11]). The only difference between the
ratio ρwt, which is defined as: formulas is the coefficient (either 0.17 or 0.66[ρwt]1/3 with
f c′ in MPa). Because Eq. (10) is a lower bound of Eq. (11),
ρwt = ρw + ρpw = (As + Aps)/(bwd) 4(ρwt)1/3 does not need to be less than 1.0 (that is, K ≥ 1.0).
The same rationale behind the reinforced concrete shear
where provision in ACI 318-19 is applied to prestressed concrete
equations. Also, the effect of longitudinal reinforcement
ρpw = prestressed longitudinal reinforcement ratio ratio can be evaluated more intuitively by introducing the
coefficient K.
ρw = nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement ratio
⎡ N ⎤
To evaluate this effect, 111 samples were selected from the shear Vc = ⎢0.17 λ f c′ + u ⎥ bw d (10)
database where the mode of shear failure was clearly reported as ⎢⎣ 6 Ag ⎥⎦
flexure shear.47–53 To evaluate the flexure shear strength for the ⎡ N ⎤
selected test data, a critical section was assumed to be h/2 apart Vc = ⎢0.66λρ 1/3
wt
f c′ + u ⎥ bw d (11)
from the loading point (that is, a-h/2 from the support) for all ⎢⎣ 6 Ag ⎥⎦
flexure-shear failed specimens. Figure 4 shows the influence of
ρwt on shear capacity in line with a normalized shear contribu-
tion of the simplified term (that is, VuMcr/Mubwdp f c ).17 As ρwt For f c′ in MPa,
increases, the conservatism of Eq. (4) and (5)—where Vd is elim-
Vu M cr
inated, Mcre is replaced with Mcr, and Mmax and Vi are replaced Vci = 0.05λ K f c′bw d p + (12)
with factored design forces Mu and Vu—becomes more obvious. Mu
For f c′ in psi,
To reflect the effect of ρwt properly, a longitudinal rein- Vu M cr
forcement coefficient K (where K is 4(ρwt)1/3) is introduced. Vci = 0.6λ K f c′bw d p + (13)
Mu
Figure 4. Effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio on flexure-shear strength. Note: bw = web width of component; dp = distance
from extreme compression fiber to prestressed longitudinal reinforcement; fci = compressive strength of concrete; K = longitu-
dinal reinforcement coefficient; Mcr = cracking moment; Mu = factored flexural moment; Vtest = measured shear strength in shear
database; Vu = factored shear force at section; λ = lightweight concrete factor; ρwt = longitudinal reinforcement ratio.

A comparison of the graphs in Fig. 4 shows that the coef- Tables 2 and 3 present statistical values of the strength ratios
ficient K has no significant impact on the overall analytical between estimated and observed shear strengths (Vtest/Vcal
accuracy. The underestimation of shear strength for beam where Vcal is calculated shear strength and Vtest is measured
specimens with a high longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρwt shear strength from shear database). The method expressed in
greater than 2.0%) is somewhat alleviated, whereas lightly Eq. (12) and (13) conservatively estimates the shear strengths
reinforced beams are not affected by this modification if K of specimens regardless of prestressing method or section
equals 1.0 when ρwt is less than 1.56%. shape. The modified model also showed comparable results
with those in ACI 318-19.
Use of the modified Vci presented in Eq. (12) and (13) was
verified by comparing results with the shear database as well Web shear strength Vcw
as the ACI 318 method. Since hollow-core slabs failed in web
shear, as presented by Park et al.27 and Lee et al.,28 those spec- For the test specimens with failure mode reported as web
imens were excluded in the verification of Vci. shear in the database (41 prestressed concrete beams and
Table 2. Verification of proposed modifications for specimens with no shear reinforcement
Flexure shear Web shear Web shear*

Flexure shear (hollow-core slab (hollow-core slab (hollow-core slab Detailed method
Vtest excluded) excluded) excluded)
Vcal
Modified Modified Modified Modified Modified
ACI 318 ACI 318 ACI 318 ACI 318 ACI 318
model model model model model
Average 1.20 1.12 1.52 1.40 1.03 1.03 1.60 1.67 1.59 1.57
Standard devi-
0.61 0.53 0.58 0.49 0.35 0.36 0.56 0.60 0.54 0.52
ation
Coefficient of
0.51 0.48 0.38 0.35 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.34 0.33
variation
Predicted
results falling
below exper-
56.5 50.7 88.3 79.9 57.0 52.3 89.0 89.6 94.2 92.5
imental data
of analysis
results, %
Number of
359 214 214 145 359
test samples
Note: ACI 318 = American Concrete Institute’s Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete; Vcal = calculated shear strength per ACI 318-19 or
proposed detailed method; Vcw = web shear strength; Vtest = measured shear strength in shear database.
* Vcw/2 for hollow-core slab components with untopped depth greater than 12.5 in. (315 mm).
Table 3. Verification of proposed modifications for specimens with shear reinforcement
Flexure shear strength Web shear strength Detailed method

Vtest
Vcal Modified Modified Modified
ACI 318 ACI 318 ACI 318
model model model
Average 1.15 1.09 1.22 1.19 1.35 1.30
Standard deviation 0.35 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.30 0.25
Coefficient of variation 0.31 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.20
Predicted results falling below experi-

65.3 59.3 76.1 75.2 92.4 89.8
mental data of analysis results, %
Number of test samples 118
Note: ACI 318 = American Concrete Institute’s Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete; Vcal = calculated shear strength per ACI 318-19 or
proposed detailed method; Vtest = measured shear strength in shear database.

145 hollow-core slabs), the normalized shear strength with ble effect was also confirmed by Saqan and Frosch.54 Figure
respect to fpc/ f c′ is shown in Fig. 5. The web shear strength is 6 shows an increasing trend on web shear capacity depending
evaluated at a critical section assumed to be h/2 apart from the on ρwt. To capture longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρwt effects
support. The black dashed line and the solid gray line indicate on prestressed concrete members, the coefficient K is applied
0.29 f c + 0.3fpc and 0.17 f c + 0.3fpc in MPa (3.5 f c + in modification of the web shear strength model in line with
0.3fpc and 2 f c + 0.3fpc in psi), respectively. Per ACI 318-19, flexural shear strength.
the tensile strengths of concrete associated with prestressed
concrete and reinforced concrete members are 0.29 f c and Decreasing the coefficient from 0.29 to 0.17 MPa (4.2 to
0.17 f c in MPa (3.5 f c and 2 f c in psi), respectively. As 2.5 psi) can lead to an unnecessarily conservative estimate
noted by Kuchma et al.,16 said conjecture leads to a sudden in- (solid gray line and black dashed line in Fig. 6) compared
crease in web shear capacity even for low levels of prestress— with the ACI 318-19 method. Also, the web shear strength
that is, even fpc ≈ 0, Vcw = 0.29 f c bwdp with f c′ in MPa or of prestressed concrete components is a function of fpc in
3.5 f c bwdp with f c′ in psi. The increase in shear capacity for ACI 318-19. However, as shown in Fig. 6, the slope when
prestressed concrete members compared with that of rein- expressed on a logarithmic scale reveals f pc is much closer
forced concrete members is as much as 70%, even when the with the data trend than fpc. Considering the proper level of
prestressing effect 0.3fpc is not taken into account (that is, 0.29 conservatism and dependency on f pc , the web shear strength
f c /0.17 f c ≈ 1.7 or 3.5 f c /2 f c ≈ 1.7). Even while can be modified as follows:
the overall trend of web shear capacities is appropriately
captured in 0.29 f c + 0.3fpc in MPa or 3.5 f c + 0.3fpc in psi For f c′ in MPa,
(the ACI 318-19 expression of Vcw), the current formula over-
estimates the shear strength of prestressed concrete members
with a compressive strength greater than 50 MPa (7.25 ksi).
(
Vcw = 0.17 λ K f c′ + )
f pc bw d p + V p (14)
Thus, such inconsistency between the reinforced concrete and For f c′ in psi,
prestressed concrete shear strength equations can lead to the
overestimation of strength for low prestress (Fig. 5), leading
to an unsafe component design.
(
Vcw = 2λ K )
f c′ + 12 f pc bw d p + V p (15)
It should be noted that because the proposed Eq. (14) and

Within ACI 318-19, the effect of the longitudinal rein- (15) have a reduced portion of concrete tensile strength
forcement ratio ρwt for reinforced concrete members is also term, they generally tend to give a more conservative Vcw
reflected in web shear strength modification. Its non-negligi- estimation for high-strength concrete components compared
Figure 5. Influence of effective prestress on web-shear strength. Note: For fci in MPa, use fc , and for fci in psi, use 12 fc . bw = web
width of component; dp = distance from extreme compression fiber to prestressed longitudinal reinforcement; fci = compressive
strength of concrete; fpc = compressive stress in concrete after allowance for all prestress losses at centroid of cross section; Vtest
= measured shear strength in shear database. 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

Figure 6. Key influential parameters on web-shear strength: prestress and longitudinal reinforcement ratio. Note: For fci in MPa,
use fc . Note: For fci in psi, use 12 fc . bw = web width of component; dp = distance from extreme compression fiber to prestressed
longitudinal reinforcement; fci = compressive strength of concrete; fpc = compressive stress in concrete after allowance for all
prestress losses at centroid of cross section; Vtest = measured shear strength in shear database; ρwt = longitudinal reinforcement
ratio. 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
with the current formula (Eq. [4]). Figure 7 shows if a

component with zero vertical prestress is assumed (Vn is 0),
the web shear strength predicted by the proposed method
Vcw,proposed tends to be more conservative than that of the
current method Vcw,current with increasing concrete compres-
sive strength f c′ . The proposed method is more conservative
regardless of the level of prestress fpc for higher concrete
strength ( f c′ ≥ 50 MPa [7250 psi]). However, those chang-
es can be justified by the current method’s unconservative
predictions on high-strength concrete components with low
prestress (Fig. 5).
Tables 2 and 3 present verification results of the proposed

Vcw in Eq. (14) and (15) for all prestressed concrete beam test
results with and without shear reinforcement and prestressed
concrete hollow-core slabs. The proposed method showed
comparable prediction accuracy and conservatism to the cur-
rent ACI design method irrespective of the presence of shear
reinforcement. Figure 7. Ratio of web-shear strengths of proposed-to-cur-
rent methods. Note: fci = compressive strength of concrete;
The web shear strengths of hollow-core slab test specimens fpc = compressive stress in concrete after allowance for all
were compared to those estimated by ACI 318-19 and the prestress losses at centroid of cross section; Vcw,current = web-
proposed modification (Fig. 8). For hollow-core slab members shear strength predicted by the current ACI 318-19 method;
Vcw,proposed = web-shear strength predicted by the proposed
with h greater than 315 mm (12.5 in.), the aforementioned method. 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
cut-in-half rule in web shear strength (Vcal = ϕVcw/2, where
ϕ is 1.0) was used. In terms of average, standard deviation, Statistical evaluation
and coefficient of variation (COV), the proposed and current of proposed modifications
methods were nearly identical. Thus, it can be confirmed that
the proposed revision will have no substantial impact on the Figure 9 compares shear strengths of test specimens without
future hollow-core slab industry. shear reinforcement with shear strengths calculated using the

Figure 8. Influence of modification on prestressed hollow-core slab members considering American Concrete Institute’s Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19) section 7.6.3.1’s cut-in-half rule. Note:
Avg = average; COV = coefficient of variation; SD = standard deviation; Vcal = calculated shear strength per ACI 318-19 or pro-
posed detailed method; Vtest = measured shear strength in shear database. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
ACI 318-19 detailed method and the proposed method. Fig- Evaluation of proposed
ure 10 provides similar comparisons for specimens with shear detailed method through
reinforcement. The calculated shear strength Vcal was deter- design examples
mined from the lesser of Vci and Vcw for the test specimens. The
proposed methodology provided slightly enhanced analytical The results calculated from the proposed detailed shear
accuracy in terms of the estimated average, with an average of formula were compared with results calculated from the ACI
1.57 for the test specimens without shear reinforcement and an 318-19 detailed shear provisions for three design examples:
average of 1.30 for those with shear reinforcement (Tables 2
and 3). Furthermore, the proposed methodology was analyti- • a hollow-core slab with a straight tendon profile (Fig. 11)
cally more accurate for the coefficient of variation, with COV
of 33% for the test specimens without shear reinforcement and • a two-span, post-tensioned tee beam with an idealized
COV of 20% for those with shear reinforcement. While the parabolic tendon profile (Fig. 12)
percentage of predicted results falling below experimental data
becomes slightly unconservative in the proposed method, it is • a double-tee-shaped precast concrete and cast-in-place
about 2% different from the current ACI 318 method, which composite girder with harped strand profile (Fig. 13)
would not significantly affect the design results.
The geometrical and material information for the design
The test-to-prediction ratios Vtest/Vcal were also compared with examples was adopted from the PCI Design Handbook55
respect to the shear-related parameters f c′, d, a/d, ρwt, and fpc and the Post-Tensioning Manual.56 Information on the
(Fig. 9 and 10). There are no significant differences on the cross sections and materials is shown in the figures for the
Vtest/Vcal distributions between the ACI 318-19 and proposed examples. In this paper, only the calculated shear strengths
methods because the proposed method has the same inherent by concrete along the length are compared. For the se-
philosophy as the ACI 318-19 provision. However, it can lected location x, where x is distance from end support,
again be confirmed that the underestimation of shear strength the detailed procedures using proposed modifications are
for highly reinforced members (ρwt ≥ 2.0%) is somewhat presented.
mitigated in the proposed method and gives a more reason-
able prediction than the ACI 318-19 method. The primary Example 1: Hollow-core slab
purpose of this study was to provide a more straightforward
shear design methodology for prestressed concrete members. For the hollow-core slab example (Fig. 11), the procedure to
Improved accuracy is considered to be a secondary favorable calculate Vc by hand at the selected location x is 1000 mm was
outcome associated with the proposed modifications. as follows.

Figure 9. Verification of proposed detailed methods for specimens without shear reinforcement. Note: a = shear span; ACI
318-19 = American Concrete Institute’s Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI
318R-19); Avg = average; COV = coefficient of variation; d = effective beam depth; fci = compressive strength of concrete; fpc =
compressive stress in concrete after allowance for all prestress losses at centroid of cross section; SD = standard deviation; Vcal =
calculated shear strength per ACI 318-19 or proposed detailed method; Vtest = measured shear strength in shear database; ρwt =
longitudinal reinforcement ratio; %P<E = percentage of predicted results falling below experimental data of analysis results.
1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
Demand calculation ⎛ L x2 ⎞ ⎡⎛ 7 × 1⎞ 12 ⎤
Mu = ⎜ − ⎟ wu = ⎢⎜
⎝2 2⎠
( ) (
⎟ − ⎥ 5.689 = 17.07 kN 12.59 kip-f
wu = 1.2(1.641 + 0.700) + 1.6(1.800) ⎣⎝ 2 ⎠ 2 ⎦
⎛ L =x 25.689
⎞ kN/mm
⎡⎛ 7 × 1⎞ 12 ⎤
(0.39 kip/ft) Mu = ⎜ − ⎟ wu = ⎢⎜
⎝2 2⎠ ⎟ − ⎥ ( )
5.689 = 17.07 kN 12.59 kip-ft ( )
⎣⎝ 2 ⎠ 2 ⎦
where Flexure shear strength Vci
wu = factored distributed load per unit length of component Since the location x 1000 mm (39.4 in.) was not within the
⎡⎛ 7 ⎞ ⎤ transfer length ℓtr is 635 mm (25 in.), the full effective pre-
⎛L ⎞
Vu ( ) (
= ⎜ − x ⎟ wu = ⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ 5.689 = 14.22 kN 3.20 kip
⎝2
) stress force was applied at this location.
⎠ ⎣⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦
ℓtr = 50db = 50 × 12.7 = 635 mm (25 in.)
where < x = 1000 mm (39.4 in.)
L = span length of prestressed member where

Figure 10. Verification of proposed detailed methods for specimens with shear reinforcement. Note: a = shear span; ACI 318-19 =
American Concrete Institute’s Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19);
Avg = average; COV = coefficient of variation; d = effective beam depth; fci = compressive strength of concrete; fpc = compressive
stress in concrete after allowance for all prestress losses at centroid of cross section; SD = standard deviation; Vcal = calculated
shear strength per ACI 318-19 or proposed detailed method; Vtest = measured shear strength in shear database; ρwt = longitudinal
reinforcement ratio; %P<E = percentage of predicted results falling below experimental data of analysis results. 1 mm = 0.0394
in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
db = nominal diameter of bar, wire, or prestressing (6.3 in.) and no longitudinal non-prestressed reinforcement
strand was provided, both d and dp were taken as 0.8h = 160 mm for
detailed method. 1 1
Pe = Aps fse = 394.8 × 930 = 367.16 kN (82.55 kip) 1 ⎛ Aps ⎞ 3 ⎡ 394.8 ⎤ 3

K = 4 ρ wt3 = 4 ⎜ ⎟ = 4⎢ ⎥
where
⎝ bw d ⎠ ( )
⎢⎣ 150 × 160 ⎥⎦
= 1.017 > 1.0 → K = 1.017
Pe = effective prestressing force
Pe Pe eyb 367.16 × 1000
P 367.16 × 1000 f pe = + =
f pc = e = Ag Ig 66,986
Ag 66,986
( )
367.16 × 1000 × 150 − 100 × 100
(
= 5.48 Mpa 0.795 ksi ) +
3.254 × 10 8
Because dp 150 mm (5.9 in.) was shorter than 0.8h = 160 mm (

= 11.12 Mpa 1.613 ksi )

Figure 11. Design example 1: Precast concrete hollow core-slab with straight tendon profile. Note: Dimensions are in millimeters.
ACI 318-19 = American Concrete Institute’s Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary
(ACI 318R-19); Ag = area of gross (composite) concrete section; Aps = area of prestressed longitudinal tension reinforcement;
c.g.c. = center of gravity of concrete; dp = distance from extreme compression fiber to prestressed longitudinal reinforcement;
fci = compressive strength of concrete; fpu = tensile strength of prestressed reinforcement; fpy = yield strength of prestressed re-
inforcement; fse = effective prestress in prestressed reinforcement; Ig = moment of inertia of gross (composite) concrete section
about centroidal axis; Vc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete; Vci = flexure-shear strength; Vcw = web-shear strength;
Vu = factored shear force at section; wc = unit weight of concrete; wLL = live load per unit length; wSDL = superimposed dead load
per unit length; wSW = self-weight of component per unit length; x = distance from end support; eend = eccentricity of prestressed
longitudinal reinforcement at the beam end; emid = eccentricity of prestressed longitudinal reinforcement at the midspan; ϕ =
strength reduction factor. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 mm2 = 0.00155 in.2; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 kN/m = 0.0685 kip/ft; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
where
0.17 × 1.0 × 1.017 × 35 × 150 × 160
Vci ≥ 2λ K f c′bw d =
e = eccentricity of prestressed longitudinal reinforce- 1000
ment (
= 24.55 kN 5.52 kip OK )( )
Ig = moment of inertia of gross (composite) concrete Web shear strength Vcw
section about centroidal axis
Vp = Pe × θp = 0 KN (0 kip)
yb = distance from centroidal axis to bottom surface of
gross (composite) section
Vcw (
= 0.17 λ K f c′ + )
f pc bw d p + V p
( )
⎛I ⎞
M cr = ⎜ g ⎟ 0.62λ f c′ + f pe
⎝ yb ⎠ ⎛ 0.17 × 1.0 × 1.017 × 35 5.48 ⎞
=⎜ + ⎟ × 150 × 160 + 0
( )
⎛ 3.254 × 108 ⎞ ⎝ 1000 1000 ⎠
=⎜ ⎟⎠ 0.62 × 1.0 × 35 + 11.12
⎝ 100 (
= 80.73 kN 18.15 kip )
7
(
= 4.812 × 10 N-mm = 48.12 kN-m 35.49 kip-ft ) Shear strength Vc was determined to be the lesser of Vci and
Vcw. At the selected location x is 1000 mm (39.4 in.), Vci
governed the shear strength provided by concrete: Vc = Vci =
Vu M cr 47.31 kN (10.64 kip). The Vc along the length was compared
Vci = 0.05λ K f c′bw d p +
Mu with results from the ACI 318-19 detailed method (Fig. 11).
0.05 × 1.0 × 1.017 × 35 × 150 × 160
= ϕVci = 0.75 × 47.31 = 35.48 kN (7.98 kip) (governs)
1000
14.22 × 48.12
+
17.07
( )(
= 47.31 kN 10.64 kip governs ) ϕVcw = 0.75 × 80.73 = 60.55 kN (13.61 kip)
ϕVc = 0.75 × 47.31 = 35.48 kN (7.98 kip)

Figure 12. Design example 2: Two span post-tensioned tee beam with idealized parabolic tendon profile. Note: Dimensions are
in millimeters. ACI 318-19 = American Concrete Institute’s Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-19); ad = sag of prestressed longitudinal reinforcement; Ag = area of gross (composite) concrete section;
Aps = area of prestressed longitudinal tension reinforcement; As1 = area of nonprestressed bottom longitudinal reinforcement;
As2 = area of nonprestressed top longitudinal reinforcement; c.g.c. = center of gravity of concrete; dp = distance from extreme
compression fiber to prestressed longitudinal reinforcement; e(x) = eccentricity of prestressed longitudinal reinforcement (at the
location x); fci = compressive strength of concrete; fpu = tensile strength of prestressed reinforcement; fpy = yield strength of pre-
stressed reinforcement; fse = effective prestress in prestressed reinforcement; Vc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete;
Vci = flexure-shear strength; Vcw = web-shear strength; Vu = factored shear force at section; wc = unit weight of concrete; wLL =
live load per unit length; wSDL = superimposed dead load per unit length; wSW = self-weight of component per unit length; x =
distance from end support; yb = distance from centroidal axis to bottom surface of gross (composite) section; yt = distance from
centroidal axis to top surface of gross (composite) section; θp(x) = slope of prestressed longitudinal reinforcement (at the loca-
tion x); ϕ = strength reduction factor. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 mm2 = 0.00155 in.2; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 kN/m = 0.0685 kip/ft; 1 kN/m3 =
0.00637 kip/ft3; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
Example 2: Two-span, post-tensioned ⎛ 3Lx x 2 ⎞ ⎡⎛ 3× 18 × 16 ⎞ 162 ⎤

tee beam with parabolic tendon profile Mu =⎜
⎝ 8
− ⎟ wu = ⎢⎜
2⎠ 8
(
⎟⎠ − 2 ⎥ 68.148 )
⎣⎝ ⎦
For the two-span, continuous post-tensioned tee beam ex- (
= −1362.96 kN-m −1005.72 kip-ft )
ample (Fig. 12), the following procedure was used to hand
calculate Vc at the selected location x equal to 16 m (52.5 ft) Flexure shear strength Vci
from the left support. In this example, friction and anchor set
loss of tendon were assumed to be zero. Pe = Apsfse = 2368.8 × 1116 = 2643.58 kN (594.33 kip)
Demand calculation Pe 2643.58 × 1000

f pc = =
Ag 620,000
wu = 1.2(15.19 + 9.60) + 1.6(24.00)
(
= 4.264 MPa 0.618 ksi )
= 68.148 kN/m (4.67 kip/ft) Because the component had both prestressing tendon and
longitudinal non-prestressed reinforcements, dp and d were
⎛ 3L ⎞ ⎡⎛ 3× 18 ⎞ ⎤ calculated as follows:
Vu =⎜
⎝ 8
− x ⎟ wu = ⎢⎜ ⎟ (
− 16 ⎥ 68.148 )
⎠ ⎣⎝ 8 ⎠ ⎦ dp = e(x) + yb (for negative moment region)
(
= −630.37 kN −141.72 kip )
= [(7.4753 × 10-6)(16,000)2 – 0.1241(16,000)] + 611.5

Figure 13. Design example 3: Pretensioned prestressed concrete, cast-in-place concrete composite double tee girder with
harped tendon profile. Note: Dimensions are in millimeters. ACI 318-19 = American Concrete Institute’s Building Code Require-
ments for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19); Ag = area of gross (composite) concrete section; Apc
= area of precast concrete section only; Aps = area of prestressed longitudinal tension reinforcement; dp = distance from extreme
compression fiber to prestressed longitudinal reinforcement; fci = compressive strength of concrete; fpu = tensile strength of
prestressed reinforcement; fpy = yield strength of prestressed reinforcement; fse = effective prestress in prestressed reinforce-
ment; Ig = moment of inertia of gross (composite) concrete section about centroidal axis; Ipc = moment of inertia of precast
concrete section only, about the precast concrete section’s centroidal axis; Vc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete; Vci
= flexure-shear strength; Vcw = web-shear strength; Vu = factored shear force at section; wc = unit weight of concrete; wLL = live
load per unit length; wSDL = superimposed dead load per unit length; wSW = self-weight of component per unit length; x = dis-
tance from end support; yb = distance from centroidal axis to bottom surface of gross (composite) section; yb,pc = distance from
centroidal axis to bottom surface of precast concrete section; yt = distance from centroidal axis to top surface of gross (compos-
ite) section; yt,pc = distance from centroidal axis to top surface of precast concrete section; ϕ = strength reduction factor. 1 mm
= 0.0394 in.; 1 mm2 = 0.00155 in.2; 1 mm4 = 0.0000024 in.4; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 kN/m = 0.0685 kip/ft; 1 kN/m3 = 0.00637 kip/ft3;
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
= 539.58 mm (21.24 in.) Because the structure was statically indeterminate, secondary
force at the center support was counted in the concrete stress
d =
( )
As f y h ds + Aps f py d p due to prestress fpe. In this case, the balanced moment Mbal was
As f y + Aps f py not the same as Pee.
=
1592 420 (900 )
65 + 2368.8 1674 539.58 wp,eq =−
8Pe ad
=−
8 × 2643.58 × 605.5
L2 18,0002
1592 420 + 2368.8 1674
= 582.21 mm 22.92 in.( ) (
= −39.523 kN/m −2.71 kip/ft )
The calculated d and dp (582.21 and 539.58 mm [22.92 and where
21.24 in.], respectively) were less than 0.8h equal to 720 mm
(28.35 in.). Both d and dp were taken as d = dp = 720 mm for ad = sag of prestressed longitudinal reinforcement
the detailed method.
1 wp,eq = equivalent distributed load due to effective prestress
( )
1
3
K =4 3
wt
=4 Aps + As / bw d
⎛ 3Lx x 2 ⎞ ⎛ 3× 18 × 16 162 ⎞
1 M bal =⎜ − ⎟ wp,eq = ⎜ −
2 ⎟⎠
(
−39.523 )
(
= 4 2368.8 + 1592 / 400 750 )( ) 3 ⎝ 8 2⎠ ⎝ 8
= 0.9583 < 1.0 K = 1.0 (

= 790.46 kN-m 583.04 kip-ft )

Pe M bal yt 2643.58 × 1000 790.46 × 106 × 288.5 Demand calculation
f pe = − = +
Ag Ig 620,000 4.704 × 1010
(
= 9.112 MPa 1.32 ksi ) wu = 1.2(5.453 + 3.648) + 1.6(15.000) = 34.921 kN/m
(2.39 kip/ft)
( )
⎛I ⎞
M cr = ⎜ g ⎟ 0.62λ f c′ + f pe
⎝ yt ⎠ wd = 5.453 + 3.648 = 9.101 kN/m (0.62 kip/ft)
⎛ 4.704 × 1010 ⎞
=⎜
⎝ 288.5 ⎟⎠
(
0.62 × 1.0 × 42 + 9.112 ) Vu
⎛L ⎞ ⎡⎛ 15 ⎞ ⎤
(
= ⎜ − x ⎟ wu = ⎢⎜ ⎟ − 0.6 ⎥ 34.921
⎝2
)
⎠ ⎣⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦
(
= 2140.86 kN-m 1579.40 kip-ft ) = 240.94 kN (54.17 kip)
Vu M cr ⎛ Lx x 2 ⎞ ⎡⎛ 15 × 0.6 ⎞ 0.62 ⎤
Vci = 0.05λ K f c′bw d p +
Mu
Mu =⎜
⎝ 2
− ⎟ wu = ⎢⎜
2⎠ 2 ⎟⎠
−
2 ⎦
(
⎥ 34.921 )
⎣⎝
0.05 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 42 × 400 × 720 630.37 × 2140.86 = 150.86 kN-m (111.27 kip-ft)
= +
1000 1362.96
⎛ Lx x 2 ⎞ ⎡⎛ 15 × 0.6 ⎞ 0.62 ⎤
(
= 1083.47 kN 24.59 kip ) Md =⎜ − ⎟ wd = ⎢⎜
2 ⎟⎠
− (
⎥ 9.101 )
⎝ 2 2⎠ ⎣⎝ 2 ⎦
0.17 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 42 × 400 × 720 = 39.32 kN-m (29.0 kip-ft)
Vci ≥ 0.17 λ K f c′bw d =
1000
(
= 317.30 kN 71.34 kip ) where
Web shear strength Vcw Md = moment at section due to unfactored dead load
θp x () =
d
dx
() (
e x = 2 × 7.4753× 10−6 x − 0.1241 ) wd = unfactored dead load per unit length of component
( )(
= 2 × 7.4753× 10−6 16,000 − 0.1241 = 0.115 ) Flexure shear strength Vci
Vp = Pe × [-θp(x) × sign(Vu)] = 2643.58 × [-0.1151 × (-1)]
Since the location x equal to 600 mm (23.6 in.) was within
= 304.28 kN (68.41 kip) the transfer length ℓtr equal to 635 mm (25 in.), the reduced
effective prestress force was applied at this location.
Vcw (
= 0.17 λ K f c′ + )
f pc bw d p + V p
ℓtr = 50db = 50 × 12.7 = 635 mm (25 in.)
⎛ 0.17 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 42 4.264 ⎞
=⎜ + ⎟ × 400 × 720 + 304.28
⎝ 1000 1000 ⎠ > x = 600 mm (23.6 in.)
= 1216.28 kN (273.44 kip)
Pe = (x/ltr) Aps fse = (600/635) × 987 × 1302
The Vc was determined to be the lesser of Vci and Vcw. At the
selected location x equal to 16 m (52.5 ft), Vci governed the = 1214 kN (272.93 kip)
shear strength provided by concrete: Vc = Vci = 1083.47 kN y − yb, pc
(243.59 kip). Figure 12 compares the Vc along the length with f pc
P
Apc
(
= e + M d − Pe e pc b )I pc
the ACI 318-19 detailed method.
ϕVci = 0.75 × 1083.47 = 812.60 kN (182.69 kip) (governs)

1.285 × 106
=
2.87 × 105
(
+ 39.32 × 106 − 1.285 × 106 × 205.9 )
515.0 − 451.5
ϕVcw = 0.75 × 1216.28 = 912.21 kN (205.08 kip) ×
9.35 × 109
where = 2.948 MPa (0.428 ksi)
ϕVc = 0.75 × 1083.47 = 812.60 kN (182.69 kip)
epc = eccentricity of prestressed longitudinal reinforce-
Example 3: Double-tee-shaped ment with respect to centroidal axis of precast
prestressed-to-cast-in-place concrete concrete section
composite girder with harped strand
profile yb,pc = distance from centroidal axis to bottom surface of
precast concrete section
For the pretensioned double-tee composite girder example
(Fig. 13), the procedure to hand calculate Vc at the selected Ipc = moment of inertia of precast concrete section
location x equal to 600 mm (23.6 in.) (within the transfer only, about the precast concrete section’s centroi-
length) was as follows. dal axis

Because dp equal to 414.4 mm was smaller than 0.8h equal to Shear strength Vc was determined to be the lesser of Vci and
528 mm, both d and dp were taken as 0.8h equal to 528 mm Vcw. At the selected location x equal to 600 mm (23.6 in.), Vcw
for the detailed method. governed the shear strength provided by concrete: Vc = Vcw =
356.40 kN (80.13 kip). Figure 13 compares the Vc along the
( )
1/3
K = 4 ρ 1/3 = 4 ⎡ Aps + As / bw d ⎤ length with results from the ACI 318-19 detailed method.
wt ⎣ ⎦
( )( )
1/3
= 4 ⎡⎣ 2368.8 + 1592 / 400 × 750 ⎤⎦ ϕVci = 0.75 × 798.48 = 598.86 kN (134.64 kip)
= 0.9583 < 1.0 → K = 1.0 ϕVcw = 0.75 × 356.40 = 267.30 kN (60.09 kip) (governs)
P Pe y
f pe = e + e pc b, pc
Apc I pc ϕVc = 0.75 × 356.40 = 267.30 kN (60.09 kip)
1.214 × 106 1.214 × 106 × 205.9 × 451.5 Comparison between current

= +
2.87 × 105 9.35 × 109 and proposed methods
(
= 16.30 MPa 2.36 ksi )
Shear strengths determined by the ACI 318-19 detailed meth-
where od and the proposed modifications were nearly identical in ex-
amples 1 and 2 (Fig. 11 and 12). Because the longitudinal re-
Apc = area of precast concrete section only inforcement ratios ρwt in those cases were less than 1.56%, the
introduction of the K factor had no effects on shear strength.
( )
⎛ Ig ⎞ The other influential factor, dead load Vd, also had little effect
M cr = ⎜ ⎟ 0.62λ f c′ + f pe
⎝ yb ⎠ in these examples. The examples confirmed that excluding the
dead load term has limited effects on Vci. In the case of Vcw,
=⎜
⎛ 1.2728 × 1010 ⎞
⎝ 515 ⎟
⎠
0.62 (
× 0.85 × 35 + 16.30 )
the terms in parentheses of Eq. (8) and (9) and Eq. (14) and
(15) were coincidentally close to each other and slight differ-
(
= 479.90 kN-m 353.97 kip-ft ) ences (less than 1%) in web shear strength were observed. In
example 2 (Fig. 12), the Vcw value was discontinuous at the
Vu M cr center of the span because the direction of applied shear force
Vci = 0.05λ K f c′bw d p + at that point was reversed and the sign of Vp became opposite.
Mu
Consequently, the proposed modifications had no substantial
0.05 × 0.85 × 1.0 × 35 × 241× 528 240.95 × 479.90 effects on the components’ shear design results.
= +
1000 150.86
(
= 798.48 kN 179.51 kip ) In example 3, the values of Vci were essentially the same,
whereas the Vcw obtained from the modified formula was es-
0.17 × 0.85 × 1.0 × 35 × 241× 528 timated to be 8% higher than that of the ACI 318-19 method.
Vci = 0.17 λκ f c′bw d = With higher strength of concrete, the predictions were more
1000
(
= 108.78 kN 24.46 kip OK )( ) conservative with the proposed formula If the concrete com-
pressive strength f c′ was 49 MPa (7 ksi) or higher, the pro-
posed method always predicted a lower Vcw than the current
Web shear strength Vcw detailed formula when K is 1.0. This can be attributed to the
emid − eend 371.5 − 191.5 relatively low concrete strength given in this example. There
Vp = Pe × θ p ; Pe = 1214 × was a slight design change only near the supports where gov-
L/2 7500
(
= 29.14 kN 6.55 kip ) erned by web shear (Fig. 13).
where As shown in these design examples, the proposed modifica-

tions were easier to calculate, but the final component design
eend = eccentricity of prestressed longitudinal reinforce- was minimally affected.
ment at the beam end
Conclusion
emid = eccentricity of prestressed longitudinal reinforce-
ment at the midspan Attributed to various interrelated influential factors, the shear
( )
resistance mechanism in a prestressed concrete component is
Vcw = 0.17 λ K f c′ + f pc bw d p + V p difficult to understand and eludes common consensus regard-
⎛ 0.17 × 0.85 × 1.0 × 35 ing general shear design methodologies.
2.948 ⎞
=⎜ + ⎟ × 241× 528 + 29.14
⎝ 1000 1000 ⎠ The one-way shear provision in ACI 318-19 has been little
(
= 356.40 kN 80.13 kip governs )( )changed since being introduced in the 1971 edition of
ACI 318. Previous studies have criticized its complicated

calculation procedure, especially with prestressed concrete References
members. Furthermore, the basis for shear design methods
is based on available past shear test data. Current shear 1. European Committee for Standardization. 1992. Design
design provisions also need to address post-tensioned of Concrete Structures, Part 1: General Rules and Rules
members. In that sense, there has been an ongoing need to for Buildings (Eurocode 2). EN 1992-1-1. Brussels,
improve the prestressed concrete shear provisions, just as Belgium: European Committee for Standardization.
the reinforced concrete design method was revised in ACI
318-19. 2. CSA Committee A23.3. 2004. Design of Concrete
Structures. Toronto, ON, Canada: CSA Group.
This study aimed to make reasonable modifications to the
existing detailed approach in ACI 318 for prestressed con- 3. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and
crete components of building structures in keeping with the Transportation Officials). 2017. AASHTO LRFD Bridge
inherent philosophy and framework of current shear design Design Specifications. 8th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
provisions. Proposed modifications focused on developing
more simple and intuitive computational procedures with 4. Vecchio, F. J., and M. P. Collins. 1986. “The Modified
commensurate analytical accuracy to current shear design Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete
formulas. Elements Subjected to Shear.” Journal of the American
Concrete Institute 83 (2): 219–231.
In the proposed modifications, the flexure shear strength Vci
equation for the detailed prestressed concrete shear provi- 5. AASHTO. 1994. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
sions of ACI 318-19 was adjusted by eliminating the effect Specifications. 1st ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
of the dead load. Then, the factored moment Mmax and shear
force Vi occurring simultaneously due to externally applied 6. Hawkins, N. M., D. A. Kuchma, R. F. Mast, M. L. Marsh,
load were integrated into the factored moment Mu and and K. H. Reineck. 2005. Simplified Shear Design
shear force Vu, which made the demand calculation more of Structural Concrete Members. NCHRP (National
straightforward. Finally, the effect of tensile reinforcement Cooperative Highway Research Project) report 549.
ratio ρwt was addressed with the introduction of coefficient Washington, DC: TRB (Transportation Research Board).
K. For the web shear strength Vcw, concerns regarding https://doi.org/10.17226/13884.
abrupt strength jump and dependency on fpc were ratio-
nalized by proposed modifications based on current shear 7. Hawkins, N. M., D. A. Kuchma, R. F. Mast, M. L. Marsh,
database. and K. H. Reineck. 2005. Simplified Shear Design of
Structural Concrete Members—Appendixes. NCHRP
Proposed equations for Vc (Eq. [12] and [13]) and Vcw web-only document 78 (project 12-61). Washington, DC:
(Eq. [14] and [15]) were verified by using the current shear TRB. https://doi.org/10.17226/22070.
databases for various prestressed concrete beams and hol-
low-core slabs, and results were compared with those from 8. Hawkins, N. M., and D. A. Kuchma. 2007. Application
the detailed formulas in ACI 318-19. When averages and of LRFD Bridge Design Specifications to High-Strength
COVs were calculated using proposed methods in terms of Structural Concrete: Shear Provisions. NCHRP report 579.
test-to-predicted shear strength ratio Vtest/Vcal, they were close Washington, DC: TRB. https://doi.org/10.17226
to those obtained from ACI 318-19 methods. The rationality /17616.
of the proposed modifications was reconfirmed in prestressed
member design examples, including three presented in this 9. fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete).
paper. 2012. Model Code 2010. Final draft, volume 1. fib
Bulletin No. 65. Lausanne, Switzerland: fib.
Proposed modifications on prestressed concrete shear provide
efficient and accurate computation with reduced analytical 10. ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 318.
derivation. The authors hope this proposal will be helpful 2019. Building Code Requirements for Structural
to improve upon the ACI 318-19 prestressed concrete shear Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19).
design provisions. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Acknowledgment 11. ACI Committee 318. 2014. Building Code Requirements

for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary
This work was supported by a National Research Foun- (ACI 318R-14). Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
dation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea gov-
ernment (MSIT) (numbers 2020R1F1A1048422 and 12. Kuchma, D. A., S. Wei, D. H. Sanders, A. Belarbi, and
2021R1A5A1032433). The authors would like to express their L. C. Novak. 2019. “Development of the One-Way
special thanks to Professor Karl Heinz Reineck for sharing the Shear Design Provisions of ACI 318-19 for Reinforced
shear database. Concrete.” ACI Structural Journal 116 (4): 285–295.

https://doi.org/10.14359/51716739. Beams.” Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute 28
(2): 817–822.
13. ACI. 1963. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-63). Detroit, MI: ACI. 26. Mihaylov, B. I., J. Liu, K. Simionopoulos, E. C. Bentz,
and M. P. Collins. 2019. “Effect of Member Size and
14. AASHTO. 1989. Standard Specifications for Highway Tendon Layout on Shear Behavior of Post-Tensioned
Bridges. 14th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO. Beams.” ACI Structural Journal 116 (4): 265–274.
https://doi.org/10.14359/51715633.
15. Mattock, A. H. 1957. “Discussion of ‘Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Frame Members without Web Rein- 27. Park, M. K., D. Lee, S. J. Han, and K. S. Kim. 2019.
forcement’ by J. Morrow and I. M. Viest.” Journal of the “Web-Shear Capacity of Thick Precast Prestressed Hol-
American Concrete Institute 53 (3): 1352–1354. low-Core Slab Units Produced by Extrusion Method.” In-
ternational Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials
16. Kuchma, D. A., N. M. Hawkins, S.-H. Kim, S. Sun, and 13 (7): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186
K. S. Kim. 2008. “Simplified Shear Provisions of the /s40069-018-0288-x.
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.” PCI
Journal 53 (3): 53–73. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij 28. Lee, D., M. K. Park, H. E. Joo, S. J. Han, and K. S. Kim.
.05012008.53.73. 2020. “Strengths of Thick Prestressed Precast Hol-
low-Core Slab Members Strengthened in Shear.” ACI
17. Sozen, M. A., and N. M. Hawkins. 1962. “Discussion of Structural Journal 117 (2): 129–139. https://doi.org/10
‘Shear and Diagonal Tension’ by ACI-ASCE Committee .14359/51720203.
326 (426).” Journal of the American Concrete Institute 59
(9): 1341–1347. 29. Lee, D., M. K. Park, J. Y. Oh, K. S. Kim, J.-H. Im, and
S.-Y. Seo. 2014. “Web-Shear Capacity of Prestressed
18. Kamara, M. E., L. C. Novak, and B. G. Rabbat. 2008. Hollow-Core Slab Unit with Consideration on the Min-
Notes on ACI 318-08, Building Code Requirements for imum Shear Reinforcement Requirement.” Computers
Structural Concrete: with Design Applications. Skokie, and Concrete 14 (3): 211–231. https://doi.org
IL: Portland Cement Association. /10.12989/cac.2014.14.3.211.
19. Bondy, K. D., and K. B. Bondy. 2016. “Shear Nonsense.” 30. Nakamura, E., A. Avendaño, and O. Bayrak. 2013. “Shear
Concrete International 38 (10): 51–56. Database for Prestressed Concrete Members.” ACI Struc-
tural Journal 110 (6): 909–918.
20. Yerzhanov, M., and D. Lee. 2020. “Shear Design Method
of Eurasia for Concrete Members.” ACI Structural Journal 31. Dunkelberg, D., L. H. Sneed, K. Zilch, and K.-H.
117 (3): 207–222. https://doi.org/10.14359/51721371. Reineck. 2018. “The 2015 ACI-DAfStb Database of
Shear Tests on Slender Prestressed Concrete Beams
21. MacGregor, J., and J. Hanson. 1969. “Proposed Changes without Stirrups—Overview and Evaluation of Current
in Shear Provisions for Reinforced and Prestressed Con- Design Approaches.” Structural Concrete 19 (6): 1740–
crete Beams.” Journal of the American Concrete Institute 1759. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700216.
66 (4): 276–288.
32. Ary, M. I., and T. H.-K. Kang. 2012. “Shear-Strengthen-
22. Kang, T., D. Lee, M. Yerzhanov, and H. Ju. 2021. “ACI ing of Reinforced & Prestressed Concrete Beams Using
318 Shear Design Method for Prestressed Concrete Mem- FRP: Part I—Review of Previous Research.” Internation-
bers.” Concrete International 43 (10): 42–50. al Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 6 (1):
41–48. https://doi.org/10.1007
23. Tompos, E. J., and R. J. Frosch. 2002. “Influence of /s40069-012-0004-1.
Beam Size, Longitudinal Reinforcement, and Stirrup Ef-
fectiveness on Concrete Shear Strength.” ACI Structural 33. Kang, T. H.-K., and M. I. Ary. 2012. “Shear-Strengthen-
Journal 99 (5): 559–567. https://doi.org ing of Reinforced & Prestressed Concrete Beams Using
/10.14359/12295. FRP: Part II—Experimental Investigation.” International
Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 6 (1): 49–57.
24. Cladera, A., and A. Marí. 2005. “Experimental Study on https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-012-0005-0.
High-strength Concrete Beams Failing in Shear.” Engi-
neering Structures 27 (10): 1519–1527. 34. Lee, S.-H., H.-D. Lee, K.-J. Shin, and T. H.-K. Kang.
2014. “Shear Strengthening of Continuous Concrete
25. De Silva, S., H. Mutsuyoshi, E. Witchukreangkrai, and Beams Using Externally Prestressed Steel Bars.” PCI
M. Takagi. 2006. “Experimental Study on Shear Cracking Journal 59 (4): 77–92. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij
Behaviour in I-Shaped Partially Prestressed Concrete .09012014.77.92.

35. Massone, L. M., N J. Gotschlich, T. H.-K. Kang, and 2017. “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams
S.-G. Hong. 2013. “Shear-Flexural Interaction for Strengthened in Shear Using Externally-Bonded FRP
Prestressed Self-Consolidating Concrete Beams.” Composites.” Composite Structures 173 (1): 177–187.
Engineering Structures 56: 1464–1473. https://doi http://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compstruct.2017.04.025.
.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.019.
46. Lee, D., K. S. Kim, S. J. Han, D. Zhang, and J. Kim.
36. Oh, H. S., H. Shin, Y. Ju, and T. H.-K. Kang. 2022. 2018. “Dual Potential Capacity Model for Reinforced
“Interfacial Shear Resistance of Angle Shear Connectors Concrete Short and Deep Beams Subjected to Shear.”
Welded to Concrete Filled U-Shaped CFS Beam.” Steel Structural Concrete 19 (1): 76–85. https://doi.org/10
and Composite Structures 43 (3): 311–325. https://doi .1002/suco.201700202.
.org/10.12989/scs.2022.43.3.311.
47. Arthur, P. D. 1965. “The Shear Strength of Pre-tensioned
37. Kang, T. H.-K., W. Kim, Y.-K. Kwak, and S.- I Beams with Unreinforced Webs.” Magazine of Concrete
G. Hong. 2011. “Shear Testing of Steel Fiber- Research 17 (53): 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr
Reinforced Lightweight Concrete Beams without Web .1965.17.53.199.
Reinforcement.” ACI Structural Journal 108 (5): 553–
561. https://doi.org/10.14359/51683212. 48. Evans, R. H., and E. G. Schuhmacher. 1963.
“Shear Strength of Prestressed Beams without Web
38. Kim, W., T. H.-K. Kang, D. Lee, H. Choi, and Y.-K. Reinforcement.” Journal of the American Concrete
Kwak. 2020. “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Institute 60 (11): 1621–1642. https://doi.org/10.14359
Beams Using Recycled Coarse Aggregates without /7907.
Stirrups.” ACI Structural Journal 117 (6): 281–295.
https://doi.org/10.14359/51728079. 49. Kar, J. N. 1969. “Shear Strength of Prestressed Concrete
Beams without Web Reinforcement.” Magazine of
39. Liu, T., T. H.-K. Kang, A. Nghiem, and Y. Xiao. 2020. Concrete Research 21 (68): 159–170.
“Impact Testing of Reinforced Concrete Members Shear-
Strengthened with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Wraps.” 50. Mahgoub, M. O. 1975. “Shear Strength of Prestressed
ACI Structural Journal 117 (3): 297–310. Concrete Beams without Web Reinforcement.” Magazine
of Concrete Research 27 (93): 219–228. https://doi.org
40. Kim, J.-W., C.-H. Lee, and T. H.-K. Kang. 2014. /10.1680/macr.1975.27.93.219.
“Shearhead Reinforcement for Concrete Slab to
Concrete-Filled Tube Column Connections.” ACI 51. Mikata, Y., S. Inoue, K. Kobayashi, and T. Nieda. 2001.
Structural Journal 111 (3): 629–638. https://doi.org/10 “Effect of Prestress on Shear Strength of Prestressed
.14359/51686623. Concrete Beams.” Journal of Japan Society of Civil
Engineers 669 (50): 149–159.
41. Lee, D., S. J. Han, and K. S. Kim. 2016. “Dual Potential
Capacity Model for Reinforced Concrete Beams 52. Moayer, M., and P. E. Regan. 1974. “Shear Strength of
Subjected to Shear.” Structural Concrete 17 (3): 443–456. Prestressed and Reinforced Concrete T-Beams.” ACI
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201500165. Symposium Publication 42: 183–213. https://doi.org
/10.14359/17284.
42. Lee, D., S. J. Han, J. H. Hwang, H. Ju, and K. S. Kim.
2017. “Simplification and Verification of Dual Potential 53. Sozen, M. A., E. M. Zwoyer, and C. P. Siess. 1959.
Capacity Model for Reinforced Concrete Beams Investigation of Prestressed Concrete for Highway
Subjected to Shear.” Structural Concrete 18 (2): 259–277. Bridges: Part 1, Strength in Shear of Beams Without
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600055. Web Reinforcement. Champaign: University of Illinois at
Urbana Champaign, College of Engineering.
43. Lee, D., S. J. Han, H. Ju, and K. S. Kim. 2021. “Shear
Strength of Prestressed Concrete Beams Considering 54. Saqan, E. I., and R. J. Frosch. 2009. “Influence of
Bond Mechanism in Reinforcement.” ACI Structural Flexural Reinforcement on Shear Strength of Prestressed
Journal 18 (1): 267–277. https://doi.org/10.14359 Concrete Beams.” ACI Structural Journal 106 (1): 60–68.
/51730531. https://doi.org/10.14359/56284.
44. Lee, D., S. J. Han, K. S. Kim, and J. M. LaFave. 2017. 55. PCI. 2004. PCI Design Handbook: Precast and
“Shear Capacity of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Prestressed Concrete. 6th ed. Chicago, IL: PCI.
Beams.” Structural Concrete 18 (2): 278–291. https://doi
.org/10.1002/suco.201600104. 56. PTI (Post-Tensioning Institute). 2006. Post-Tensioning
Manual. 6th ed. Farmington Hills, MI: PTI.
45. Lee, D., S. J. Han, K. S. Kim, and J. M. LaFave.

Notation emid = eccentricity of prestressed longitudinal reinforce-
ment at the midspan
a = shear span
epc = eccentricity of prestressed longitudinal reinforce-
ad = sag of prestressed longitudinal reinforcement ment with respect to centroidal axis of precast
concrete section
Ag = area of gross (composite) concrete section
f c′ = compressive strength of concrete
Apc = area of precast concrete section only
fd = compressive stress due to unfactored dead load
Aps = area of prestressed longitudinal tension reinforce- at extreme fiber of section where tensile stress is
ment caused by externally applied loads
As = area of nonprestressed longitudinal tension rein- fpc = compressive stress in concrete after allowance
forcement for all prestress losses at centroid of cross section
resisting externally applied loads or at junction
As1 = area of nonprestressed bottom longitudinal rein- of web and flange where the centroid lies within
forcement the flange. For pretensioned components, reduced
effective prestress should be considered by taking
As2 = area of nonprestressed top longitudinal reinforce- ℓtr equal to 50db as transfer length. In a composite
ment component, fpc is the resultant compressive stress
at centroid of composite section, or at junction of
Av = area of shear reinforcement within a distance s, web and flange where the centroid lies within the
where s is spacing of transverse reinforcement flange, due to both prestress and moments resisted
by precast concrete component acting alone.
Av,min = area of minimum shear reinforcement
fpe = compressive stress in concrete due to effective pre-
b′ = minimum width of web of a flanged component stress forces only
according to ACI 318-63
fpu = tensile strength of prestressed reinforcement
bw = web width of component
fpy = yield strength of prestressed reinforcement
d = effective beam depth (in other words, the distance
from the extreme compression fiber to centroid of fse = effective prestress in prestressed reinforcement
longitudinal tension reinforcement, defined based
on the centroid of resultant tension force, which fy = yield strength of nonprestressed longitudinal rein-
need not be less than 0.8h, Eq. [3]) forcement
db = nominal diameter of bar, wire, or prestressing fyt = yield strength of transverse reinforcement
strand
h = member height or thickness
dp = distance from extreme compression fiber to pre-
stressed longitudinal reinforcement, which need not I = moment of inertia of section about centroidal axis
be less than 0.8h when applied to the current and
proposed detailed methods (Eq. [4], [5], [8], [9], Ig = moment of inertia of gross (composite) concrete
[12], [13], [14], and [15]) section about centroidal axis
ds = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid Ipc = moment of inertia of precast concrete section only,
of nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement about the precast concrete section’s centroidal axis
e = eccentricity of prestressed longitudinal reinforce- ℓtr = transfer length of pretensioned member

ment (at the location x)
K = longitudinal reinforcement coefficient
e(x) = eccentricity of prestressed longitudinal reinforce-
ment (at the location x) L = span length of prestressed member
eend = eccentricity of prestressed longitudinal reinforce- M = bending moment due to externally applied load,
ment at the beam end according to ACI 318-63

Mbal = balanced moment wc = unit weight of concrete
Mcr = cracking moment wd = unfactored dead load per unit length of component
Mcre = moment causing flexural cracking due to externally wLL = live load per unit length
applied loads
wp,eq = equivalent distributed load due to effective prestress
Md = moment at section due to unfactored dead load
wSDL = superimposed dead load per unit length
Mmax = maximum factored moment at section due to exter-
nally applied loads wSW = self-weight of component per unit length
Mu = factored flexural moment wu = factored distributed load per unit length of component
Nu = factored flexural moment x = distance from end support
Pe = effective prestressing force = fseAps yb = distance from centroidal axis to bottom surface of
gross (composite) section
V = shear force due to externally applied load, accord-
ing to ACI 318-63 yb,pc = distance from centroidal axis to bottom surface of
precast concrete section
Vc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete
yt = distance from centroidal axis to top surface of gross
Vcal = calculated shear strength per ACI 318-19 or pro- (composite) section
posed detailed method
yt,pc = distance from centroidal axis to top surface of pre-
Vci = nominal shear strength provided by concrete where cast concrete section
diagonal cracking results from combined shear and
moment (flexure-shear strength) β = concrete contribution factor
Vcw = nominal shear strength provided by concrete where βflex = ratio between shear strength and shear force esti-
diagonal cracking results from high principal tensile mated at the flexural strength
stress in web (web-shear strength)
εs = strain of longitudinal tensile reinforcement
Vcw,current = web-shear strength predicted by the current ACI
318-19 method θ = angle of diagonal compression field
Vcw,proposed = web-shear strength predicted by the proposed θp = slope of prestressed longitudinal reinforcement (at
method the location x)
Vd = shear force at section due to unfactored dead load θp(x) = slope of prestressed longitudinal reinforcement (at
the location x)
Vi = factored shear force at section due to externally
applied loads occurring simultaneously with Mmax θp,end = slope of prestressed longitudinal reinforcement at
beam-end
Vn = nominal shear strength
θp,mid = slope of prestressed longitudinal reinforcement at
Vp = vertical component of effective prestress force midspan
Vs = nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforce- λ = lightweight concrete factor

ment, simply taken as AvFytd/s based on 45-degree
truss mode, where s is spacing of transverse rein- λs = size effect factor
forcement
ρpw = prestressed longitudinal reinforcement ratio, de-
Vtest = measured shear strength in shear database fined as Aps/bwd
Vu = factored shear force at section ρw = non-prestressed longitudinal reinforcement ratio,

defined as As/bwd

ρwt = longitudinal reinforcement ratio, defined as ρw + ρpw
ρv = transverse reinforcement ratio, defined as Av/bws
ϕ = strength reduction factor

About the authors garding the cumbersome computational procedures spec-
ified in ACI 318, as well as the inability of the ACI 318
Hyunjin Ju, PhD, is an assistant shear design methods to capture key influential factors.
professor in the Department of This paper provides a brief history of changes made over
Architecture and Design Conver- several decades within ACI 318 for prestressed concrete
gence at Hankyong National shear design and critical issues raised in previous studies.
University in Anseong, Korea. While maintaining the philosophy and safety priorities of
the original pioneers in the development of shear design
for prestressed concrete members, the proposed changes
simplify the calculation process and provide analytical
Meirzhan Yerzhanov is a PhD accuracies comparable to the current ACI 318 methods.
student in the Department of Civil These changes are affirmed by comparing the results of
and Environmental Engineering at the modified methods with data from an extensive shear
Nazarbayev University in database of prestressed concrete component designs that
Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. vary in dimensional detail and material properties and
shear strengths estimated using current ACI 318 methods.
Keywords
Deuckhang Lee, PhD, is an
associate professor in the Depart- Detailed method, modification, prestressed concrete
ment of Architectural Engineering one-way member, shear design, shear strength.
at Chungbuk National University
in Cheongju, Korea. Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the Pre-

cast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review pro-
Hyeongyeop Shin is a PhD student cess. The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute is not
in the Department of Architecture responsible for statements made by authors of papers
and Architectural Engineering at in PCI Journal. No payment is offered.
Seoul National University in
Seoul, Korea. Publishing details
This paper appears in PCI Journal (ISSN 0887-9672)

V. 68, No. 1, January–February 2023, and can be found
Thomas H.-K. Kang, PhD, PE, is a at https://doi.org/ 10.15554/pcij68.1-01. PCI Journal is
professor in the Department of published bimonthly by the Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Architecture and Architectural Institute, 8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago,
Engineering at Seoul National IL 60631. Copyright © 2023, Precast/Prestressed Concrete
University. Institute.
Reader comments
Abstract Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal
editor-in-chief Tom Klemens at tklemens@pci.org or
This paper proposes modifications to the methods for Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal,
shear design of prestressed concrete one-way members 8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL
specified in American Concrete Institute’s Building Code 60631. J
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-19) to increase applicability.
The current ACI 318 shear design methods have been
widely used and have a history of demonstrated safety and
reliability. However, there are long-standing concerns re-

21-0046 Shin JF23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

21-0046 Shin JF23

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

21-0046 Shin JF23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modifications to ACI 318

shear design method for prestressed

Hyunjin Ju, Meirzhan Yerzhanov, Deuckhang Lee,

• compressive strength of concrete f c′

• effective beam depth d

• shear span-to-depth ratio a/d or Mu/Vud, where a is shear

• longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio ρwt

• axial force or prestress Nu/Ag or fpc, where Ag is gross

60 PCI Journal | January–February 2023

PCI Journal | January–February 2023 61

Edition Shear design expressions Edition Shear design expressions

ACI 318-02 Vi Mcr ACI 318-05† Vi Mcre

*MacGregor introduced approximate method.

Review of the ACI 318-19 For f c′ in MPa,

62 PCI Journal | January–February 2023

As = area of nonprestressed longitudinal tension rein- Vci ≥ 2λ f c bwd

dp = distance from extreme compression fiber to pre- For f c′ in psi,

Aps = area of prestressed longitudinal tension reinforce-

For f c′ in MPa, M cre =

PCI Journal | January–February 2023 63

For f c′ in MPa, • member height h equal to or greater than 70 mm (2.76 in.)

where • ratio between shear strength and shear force estimated at

64 PCI Journal | January–February 2023

Per ACI 318-19 section 7.6.3.1, minimum shear reinforce-

The prestressed concrete beam and hollow-core slab database

PCI Journal | January–February 2023 65

The first modification of Vci is linked to the effect of dead load

Vd. MacGregor and Hanson21 proposed the removal of Vd to where

66 PCI Journal | January–February 2023

PCI Journal | January–February 2023 67

Table 2. Verification of proposed modifications for specimens with no shear reinforcement

Flexure shear Web shear Web shear*

Table 3. Verification of proposed modifications for specimens with shear reinforcement

Flexure shear strength Web shear strength Detailed method

Average 1.15 1.09 1.22 1.19 1.35 1.30

Standard deviation 0.35 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.30 0.25

Coefficient of variation 0.31 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.20

Predicted results falling below experi-

Number of test samples 118

68 PCI Journal | January–February 2023

It should be noted that because the proposed Eq. (14) and

PCI Journal | January–February 2023 69

with the current formula (Eq. [4]). Figure 7 shows if a

Tables 2 and 3 present verification results of the proposed

70 PCI Journal | January–February 2023

PCI Journal | January–February 2023 71

L = span length of prestressed member where

72 PCI Journal | January–February 2023

Pe = Aps fse = 394.8 × 930 = 367.16 kN (82.55 kip) 1 ⎛ Aps ⎞ 3 ⎡ 394.8 ⎤ 3

Because dp 150 mm (5.9 in.) was shorter than 0.8h = 160 mm (

PCI Journal | January–February 2023 73

ϕVc = 0.75 × 47.31 = 35.48 kN (7.98 kip)

74 PCI Journal | January–February 2023

Example 2: Two-span, post-tensioned ⎛ 3Lx x 2 ⎞ ⎡⎛ 3× 18 × 16 ⎞ 162 ⎤

Demand calculation Pe 2643.58 × 1000

PCI Journal | January–February 2023 75

= 0.9583 < 1.0 K = 1.0 (

76 PCI Journal | January–February 2023

ϕVci = 0.75 × 1083.47 = 812.60 kN (182.69 kip) (governs)