ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006 409

ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 3, May-June 2006.

MS No. 04-309 received September 28, 2004, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the March-April
2007 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2006.
ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
This work presents a study of the structural behavior of segmental
concrete beams with external prestressing, focusing on the
response of these structures under shear. Six tests have been
performed on beams to evaluate their shear response and load-
carrying capacity at different levels of prestressing. To obtain
design guidelines about reinforcement detailing in such structures,
the structural response under combined flexure and shear has been
carefully inspected. Moreover, to evaluate the possible benefits that
the use of steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) could carry, tests
were conducted on both conventional and SFRC elements.
Keywords: bridges; joints; strength; tension.
INTRODUCTION
Prefabricated segmental concrete bridges with external
prestressing and dry joints are associated with a span-by-
span construction process that is thought to be the fastest
among this type of construction process. For the construction
of each of the spans, the segments are placed one next to the
other, suspended from a beam or arranged in a mobile false-
work, and are assembled by means of external prestressing.
In Europe, where a waterproofing layer to prevent leakage is
usually applied on the top of the deck, it is not necessary to
apply any epoxy resin between the joint-faces of the
segments. This was also a common practice in some states of
the U.S. some time ago. Nevertheless, epoxy-free joints are
presently forbidden in the U.S. due to the durability problems
that arose in some bridges. It is precisely the subject matter of
the present work to study externally prestressed segmental
bridges with resin-free dry joints. Its most significant
characteristic is the nonexistence of bond reinforcement
crossing the joints, neither active nor passive. The first
example of application constructed is the Long Key Bridge.
1
A more recent example can be found in Bangkok.
2
For the serviceability limit state (SLS), these bridges are
designed considering that the limit state of decompression
must not be reached; hence a minimum compression
n
=
0.5 MPa (75 psi) is maintained in all sections and the joints
remain closed. When the overload increases up to the
ultimate limit state (ULS), joints open up significantly
(Fig. 1), and the structure rapidly loses stiffness and reaches
a considerable deflection. The fact that there is no passive
reinforcement crossing the joints means that bending
moments must be carried by more active reinforcement or by
higher initial stresses in the steel tendons. In simply
supported bridges, it is not the SLS of decompression that
guides the design
3
but the ULS of normal stresses.
The shear transmission through open joints is a more
complex subject. The universally accepted theory proposes
that the shear forces flow across the joint, through web and
flanges, by two qualitatively and quantitatively different
mechanisms. The first mechanism takes into account the
support effect of the interlocking shear keys usually
provided at the joint. Just the shear keys remaining in contact
are able to transfer shear across an open joint. The second
represents the friction force that arises when two flat and
compressed surfaces tend to slip one against the other, which
is proportional to the actual compression.
4
One of the controversial issues regarding the evaluation of the
shear capacity of a joint is the quantification of the compressed
flat zone of the section that is susceptible to transmit shear loads
A
sm
. Some authors
5,6
limit the section of the flange capable of
transmitting shear just to areas next to the webs.
Another issue that causes controversy among researchers
is the reinforcement of the segment in the proximity of the
open joint. Some authors
5,6
support the necessity of
providing extra shear reinforcement to hang shear in the
zone next to the open joint. Figure 2 graphically sketches the
justification for this reinforcement.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Though models of segmental bridges with unbonded rein-
forcement under a combination of shear and bending loads have
already been tested,
7-10
the authors believe that it is the first time
that a complete experimental study of the behavior of such
singular structures is approached, dealing specifically with the
hanger reinforcement and the effective width of the shear flow.
Also, it is the first time that real-scale tests have been carried out
on this type of beam made of steel fiber-reinforced concrete
Title no. 103-S43
Shear Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioned
Segmental Beams with Dry Joints
by Jos Turmo, Gonzalo Ramos, and ngel C. Aparicio
Fig. 1Open joints at ultimate limit state.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006 410
(SFRC), and that its behavior is compared with that of similar
conventional concrete beams.
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
The response of conventional concrete beams under
tangential stresses cannot be studied at a sectional level. The
formation of a strut-and-tie mechanism for shear transmission
before failure requires a spatial study of the shear response. In the
same manner, the structural response of segmental concrete
beams with dry joints and external prestressing is too complex
for just a pure sectional analysis to evaluate the shear response.
It is known that in any beam, the shear load V, acting at a
section x, is mathematically related with the exterior bending
moment M, by Eq. (1)
(1)
After flexural cracking, the exterior bending moment M, in
each section x of the beam, is compensated by a pair of axial
forces separated by a lever arm z, including a compressive
and a tensile axial force, N
c
and N
s
, respectively (Eq. (2))
(2)
Then, Eq. (1) can be transformed in the following manner
(3)
In conventional concrete beams, the lever arm z remains
approximately constant between two contiguous sections, at
least during the initial loading stages. Then
(4)
and
(5)
Equation (5) represents what is traditionally known as the
beam effect, and leads to a distribution of tangential stresses
along the length and width of the transversal section after
cracking takes place shown in Fig. 3(a). Hence, it is necessary to
place stirrups to carry the tensile stresses when the web of the
beam cracks (strut-and-tie analogy). If due to any circumstance
the bond of the longitudinal reinforcement with the
surrounding concrete is lost, the reinforcement is unable
to vary its stress from one section to another of the beam,
which implies
(6)
and
(7)
Equation (7) is known as the arch effect, and means that
the shear force is resisted by an inclination of the compressive
axial force. Generally, these two mechanisms are superimposed
before the beam fails by shear.
In a segmental structure with external prestressing, where
there is no passive reinforcement connecting the segments
and where the prestressing tendons contact the concrete only
at anchor blocks and deviators, the axial force remains
essentially constant in every cross section of the beam. Thus,
the transmission of the shear force relies on the arch effect.
V x ( )
M x ( )
x
---------------- =
M x ( ) N
s
z N
c
z N z = = =
V x ( )
M x ( )
x
----------------
N z ( )
x
------------------- z
N ( )
x
------------ N
z ( )
x
---------- + = = =
z ( )
x
---------- 0 =
V x ( ) z
N ( )
x
------------ =
N ( )
x
------------ 0 =
V x ( ) N
z ( )
x
---------- =
Jos Turmo is an assistant professor at the School of Civil Engineering of Ciudad
Real, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. He received his BS in civil engineering and
his MS from the University of Cantabria, Spain, and his PhD from the Technical University
of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain. His research interests include steel and concrete structures.
Gonzalo Ramos is an associate professor at the School of Civil Engineering of
Barcelona, Technical University of Catalonia. He received his BS in civil engineering
and his MS and PhD from the Technical University of Catalonia. His research
interests include concrete structures and construction management.
ngel C. Aparicio is a professor at the School of Civil Engineering of Barcelona,
Technical University of Catalonia. He received his BS in civil engineering and
his MS from the Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, and his PhD from the
University of Cantabria. His research interests include structural behavior and
durability of concrete structures.
Fig. 2Crack patterns in vicinity of open joints and hanger
reinforcement.
6
Fig. 3Normal and shear stresses in: (a) conventional
concrete beam; and (b) in externally post-tensioned segmental
concrete beam.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006 411
In this manner, an inseparable association of longitudinal
compressive stresses and tangential stresses takes place. The
distribution of normal and tangential stresses in a section of
such structures is represented in Fig. 3(b).
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test design
Shear tests involved a total of six segmental beams with an
I-shape cross section of 0.60 m (1.97 ft) in height and 7.60 m
(24.93 ft) in length. Three of the beams were cast of normal
conventional concrete (PC) and the other three of SFRC. The
beams were provided with interlocking dry joints, with
three shear keys of 90 mm (3.54 in.) in height in each joint.
The tests were divided into two series: The first series
involved four simply-supported beams with a span of 7.20 m
(23.62 ft), consisting of three segments of varying length
assembled together with external prestressing, to which an
external load Q
1
was applied up to failure (Fig. 4). The
following nomenclature was used in these test series:
1. V1-PC-35: PC beam of mean cylinder compressive
strength f
cm
of 30 MPa (4350 psi) with an axial prestressing
force of 350 kN (78.7 kips);
2. V1-PC-70: PC beam of f
cm
= 30 MPa (4350 psi) with an
axial prestressing force of 700 kN (157.4 kips);
3. V1-SFRC-35: SFRC beam of f
cm
= 30 MPa (4350 psi)
with an axial prestressing force of 350 kN (78.7 kips); and
4. V1-SFRC-70: SFRC beam of f
cm
= 30 MPa (4350 psi)
with an axial prestressing force of 700 kN (157.4 kips).
The objective of V1-PC tests was to verify the behavior of
an open joint when subjected to shear loading, to quantify the
influence of the axial prestressing force on the capacity of
the joint and the structure, and to study the efficiency of the
shear reinforcement near the joint to determine if it is necessary
to include the hanger reinforcement that is proposed by some
authors.
5,6
With V1-SFRC tests, which complement V1-PC
tests, the objective was to study the possibility of replacing the
conventional shear reinforcement by steel fibers when using
SFRC. With this aim, the conventional reinforcement placed in
V1-PC beams (8 mm stirrups every 300 mm [No. 3 stirrups
every 12 in.]) was completely removed in these beams (except
for the reinforcement at anchorage and deviator zones, and
a few longitudinal bars placed to avoid the premature flexural
failure of the longest segment).
The second series of tests was intended to further study the
shear transmission at an open joint. Specifically, the
intention was to measure the capacity of the joint and verify
the contribution of the compressed flange to transmit shear
forces in structures with shear span/effective depth a/d ratios
higher than the ratios considered in the tests by Four.
10
With this aim, two beams of 7.60 m (24.93 ft) in length and
0.60 m (1.97 ft) in height were tested up to failure. Each
beam consisted of two segments and was tested under three-
point loading (Fig. 5). In each of the structures, which
consisted of a main span of 6.00 m (16.69 ft) and a cantilever
of 1.40 m (4.59 ft), the limit state of decompression was
surpassed by increasing load Q
1
. Once the opening of the joint
was reached, and while maintaining load Q
1
constant, load Q
2
was applied and increased up to the failure of the beam. In this
manner, load Q
2
permitted the increase of the shear force at the
joint without increasing the flexural moments.
The configuration of the V3 test was aimed to reproduce
the conditions of a continuous beam in which the joints next
to the supports carry large flexural moments and shear forces
acting concomitantly. Also, tests aimed to compare the
influence of SFRC in the case of beams with shear stirrups.
Beams were conventionally reinforced, with a high shear
reinforcement ratio at the joint zones of 16 mm stirrups
every 200 mm (No. 6 stirrups every 8 in.).
The following nomenclature was used in this second test
series:
1. V3-PC: PC beam of f
cm
= 33 MPa (4786 psi), with an
axial prestressing force of 250 kN (56.2 kips); and
2. V3-SFRC: SFRC beam of f
cm
= 38 MPa (5511 psi), with
an axial prestressing force of 250 kN (56.2 kips).
The cross section of the beam at midspan is shown in
Fig. 6. A more complete geometric definition and reinforcement
details of these tests are described in works by Piernagorda
11
and Turmo.
12
Fabrication
The formwork for the beams was fabricated from fenolic
wood panels. The geometry of the keys was configured using
standard industry-molded steel boxes attached to the existing
formwork. The reinforcement was provided by a false shop
and later placed in the forms. Details of the reinforcement
Fig. 4V1 test configuration (dimensions in mm).
Fig. 5V3 test configuration (dimensions in mm).
412 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006
arrangement can be seen in Fig. 7 and 8 for V1-SFRC and
V3, respectively. Note the appreciable difference between
the reinforcement ratios of both series.
The concrete was supplied from a concrete plant. The steel
fibers were added on site to the transit mixing truck. Because the
aim was to emulate the real fabrication conditions of segmental
bridges as much as possible, casting was carried out in two
phases: the end segments of beam V1 (Segments D1 and D3 in
Fig. 4) and Segment D1 of Beam V3 (Fig. 5) were cast in the first
phase, once initially cured, the central segment of Beam V1 and
Segment D2 of Beam V3 were match-cast in the second phase
against the first segments. Consolidation was assured by means
of internal compaction with a needle vibrator. The formwork
was removed after 48 hours.
The BBR system was used for prestressing by means of a
small hydraulic tensioning jack. Beams V1-75 were provided
with eight prestressing tendons (A
p
= 1120 mm
2
[1.74 in.
2
]),
Beams V1-35 with four (A
p
= 560 mm
2
[0.87 in.
2
]), and
Beams V3 with two (A
p
= 280 mm
2
[0.43 in.
2
]). Tensioning
was performed from the active side (marked with an A in Fig. 4
and 5) while the beams were on the floor. Afterward, the beams
were positioned on their supports and, due to the shaking
and movement of the beams, the prestressing stressess
measured in the active and passive anchorage were equal.
Materials
Each of the beams was cast with conventional concrete or
SFRC. The mixture proportion per cubic meter was 400 kg
of cement, 825 kg of 0 to 5 mm sand, 950 kg of 5 to 12 mm
gravel, 190 L of water, and a high-range water-reducing
admixture dosage of 0.9%. In the case of SFRC, 60 kg of
steel fibers were added. The compressive strength at the date
of testing and the slump test results are summarized in Table 1.
Hot-rolled deformed steel bars were used as passive reinforce-
ment. This steel grade has a minimum yield strength of
500 MPa (72.5 ksi), a minimum tensile strength of 550 MPa
(80 ksi) and a minimum elongation of 12% for a gauge
length five times the diameter (similar to Grade 75 from
ASTM A 615). Bars were supplied cut and bent and after-
ward placed in the forms. Prestressing steel grade was Y
1860 S7 with a nominal tensile strength of 1860 MPa (270 ksi),
identical to grade 270 ksi proposed by ASTM A 416. The
nominal diameter was 15.24 mm (0.6 in.).
Instrumentation
The stress in the prestressing tendons was controlled by
means of load cells (0.5 MN nominal load). Load cells were
positioned at the active jacking end and passive dead end of
Beams V1-SFRC-35, V1-SFRC-70, and V1-PC-35. The
deformation of the prestressing tendons was measured through
strain gauges glued to the cables after tensioning (G).
Deflections and joint openings were measured by
magnetic extensometers. With all this instrumentation, the
objective was to obtain information to determine the
evolution of the magnitude of the actuating prestressing
force and its loss of eccentricity during the test (and hence,
the reduction of lever arm).
With the objective of verifying the distribution of
normal stresses across the width of the slab, strain gauges
(EG) were embedded in the upper flange of the beam in
the zone next to the joint of V1-PC tests. Embedded
strain gauges (EG) were also placed in the web of the
segment with the intention of determining the stress
distribution in the web between open joints. Two hydraulic
actuators of 0.25 and 1.00 MN capacity were used for the
tests, which measured the applied load through an incorporated
cell. As an example, the instrumentation setup for Beam V1-PC
is shown in Fig. 9.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Test Series V1
The response of the beams is linear up to the separation
and decompression of the joints (between Segments D2 and
Fig. 7Reinforcement of V1-SFRC beams.
Fig. 6Cross section of beams (dimensions in mm).
Fig. 8Reinforcement of V1-PC beams.
Table 1Concrete properties
PC SFRC
D1 and D3 D2 D1 and D3 D2
Slump, mm (in.) 160 (6.3) 150 (5.9) 110 (4.3) 160 (6.3)
f
cm
-V1, MPa (psi) 37.2 (5395) 33.9 (4917) 33.9 (4917) 34.5 (5004)
f
cm
-V3, MPa (psi) 40.7 (5903) 33.1 (4801) 40.0 (5801) 38.1 (5526)
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006 413
D3)the moment at which the joint opens and a drastic loss
in stiffness is evidenced (Fig. 10). The decompression load
is closely related to the axial prestressing force, and its value
in each test can be deduced either from the points of change
in slope of the load-deflection curves (Fig. 10) or from the
load versus joint opening response (Fig. 11). Once the joint
is separated and decompressed, it continues to open as load
increases and, correspondingly, the beam deflection increases
considerably. The joint between Segments D1 and D2 did not
open in any of the tests.
The behavior of the prestressing force, measured at the
anchorage locations along Test V1-SFRC-70, can be seen in
Fig. 12. This response is qualitatively similar to that obtained
from the other tests of Series V1. The response shows how
the prestressing force remains practically constant until
reaching the applied load Q
D
= 0.152 MN (34.2 kips),
corresponding to the decompression and separation of the
joint. The forces in the tendons remains constant and equal
to the jacking forces less losses until the joints open up. The
prestressing force increases almost linearly only after the joint
opens, remaining almost constant before it. The average
prestressing force at failure is 1.45 times the initial prestressing
force (from
p0
= 574 MPa [83 ksi] to
pf
= 833 MPa
[120 ksi]). This corresponds to the stress increase in the
short tendons (measured with Load Cell C2) to that of the
long tendons (measured with Load Cell C1). The stress
increases measured at the active anchorage jacking end coincide
with those measured at the passive anchorage dead end.
Embedded strain gauges were only included in V1-PC
tests. Figure 13 shows the load-strain response from embedded
strain gauges of the V1-PC-70 test. The comparison of the
similar behavior of Gauges EG4 and EG5, located in the top
flange of the beam, indicates a progressive increase of
compressive deformations with load. This implies that the
normal stresses are distributed fairly uniformly along the
entire width of the top flange, indicating that the shear lag
effect is negligible. Gauge EG2, located in the bottom
flange, gradually loses its initial compression produced by
the prestressing force as the load level increases. Once the
ultimate limit state of decompression is reached, the curve
adopts a vertical tangent, corresponding to zero deformation.
From the prefailure phase, it is worth noting that the
apparent position of the neutral axis, as well as the number
of active shear keys and cracking development, are intimately
linked to the axial prestressing force. Note that only the PC
beams were taken up to failure because the conventional
reinforcement was lacking in Beams V1-SFRC. There was a
fear that a brittle failure could occur, which could cause harm
to both people and equipment. Thus, tests were interrupted
when an imminent failure was intuited.
In Beam V1-PC-35, cracking only affected the upper keys
(Fig. 14(b)). Subsequently to the diagonal cracking of Segment
D3, which initiates at the base of the keys and orientates at 40
degrees toward the loading point, a vertical crack propagates
following the position of the stirrup. Finally, a horizontal crack
appears in the compressed zone, in the joint area, due to exces-
sive normal stresses, and develops toward the loading point
losing horizontality due to the combination of normal and
tangential stresses. The beam fails through the flange under a
shear force of V
u,exp
= 0.081 MN (18.2 kips).
In Beam V1-PC-70, as a consequence of the deeper position
of the neutral axis, cracking affects the three keys (Fig. 14(d)).
Fig. 9V1-PC test instrumentation: (a) plan top flange; and (b) elevation.
Fig. 10Load-deflection responses of V1 tests. Fig. 11Load versus joint opening diagrams of V1 tests.
414 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006
Again the reinforcement of the segment induces a bifurcation of
the crack that develops following the layout of the shear
reinforcement, perpendicular to the axis of the segment. This
crack, with an inclination of 70 degrees to the horizontal, finally
concentrates the entire crack opening. Failure occurs when the
shear crack reaches the compression zone, corresponding to a
shear force of V
u,exp
= 0.136 MN (30.6 kips).
In Beam V1-SFRC-35, only one crack appeared, at the base
of the central key. It developed with a 45-degree inclination up
to the bottom of the top flange, continuing its development
along a horizontal plane at the web-flange interface, achieving
a significant opening, as can be seen in Fig. 14(a). The test was
interrupted before the failure of the beam, with the joint
subjected to a shear force V
u,exp
= 0.074 MN (16.6 kips).
In Beam V1-SFRC-70, a large crack originated at the base
of the lower key, which developed toward the loading point
with an angle of 30 degrees to the horizontal (Fig. 14(c)).
The opening of the joint fully extended throughout the web
of the segment. The deformations of the beams were significant,
visually appreciable. The test was terminated before the
failure of the beam, with the joint subjected to a shear force
V
u,exp
= 0.126 MN (28.3 kips).
Test Series V3
In the V3 series tests, load Q
1
was applied at midspan as a
first step. The behavior of the beams is linear until the
decompression of the joint. At that stage, the joint opens and
a loss in stiffness occurs. Once the joint is decompressed, it
continues to open with increasing load, and the deflection of
the beam increases considerably. When load Q
1
reached the
value Q
1
= 0.198 MN (44.5 kips), the pump of the hydraulic
jack was locked off, maintaining Q
1
constant for the rest of
the test. Up to this point, no cracking was observed in the
web of the beam.
While maintaining load Q
1
constant, the second actuator
introduces two loads in the structure: 0.31Q
2
at the cantilever
zone, and 0.69Q
2
in the span (Fig. 5).
In Beam V3-PC, cracks arise from the two upper shear
keys and advance toward the loading point (Fig. 14(f)). The
shear stirrup next to the joint intercepts these cracks and,
subsequently, cracking develops following its location. The
major cracking development localizes in the crack that
initiates at the central key, and thus its opening becomes
significant, producing the separation of the faces of the joint
situated below it. The beam ends up failing by a combination of
normal and tangential stresses in the upper flange, with the joint
subjected to a shear force V
u,exp
= 0.134 MN (30.1 kips).
Cracking observed in Beam V3-SFRC was initiated at the
two upper keys (Fig. 14(e)), with the first crack arising from
the base of the upper key at a load Q
2
= 0.04 MN (9 kips).
Subsequently, a loss in stiffness of the structure was evident,
though the presence of fibers induced a more gradual stiffness
loss than in the case of V3-PC. This crack develops at 45 degrees
toward the loading point, without intercepting any stirrup. As
load increases, the beam does not react with an increasing
opening of the joint, but with an increase of the crack width. In
this way, the crack appears to be a prolongation of the open
joint. As a result of the open joint and the crack, the structure
gives the impression of being separated in halves with rigid
Fig. 12Load versus prestressing stress diagrams of
V1-SFRC-70 test.
Fig. 13Load-strain response from embedded gauges for
V1-PC-70 test.
Fig. 14Crack patterns obtained in beam tests: (a) V1-SFRC-
35; (b) V1-PC-35; (c) V1-SFRC-70; (d) V1-PC-35; (e)
V3-SFRC; and (f) V3-PC.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006 415
body movement, with the rotation point in the plane of the
crack. The initial crack develops up to a point where failure in
the flange occurs by a combination of normal and tangential
stresses, at a shear force of V
u,exp
= 0.132 MN (29.7 kips).
Analysis of results
The beam test results are summarized in Table 2, where
the maximum shear force V
u,exp
at the critical joint and the
accompanying exterior moment M
u,exp
acting in this joint
section are included. The axial prestressing force P
f
,
measured at the anchorage zone by the load cell at the time
that the maximum shear force V
u,exp
was reached, is also
tabulated. The table also includes the ultimate moment
M
u,calc
of the critical joint section. This moment has been
calculated considering the maximum eccentricity loss of the
prestressing force e, due to the deflection of the beam
measured throughout the tests. When interpreting the tests
results, it must be kept in mind that the V1-SFRC beams
were not tested up to failure.
From the analysis of Table 2, it seems that the failure by
pure normal stresses induced by flexure at the joint plane can
be discarded. The failure security factor
f
, calculated as a
quotient between the actuating moment at the joint zone
M
u,exp
and the ultimate moment of the joint section M
u,calc
,
is always less than 1, with values oscillating in the interval of
0.73 to 0.89. The trend observed in Table 2 seems to indicate
that apparently the beams do not fail as a result of reaching
their capacity by normal stresses at the section of the joint.
This, together with the analysis of the cracking development
up to failure, points toward a failure caused by high normal
stresses combined with tangential stresses, with a failure
mechanism that is not sectional but spatial.
It was deduced from the theoretical study that, in a segmental
structure with external prestressing and no passive reinforce-
ment, the arch effect is responsible for the shear transference.
This implied that the longitudinal compression stresses and the
shear stresses are associated; hence, after the opening of the joint,
the shear force is transferred along the entire effective width of
the flange. These theories were verified by the results of the
experimental tests.
Precisely, one of the apparently more surprising results
obtained in the tests is the fact that beams with very different
reinforcement arrangements present very similar load-
carrying capacity. The V1-PC beams, reinforced with
conventional shear stirrups, showed an ultimate shear
capacity very similar to the V1-SFRC beams, with no shear
stirrups. The width of the main crack, visibly observed in the
tests, indicates that the contribution of the reinforcing fibers to
the shear transference across the crack zone can be ignored
in practice, as well as any other type of mechanism of tangential
stress transference arising from the aggregate interlock effect.
The shear response mechanism that assures the flow of
tangential stresses in beams without shear reinforcement is
the arch effect. Only the arch effect allows justification for
beams with and without shear stirrups to have so similar a
shear load-carrying capacity. A sketch of the arch developed
in the V1 tests is shown in Fig. 15.
The shear reinforcement does not seem to be effective in
these types of structures. Though this reinforcement can be
useful for crack control (noticeable from the comparison of
Fig. 14(c) and (d)), the steel bars next to the open joints are
not expected to transmit shear force because they are not
intended to connect any strut with any tie. The nonexistence
of a beam effect and the fact of limiting the flow of tangential
stresses to the compressed zones makes it difficult for the
development of a strut-and-tie mechanism; thus, the shear
stirrups have a secondary role. In fact, the crack that
develops between the joint and the loading point in test
V1-SFRC-70 (Fig. 14(c)), where the neutral axis is located
at the web-flange interface, does not limit the structure to
transmit shear force.
It is evident that if no strut-and-tie mechanism develops,
the hanger reinforcement does not seem necessary. Moreover,
the crack patterns observed in the tests do not reflect the one
sketched in Fig. 2, which justified the placement of
hanger reinforcement. In spite of the presence of diagonal
cracking, there is no possibility for the development of a strut-
and-tie mechanism beneath the keys in contact, not even locally.
Because there is no conveniently anchored longitudinal
reinforcement to carry the horizontal component of the
compression stresses, the compression struts cannot
equilibrate in the area of the open joint.
The analysis of the cracking of the beams prior to failure,
with a diagonal crack across the entire width of the flange
(Fig. 14(a) and (e)) confirms that the entire flange is capable
of transmitting shear forces (or, at least, was able to transmit
shear force along the entire effective width). The shear force
transference through the flange increases the transverse
bending; thus, proper transverse flexural reinforcement must
be provided if the specified load-bearing capacity of the
structure is to be maintained.
Shear strength of these beams once the joint is open cannot
be predicted with the conventional formulas for evaluating
shear strength in RC and PC beams. Different codes propose
Fig. 15Sketch of arch effectV1 tests.
Table 2Results of beam tests
V
u,exp
,
kN (kips)
P
f
,
kN (kips)
M
u,exp
,
kNm
(ft-kips)
M
u,calc
,
kNm
(ft-kips)
e,
mm (in.)

f
V1-PC-35
81
(18)
582
(131)
217
(160)
247
(182)
42
(1.65)
0.88
V1-SFRC-35
74
(17)
529
(119)
195
(144)
234
(173)
24
(0.94)
0.83
V1-PC-70
136
(31)
905
(203)
350
(258)
394
(291)
23
(0.91)
0.89
V1-SFRC-70
126
(28)
933
(210)
326
(240)
407
(300)
21
(0.83)
0.80
V3-PC
134
(30)
309
(69)
74
(55)
88
(65)
6
(0.24)
0.84
V3-SFRC
132
(30)
354
(80)
74
(55)
101
(74)
5
(0.20)
0.73
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006 416
different formulas for evaluating the shear capacity in such
beams. All these formulas have a common philosophy. Shear
strength is the sum of the shear stress carried by the concrete
times the area of the web and the shear carried by the stirrups.
The shear capacity of the concrete comes from three
mechanisms: the dowel action (zero in this beams as there is
no anchored reinforcement in the joint); the aggregate interlock
(that is negligible due to the opening of the joints); and the
shear carried by the compressed flange (the only existing
mechanism to transfer shear). The area of the web transferring
shear (z b
w
) has no meaning, as shown in Fig. 3(b). Shear
transferred by the stirrups can be calculated from the stirrup
area crossing a crack, but cracks do not cross stirrups in
strongly shear-reinforced beams, as shown very neatly in
Fig. 14(f). Predicting the shear crack slope can not be done
with conventional formulas. Figure 14(d) shows a crack with a
slope of 70 degrees to the horizontal, when shear cracks should
have a slope below 45 degrees in a prestressed beam.
Hopefully, when the shear span to depth ratio increases, as
it does in actual bridges, specimens fail in flexure, not in shear.
This has been proved experimentally by several researchers.
Among them, Ramrez-Aguilera,
8
Aparicio et al.,
13
and Take-
bayashi et al.
14
The study by Takebayashi et al. presented a
full-scale test up to failure of a simply supported bridge where
no shear failure was evidenced. Very recently, Turmo et al.
15
validated with these tests a FEM model that takes into account
explicitly the shear behavior of these bridges and applied it to
the study of actual bridges and concluded that shear is not to
fear in full-scale bridges.
CONCLUSIONS
The beam tests carried out allowed the authors to extract
some very interesting conclusions regarding the behavior of
structures with dry joints. The extrapolation of these results
to actual bridges should be done with care. Several facts,
such as: a) the transverse section of the beam maintains no
proportionality between the width of the flange and the height
of the section (unlike a box girder of an actual bridge); b) the
ratio between the width of the flange and the height of the
tested beams is less than in an actual bridge; c) the use of
real-scale keys in beams with a reduced depth; d) the geometry
of the beams, with segments of different lengths; and e) the
applied point loads, which were not distributed loads, make
the direct extrapolation to actual bridges unfeasible.
Based on the research, the following conclusions can be made:
1. The addition of fiber to concrete does not seem to
increase the load-carrying capacity of the beams. This is
shown by test results of Beams V3;
2. The cracking that produces the failure of the structure
arises from the joint. The shear failure of the beams is not
sectional, like in flexure, but spatial;
3. The crack pattern that takes place at the zone next to the
joint seems to be markedly influenced by the depth of the
neutral axis, or at least, by the number of keys in contact;
4. The crack pattern that justifies the placement of hanger
reinforcement in the proximity of an open joint is not
evident. Furthermore, the conventional shear reinforcement
does not seem to be effective in these tests because the beams
provided with shear stirrups resisted very similar ultimate
shear forces compared to SFRC beams without any
conventional shear reinforcement (V1 series);
5. The mode of failure of the flange, with cracks going
through it from one side to the other, seems to discard the
theory stating that the transmission of tangential stresses
takes place only in the web area;
6. The theoretical analysis and the experimental tests
support the thesis that normal and tangential stresses are
associated in these types of structures, with the flange being
capable of transmitting tangential stresses along its entire
effective width. Thus, the flange is also taking part in
resisting shear forces;
7. The increase in the transverse flexure due to the fact that
part of the shear force is in fact transmitted through the
flange should be taken into account when designing the
transverse reinforcement; and
8. Shear strength of these beams, once the joint is open,
cannot be predicted with the existing formulas for evaluating
shear strength in conventional RC and PC beams.
FURTHER RESEARCH
It would be convenient to carry out tests on beams that are
actually scaled bridge models. This would permit the
determination of the effective width of the flange to be used
in transmitting shear forces. Even if a FEM two-dimensional
model has been validated
12
(whose complexity does not allow
presentation in this paper), it would be desirable to have a three-
dimensional design model, calibrated with these six tests and
with others carried out in the future, capable of predicting the
shear behavior of this type of structure. This would allow
studying the behavior up to failure with other types of loading.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank J. Piernagorda for his contribution to the progress of
the research during the experimental phase. Partial funding of the research
by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (Project MAT2002-00849),
and by the Spanish Ministry of Public Works (Project: Theoretical and
Experimental Study of the Shear Transference in Segmental Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Beams, with External Prestressing and Dry Joints)
is greatly appreciated. One of the authors benefited from a scholarship
from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture from 2000 until 2003
(Scholarship for the Formation of University Professors).
NOTATION
A
p
= area of prestressing steel
A
sm
= compressed flat zone of dry joint that is susceptible to transmit
shear loads
b
w
= web width
e = eccentricity of prestressing steel, distance between strand and
center of masses of concrete transverse cross section
f
cm
= mean concrete cylinder strength at date of testing
g
1
= self-weight load
M = bending moment
M
u,calc
= ultimate expected moment of join section (flexural strength)
M
u,exp
= actuating moment at joint zone at failure
N = axial force
N
c
= axial force on concrete
N
s
= axial force on steel
P
f
= final prestressing force
Q = external vertical load
R = vertical reaction at support
V = shear
V
p
= shear due to prestressing
V
u,exp
= shear at joint zone at failure
z = lever arm
e = loss of eccentricity
= nominal diameter of reinforcing bars

f
= failure security factor, calculated as quotient between actuating
moment at joint zone at failure M
u,exp
and ultimate expected
moment of joint section, M
u,calc

n
= normal stresses acting on joint

p0
= initial prestressing stress at start of test

pf
= final prestressing stress
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006 417
REFERENCES
1. Muller, J., Construction of the Long Key Bridge, Journal of the
Prestressed Concrete Institute, Nov.-Dec. 1980, pp. 97-111.
2. Shafer, G., Bangkok Blockbuster, Civil Engineering Magazine,
V. 69, No. 1, Jan. 1999, http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/0199feat.html.
3. Ramos, G., Study on Structural Behavior of Concrete Bridges with
External Prestressing, PhD thesis, ETSICCP de Barcelona, Feb. 1994. (in
Spanish)
4. Ramirez, G.; MacGregor, R.; Kreger, M. E.; Roberts-Wollmann, C.;
and Breen, J., Shear Strength of Segmental Structures, Proceedings of the
Workshop AFPC External Prestressing in Structures, Saint-Rmy-ls-
Chevreuse, June 1993, pp. 287-296.
5. Virlogeux, M., Some Elements for a Codification of External
Prestressing and of Precast Segments, Proceedings of the Workshop
AFPC External Prestressing in Structures, Saint-Rmy-ls-Chevreuse,
June 1993, pp. 449-466.
6. ATEP, Design and Construction of Bridges and Structures with
External Prestressing, Madrid, Sept. 1996. (in Spanish)
7. MacGregor, R. J. G., Evaluation of Strength and Ductility of a Three-
Span Externally Post-Tensioned Box Girder Bridge Model, PhD dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., Aug. 1989.
8. Ramrez-Aguilera, G., Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioning
Segmental Beams with Multiple Shear Keys, masters thesis, University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., Jan. 1989.
9. Anllo, M., Experimental Analysis up to Failure of Externally
Prestressed Concrete Beams, MSc thesis, Universitat Politcnica de
Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, 1996. (in Spanish)
10. Four, B.; Bouafia, Y.; Soubret, R.; and Thomas, P., Shear Test on
Keyed Joints between Precast Segments, Proceedings of the Workshop
AFPC External Prestressing in Structures, Saint-Rmy-ls-Chevreuse,
June 1993, pp. 297-319.
11. Piernagorda, J., Shear Tests on Segmental Concrete Beams with
External Prestressing and Dry Joints, masters thesis, ETS de Ingenieros de
Caminos de Barcelona, June 2002. (in Spanish)
12. Turmo, J., Flexure and Shear Behavior of Segmental Concrete
Bridges with External Prestressing and Dry Joints, PhD thesis, ETSICCP
de Barcelona, July 2003, http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TDX-1030103-090157/
(in Spanish)
13. Aparicio, A. C.; Ramos, G.; and Casas, J. R., Testing of Externally
Prestressed Concrete Beams, Engineering Structures, V. 24, No. 2, 2001,
pp. 73-84.
14. Takebayashi, T.; Deeprasertwong, K.; and Leung, Y., A Full-Scale
Destructive Test of a Precast Segmental Box Girder Bridge with Dry Joints
and External Tendons, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Structures and Buildings, Aug. 1994, pp. 297-315.
15. Turmo, J.; Ramos, G.; and Aparicio, A. C., FEM Study on the
Structural Behaviour of Segmental Concrete Bridges with Unbonded
Prestressing and Dry Joints: Simply Supported Bridges, Engineering
Structures, V. 27, No. 11, pp. 1652-1661.
Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.