TRANSPORT AND ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY

Department of Transport

RESEARCH REPORT 327

SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOME 30-YEAR-OLD PRESTRESSED BEAMS

WITHOUT LINKS

by D W Cullington and S J Raggett

Crown Copyright 1991. The views expressed in this Report are not necessarily those of the Department of
Transport. Extracts from the text may be reproduced, except for commercial purposes, provided the source
is acknowledged.

Bridges Division
Structures Group
Transport and Road Research Laboratory
Crowthorne, Berkshire, RG11 6AU
1991

ISSN 0266-5247
Ownership of the Transport Research
Laboratory was transferred from the
Department of Transport to a subsidiary of
the Transport Research Foundation on 1st
April 1996.

This report has been reproduced by

permission of the Controller of HMSO.
Extracts from the text may be reproduced~
except for commercial purposes, provided
the source is acknowledged.
CONTENTS

Page Page

Abstract 1 5.6 Damaged and repaired beams 17

1. Introduction 1 5.7 Precracked webs 19

1.1 Origin of beams 1 6. Strength calculations 19

1.2 Shear strength and requirement for links 1 6.1 Basis of calculations 19

1.3 Aims of study 1 6.2 Calculated shear strength 19

1.4 Summary of test programme 2 6.3 Flexural cracking 19

2. Structural details 2 6.4 Ultimate moment 22

2.1 The bridges 2 6.5 Shear cracking 22

2.2 Obtaining beams for testing 2 6.6 Comparison of measured and 22

calculated strengths
2.3 The beams 2
6.7 Interfacial shear strength 22
3. Design rules for shear 6
6.8 Worst credible strength 26
3.1 General principles 6
6.9 Alternative methods of calculating 26
3.2 Shear resistance without shear links 6 shear resistance

3.3 Uncracked shear resistance 7 7. Discussion 26

3.4 Cracked shear resistance 7 7.1 Failure mode 26

3.5 Web crushing and the transmission 8 7.2 Ductility 27

length zone
7.3 Effectiveness of Vco calculation 27
3.6 Composite construction 8
7.4 Effectiveness of Vcr calculation 27
3.7 Interracial shear 8
7.5 Damaged and repaired beams 27
4. The tests 9
7.6 Precracked webs 28
4.1 Test configuration 9
7.7 Interfacial shear 28
4.2 Method of testing 9
7.8 Comparison with shear tests in 28
4.3 Instrumentation and observations 9 the literature

4.4 Test programme 9 8. Conclusions 29

5. Test results 10 9. Acknowledgements 3O

5.1 Shear forces at cracking and failure 10 10. References 3O

5.2 Crack diagrams 10

5.3 Load displacement behaviour 10

5.4 Description of failure for long beams 10

5.5 Description of failure for short beams 17

SHEAR STRENGTH., OF SOME 30-YEAR-OLD
PRESTRESSED BEAMS WITHOUT LINKS
ABSTRACT
Design rules for shear in concrete bridges have varied
over the years. Currently, the design of prestressed
concrete bridge beams is carried out according to
BS 5400: Part 4 which requires a minimum amount of
shear reinforcement to be present in the webs in the form
of links. The Department of Transport Standard,
BD 44/90, relaxes this requirement for the assessment of
existing bridges.
The present series of tests was carried out before this
standard was issued. A number of pre-tensioned l-beams
without links were recovered from a 30-year-old M63
underbridge during demolition and tested to establish
their shear strength.
The results indicate that the beams possessed reserves
of strength because of conservative assumptions in the
method of calculation in BS 5400: Part 4, and the high
strength of the concrete. The beams showed no ill effects
from the absence of links, nor from 30 years of traffic.
The test results support the case for relaxing the require-
ment for minimum links in assessment.
Further tests on damaged and repaired beams indicated
that their strength compared favourably with the strength
of the intact beams, although precracked webs may
present a problem.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 ORIGIN OF BEAMS
Two motorway underbridges were replaced at the Peel
Green roundabout, to the west of Manchester, as part of
the M63 widening scheme. Consideration was given to
retaining the original structures and widening them, but
the pre-tensioned beams forming the decks contained no
shear reinforcement, which was required by BS 5400:
Part 4:1984 (BSI, 1984). It was decided to replace the
bridge decks primarily for this reason. On demolition, the
beams became available for testing.
The consultant responsible for the scheme gave some
thought to retaining the bridges in spite of the absence of
shear links in the beams. Calculations showed that the
shear force under factored HB loading (BSI, 1978a) was,
at maximum, about 70% of the factored shear capacity
found using BS 5400: Part 4. Had the proportion been
lower (perhaps 50%) the bridges might have been
retained by means of an agreed departure from standard.
The structures were in good condition. If it had not been
for the widening scheme, they could have continued in
service at least until selected for assessment under the
DTp programme.
The bridges formed a part of the Stretford/Eccles by-pass
which was constructed in the late 1950s and opened in
1961. It was subsequently reclassified as the M63.
According to Chandler and Taylor (1990) the daily peak
flows had, by 1983, reached 64,000 vehicles per 16-hour
day of which 17% were heavy goods vehicles. It was said
that this made it the second busiest two-lane urban
motorway after the Chiswick Flyover on the M4.
1.2 SHEAR STRENGTH AND THE
REQUIREMENT FOR LINKS
Design rules for shear in concrete bridges have varied
over the years. At the time the Peel Green beams were
designed the shear rules were less comprehensive than
they are now, and links were not always provided. When
they were provided, they would not always meet present
requirements (eg Prestressed Concrete Design Group,
1963).
There was a provision in the 1978 edition of BS 5400:
Part 4 (BSI, 1978b) to allow beams without shear rein-
forcement in certain circumstances. The calculated
strength had to be at least twice the design requirement,
or tests had to be carried out to determine the strength of
the beams in practice. This approach is permitted in the
building standard, BS 8110 (BSI, 1983), and testing is
sometimes carried out in American practice (Burnley and
Asward, 1989).
Currently, prestressed concrete bridge beams are
designed according to BS 5400: Part 4:1990 (BSI, 1990)
which requires a minimum amount of shear reinforcement
to be present in the webs in the form of links.
To investigate the possibility of relaxing the requirement
for minimum links in assessment, beams recovered from
Peel Green were tested to establish their shear strength
and manner of failure.
In this report, reference to BS 5400: Part 4 may be
assumed to be the 1990 edition unless otherwise stated.
1.3 AIMS OF STUDY
The beams were a potential source of valuable informa-
tion for the following reasons:
They were 30 years old and likely subjects for
assessment;
They would contain the effects, if any, of time and
traffic;
Their strength, cracking load and manner of failure
would be of interest for future assessments in view
of the absence of shear links;
The shear resistance of the interface between the
beams and in-situ slab was uncertain.
1.4 SUMMARY OF TEST PROGRAMME
The beams had to be tested under a variety of loading
configurations to cover the forms of failure indicated by
BS 5400: Part 4. The parameter changed was the ratio
M/V where
M is the bending moment and
V is the coincident shear force, both in the critical
region.
This was achieved by applying a single point load and
varying the point of application. When the dead load is
small relative to the applied load, the distance from the
load to the near support is M/V, the shear span.
In the test programme, tests were carried out on two
sizes of beam, 16.1m and 8.5m in length, referred to as
the "long" and "short" beams respectively. Fifteen tests
were carried out over a range of shear spans. One of the
tests was on a damaged long beam and another on a
similar beam that had been repaired with unstressed
concrete.
2 STRUCTURAL DETAILS
2.1 THE BRIDGES
Each bridge was divided into two structures along the
central reserve, and consisted of three simply-supported
spans. Twenty two beams formed each span, placed side
by side and transversely post-stressed through in-situ
diaphragms.
Figure 1 shows an elevation of one structure and a cross-
section through a main span and a side span. The top
slab, cast on permanent timber formwork, was largely
unreinforced.
The bridge decks were in good condition, although
somewhat darkened by age and the industrial environ-
ment. Chloride penetration was not a problem, and there
was no evidence of carbonation. Cores taken through the
deck at construction joints showed intimate contact
between opposite halves and no sign of deterioration.
There was a theoretical deficiency at the serviceability
limit state in the soffit of the beams. Calculations indi-
cated a possibility of tension in the bottom fibres (prima-
rily attributed to the calculations for differential-tempera-
ture effects introduced subsequent to design) but there
was no evidence of cracking in the unloaded condition.
2.2 OBTAINING BEAMS FOR TESTING
The contractor elected to demolish the main spans by
breaking out the beams in units of three joined together
by the top slab and transverse prestressing. This natu-
rally caused impact damage to the top and bottom edges
of the outer beams, but the middle beam remained in
good condition. To recover the middle beam intact for
2
testing required the slab to be cut through mid-way
between the beams and the outer beams to be prised off.
Cutting was done by sawing or water-jetting.
In practice, considerable difficulty was experienced
extracting the middle beam intact. Cracking took place in
the webs in the vicinity of the transverse prestressing
wires as separation was carried out. This was thought to
be a result of the combined action of the release of
prestress and the prising forces necessary to overcome
the residual bond between the beams, the transverse
wires and the in-situ diaphragms. Separation was finally
achieved successfully by coring out the prestressing
wires prior to prising the beams apart.
Four long beams were recovered in a satisfactory
condition for testing. Two outer beams were also retained
for testing in the damaged and repaired conditions.
The short beams were removed from the bridge deck in
units of four. Separation proved much easier. Two units
of four beams produced four inner beams for testing free
from web cracks.
2.3 THE BEAMS
Details of the beams are given in Figure 2. In the bridge,
the long beams were simply supported over a span of
15.7m between bearing centres; the short beams over
8.1 m. They were cast with a slight camber at the soffit,
being 25mm deeper at the supports than at mid-span.
Both sizes of beam were of the same width and were
placed contiguously in the deck.
The beams had been cast in a pre-casting yard off site
and were dimensionally accurate, the largest variation
being in the size of the in-situ top flange. Its depth was
consistent with normal site tolerances, and its width
varied as a result of imprecision in making the cut when
separating the beams. This was taken into account in the
strength calculations.
The long beams contained 52 prestressing wires of 7mm
diameter in the positions indicated in Figure 2. The small
beams contained 28 wires. It has been assumed that the
initial prestress was 70% of characteristic for the wires
and losses were 28%: i.e. the effective prestress was
approximately 50% of characteristic. This provided
estimates of prestressing force for the long and short
beams of 1580kN and 850kN respectively.
Extracts from the original design calculations suggested
that the initial prestress might have been lower. However,
no site records were available to indicate the as-built
initial prestress or concrete strength at transfer, which
affects the losses. During the tests, initial cracking
indicated that the effective prestress might have been
higher than assumed. This is discussed in 6.3.
The beams contained no reinforcement in the webs
except for a small amount in the end block regions. The
provision for interfacial shear between the beams and the
slab was between one and three 12.7mm diameter round
bars bent into the shape of a saw-tooth (see Figure 2).
 =:
-- L~
~ - = ~L.~
rain 5.2m ~sS,, '
8.1m 16.1m 8.1m I"/T ' - - T t "1
It
It " \\
/
rL t~ II
II " \\
,, ~
~----%
I I
r/-:'-'~
I I
~rnn~ ~n~7~
II li li III I II
U UU U I,.l U

Elevation

I~ 7.3m carriageway -- I

Section A-A
Motorway (~

10.3m overall w i d t h

Section B-B

Fig.1 Details of Bridges

 Beam length 16.1m rB

r
A

//% /A~ ~ ~
V V ~ V V V

J
12.7mm diameter I 1
II II
• , •

I I
V~ LB
Part e l e v a t i o n o f long beam

• 470
Sawtooth reinforcement

i
reduces to 2 bars at " 254
distance 3.9m from end
470 and to 1 bar at 6.3m
i~ ~i

i oo !
15O
t
-t
t
32 5x311 32 i -5
452
C:O
52 No. pre-stressing
wires,CP7

95~ 19 44
t I 19
I t
1 !

Section A - A Section B-B

Fig.2a Details of beams

4
 Beam length 8 5 0 0

I I
II
I
II
I
,2.7~m 0,a~e,er I I Jl
1 I

Part elevation of short beam

470
Sawtooth reinforcement
reduces to 2 bars 2 . 8 m
f r o m end
~ 470

J ° ° I !
~ -."

J,ii,t
381
4xt ~o m
L~
Lo

4
76
51 19

f !
3 8 19

t t

Section A-A Section B-B

Fig.2bDetails of beams

5
The long beams had eleven holes along their length for
transverse prestressing. For the tests, the transverse
wires and diaphragms were removed, and the holes
refilled with flowing mortar. Load positions were selected
for the shear tests so that the principal bending cracks
avoided the hole positions in areas of high shear. The
short beams contained six similar transverse holes which
were treated in the same way.
3 DESIGN RULES FOR SHEAR
3.1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
BS 5400: Part 4 requires two primary modes of shear
failure to be considered in the design of prestressed
beams. These are denoted by the symbols Vco and Vcr
where:
VcoiS the ultimate shear resistance of a section that is
uncracked in flexure; and
Vcr is the ultimate shear resistance of a section that is
cracked in flexure.
For a beam of constant cross-section (including prestress
and reinforcement) the Vco resistance is constant and
governs at short shear spans. Vcr reduces as the shear
span is increased and governs at larger shear spans.
In addition, there is a limit placed on the maximum shear
force to prevent crushing of the web, and a further
provision for shear within the transmission length. For
flanged beams there is a requirement to check longitudi-
nal shear on any potentially weak planes. In composite
beams, such as the ones tested in this series, longitudi-
nal shear has to be checked at the interface between the
in-situ slab and the prestressed beam.
The principles for calculating Vco and Vcr are the same as
those used in BS 8110 (BSI, 1985), although there are
some differences of detail. Figure 3, taken from the
Handbook to BS 8110 (Rowe et al, 1987) shows dia-
grammatically the generally accepted form of failure in
each mode.
Web shear crack I
eventually
causing failure (Vco)
Fig.3 Prestressed beam with possible shear failures
It is important to note that the design standards assume
that:
the limit of resistance of the concrete section is
reached when inclined cracks occur.
Any margin of resistance present in the concrete section
after cracking is ignored. To find the total strength of the
section, the resistance of any links provided above the
minimum requirement is taken into account by simple
addition to the concrete cracking resistance.
The method of calculation for design has remained
substantially the same since it was first adopted in
CP 110:1972 (BSI, 1972). The origins are given in a
report by Reynolds et al (1974). Prior to that,
CP 115:1959 (BSI, 1959) dealt with regions uncracked in
flexure by limiting the principle tensile stress, and gave a
warning, but no specific guidance, about the shear
resistance of cracked sections.
The original data used to derive the method adopted by
CP 110 was obtained in the University of Illinois and first
reported in the period 1959 to 1961 (Sozen and Hawkins,
1962). In that test series, 190 beams were tested to
failure. Hicks (1958) carried out a much smaller pro-
gramme at the Imperial College of Science and Technol-
ogy, London, but made similar observations about the
dependence of shear failure on shear span.
3.2 SHEAR RESISTANCE WITHOUT
SHEAR LINKS
The resistance of a section without shear links cannot be
calculated according to BS 5400: Part 4 because such
sections are not permitted. However, the situation
becomes clearer if reference is made to the literature, or
the original edition of BS 5400: Part 4, published in 1978.
This adopted a slightly different approach with respect to
shear steel.
Clause 7.3.4.3 of that code permitted the use of pre-
stressed beams without shear reinforcement in three
situations:
a) where the applied shear force at ultimate load, V,
was less than 0.5Vc; V c being the resistance of the
concrete section alone;
I'
Flexural crack eventually
causing failure (Vcr)
 b) in members of minor importance;
c) where tests carried out in accordance with clause
8.6.2 of BS 5400: Part 1 : 1978 had shown that
shear reinforcement was not required.
Clause 8.6.2 of Part 1 : 1978 (BSI, 1978c) is quite oner-
ous. It requires the investigation of all stress combina-
tions to be sustained in service, and sufficient data for
each critical stress condition to enable a mean strength
and standard deviation to be obtained in each case.
The same expressions are given for the resistance of the
concrete section in BS 5400: Part 4:1978 as are given in
the later editions. It can therefore be inferred that the
resistance of a section without shear links is also as-
sumed to be the shear force which causes inclined
cracking in the concrete.
Testing in accordance with Part 1:1978 enabled a further
component of resistance to be taken advantage of - the
margin between cracking and collapse - provided it could
be shown that this margin was present.
3.3 UNCRACKED SHEAR
RESISTANCE
BS 5400: Part 4 states (Clause 6.3.4.2) that the ultimate
shear resistance of a section uncracked in flexure may be
assumed to correspond with the occurrence of a maxi-
mum principle tensile stress, at the centroid of the
section, of
ft = 0-24 f~cu taken as positive
This leads to the expression for Vco given in BS 5400:
Part 4
Vco = 0.67bh~Jft2 + "/fLfcp|t where
fcu is the characteristic concrete cube strength;
fcp is the compressive stress at the centroidal axis due
to prestress, taken as positive; in the expression
above it is multiplied by the partial safety factor YfL
as given implicitly in BS 5400;
is the breadth of the member which for T, I and L
beams should be replaced by the breadth of the
web, bw;
h is the overall depth of the member.
It is arguably more correct to calculate the worst principle
tensile stress at any point in the web, allowing for flexural
stresses and non-uniform prestress. Clark (1983) notes,
however, that the constant 0.67 applies to rectangular
beams and is conservative for I-beams, and this compen-
sates for the slightly non-conservative practice used in
the evaluation of the principle tensile stress.
Some authors have suggested that the critical tensile
stress should be calculated at the centroid of the section
because that is where the cracks seem to form initially.
In flanged members, where the centroidal axis lies in the
flange, the principle tensile stress, ft, is limited to the
above value at the junction of the web and flange.
Removing the partial safety factors allows a direct
comparison to be made between calculated and meas-
ured resistances. This results (see Clark, 1983) in the
following unfactored expression for Vco:
Vco = 0"67bh f'~t2 +fcp ft
where, in this case,
ft = 0"37 f~cu
The constant 0.37 arises by multiplying the original
constant by a factor of 1.25 to allow for shrinkage,
rel~.~ated loading and variation in concrete quality, and
, the square root of the partial safety factor for
strength (Tm) of the concrete.
The resistance obtained from tests may be compared
with the calculated resistance using the above unfactored
expressions in which the strength of concrete, fcu, is
taken as the mean measured value.
3.4 CRACKED SHEAR RESISTANCE
The expression for the shear resistance of the concrete
section of a prestressed beam cracked in flexure is given
in BS 5400: Part 4, clause 6.3.4.3 as:
Vcr = O.037bd f~-cu + Mcr V / M where
d is the distance from the extreme compression fibre
to the centroid of the tendons at the section consid-
ered;
V is the applied shear;
M is the applied moment;
McriS the cracking moment at the section considered,
given by:
Mcr =(0-37 f~cu + YfL fpt)' I/y in which
fpt is the stress due to the prestress at the tensile fibre
distance y from the centroid of the concrete section
which has a second moment of area of I; the value
of fpt is derived from the prestressing force after all
losses have occurred, and in the expression above
is multiplied by the partial safety factor YfL as given
implicitly in BS 5400.
With partial safety factors and a conservative simplifica-
tion removed (Clark, 1983) the expression becomes:
Vcr = O.045bd f~cu 4" Mcr
(M / V - d / 2) where
The d/2 term is part of the original equation and was
omitted from the code equation as a conservative
simplification. The constant 0.57 is obtained by multiply-
ing the code constant by a factor of 1.25 for shrinkage,
rel~.~ated loading and variation in concrete quality and
, the square root of the partial safety factor for
strength (~'m) of the concrete.
The original equation (Hawkins, 1964) equated failure
with the occurrence of inclined flexural-shear cracks as
shown in Figure 3. These are assumed to occur at a
distance of d/2 from the critical load point taken in the
direction of reducing moment: ie at "shear span - d/2"
where M/V is the shear span. The second term in the
above expression effectively calculates the shear force
consistent with flexural cracking in the soffit of the beam
at d/2 from the load.
The first term provides an additional component of shear
force to enable the flexural crack in the bottom fibre to
propagate into the web, thus becoming the critical
flexure-shear crack. The constant 0.045 is obtained by
multiplying the code constant by the square root of ~'m for
concrete, 1~T_5.5.
3.5 WEB CRUSHING AND THE
TRANSMISSION LENGTH ZONE
BS 5400: Part 4 clause 6.3.4.5 limits the nominal mean
shear stress in the web of a prestressed beam to avoid
premature crushing. The code provides a table of
maximum stresses that are derived from the same
formula as that used for reinforced concrete:
maximum shear stress = 0.75~ f~/f~-..
up to a given limiting value.
Clarke and Taylor (1975) report that tests on prestressed
beams failing in web crushing indicate experimental
values of nominal stress between 1.04 and 4.5 times
0.75~Vf_/~., with a mean of 2.13.
~u
In the transmission length zone, BS 5400: Part 4 allows
the shear resistance to be taken as the greater of two
values:
a) the resistance of the section considered as rein-
forced;
b) the resistance of the section assuming a linear
variation of prestress over the transmission length.
In the series of tests described in this report, the trans-
mission length was contained within the end block region.
Web crushing was not theoretically critical, especially
because of the large average margin in the code. There
was no distress in the tests. For these reasons the report
considers only the two primary modes of failure, Vco and
Vcr.
3.6 COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION
BS 5400: Part 4, Clause 7.4 contains provisions for
composite construction: for example, prestressed beam
with in-situ slab. Clause 7.4.2.2 permits the assumption
8
that for I-beams the shear force due to ultimate loads is
resisted by the composite section, ie the section may be
treated as monolithic. Allowance must be made for
different grades of concrete where appropriate.
Clark (1983) describes measures that may be adopted to
account for the difference between monolithic and
composite construction.
For uncracked shear resistance, this entails computing
the stress at the composite centroid but applying the load
in two stages. Generally, the full dead load would be
applied to the precast unit and the remaining load to the
composite section.
For cracked shear resistance, load is again applied in two
stages to compute the cracking moment and hence the
second term in the expression for Vcr. For the first term in
the expression, a weighted mean strength for concrete
cube strength may be used.
Clarke and Evans (1983) report that the use of the
composite resistance is reasonable. For calculating the
shear force at cracking, the use of the monolithic ap-
proach can be slightly non-conservative. However, it is
conservative at failure because of the margin between
cracking and failure.
For the calculations given in this report, the composite
section has been used throughout.
3.7 INTERFACIAL SHEAR
For composite construction, it is necessary to ensure that
there is adequate resistance against failure in longitudinal
shear at the interface between the pre-cast beam and the
in-situ concrete. Clause 7.4.2.3 of BS 5400: Part 4
provides for an elastic calculation of the resistance of the
interface at the ultimate limit state. The limiting longitudi-
nal shear force per unit length at the interface of the
precast beam and the in-situ slab is the lesser of:
k 1 fcuLs and
v 1 Ls + 0.7 Ae fy
where for a type 1 surface k 1 is 0.15, and for concrete of
grade 40 or more, v 1 is 0.8 N/mm2;
L s is the length of the shear plane;
A e is the area of fully anchored shear reinforcement
crossing the shear plane; and
fy is the characteristic strength of the reinforcement.
BS 5400: Part 4 requires a minimum area of fully an-
chored reinforcement of 0.15% of the area of contact.
The requirements for anchorage are given in Clause
5.8.6.
The assessment advice note, BA 44/90 states that test
data (Hughes, 1987) have shown that BS 5400: Part 4
contains values of k 1 and v 1 that allow implicitly for partial
safety factors of 1.6, and that there is a factor of 1.15 for
the steel in the second expression.
In the assessment standard BD 44/90, the equations in
BS 5400: Part 4 are modified to allow explicitly for Tm so
that reduced values may be used with worst credible
strengths: k 1 is enhanced to 0.24, and v~ is enhanced to
0.04fcu, but no more than 1.28 N/mm 2. The coefficient of
0.7 in the second equation is increased to 0.8, and the
characteristic strength of the reinforcement proportioned
by the ratio of the anchorage available to that required by
Clause 5.8.6.
4 THE TESTS
4.1 TEST CONFIGURATION
The test configuration is shown in Figure 4, and was
common to the long and short beams. Loading was
provided by a single hydraulic jack of 1000 kN capacity
operated through a servo-control panel. The test illus-
trated is one carried out over the full original span of the
beam as was usually the case.
Wherever possible, the beams were re-tested at the
second end with a different shear span. In some cases
this was accomplished by strapping the partially dam-
aged beam and re-testing over the full span. In other
cases, where the damage to the first end was too great, a
smaller span was adopted for the second test.
One test on a long beam, that at the largest shear span,
was carried out using an alternative configuration, with
two equal applied loads and a short constant-moment
region.
4.2 METHOD OF TESTING
The tests were carried out under displacement control.
This allows the load to decrease during pauses for
measurements but reduces the influence of creep on
strains and displacement readings.
[1 Jack
and loadbearingo
Rocker cell I i=l }"1 J=l ]~
I FI H I~1
-, \ \ \
Displacement transducer
Fig.4 Test configuration
There are a number of advantages in displacement
control: measured strains and displacements form a more
consistent set, failure is more controlled, and it is safer for
observers who approach the beam to plot crack posi-
tions.
During the last stages of loading, the displacement was
increased continuously without interruption to avoid
affecting the failure. The falling branch of the load-
displacement curve was obtained in a number of cases.
Displacement control was not perfect. In practice, sudden
failures could still occur.
4.3 INSTRUMENTATION AND
OBSERVATIONS
The instrumentation consisted of load cells under the jack
and at each support, transducers registering vertical
displacement of the bottom flange on the beam centre-
line and Demec studs to determine strain. In addition, an
X-Y plotter was connected to the jack load cell and to a
displacement transducer beneath the load point to give
an independent record of load-displacement behaviour.
Acoustic emission microphones were attached to the web
of the beams in a number of cases to give an indication
of prolonged cracking after the application of each load
increment - a sign of impending failure. Cracks were
marked on the beams at various increments. Video
cameras were used to record the failuresl
4.4 TEST PROGRAMME
Table 1 provides details of the overall spans and shear
spans adopted for each test. The term shear span is
used to mean the distance from the load to the near
support. In the main series of tests, four long beams were
tested at seven shear spans (L1 to L7) and four short
beams were tested at six shear spans ($1 to $6). Beam
L7 was tested with two equal loads 1.8m apart in the
centre thus providing a short constant moment region.
Two additional tests were carried out on the long beams
(L8 and L9 in Table 1). These specimens were the outer
beams obtained during separation that otherwise would
have been discarded.
and load cell
0er,o0
y
I-I I'1 I'1 I°
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
 TABLE 1
Test programme

Long beams Short Beams

Test Long Shear Full Test Short Shear Full
No beam span span No beam span span

L1 1 2.9 15.7 $1 1 2.6 8.07

L2 1 4.1 12.3 $2 2 3.7 8.07
L3 2 5.7 15.7 $3 3 2.2 8.07
L4 2 1.6 8.1 $4 4 1.6 8.07
L5 3 5.0 15.7 $5 4 1.2 3.9
L6 3 2.1 15.7 $6 1 0.65 3.9
L7 4 6.95 15.7

L8 5 5.0 15.7 damaged beam

L9 6 5.0 15.7 repaired beam

All dimensions in m

Inspection of the ends of the beams after failure revealed

5 TEST RESULTS
5.1 S H E A R FORCES AT CRACKING
AND FAILURE
Table 2 contains the values of shear force measured at
cracking and failure and the corresponding measured
values of displacement. Cracking loads are relevant
because BS 5400: Part 4 regards cracking as indicative
of failure in shear calculations. The shear force at failure
is greatest for the beams loaded near the support and
reduces as the shear span is increased.
The final two columns in Table 2 give the values of shear
force and displacement that were held after the maximum
load had passed. For instance, test L7 reached its
maximum shear resistance, 180 kN at a displacement of
39mm, but the beam continued to resist load. At a
displacement of 115mm the resistance was still 110 kN.
Values of effective in-situ cube strength (see BS 6089:
1981, BSI, 1981) obtained from 100mm cores taken from
the beams and slab are given in Table 3.
5.2 CRACK DIAGRAMS
Crack diagrams for the long beams are given in Figure 5.
Failure was caused by one or more inclined web cracks,
which formed independently of flexural cracks and finally
connected the load point to the support. For the long
shear spans the inclination of the cracks to the horizontal
was very small. This mode of failure occurred even for
test L7 in which the beam was loaded close to mid-span.
Crack diagrams for the short beams are given in
Figure 6. The form of failure was very similar to that of
the long beams, although in two cases the critical shear
cracks penetrated the bottom flange before the support.
In addition, there was a tendency for cracks to form at the
web/bottom-flange junction in the long shear span as
failure took place.
that in most cases some or all of the prestressing wires in
the bottom flange had pulled in. Although it is difficult to
say with certainty when this occurred, it appears to have
been initiated by the formation of cracks in the end-block/
transmission-zone during failure. Bond failure did not take
place in tests $1, $2 and $3. It seems likely that the
position of the cracks in these beams allowed a sufficient
anchorage length to remain.
5.3 LOAD DISPLACEMENT
BEHAVIOUR
Load displacement graphs are given in Figures 7 and 8
for the long and short beams respectively. In many cases
a degree of ductility is evident. This occurred either as a
large non-linear displacement before failure or a retention
of capacity after the maximum load had passed. For the
shortest shear spans there was little displacement before
failure, which therefore must be considered sudden.
However, in these cases the failure load was high relative
to the theoretical cracking load (see 6.6).
5.4 DESCRIPTION OF FAILURE FOR
LONG BEAMS
For the beams tested at short shear spans (1.6 and
2.1m) web cracks appeared first at loads well below
failure. Minor flexural cracking occurred later, but flexural-
shear cracks did not appear. Maximum load coincided
with the development of severe web cracks. In both
cases failure was sudden, but the beam tested at 1.6m
was able to sustain a modest increase in displacement
after cracking without significant loss of resistance. The
beam tested at 2.1m failed as maximum load was
reached, but there was a degree of non-linearity in the
load displacement curve.
For the beams tested at intermediate shear spans (2.9,
4.1 and 5.0m) flexural cracks appeared first and were
well developed before failure. The first web cracks
appeared shortly before the maximum load but did not

10
 >,-~

0 c-
c~_'--
~ 0 ~ ' ~
, w-
+° .~ m _,o o
ob
m-m + ~
0
0
~
~ ' 0 i tO ' ' ' ' O9 c"

c-
c-
c-

m-m +
'-.o ~ + o "<I" O~ fkl r.O 0 i"-
1.0 r.O r.O O0
O

0 c-

~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~
mo 5 ~.~_o

~ -~o '~
_
~ ~ 0 ~ ~
+ O9
+- t,-

0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~
~ ~ 0 ~ 0
09 (D
c-

° m-~E
r.O ' ' 0 ~
o E 09 o_
.,~ ,,oE_. m
N
t-'-
"O
~ ~ " 0 ' ' 0 ~ 0 0
iii 09 O '*- ~
i m "rr3 OJ

I,- 09 ~ 0 ~ c.- --

m o c- "~
o "-- c-
O ~

0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
~ 0 ~ 0 ~ CO
_
c-
m
• ~¢.
~ ~ 0 ~
w-
~. _ E ~ =3 2 ~ . ~_
t~

m~ bb--
0
~
0
0
0
~
~ 0 ~
~
LO
O4
~ 0 0 0 ~ o~ ~--~8
o0 ~- ,T o "6._o

~-~ o-~
~ 0 ~ ~
B
-~

g E ~
~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0
0 ~ ~
OOO9 ~ t'--

"~D -0
~g b -o
(I)
Z t- o
c--
0o ~,~.m
~ B m _I E o..'
II II
I-- ._I O9 _ = ~

O")O ,--~_

11
 TABLE 3 and substantially recovered. It would probably have
sustained a significant load at higher displacements. The
Core test results beam tested at 2.9m did not develop flexural-shear
cracks.
Long beams .Short beams
Beam No Web Slab Web Slab The beams tested at the long shear spans (5.7 and
6.95m) behaved in a similar way to those tested at an
1 93 - 96 70 intermediate shear span, the main difference being that
2 96 83 84 62 instability occurred in the top flange in both cases.
3 94 71 87 81
4 84 88 81 73 For the beam tested at 5.7m, this instability occurred at
5 74 57 (Damaged) the maximum load. Shortly before failure, severe cracks
6 86 68 (Repaired) appeared in the web at a shallow angle to the horizontal.
A further small increase was accompanied by widening of
Values given are the average effective cube strength (N/mm2) of the cracks. Finally the top flange buckled upwards (see
typically three 100mm cores taken from each beam and slab. Figure 9). At one stage in this test, failure in the long
shear span by the propagation of cracks at the transverse
stressing positions looked to be a possibility. These
lead to failure. The critical web cracks formed at the cracks and the bending cracks closed up partially when
maximum load. In all cases there was a substantial the jack was retracted.
capacity remaining after the maximum load had been
passed. The beam tested at 5.0m was unloaded to The beam tested at 6.95m appears to have been affected
preserve it after the maximum load had been achieved by weaknesses in two of the transverse prestressing

~L Shear span 2.9m Test L1

~ Shear span 4.1m Test L2

Jr Shear span 5.7m Test L3

Test L4 I Shear span 1.6m

Figo5 Crack diagrams at failure for long beams

12
 Shear span 5.0m Test L 5
7'
! ,'~_~=_= ~. _

(11 / ,
(It, lz)

Shear span 2 . 1 m Test L 6

! I I

Shear span 6 . 9 5 m Test L7

Shear span 5 . 0 m Test L8

Shear span 5.0m Test L 9

w

Fig.5 (continued)

13
 ~ Shear span 2,6m Test $1

'-I
T
Test S2

t
Test S3

II

Shear span 1.3m Test S5 Test S6 ~ Shear span .65m

Fig.6 Crack diagrams at failure for short beams

14
 600- 600 -

A
z 400
400

i
o

R
c1
o.
<
200
< 200
Test L2
~hear span 4.1m
Test L1
Shear span 2.9m I I
50 100
I I
50 100 Displacement under load (mm)
Displacement underload (mm) L J

. . . . . Vcr
• . 800

A
A
Z 400 ~ 600~

/
. . . . . . Moo
O
D

400
{3.
< 200 <

200~
Test L4
Shear span 1.6m

50 100 150 5O
Displacement under load
Displacement under load (Mm)
(mm)
800

600

6OO

-o

400 '
o.
< 400
E
g
o

~d 200~
< 200

a %m Test L6
r span 2.1m
I I I
50 100 50
Displacement under load (ram) Displacement under load (mm)

Fig.7 Load/displacement graphs - long beams

15
 400

...... Vcr

A
z

"o

?~ 200

e~
<

Test L7
Shear span 6.95m

I I I
1 O0 200

Displacement under load (mm)

400 400

Vcr Vcr

~. 200 -- " f ~ - = ~ Test L8 200

<

I
5O 50 1O0
Displacement under load (mm) Displacement under load (ram)

Fig.7 (continued)

16
 400

400 I Bending - A Bending

"{3

200
200
a
e~
< <
I-'f Test S1 X Test S2
Shear span 2.6m l Shear span 3,7m

I I I I I J i I I 1
20 40 60 10 30 50 70 90
Displacement under load (ram) Displacement under load (mm)

400 400
v

200
< < 200

/ / Shear span2.2m
I I I I I rll
20 40 60 , SheTes~r, $4
n .em,
Displa(~emnt under load (mm)
10 30 50
Displacement under load (mm)

800

,°°It
4OO
A

z
6OO
Vcr

< "~ 400

Vco
<
200 I / Test $5
Shear span 1.2m

I/ 0 20 30
200

Test $6
Displacement under load (rnm) Shear span .65m
I i I
5 10
Displacement under load
(mm)

Fig.8 Load/displacement graphs - short beams

17
 T-~" L3
T--st L7
Fig.9 Failure of long beams
positions as the failure plane passed through these
areas. In spite of the long shear span, flexural-shear
cracks did not have the opportunity to form. The maxi-
mum load occurred at the formation of the major web
cracks, but instability did not occur immediately - as
indicated by the load-displacement graph. Figure 9
shows the final shape of the beam after instability had
occurred.
5.5 DESCRIPTION OF FAILURE FOR
SHORT BEAMS
For the beams tested at 0.65 and 1.2m. failure was
similar to that at the short shear spans in the long beams.
In neither case did flexural-shear cracks form. The load
displacement graphs indicate that the failure was sudden.
Unlike the long beams, the web cracks did not form until
shortly before failure. The beam tested at 1.2m jammed
against the bearing after failure and was able to sustain a
further period of loading at larger displacements.
The remaining beams failed in a similar way to the long
beams loaded at intermediate shear spans. All the
specified types of crack occurred. Unlike the long beams,
18
CB5S9
CR/663/89/7
there was no instability of the top flange, probably
because it was so massive in comparison with the rest of
the beam. Failure was more prominent in the top flange
under the load.
For the beams tested at the three longest shear spans,
failure was accompanied by severe cracking along the
web/bottom-flange junction. On the video recordings, the
instant that these cracks occurred can not be distin-
guished from the primary shear failure. However, they
appear to be a consequence of failure and not the cause.
The test at 1.6m shear span (Test $4) showed some
signs of cracking along the web.
Figure 10 shows test S1 after failure.
5.6 DAMAGED AND REPAIRED
BEAMS
Tests L8 and L9 were done on a damaged beam and a
repaired beam. In both cases, a shear span of 5.0m was
adopted, the same as for the undamaged beam in test
L5. Figure 1 1 illustrates the condition of the beams before
and after repair.
 T;~s~ $1

R602/89/5

Fig.lO Failure of short beams

L>I ~ 2 ~ 3 ~- 4 L,- 5 L,- 6 ~- 7

i } > !
Cross-sections Four wires slack/not properly bonded at this end of beam

Repaired beam , Load Beam repaired to this point --i='1

[ 11 11 11 II II

./ etej
D2 ~>3
I
~4 t>~

° o
1>6 t>7

Cross-sections

Fig.11 Details of damaged and repaired beams

19
The damaged beam had up to about half of the top flange
and one third of the bottom flange missing. The
prestressing wires were largely intact, but many were
exposed. It had a measured shear strength of approxi-
mately 3/4 of the undamaged beam tested at the same
shear span. There was no recorded flexural cracking,
probably because most of the original soffit under the
load was missing, and failure occurred at a load only
slightly above the cracking load for the undamaged
beam.
The repaired beam was similarly damaged, but was
repaired before testing by restoring the original cross
section using plain unstressed concrete. A small number
of 6mm bars were inserted in the top flange to ensure
that the new concrete was tied to the old. The measured
shear strength of the repaired beam was slightly above
that of the undamaged beam, although as expected
flexural cracking occurred at a lower load because the
concrete at the soffit was not prestressed.
5.7 PRE-CRACKED WEBS
On a number of occasions pre-existing cracks in the web
of the long beams caused, or threatened to cause,
premature failure. This did not happen in the short
beams.
The problem first arose in test L3. A crack in a transverse
prestressing position on the long shear span side opened
and propagated as failure was approached. It did not,
however, influence failure which occurred in the short
shear span side. On completion of this test the long shear
span side of the beam contained a number of typical
flexural-shear cracks and web-shear cracks.
Test L4 was carried out on the other end of the same
beam, but using a short shear span (1.6m). The beam
was strapped on the long shear span side to give
strength to the cracked region, which was consequently
not expected to influence the second test. However, extra
strapping was necessary during the test because a shear
crack in the bottom of the web, in the previously-tested
end, began to propagate towards the load point. It had
not been thought of as a problem initially because its
slope was in the opposite direction to the expected shear
cracks in the second test.
Test L7 has been described in 5.4. Cracking in the
transverse prestress positions is believed to have caused
failure at a lower load than would otherwise have been
the case.
For test Lg, the repaired beam was left in the original
damaged condition for a length near the support on the
long shear span side (see figure 11). During loading, a
crack in the web in the damaged area began to propa-
gate and almost caused failure at a shear force of 230 kN
(as measured on the short shear span side). The load
was removed and the beam strapped before continuing
the test.
20
6 STRENGTH CALCULATIONS
6.1 BASIS OF CALCULATIONS
BS 5400: Part 4 was used for the primary calculations of
shear strength and cracking moment. Some calculations
were done using the standard directly, with partial safety
factors included, and others with factors excluded.
Appropriate values were used for characteristic strength
and mean strength of concrete.
Some calculations were also carried out using BD 44/90
which permits the use of a "worst credible" concrete
strength and reduced partial safety factors.
6.2 CALCULATED SHEAR STRENGTH
For the factored calculations, the expressions in
BS 5400: Part 4 were used with characteristic strengths
of 45 and 60 N/mm 2 for the slab and beam concrete
respectively. These values were deduced from the design
calculations allowing for ageing of the concrete and
would probably have been assumed for assessment in
the absence of further information.
For the unfactored calculations mean strengths of 75
N/mm 2 for the slab and 90 N/mm 2 are used for all beams.
Table 3 gives the core test results from each beam.
For BD 44/90 calculations "worst credible" strengths of 60
N/mm 2 and 75 N/mm 2 are assumed. These values were
obtained from the effective in-situ cube strengths by
inspection and by considering values for the characteris-
tic strength obtained from a "mean - 1.64 x standard
deviation" calculation, the damaged beam being ignored.
Table 4 gives values of calculated ultimate shear strength
and a comparison with measured strengths at failure. In
this table, the measured dimensions of the top flange and
the deeper section nearer the support are taken into
account.
6.3 FLEXURAL CRACKING
Figures 12a and 12b contain a comparison of the meas-
ured and calculated shear forces at flexural cracking. The
calculated shear force at ultimate moment and the shear
force at failure are also shown. In these graphs, the
calculated values were obtained from the standard beam
dimensions. For calculating shear-span/depth ratios, the
overall depth at mid-span has been used.
It must emphasized that the cracking moment has been
calculated assuming a monolithic section (ie the compos-
ite section resists the dead and live loads) as permitted in
BS 5400: Part 4. This tends to over-estimate the theoreti-
cal cracking load. It can be seen in the figure that there is
a reasonably good agreement between the theoretical
and measured values. This implies that there may have
been a higher effective prestress in the beams than
assumed and/or that the cracking resistance of the
concrete has been underestimated. However, the
comparisons indicate that the assumptions provide a
satisfactory basis for calculating shear strength.
 ~o
oo ~-
o

gof0g
o~ z ~ o ~ o
0

oo
g ~ . . . . . ~ , , ,
m,~.c
OOo ~ o

~c0
_~ z

.~= o O~o
~ogo
_~ co (/]
o~ 00
z ~ o o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o o ~
0

,.,1
II1
I- o~ S- -g
~:~o
0
~ o o ~ o ~ ~ ~
0

8
~ . . . . . ~ ' ' '
noO ~o
-g

=
o z

8
~gg .... g ~ , , ,

f]) 0
"o(J o

o~

o
~c~.~
o o o

~g-~ o

Nmo
~3 o

~m
x: i~.

21
 a) Long Beams
1000
m Mu
k • Failure
800
k _~__ lrv~i/lexure crack

600

o.
400
..c
o')

200

0 ! I I I I r I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shear span/depth

b) Short beams
1000

.... Mcr

800 • Failure
._~ll~ Jr- lr~tu flexure crack

600

cL

400
f~

200 "'~...,_+ ~-..+~

0 I I I I r I I

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shear span/depth

(75/90 N/ram 2 concrete strength, unfactored calculation)

Fig.12 Behaviour in flexure

22
6.4 ULTIMATE MOMENT
Figure 12a for the long beams indicates that, in all cases,
shear failure occurred at less than the calculated ultimate
moment. However, as the shear spans become larger,
the shear force at failure approaches the value calculated
for ultimate moment. The exception is the measured
shear force for failure at the largest shear span, test L7,
where a flexural failure was thought possible. It is
believed that this beam failed prematurely in shear
because of the weakness in the transverse stress
positions (see 5.4).
For the short beams, the measured shear force at failure
exceeds the calculated shear force for ultimate moment
in four out of the six tests (see Figure 12b). Examination
of the crack patterns at failure, however, indicate that the
failures were in shear and not bending, although bending
failure was close.
6.5 SHEAR CRACKING
Figures 13a and 13b illustrate graphically the relationship
between the measured cracking forces and the calcu-
lated shear resistances, Vco and Vcr. In these figures, the
calculated resistances are given for the unfactored
calculation using the mean concrete strength and with d/2
included in the expression for Vcr (see 3.4). It must be
remembered that the calculated resistance is actually the
value at cracking: web cracking for Vco and flexural-shear
cracking for Vcr.
The main conclusion to be drawn from these graphs is
that shear cracking is predicted reasonably well and
conservatively.
Web shear cracks occurred in all tests, as indicated.
Flexural-shear cracks did not form much below a shear-
span/depth ratio of three. Above a ratio of three there is
little or no margin between web cracking and failure load,
although in some cases the displacement was much
greater at failure than cracking.
In the regions governed by Vcr, flexural cracking at d/2 is
represented reasonably well by the Vcr curve. Wherever
flexural-shear cracking was present, the measured value
is above this curve. Here, as in 6.3, a monolithic section
has been assumed in the calculations.
For the regions governed by Vco, the behaviour of the two
sizes of beam was different. The long beams cracked in
the web at a shear force barely above the calculated Vco
resistance, whereas the short beams remained free from
web cracks until a significantly higher relative load.
6.6 COMPARISON OF MEASURED
AND CALCULATED SHEAR
STRENGTHS
Figures14a and 14b contain a comparison of the meas-
ured and calculated shear capacities for the long and
short beams.
The full lines indicate the factored resistance using
concrete strengths of 45 and 60 N/mm 2 and the broken
lines the calculated capacity with partial safety factors
removed and concrete strengths of 75 and 90 N/mm 2.
Two curves are given for the cracked resistance, Vcr.
One has been obtained using the equation given in BS
5400 and the other using the equation with the d/2 term
restored. This corresponds to the equation given in
BD 44/90 (Department of Transport, 1990a).
Wherever Vco governs, there is a substantial reserve of
strength for both sizes of beam. Where Vcr governs, the
measured resistance of the beam is greater than the
unfactored calculation including the d/2 term. Even where
Vco governs the measured resistance is greater than the
calculated resistance using the equation without the d/2
term. It may be concluded that BD 44/90 is conservative,
but less so than BS 5400: Part 4.
Values for the measured resistance of the damaged and
repaired beams are not plotted on Figure 14(a). Inspec-
tion of Table 4 reveals that the calculated strength of the
damaged beam in the cracked mode is almost the same
as the calculated strength of the undamaged beam. In
the uncracked mode the calculated strength is higher
than that of the undamaged beam.
It was assumed in the calculations that the prestressing
wires were effective when uncovered. For Vco the web
was assumed to retain its full width over the whole depth
although the overall cross-sectional area was reduced.
The resulting increase in prestress raised the calculated
resistance. For Vcr a small loss in overall depth was
assumed as well as a reduction in area. The net effect on
the calculated resistance was small.
For the repaired beam the calculated values given are
those for a standard monolithic section. A multi-stage
calculation would also be possible, allowing for the
changes to load and prestress as concrete was added
and removed.
6.7 INTERFACIAL SHEAR STRENGTH
During the tests there was no sign of failure at the
interface between the beams and in-situ slab. However,
because of the unusual nature of the interface shear
reinforcement in the beams, consideration was given to
their resistance in this mode.
Calculations were carried out using the method given in
BS 5400: Part 4 and also as modified in BD 44/90. Elastic
theory was used to compute the applied shear stress as
required by both standards, and a type 1 surface was
assumed. Table 5 contains values of calculated resist-
ance at short shear spans with and without the interracial
shear steel considered as effective.
The interfacial steel (sawtooth shaped bars, see Figure 2)
may not be treated as the equivalent of links as they do
not enclose any longitudinal reinforcement. Hughes
(1987) considers interfacial shear reinforcement to act as
a series of ties rather than dowels. The ties ensure that
the shear resistance of the concrete interface is
23
 a) Long beams
1000
Vet
.... Moo
800 .~ 0 Flex/shear crack
_}_~ • Failure

Z "4- d/2 crack

600 [] Web crack

400

200

0 t ~ I ~ I I ~ I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Shear span/depth

b) Short beams
1000

Vcr
.... Vco
800 ~ Flex/shear crack

.~ • Failure

r~ -}- d/2 crack

600
_{_ ~ . D Web crack

400
.E
[]

200 ........

0 I T I I I I f I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Shear span/depth

(75/90 N / m m 2 concrete strength, unfactored calculation, d/2included)

Fig,13 Shear cracking

24
 a) L o n g beams
1000

.... Vcr with d/2

..... Vcr no d/2

800
\
"t Factored Vcr
i
i .... Vco
l
-.
E • t - - Factored Vco
v
600
'. \ Failure
%. \

400

200

0 I I P } } I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Shearspan/depth

b) S h o r t b e a m s
1000

.... Vcr with d/2

..... Vcr no d/2

800 t
i
- - Factored Vcr

• ~ .... Moo

li - - Factored Vco
600 i
>. • ~ Failure
%• tt
o.
",\
P,
400
co
..

200

0 I I I I I 1 I I I

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Shear s p a n / d e p t h

2
(75/90 N/mm concrete strength, unfactored calculation)

(45/60 N/ram 2 concrete strength, factored calculation)

Fig.14 Comparison of measured and calculated capacity

25
 TABLE 5
Calculated vertical shear force for interfacial shear failure

Concrete strength (N/mm 2) 75/90 60/75 45/60

Partial safety factors (y) no y's BD 44/90 y's BS 5400

Long beams ignoring steel 280 245 175

Long beams including steel 710 635 550

(Shear span < 3.9m)

Short beams ignoring steel 150 130 90

Short beams including steel 375 335 290

(Shear span < 2.8m)

Type 1 surface, mid-span dimensions

developed. This implies that, to be fully effective, there the concrete slab or beam. Under these assumptions the
must be sufficient resistance against pulling out to sustain bars were judged to be fully anchored at all the assumed
the yield stress in the steel. concrete strengths.

Two methods were used to test, theoretically, whether
the bars could be considered as fully anchored. One was
to consider the reinforcement to be equivalent to a bend,
tangential to the sawtooth at the concrete interface, and
to apply Clause 5.8.6.9 of BD 44/90. Another was to
consider the resistance to pulling out of a small part of
It can be seen in Table 6 that with the steel excluded
from the calculations, interfacial shear governs at short
shear spans. When the steel is included, however,
interfacial shear is not critical. In the tests the calculated
interfacial shear resistance with steel was exceeded, for
the shorter shear spans.

TABLE 6
Comparison of vertical shear force for vertical and longitudinal shear failure

Test Shear Measurement Calculated Vertical Shear Resistance

No Span 75/90 Concrete, No y
Max. Vert. V /V r Longitudinal interface
Shear Force No Steel With Steel
Surface Surface Surface Surface
Type 2 Type 1 Type 2 Type 1
m kN kN kN kN kN kN
L4 1.6 745 420 (V o) 135 270 550 690
L6 2.1 615 400 (Vo) 135 270 550 690
L1 2.9 425 340 ( V ) 135 280 565 705
L2 4.1 360 255 ( V ) 135 280 425 565
$6 0.65 685 290 ( V ) 75 155 315 395
$5 1.2 450 280 ( V ) 75 160 325 405
$4 1.6 420 230 (Vc,) 75 150 300 375
$3 2.2 300 165 ( V ) 75 150 305 385
$1 2.6 270 170 (Vc,) 75 150 300 375

26
6.8 WORST CREDIBLE STRENGTH
Table 4 contains the results of shear calculations using
worst credible strength values with the reduced partial
safety factors permitted in BD 44/90 (1.2 for concrete, 1.1
for steel and, by implication, an allowance of 1.15 for
shrinkage etc). In all cases the calculation produced a
safe estimate of the ultimate shear resistance. The table
provides values of the ratio of measured to calculated
resistance expressed as a percentage.
For the long beams, the mean ratio is 140% when the
measured resistance is compared with calculated Vcr. If it
is assumed that the relationship is not systematic but
follows a normal distribution a "characteristic" value of
this ratio can be obtained (mean - 1.64 x standard
deviation). This ratio is over 100%, which implies that the
worst credible strength approach gives safe results using
Vcr throughout.
The same conclusion is reached for the short beams
except when the shortest shear span is included in the
calculations. In this case, the shortest shear span has a
ratio of only 84%. However, this rises to 130% if the
expression excluding d/2 is employed.
It is concluded that, for these particular beams, the worst
credible strength calculation gives a safe result for Vcr
where this normally governs. If the d/2 term is omitted,
the calculation gives a safe result throughout the range of
shear spans. Where Vco governs, and is adopted as the
limit, the worst credible approach would be more con-
servative.
6.9 ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF
CALCULATING SHEAR
RESISTANCE
There is scope for a more rational way of calculating the
ultimate resistance of members in shear (Collins and
Mitchell, 1986). One method is described by Nielsen
(1984). It relies on the beam acting as a tied arch as
discussed in 7.1 and requires the wires to be fully
anchored. There are two expressions for ultimate resist-
ance depending on whether or not the tendons fail. They
are primarily dependent on shear span and an effective-
ness parameter for the concrete resistance. An attempt
was made to apply the method to the present results
without success. The general form of the curve obtained
is consistent with the measured data in Figures 14a and
14b (ie the shear resistance reduces with increase in
shear span) but no satisfactory overall fit was possible
even when the effectiveness factor was allowed to take
any value.
Regan (1990) has suggested a method for determining
the resistance to anchorage failure of the prestressing
wires in the tied arch model. This depends on determin-
ing the available bond length according to the position of
the primary shear crack, which is assumed to run in a
straight line between the load point and the support. It
can be seen from 5.2 that the position of the primary
shear crack is not reliable, particularly for long shear
spans, and anchorage failure is affected. However, the
crack position is more likely to be accurate for shorter
shear spans where pull-out may be more critical.
Combining Regan's and Nielsen's methods improved the
correlation with the present test results a little, but a free
choice of Nielsen's effectiveness factor was still required.
However, if in an assessment it is intended to allow a
higher shear force than Vco at short shear spans, on the
basis of the data in this report and elsewhere in the
literature, it would be sensible to check the anchorage of
the tendons by Regan's method.
7 DISCUSSION
7.1 FAILURE MODE
Using BS 5400: Part 4 and Figure 3 as a guide, it might
have been expected that:
Uncracked shear failures would result from tests at
a short shear span (shear-span/depth less than 3),
characterised by web cracks joining the load point
to the support;
Cracked shear failure would result from tests at a
long shear span, characterised by diagonal flexure/
shear cracks close to the load point; and
Flexural failures might result from loading near the
beam centre, with cracking beneath the load and a
local failure plane.
In practice, shear failure occurred in all cases, the
primary cause being the propagation of web cracks.
There were generally two systems of cracking present in
the beams as failure was reached.
Flexural cracks beneath and on either side of the
applied load emanating from the bottom flange; and
One or more pronounced inclined shear cracks in
the web.
The two systems of cracking were independent and did
not combine.
Web cracking is a characteristic of Vco but the reduction
of shear resistance with increase in shear span, as
measured in the tests, is a characteristic of Vcr. The
mode of failure was not, therefore, wholly of one type or
the other.
It is fortunate that the Vcr calculation provides a satisfac-
tory estimate of shear resistance even though the
assumption that failure stems from flexural-shear crack-
ing is not correct.
The resistance of the beams after web cracking can be
explained by means of an alternative load path: the tied
arch. It is assumed that an arch or strut is formed within
27
the concrete connecting the load point to the support,
equilibrium being maintained by the tension in the
prestressing wires.
This would explain why the resistance of beams tested at
relatively short shear spans greatly exceeded the web-
cracking load. It would also explain why the beams tested
at longer shear spans were able to sustain the maximum
load after formation of the critical web cracks, or in some
cases offer a residual resistance at a large displacement
after the maximum load had been passed. Finally, it is
consistent with instability failure observed in the top
flange of the long beams tested at the two longest shear
spans.
7.2 DUCTILITY
For all but the shortest shear spans (in the region where
Vco governs) there was a measure of ductility observed in
the tests. This appeared as a large flexural displacement
before failure or a residual strength and displacement
capacity after the maximum load was passed.
m
If the flexural strength of a beam is high in relation to the
shear strength (and the stiffness is also high) there is
likely to be less displacement and hence less observed
ductility at failure. However, tied arch behaviour can allow
additional displacement as failure is approached.
Ductility permits redistribution to take place within a
structure in the case of a local structural inadequacy or
overload. The absence of web reinforcement may have
reduced ductility in these beams but their behaviour gave
no cause for concern in this respect.
There was less displacement for the short shear spans
and failure was quite sudden; but shear cracks appeared
in the webs well before failure, and the margin of resist-
ance above the calculated Vco values was large. This, to
a degree, compensates for the lower ductility.
7.3 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE Vco
CALCULATION
The calculation for Vco in BS 5400: Part 4, which equates
failure with web cracking, provides a conservative
estimate for the ultimate shear resistance over short
shear spans for these particular beams. In the tests,
cracks formed in the web as expected, and the primary
failure plane followed the line of these cracks. To this
extent, the Vco calculation provides a reasonable model
for the behaviour of the beams, although their strength is
underestimated.
For the long beams, web cracking was predicted reason-
ably well but the ultimate resistance was considerably
higher. For the short beams, web cracking and ultimate
resistance were both considerably higher than calculated.
28
7.4 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE Vcr
CALCULATION
Numerically, the calculation for Vcr (mean strength,
unfactored, d/2 included) provides a reasonable lower
bound to the measured failure loads over the longer
shear spans, although the theoretical basis for this is
weak.
BS 5400: Part 4 equates failure with the formation of
flexural-shear cracks, and ignores any further resistance
in the beam. In those cases where flexural-shear cracks
occurred in the tests, the measured shear force at
cracking is indicated quite well by the calculation. How-
ever, the failure plane did not pass through the flexural-
shear cracks, and their formation is not directly con-
nected with the load path by which the beams sustain
load after cracking. All that can be said is that, for longer
shear spans, failure is unlikely to occur before flexural-
shear cracks form.
Bearing in mind that the web cracking mode of failure
was common to all the tests, it is interesting to note that
the Vcr calculation with d/2 gives a safe estimate of failure
load down to a shear-span/depth ratio of 2.0. If the
expression without the d/2 term is used, the calculated
curve in figures 14(a) and 14(b) are acceptable lower
bounds to all the measured resistances.
For these particular beams, therefore, it would have been
safe to assess the shear capacity at short shear spans
using the equation for Vcr without the d/2 term rather than
the Vco equation. However, taking into account the fact
that the large beams cracked in the web at a shear force
given by the Vco calculation, it would be advisable to
ensure that the Vco shear resistance was not exceeded
with serviceability limit state loading.
7.5 DAMAGED AND REPAIRED
BEAMS
The strength of the damaged beam was obtained for a
long shear span, 5.0m. In this position, its measured
strength was about 3/4 of the strength of the undamaged
beam, which is encouraging given the seriousness of the
damage. As explained in 6.6 the strength, calculated
according to the principles in BS 5400: Part 4 is slightly
higher than the undamaged beam in uncracked shear
and only slightly less in cracked shear.
The strength calculations are not satisfactory because in
the tests the damaged beam was clearly inferior to the
undamaged beam. The lower strength of the concrete in
the damaged beam may have had an influence on the
behaviour, but is not entirely responsible. The calculation
is not rational because failure of this beam occurred
before flexure or flexural-shear cracks developed.
The repaired test was rather artificial, because it seems
unlikely that such extensive damage would be repaired in
practice. There is also the question of durability. How-
ever, it is encouraging that the behaviour of the damaged
beam was reasonable in the test and the repair effective
at the ultimate limit state. It should be noted that cracking
occurred at a low load in the unstressed concrete, as
would be expected.
For large shear spans the Vcr calculat=on is numerically
satisfactory for a normal beam even when flexural-shear
cracking does not occur. However, calculations for
damaged or repaired beams which rely on establishing
the difference in flexural-shear cracking are not necessar-
ily correct or relevant to the ultimate resistance. A more
rational approach to the ultimate limit state is desirable.
7.6 PRECRACKED WEBS
In general the measured values of shear strength are
substantially above the resistance calculated according to
BS 5400:Part 4. The margin is least for the long beam
test L7 which had a shear span/depth ratio of 8 (see
Figure 12a). The special factor in this test was the
presence of web cracks resulting from the separation
process.
The effect of pre-cracked webs is an unfavourable aspect
of the observed behaviour. In the test L7, it appeared that
web cracks propagated from the transverse hole posi-
tions and initiated a failure plane between the support
and the load point.
This was the only beam in which the transverse hole
positions had an adverse effect on the final measured
resistance, although two other beams were affected by
pre-cracking. In those cases the beams had been
damaged by previous tests at the other end. Premature
failure was avoided by attaching steel straps.
It is suggested therefore that caution should be exercised
when assessing beams that have structural cracks in the
webs, in cases where there is no shear steel present or
the amount is significantly below the normal minimum.
Where the beams are contiguous and webs cannot be
inspected there is less likelihood of a problem because
transverse redistribution is likely to occur before failure of
the deck. It is not suggested that steps should be taken to
inspect the webs of contiguous beams.
7.7 INTERFACIAL SHEAR
At no time in any of the tests was there any indication of
unsatisfactory behaviour of the interface between the
prestressed beam and in-situ slab in spite of the non-
standard reinforcement.
Calculations described in 6.7 might be used to demon-
strate the effectiveness of the steel in similar situations.
The steel provided was clearly sufficient to maintain the
integrity of the interface during the life of the structure
and the demolition processes. There should be little
doubt about a similar detail behaving in a comparable
way in other bridges.
At the very least, the presence of the steel enabled the
concrete interface to function as intended. Furthermore,
the magnitude of the test failure loads lead to the conclu-
sion that the interface reinforcement was effective.
Calculations indicate that without the steel, the interface
should have initiated or participated in failure.
7.8 COMPARISON WITH SHEAR
TESTS IN THE LITERATURE
There are many examples in the literature, spanning the
last three decades, of shear tests on prestressed con-
crete beams. A large number of these, particularly in the
early years, concerned beams with no shear links in the
webs (eg Hicks, 1958; Hawkins, 1964; Arthur, 1965; Kar,
1969; Mahgoub, 1975; Elzanaty et al, 1986). Through
these tests it has been established that there is a reliable
measure of shear strength in beams with no links.
Many of the tests reported have ended in sudden failure.
This is not a desirable mode of behaviour in beams
intended for use in a working structure. Consequently, it
has lead to conservatism in shear design and require-
ments for minimum links in code rules. Reynolds (1974),
for example, notes that a small amount of web reinforce-
ment improves strength and ductility, and recommends
its inclusion.
The suddenness of failure is, however, a subjective
matter. In the present tests the final failures could be
described as sudden: but except for the shortest shear
spans there was ample warning given by the large
displacements and extensive cracking. Similar observa-
tions made by other authors suggest that their "sudden"
failures were similar.
There has been widespread agreement among authors
that the difference in shear force between cracking and
failure in a beam without links is variable and cannot be
relied on in design. For example, tests reported by Arthur
(1965) on relatively small beams indicated a ratio of
ultimate shear force to cracking shear force in the range
1- 1.7 at short shear spans and 1- 1.2 for long shear
spans. It is agreed that the ratio depends on many factors
that are difficult to quantify for practical use. This is
reflected in the current design and assessment standards
which equate failure with cracking.
Results from the present tests indicate that, for the
particular beams tested, there was a useful margin
between cracking and failure in many cases; but for the
long shear-span tests there is no practical way of using
this in assessment. For beams tested at short shear
span, other authors have found that a principle tensile
stress calculation (Vco type) generally underestimates the
cracking load (eg Mahgoub, 1975). In the present beams,
this was the case for the short beams but not the long
beams. However, the long beams possessed a large
margin of strength beyond cracking that compensated for
the early cracking.
Many of the characteristics observed in the present tests
have been found in previous work. It is clear that dividing
the manner of failure into two modes in BS 5400: Part 4
is a simplification. Behaviour can vary depending on the
cross-section (Hawkins, 1964). For rectangular beams it
29
is more likely that flexural-shear cracks will lead directly
to failure, whereas for an I-beam web cracking becomes
increasingly more likely as the web thickness is reduced
in proportion to the other dimensions.
Arching action has long been recognised and is men-
tioned by many authors. CP 115:1959 (Clause 311)
refers to the possibility of developing resistance by
arching action, but gives no guidance for doing this.
Nielsen (1984) and Regan and Yu (1973) present
methods of calculation.
Instability of the top flange has been reported (Bennett et
al, 1989, Regan and Yu, 1973 and Sethunarayanan,
1960) and also failure at the "wrong" end of beams. Two
tests reported by Clarke and Evans (1983) fall into the
latter category. The beams had previously been tested at
the other end and damage had been sustained. It is not
clear whether or not the problem was caused by the
propagation of existing cracks, but there was a weakness
that led to unexpected failure.
Slippage of the tendons has been observed by a number
of authors including Kaufman and Ramirez (1988),
Maruyama and Rizkalla (1988), and Bennett et al (1989).
The importance of the shear crack crossing the line of the
tendons in the transition zone is generally recognised,
and is taken into account by Regan (1990) (see 6.9).
Although there have been a great many tests on pre-
stressed beams without shear links, the current series
has a contribution to make in a number of respects.
The beams had been produced for normal construction
and built into a bridge. They had been in service for a
considerable period of time on a heavily trafficked route.
Similar beams are still in service.
They were of composite construction and large in size -
many of the tests reported in the literature were carried
out on monolithic beams of small cross-section (eg
250mm deep and 3m span). It is important to test large
beams because their strength may be lower, in relative
terms, than similar small beams (Bazant and Cao, 1986).
Furthermore they could be tested over the original full
span, and develop the correct displacements. The tests
were carried out under displacement control which is
arguably more likely to give information relevant to the
mode of failure of a beam in a bridge deck.
Tests on composite beams have been carried out by
Clarke and Evans (1983), Cederwall and Saran (1988),
and Bennett et al (1989). From these studies it may be
concluded that it is reasonable to use assume a mono-
lithic section for design, although other methods are likely
to be better, either to determine shear force at cracking or
failure. Cederwall and Saran (1988) prefer a compression
theory method (described by Collins and Mitchell, 1986).
The effect on shear resistance of high strength concrete
has been investigated in recent papers in America
(Kaufman and Ramirez 1988, Elzanaty et al, 1986). The
latter authors say that, compared with the ACI code
equations, web cracking becomes more conservative and
30
flexural-shear cracking less so as strength increases: but
the effect does not appear to be large. High strength in
the paper refers to cylinder compressive strengths
between 40 and 80 N/mm 2.
Bennett et al (1989) considered fatigue. They report that
reinforcement was necessary to control web cracks under
repeated loading. However, they note that:
There is little stress in links before the formation of
cracks.
The static inclined cracking load will usually be
appreciably greater than the maximum service load
in bridges designed to British practice (eg BS 5400:
Parts 2 and 4).
The risk of fatigue cracking in concrete under
normal service conditions is negligible:
It may be concluded that there is a negligible risk of
cracking occurring in unreinforced webs under highway
loading when assessed in accordance with BS 5400:
Part 4 or BD 44/90. The absence of links should therefore
not increase the risk of fatigue damage or consequent
loss of resistance.
8 CONCLUSIONS
The test results support the principle of allowing beams
without shear links to remain in service after assessment.
This provision is contained in the assessment standard
BD 44/90. Although it is better to have links, it should not
generally be necessary to replace a structure because
they are absent.
There is no reason to believe that the beams had deterio-
rated with age, and no sign of adverse behaviour arising
from their period in service. The main factor in their
performance was a substantial increase in strength of the
concrete.
The beams did not behave in the manner indicated by the
design and assessment standards BS 5400: Part 4 and
BD 44/90, but strengths calculated in accordance with the
standards are conservative for these beams. For regions
cracked in flexure, I-beams without shear reinforcement
are likely to fail by web cracking rather than flexural-shear
cracking which is assumed to govern in the Vcr calcula-
tion.
It is likely that the high loads resisted after cracking were
the result of arching action. This requires the prestressing
wires to be well anchored in the failure mode in order to
provide a horizontal reaction to balance the thrust.
For beams similar to the ones tested, it would not be
unreasonable to allow an ultimate resistance above Vco
provided that the anchorage is satisfactory and Vcr, as
calculated using the expression without d/2, is not
exceeded. A serviceability check for Vco cracking would
be advisable.
Caution should be exercised when assessing beams with
no shear reinforcement and structurally cracked webs.
The interfacial resistance between the precast beams
and in-situ slab was sufficient to ensure that failure did
not take place in longitudinal shear. The sawtooth bars,
which were considered to be fully anchored, appeared to
make a significant contribution to strength. The anchor-
age of bars such as these could be checked using the
method given in BD 44/90 and an appropriate allowance
made for them in assessment.
9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described in this report was carried out in the
Bridges Division of the Structures Group of the TRRL.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions
made by other members of the Structural Assessment
Section and Bridges Workshop. Thanks are also offered
to the staff of the Lancashire County Council for informa-
tion about the beams, the North West Regional Office of
the Department of Transport for assistance in obtaining
the beams, and Parkman Consulting Engineers who
arranged for their removal from the bridges.
10 REFERENCES
ARTHUR, P D, 1965. The shear strength of pre-
tensioned I beams with unreinforced webs. Magazine of
Concrete Research, 17 (53) (December).
BAZANT, Z P and Z CAO, 1986. Size effect of shear
failure in prestressed concrete beams. Tech. Paper 83-
27. ACI Journal, 83 (March-April). 260-268.
BENNETT, E W et al, 1989. Vertical shear strength of
composite prestressed concrete bridge beams: M-beam
with added deck. TRRL Contractor Report 174.
Crowthorne: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
BSI, 1959. The Structural Use of Prestressed Concrete in
Buildings. CP 115: 1959. London: British Standards
Institution.
BSI, 1972. The structural use of concrete. Design,
materials and workmanship. CP 110: Part 1: 1972.
London: British Standards Institution.
BSI, 1978a. Steel, concrete and composite bridges.
Specification for loads. BS 5400: Part2: 1978. London:
British Standards Institution.
BSI, 1978b. Steel, concrete and composite bridges. Code
of practice for design of concrete bridges. BS 5400: Part
4: 1978. London: British Standards Institution.
BSI, 1978c. Steel, concrete and composite bridges.
General Statement. BS 5400: Part 1: 1978. London:
British Standards Institution.
BSI, 1981. Assessment of concrete strength in existing
structures. BS 6089: 1981. London: British Standards
Institution.
BSI, 1984. Steel, concrete and composite bridges. Code
of practice for design of concrete bridges. BS 5400: Part
4: 1984. London: British Standards Institution.
BSI, 1985. Structural use of concrete. Code of Practice
for design and construction. BS 8110: Part 1: 1985.
London: British Standards Institution.
BSI, 1990. Steel, concrete and composite bridges. Code
of practice for design of concrete bridges. BS 5400: Part
4: 1990. London: British Standards Institution.
BURNLEY, G P E and A P E ASWAD, 1989. Omission of
web reinforcement in prestressed double tees. PCl
Journal, 34 (2) (March-April), 48-65.
CEDERWALL, K and E SARAN, 1988. Shear capacity of
composite prestressed concrete beams. Nordic Concrete
Research Publication No. 7. The Nordic Concrete
Federation.
CHANDLER, J and R J TAYLOR, 1990. M63 widening
and improvement junctions 3 to 5. Part 1 - Planning and
Design. Highways and Transportation (April), 8-12.
CLARK, L A, 1983. Concrete Bridge Design to BS 5400.
London: Construction Press.
CLARKE, J L and D J EVANS, 1983. Vertical shear
strength of composite beams. Cement and Concrete
Association Tech. Report 556. Slough: Cement and
Concrete Association.
CLARKE, J L and H P J TAYLOR, 1975. Web crushing -
a review of research. Cement and Concrete Association
Tech. Report 42.509. Slough: Cement and Concrete
Association.
COLLINS, M P and D MITCHELL, 1986. A rational
approach to shear design - the 1984 Canadian code
provisions. ACl Tech Paper 83-80, (November-Decem-
ber). 925-933.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, 1990a. Departmental
Standard BD 44/90. The assessment of highway bridges
and structures. London: Department of Transport.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 1990b. Departmental
Advice Note BA 44/90. The use of Departmental Stand-
ard BD 44/90 for the assessment of highway bridges and
structures. London: Department of Transport.
ELZANATY, A H et al, 1986. Shear capacity of pre-
stressed concrete beams using high strength concrete.
Tech. Paper 83-35. ACl Journal, 83 (May-June). 359-
368.
HAWKINS, N M, 1964. The shear provisions of AS CA35-
SAA Code for prestressed concrete. Civil Engineering
Transactions, Institute of Engineers, Australia, Vol CE6
(September). 103-116.
31
HICKS, A B, 1958. The influence of shear span and SOZEN, M A and N M HAWKINS, 1962. Discussion of a
concrete strength upon the shear resistance of a pre- paper by ACI-ASCE Committee 326. Shear and diagonal
tensioned prestressed concrete beam. Magazine of tension. Proceedings of the American Concrete Institute,
Concrete Research, 10 (30) (November). 57 (6) (December). 649-677.

HUGHES, G, 1987. Longitudinal shear in composite

concrete bridge beams. Part 2: Experimental investiga-
tion and recommendations. TRRL Contractor Report CR
52. London: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

KANG, G Y e t al, 1989. Ultimate shear tests of pre-

stressed concrete I-beams. Paper No. 9540. Structural
Engineering Group. Proceedings of Institution of Civil
Engineers, Part 2, 1989, 87 (September). 401-414.

KAR, J N, 1969. Shear strength of prestressed concrete

beams without web reinforcement. Magazine of Concrete
Research, 21, (68) (September).

KAUFMAN, M K and J A RAMIREZ, 1988. Re-evaluation

of the ultimate shear behaviour of high-strength concrete
prestressed I-beams. Tech. Paper 85-$31, ACI Structural
Journal, 85 (3) (May-June). 295-303.

MAHGOUB, M O, 1975. Shear strength of prestressed

concrete beams without web reinforcement. Magazine of
Concrete Research, 27 (93) (December).

MARUYAMA, K and S H RIZKALLA, 1988. Shear design

consideration for pretensioned prestressed beams. Tech.
Paper 85 $47. ACl Structural Journal, 85 (Sept-Oct).
492-498.

NIELSEN, M P, 1984. Limit analysis and concrete

plasticity. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DEVELOPMENT GROUP,

1963. Standard beam sections for prestressed concrete
bridges (1) Inverted T beams for spans from 25 to 55 ft.
London: Cement and Concrete Association.

REGAN, P E and C W YU, 1973. Limit state design of

structural concrete. London: Chatto and Windus.

REGAN, P E, 1990. Behaviour of precast, prestressed Y-

beams in shear, torsion and in negative bending. The
Structural Engineer, 68 (23) (December). 466-473.

REYNOLDS, G C, revised by CLARKE, J L and H P J

TAYLOR, 1974. Shear provisions for prestressed con-
crete in the unified code, CP 110: 1972. Cement and
Concrete Association Tech. Report 42.500. Slough:
Cement and Concrete Association.

ROWE, R E et al (eds), 1987. Handbook to British

Standard BS 8110:1985. Structural use of concrete.
London: Palladin Publications Limited.

SETHUNARAYANAN, R, 1960. Ultimate strength of pre-

tensioned I beams in combined bending and shear.
Magazine of Concrete Research, 12 (35) (July).

SOROUSHIAN, Pet al, 1987. Bearing strength and

stiffness of concrete under reinforcing bars. Tech. Paper
84-M19. ACl Materials Journal, 84 (May-June). 179-184.

Printed in the United Kingdom for HMSO

32 Dd8222834 1/92 C4 G2516 10170