Influence of Prestressing Forces

on the Shear Capacity Part 1

Beams without Shear Reinforcement
Christina Keller1, Nguyen Viet Tue2, Martin Zink3

Summary
The influence of prestressing forces on the shear capacity is treated with different
approaches in the standards. New tests proofed the mechanically reasonable strut
or arch action described clearly in the fib model code. Some simplified models in
the standards give superposition approaches by estimating the system and load
depended strut inclination. This estimates based on the empirically evaluation of
typical test beams may be rather on the unsafe side for real structures. The influence of the prestressing forces is explained and some advice is given to judge the
applicability of the simplified approaches.
1

INTRODUCTION

The flexural shear failure in slender concrete beams without shear reinforcement
was explained by Zink as a pure section design problem [3] [4]. The shear forces
carried in the compressive zone accompanied by some additional forces carried
across the critical crack close to its tip in smaller beams were found as the main
components. In prestressed concrete beams however, a pure section design is not
possible. The variation of the position of the prestressing force along the beam
1

Dipl.-Ing., University of Leipzig

Dr.-Ing. habil, Knig und Heunisch Planungsgesellschaft, Leipzig

Dr.-Ing., Knig, Heunisch and Partners, Consulting Engineers, Frankfurt am Main

287

LACER No. 7, 2002

gives a mechanically evident and powerful shear component that is clearly depending on the beam geometry and loading conditions. In standards however,
section design procedures are implemented and the interaction among bending
moment, axial force and shear force is neglected by separating the shear design.
In the new German standard DIN 1045-1 the flexural shear capacity is given by
eq. (1), adding an estimated influence of the axial stresses caused by the axial
load or prestressing force [2].
VRd,ct =

[ 0.10 l (100 l f ck )

1/ 3

0.12 cd ] bw d

(1)

where: VRd,ct is the design value of the flexural shear capacity without shear
reinforcement
l = As,l / bwd is the ratio of flexural tensile reinforcement

d
bw

cd

= 1 + 200 / d is the size effect factor with d in mm

is the effective height
is the web width
is a reduction coefficient for light weight aggregate concrete
= 1.0 for normal density concrete up to C 100
is the design value of the axial concrete stress in the beam axis,
< 0 for compression

For the comparison with test results the first (r. c.) part of eq. (1) must be changed
to the mean value for r. c. beams without axial force by changing the factor 0.10
to 0.168 [4]. The second term is written by calculating the stress at the beam axis
from the prestressing force P over the concrete section Ac. For normal density
concrete l is set equal 1.0 (eq. 2).
VRm,ct =

[ 0.168 (100 l f ck )

1/ 3

+ 0.12 P / Ac ] bw d

(2)

where: VRm,ct is the expected mean value of the flexural shear capacity without
shear reinforcement
From the evaluation of test results VR,exp it is evident that the mechanical background of the axial force influence is not considered very accurately (fig. 1).
While looking on the variation of test results for different shear slenderness ratios

288

Influence of Prestressing Forces on the Shear Capacity Part 1

Beams without Shear Reinforcement
a/d the missing parameter can be found. A significant decrease in the flexural
shear capacity with increasing slenderness is observed from fig. 2.

Fig. 1: Comparison of calculated values following eq. (2) with test results [4]

Fig. 2: Variation of VRm,ct / VR,exp for different ratios a/d

289

LACER No. 7, 2002

2

INFLUENCE OF AXIAL FORCES ON THE FLEXURAL SHEAR CAPACITY

In prestressed concrete the flexural shear capacity cannot be determined as a pure

section capacity. The above described significant influence of the shear slenderness on the flexural shear capacity of prestressed concrete beams is well explained in the fib model code [1993]. A strong strut or arch action of the
prestressing force P compatible with the assumption of plain sections is activated.
The changing position of the compressive force P inside the section gives a shear
component somewhat similar the second part of the basic shear equation (3) that
is usually neglected by estimating a parallel chord system. The changing inner
lever arm zP between the anchored prestressing force P in the tendon and its compressive counterpart inside the concrete causes a shear component V without any
shear stresses in the web between both forces (eq. 4, fig. 3).
V =

dM
dx

V(P) = P

dz P
dx

d(Fs,x z)
dx

dFs,x
dx

z(x) + Fs,x(x)

= P

dz
dx

(3)

(4)

Fig. 3 and 4 show examples for a strong strut action in typical 4 point shear tests.
Assuming a certain percentage of the bending capacity of a given section, a
smaller a/d ratio as shown in fig. 4 increases significantly the inclination of the
strut an therefore the shear force carried without any shear stresses in the web.
The strut component V2 in fig. 4 is higher than V shown in fig. 3. If the shear
force does not exceed the strut component V, the crack angles in the tensile zone
will remain close to 90 against the tensile chord. Due to the absence of bond
forces there is no significant difference in bonded and unbonded tendons up to
this load level.
Bond forces between tensile and compressive chord and the related shear stresses
in the web are activated by shear forces exceeding the system dependent strut
component V.

290

Influence of Prestressing Forces on the Shear Capacity Part 1

Beams without Shear Reinforcement

Fig. 3: Shear component due to arch action of the prestressing force in a typical test beam

Fig. 4: Example 2 for shear component due to arch action at a test beam

While the arch or strut action of the compressive stresses equivalent to P is usually neglected in design, the effects of curved tendons are taken into account. In
shear tests however, the strut action is measured as part of the shear capacity
obtained from the test.

SHEAR TESTS ON P. C. BEAMS

Some typical p. c. beams where tested in Leipzig as part of the preparation for the
first HPC-bridges in Germany [1], [4]. Fig. 5 shows the test layout and the main
test data are given in table 1. The prestressing P/Ac varied between 4 MPa and 12
MPa. The crack patterns of all beams however, do not show any major influence
as expected by calculating the compressive zone depth from the bending moments along the shear spans.

291

LACER No. 7, 2002

Fig. 5:

Test layout of the HPC-beams tested by Zink in Leipzig

Table 1: Test data of shear tests [1], [4]

beam
SV-1
SV-2
SV-3
SV-4
SV-5
SV-6

fck

dp2

a/d

ltot

Ac

MPa

cm

cm

cm

cm

94
111
84
98
94
100

80.0
40.0
80.0
40.0
80.0
40.0

35.0
17.5
35.0
35.0
35.0
23.0

74.8
35.0
74.8
34.5
73.3
34.5

30.0
15.0
30.0
15.0
30.0
15.0

3.48
3.50
3.48
3.55
3.55
3.55

2.600
1.225
2.600
1.225
2.600
1.225

7.20
3.45
7.20
3.45
7.20
3.45

8.70
4.65
8.70
4.65
9.00
4.65

0.280
0.070
0.280
0.140
0.280
0.092

duct

P/Ac

Ap1
Ap2

p2

As

s+p2

Vsr

Vu

mm

MPa

cm

cm

kN

kN

5.6
1.4
11.2
5.6
16.8
5.6

0.214
0.229
0.428
0.464
0.655
0.706

8.04
12.56
6.03
19.63
4.02
6.28

0.51
2.26
0.63
2.06
0.76
1.45

356
137
542
282
721
246

490
177
717
506
328

posttensioning
type
SV-1
SV-2
SV-3
SV-4
SV-5
SV-6

2 x B+B L 4
2 x B+B L 1
4 x B+B L 4
2 x B+B L 4
2 x B+B L 12
2 x B+B L 4

45/51 3.9
21/26 3.9
45/51 7.8
45/51 7.8
70/77 11.5
45/51 11.5

292

Influence of Prestressing Forces on the Shear Capacity Part 1

Beams without Shear Reinforcement

Fig. 6:

Crack pattern of the p. c. beams with a total depth of 0.80 m

Fig. 7:

Crack pattern of the p. c. beams with a total depth of 0.40 m

In fig. 6 and 7 the concrete stresses related to the ideal strut action are marked as
well as the arch lines. The crack pattern show clearly a deviation of those
cracktips, that start to interfere the strut action. It is evident that any crack growth
293

LACER No. 7, 2002

hurting the strut geometry of the load level V = V must lead to a partial redistribution of the shear force carried by the strut. The redistribution causes shear
stresses in the web and loads the shear carrying mechanisms of r. c. beams. Fig. 8
shows the principal impact of shear forces exceeding the ideal strut capacity V.
The dots mark the crack pattern reached at V = V in fig. 3.

Fig. 8:

Loading the web in shear at forces V > V (see fig. 3)

For typical test beams with a/d ratios around 3.0 and a prestressing in the range of
the tensile strength P/Ac fct, the shear force carried by strut action can reach the
shear capacity of the equivalent non prestressed beam. A complete redistribution
of the strut action is therefore not possible. An instable crack growth is then observed in the test separating the tensile chord from the struts. This instable cracking load Vsr (table 1) is equivalent to the shear capacity VR,ct of beams without
shear reinforcement.

CONSEQUENCES FOR TEST EVALUATION AND DESIGN

The strut action V from eq. (4) can be understood as basic shear force balanced
by the prestressing force. If the shear capacity is evaluated by adding the first
(r. c.) part of equation (2) an overestimation must be observed. The first (r. c.)
part of eq. (2) describes the shear capacity of the compressive zone in a cracked
beam with initial crack angles around 70 up to 80 to the beam axis. In p. c.
beams the crack formation starts at a much higher load level. The strut action is
completely active when the first bending cracks start to grow into the struts of the
load level V = V. As described before, the strut action V must be redistributed
294

Influence of Prestressing Forces on the Shear Capacity Part 1

Beams without Shear Reinforcement
during the further crack formation. A complete superposition of V with the mean
value VRm,ct of the flexural shear capacity of an r. c. beam with the same tension
chord rigidity must lead to an overestimation. The evaluation of test results
shows, that about 70 % of VRm,ct(P = 0) plus V gives good results for the mean
value of the flexural shear capacity of p. c. beams with moderate slenderness 3
a/d 5. For higher slenderness ratios there is no significant impact of the
prestressing force on the flexural shear capacity. The strut action V is small
enough to enable a complete redistribution into the compressive zone with parallel chord action as described earlier by Zink [3], [4].
The tests proof further, that the strut action must be included in the test evaluation. Calculating any empirical design formula without including the arch action
must lead to unsafe results for beams with higher slenderness as the average value
in test data. Beside the slenderness there are some other specific test conditions
that are not typical for real structures. In most shear tests on p. c. beams without
shear reinforcement a straight alignment of the tendons or strands is preferred.
Tensile forces at the upper end are small and sometimes covered with additional
minimum reinforcement. In real beams however, the tendons are usually curved
and end anchorages are often near the centre line. The positive effect of the deviation forces along the curved tendon are usually taken into account in the design
procedure. The remaining strut action of the prestressing force P in real members
can therefore be significantly smaller than in typical test beams, even if a moderate slenderness a/d is ensured. Comparing fig. 9 with fig. 3 or 4 makes the difference obvious.

Fig. 9: Example for minor strut action in a typical p. c. member

295

LACER No. 7, 2002

Therefore the empirically based formulations for the influence of the prestressing
force on the flexural shear capacity as shown e. g. in eq. (2) must be treated with
care. The positive impact of the prestressing forces should be neglected especially
in slender members or in cases where the anchorages are elevated as shown in
fig. (9).

CONCLUSION

The flexural shear capacity of prestressed concrete members is dominated by the

strut action of the prestressing force in the compressive zone. The shear force
carried by this strut action is depending strongly on the a/d-ratio and decreases
significantly in long shear spans. The strut action is also depending on the tendon
geometry. Elevated anchorages at the supports as often used in practice lead to a
decrease of strut action. Simplified shear design methods using an empirical approach without strut action should therefore be applied very carefully. For slender
beams the flexural shear capacity of the equivalent r. c. member gives a reasonable design approach.

REFERENCES

[1] Bernhardt, K., Brameshuber W. and Zink, M.: Prestressed High-Performance

Concrete in German Bridge Engineering First Application in the Pilot Project Sasbach. LACER No. 3 (1998), pp. 275-291, University of Leipzig 1998
[2] DIN 1045-1: Croncrete, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Structures
Part 1: Design (in German). issue 07/2001 with supplement 07/2002.
[3] Zink, M.: Diagonal Shear Cracking in Slender Concrete Beams. LACER
No. 5 (2000), pp. 305-332, University of Leipzig 2000
[4] Zink, M.: Zum Biegeschubversagen schlanker Bauteile aus Hochleistungsbeton mit und ohne Vorspannung (Flexural Shear Failure of Slender
HSC-Beams with and without Prestressing). Doctor thesis, University of
Leipzig 1999. B. G. Teubner. Leipzig 2000

296