ACI JOURNAL
Title no. 79-45
Shear Strength of Pipe, Box Sections, and Other One-Way
Flexural Members
by Frank J. Heger and Timothy J. McGrath
New semiempirical equations for determining the shear strength of
one-way flexural members are presented, together with comparisons
nith test results and with equations in various codes. The shear
strength equations presented in this paper include the steel reinforce-
ment ratio e and the ratio of shear span to depth of member M/Yd
as major variables. They also include consideration of effects of cur-
vature, and they provide a much more accurare determination of the
shear strength of buried pipe, buried box sections, or pipe under
three-edge bearing test load than other methods. such as equations
in the ACI Building Code or the AASHTO Bridge Specification.
They show that shear strength of buried pipe and box sections is
about 50 percent higher than strengths obtained by the current Code
equations, while shear strength in a three-edge bearing test is about
75 to o'er 100 percent of the strength given by the Code equations.
The proposed equations also give more accurate shear strengths for
other one-way flexural members such as footings and heavily loaded
slabs.
Kc~"ords: concrete pipes: culverts: diagonal tension: flexural strength; precast
concrete; reinforced concrete; sewers; shear strength: standards; structural de-
si~n.
Over the past decade, the American Concrete Pipe
Association (ACP A) has sponsored research to develop
a rational direct design method for buried precast rein-
forced concrete pipe that accounts for the expected be-
havior of the pipe-soil system. The objective of one
phase of this research effort has been to develop meth-
ods for predicting the strength of reinforced concrete
pipe under various distributions of applied loads. The
recent introduction of ASTM standards for the man-
ufacture of precast concrete box sections' has added
this type of buried structure to the research program.
Typically, concrete pipe and box sections are buried
with earth covers ranging from zero to 40 ft (12 m) or
more. Occasionally, such components are installed
with very deep earth covers, up to 300 ft (90 m). Tra-
ditionally, the concrete pipe industry has used the
three-edge bearing test strength of pipe as a measure
of the adequacy of various pipe designs for buried in-
stallations. This approach was developed in the 1920s
and 30s, based on research at Iowa State University,
and has provided an enviable record of successful de-
sign over the years. However, advances in our under-
standing of the behavior of reinforced concrete flexural
470
TECHNICAL PAPER
members and of soil-structure interaction now permit
accurate analysis of the in-ground behavior of buried
pipe and box sections, allowing the direct design of
such structures. This provides substantial economies in
pipe materials for properly controlled buried conduit
installations. In developing this direct design approach,
existing methods for determining the shear strength of
flexural members without shear reinforcement, such as
the strength equations given in Chapter 11 of ACI 318'
and in paragraph 1.5.35 of the AASHTO Bridge Spec-
ification,' were found inadequate for predicting the
shear strength of deeply buried pipe and box sections.
The revisions in the shear provisions of ACI 318 pro-
posed in 1977 by the joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426
on shear and torsion'' were also found inadequate for
design of these buried structures.
Research significance
The need for a more accurate determination of the
shear strength of buried pipe and box sections led to
the extensive evaluation of previous test data and the
development of new test data, and to the use of this
information to develop a new method for determining
the shear strength of one-way flexural members (pipe,
box sections, one-way slabs, joists, or beams) without
shear reinforcement. Design equations for shear
strength of the above types of one-way flexural mem-
bers are presented in this paper. Further discussion of
the significance of the new method is given below in
"Discussion" and "Cone! usions."
PREVIOUS TEST RESULTS FOR SHEAR
STRENGTH
The results of a number of test programs relative to
the shear strength of pipe in three-edge bearing tests,
simply supported slabs and beams, box sections, and
Received February 17, 1982, and reviewed under Institute publication poli-
cies. Copyright rc; 1982, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, in-
cluding the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyrigllt
proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the September-October
1983 ACI JouRNAL is received by June I, 1983.002-8061/82/06 0470-14 $2.50.
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982

f'rank J. Heger, FACI, is a senior principal ac Simpson Gumpercz & Heger
Inc., Consulting Engineers in Cambridge, Mass. and San Francisco, Calif. He
is Chairman of A Cl Commiccee 344, Circular Prescressed Concrece Scruccures,
a member of ACI-ASCE Commiccee 445, Shear and Torsion, and Vice Chair-
man of Subcommircee C 13.07 of ASTM Committee C 13 on Precasc Concrece
Pipe. Dr. Heger's research has resulced in new design methods for buried con-
erece pipe and box seccions and buried plascic ranks as well as praccical mer h-
ods for determining che stabilicy of concrece dome shells and the seismic re-
sislance of prestressed concrete tanks.
Timothy J. McGrath is a senior scaff engineer ac Simpson Gumperrz & Heger
Inc., Consulcing Engineers in Cambridge, Mass., where he has been conducc-
ing applied research on che struccural behavior of reinforced concrece pipe,
box seccions, and plastic pipe. He received a BS from Norcheascern University
in 1973 and a SM in civil engineering from M.l. T. in 1975. He has authored
several papers on scrucrural design of reinforced concrece pipe and plascic pipe.
frames simulating box sections are available in the lit-
erature. Data from 364 individual tests of the above
types of flexural components that failed in shear were
analyzed to determine significant variables that affect
shear strength. The results of this analysis were used,
either for the development of semiempirical constants
in proposed shear strength equations, or for evaluating
the validity of the proposed equations. The following
test results were evaluated:
Pipe three-edge bearing and curved beam tests. A to-
tal of 195 such tests from References 7-11 were ana-
lyzed. The range of variables included:
diameter: 48 to 114 in. (1219 to 2895 mm)
reinforcing type: welded smooth and deformed wire
fabric, hot rolled deformed bars, and cold drawn wire
M/Vd ratio at point of load application ::::: 3.5
steel reinforcement ratio: Q = 0.003 to 0.021
concrete strength: (' = 2200 to 8100 psi (15.2 to 55.8
MPa)
Box section four-edge bearing tests. A total of 8 pre-
cast box section tests from Reference 12 were analyzed.
The range of variables included:
box dimensions (span x height): 48 x 48 in., 72 x 48
in., and 96 x 48 in. (1219 x 1219, 1829 x 1219, and
2438 x 1219 mm)
M/Vd at point of load application :::: 3.0
steel reinforcement ratio: Q = 0.003 to 0.007
concrete strength: (' = 4800 to 7700 psi (33 .1 to 53.1
MPa)
Beams and frames. A total of 161 test results on
beams that failed in shear, published in References 13-
17, were analyzed. The range of variables included:
structural types: beams and frames
loading types: uniformly distributed and concen-
trated transverse loads, without axial load, and com-
bined with compressive and tensile axial loads
M/Vd at point of load application ::::: 1.0 to 7.9
steel reinforcement ratio: Q = 0.003 to 0.04
concrete strength: (' = 1500 to 8000 psi (10.3 to 55.2
MPa)
Test results on beams and frames with uniformly
distributed loads were used to evaluate the proposed
design equations; they were not used to obtain the
lished in Reference 20. See Reference 6 for tables giv-
ing summaries of relevant test data from each of the
above sources, except Reference 20.
TEST PROGRAM FOR SHEAR STRENGTH
Our analysis of previous tests showed that the re-
inforcement ratio Q = A/bd and the ratio of moment
to shear times depth M/Vd both have a significant in-
fluence on shear strength that is not adequately rec-
ognized in existing design standards. This analysis also
showed that the increase in shear strength provided by
compressive thrust forces is not adequately recognized
in existing design standards. To obtain further test data
relative to these important variables, 48 simply sup-
ported slabs were tested to failure in shear, or in flex-
ure under high shear, to investigate the following var-
iables:
thrust to shear ratio: N/V = 0 to 2.4
moment to shear ratio: M/Vd:::: 2.1 and 3.1. For
tests with concentrated loads, the M/Vd ratio at the
centerline of load application is defined in this paper
as the governing ratio
reinforcement ratio: Q = 0.006, 0.009, 0.012
All of the slabs were designed to have the same di-
mensions and concrete strengths. Straight members
were selected instead of curved members to avoid the
simultaneous application of radial shear and tension
stresses. These slab tests were designed to be used in
conjunction with the extensive available results for
three-edge bearing test strength of pipe and four-edge
bearing test strength of box sections cited above. A de-
scription of the test specimens and test procedure is
given in Reference 6, together with a table of test re-
sults. The slab widths were 36 in. (914 mm) so that
they would be considered "wide beams" as defined in
Reference 4.
PROPOSED DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR SHEAR
STRENGTH OF PIPE, BOX SECTIONS, SLABS,
AND JOISTS WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCE-
MENT
Based on our extensive analysis of both the above
described existing tests and our new test results, the
following design procedure was developed for predict-
ing the ultimate shear strength of flexural members
without shear reinforcing. The types of analyses used
to evaluate the form of the proposed equations are de-
scribed in Reference 6 and summarized below. Strength
predictions using the proposed method are later com-
pared with the above described test results.
Shear strength design procedure - 1. Basic
shear strength
(1.1 + 60Q) vr:..;; 2.3 VT.'* (1)

semiempirical constants in these equations. Also, the

proposed design method was further evaluated by ana-
max (' = 7000 psi (48. MPa) (2)
lyzing 100 additional beams without web reinforcement
*If Sl units are used, multiply vi'i by 0.083 in all equations that contain
that failed in shear under concentrated load, as pub- VlZ. See Notation for definition of symbols.

ACl JOU ANAL I November-December 1982 471

 v,. is the nominal basic shear strength at sections
where MIV~d ~ 3.0. This is the lowest shear strength
at any location in a member with a constant Q and bd.
v,. is related to the maximum shear force that can be
applied at sections where M/V~d ~ 3.0 by
(3)
where capacity reduction factor for shear as
defined in ACI 318, or other design
standard
FN is a thrust factor. When N, is compressive (i.e.,+)
Once determined, F0 , may be applied to other pipe
built by the same process and with the same materials.
Fp, = 1.0 gives predicted three-edge bearing test
strengths in reasonably good agreement with pipe in-
dustry experience, as reflected in the pipe designs for
Class 4 strengths given in ASTM C 76, "Specification
for Reinforced Concrete Culvert, Storm Drain, and
Sewer Pipe." Thus, it is appropriate to use Fp, = 1.0
for pipe manufactured by most combinations of pro-
cess and local materials. Available three-edge bearing
test data show minimum values for F,,. of about 0. 9,
for poor quality materials and/or processes, as well as
possible increases up to about 1.1, or more, with some
combinations of high quality materials and manufac-
turing process.

N, 2. Compare basic shear strength with factored

F:., = 1.0- 0.12 ~ 0.75 (4) shear force
V,
No further consideration of shear strength is re-
When N, is tensile (i.e., -), use the following equa- quired if
tion up to N/ V, = -1.0 ~V,. ~max V, (10)

N, However, if ~ V,. is less than the maximum V,, the

FN = 1.0 - 0.24 (5)
V,, following additional investigation may indicate that the
shear strength of the member still is adequate to resist
F, is a curvature and crack depth factor for pipe and V,. In many members subject to distributed loads, the
= 1.0 for straight members critical shear section is not at the section where V, is
maximum, but at the section where MIV~d = 3.0. In
when moment pro- such members, max V, near supports can be substan-
tially greater than ~ V,.. If additional investigation is re-
F: (1 +d- ) -I- duces
inside
tension
of a pipe
on the
(radial
(6) quired, proceed as per Steps 3 and 4 below.
2r,, F"F",
tension curvature)
3. Locate sections where M/V~d = 3.0 and de-
when moment pro- termine applied shear force v. at such sections
duces tension on the For members that carry distributed loadings, the
F: (I - d) -I- outside of a pipe (ra- (7) governing section for shear strength usually occurs at
2r,, F,,F,,. dial compression cur- sections where M/V~ d = 3 .0. For many structures this
vature) is not at the section where the maximum shear force
occurs. This is true for buried pipe, buried box sections
with corner haunches (ASTM C 789 geometry), simply
F" is a crack depth factor that is described below supported slabs, joists, and beams with uniformly dis-
tributed load, and for some restrained slabs, joists, and
beams with uniformly distributed load, especially if
F" = ( 0.8 + 1.6)d ,; ; 1.25 (8) end moments are small, or if members with high end
moment have haunches (increased depth or width), or
The term Fp, is a factor used to reflect the variations
shear reinforcement over a short end zone where both
that local materials and manufacturing processes can
shear and moment are high.
have on the tensile strength of concrete. Experience in
The section where M/V~d = 3.0 may be located by
the precast concrete pipe industry has shown that such
investigating the shear and moment diagram for a
variations are significant. F0 , may be determined with
member. For straight members with uniformly distrib-
Eq. (9) (below) when a manufacturer has a sufficient
uted load, either with or without end moments, the
amount of test data on pipe that fail in diagonal ten-
section where M/V~d = 3.0 in the positive moment re-
sion to determine a statistically valid test strength
gion is located at a distance x,, from the centerline of
DL,d,, using the criteria in ASTM C 655, "Specifica-
the span between inflection points e, (i.e., locations of
tions for Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert, Storm
zero moment), where x,/e, is calculated as follows
Drain, and Sewer Pipe."

(I + d/2rm) (DL,d, + II Wp/ S)S (II)

(9)
293Fd (1.1 + 60Q)d V7:
472 ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982
 2M Moment Coeffu.:ient (c
m
) strength when MIVtd < 3.0 is termed the general shear
c m"Wfc
0.083 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.25 (simple span)
strength v. and is given in the next step.
)()

4. Determine general shear strength for sections

with M/Vtd < 3.0
25

(15)
(MIVtd + 1)
20
l
Od
If MIVtd ~ 3.0, use MIVtd = 3.0 in Eq.(IS). V,
15
shall be determined based on MIVtd at the face of
supports in restrained end flexural members and at the
edges of concentrated loads.
10
5. Additional considerations
Distributed loads within a distance d from supports
may be disregarded in determining V" at a support
face.
V, may not exceed the ultimate shear produced at
critical shear sections by the factored load which de-
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 velops the maximum flexural strength at any section.
x de
-1-
Furthermore, flexural strength should not be based on
f, > 65,000 psi (448 MPa). Thus
Fig. 1 - Location of critical shear section for straight
members with uniformly distributed load (16)

6. Variation of shear strength and applied shear

This location sometimes may be more readily cal-
culated as a nondimensional ratio of the total span
length x",le from the point of maximum positive mo-
ment, with the following equation
where
2M,
c, = (13)
we
Fig. 1 is a plot of the variation of x"Je with Utd for
typical values of c, and symmetrical conditions of end
restraint.
The applied shear force V" at the point x,~.Je (also x"J
n is
(14)
For beams with end moment, MIVtd should also be
determined at a critical shear section at the face of the
support. If MIVt d ~ 3 .0, use Eq. ( 1) to determine
shear strength at this location. If MIVtd < 3.0, the
shear strength at this location will be increased as given
in the next step.
For members with concentrated loads, shear strength
will be greater than Vb when MIVtd < 3.0 at critical
sections either at the edge of the load application
point, or at the face of supports. The increased shear
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982
force in members with uniformly distributed
load
Eq. (IS) shows that the shear strength of a member
varies along its length wherever MIVtd.;;; 3.0, since the
quantity MIVtd varies along member length. For
members with distributed loads, the applied ultimate
shear force also varies along member length. Fig. 2 and
3 show the variation of both shear strength (Eq. 15)
and applied shear force for two test beams with uni-
formly distributed load. These are described in greater
detail later. For simply supported members under uni-
form load, the critical se~tion that governs member
shear strength is always the section where MIVtd =
3.0. This is usually also true for many other members
subject to distributed loads, whenever MIVtd ratios at
restrained ends are not too high.
DEVELOPMENT OF SHEAR STRENGTH
EQUATIONS
Except for the curvature factor F... and the crack
depth and process factors Fd and f;, that have been pro-
posed above for curved members, the variables in Eq.
1, 3, and 15 have been suggested as significant param-
eters affecting the shear strength of flexural members
by many previous researchers, as well as in ACI Code
equations and various proposed code equations. In the
present investigation, however, analyses of extensive
data on the shear strength of pipe, box sections, and
slabs under combined axial and flexural loading have
shed new light on the interrelationship of these vari-
ables. The variables M/Vd, Q, and N/V all are shown
to have a much stronger influence on shear strength
than given by current code equations.'' The approach
473
 10

BEAM DATA:

General Concrete Shear Strength

0.0101
t 3,860 psi (26.6 MPo)
c
1 88 in. (2,235 mm)
Test Ultimate Shear 9.94 in. (252 mm)
6.0 in. ( 152 mm)

Predicted Ultimate Shear

CRITICAL SHEAR:

~Xd/1 0.24
1.71
VTESTI-{fj 1.96
I -....::: vPREDi-{f;; 1.71
I --~ vn:sT/vPRED 1.15
I ""
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

DISTANCE ALONG BEAM x/1

Fig. 2 - Variation in shear strength and shear force in a simply supported beam
under unilormly distributed load

10

Inflection Point

FRAME DATA:
v
Max _c_ = 4.5/FN
0 pas = 0.0101
-Jic' 0 neg = 0.0067
f' 3,990 psi (27.5 MPo)
Test Ultimate Shear c
1 82 in. (2,083 mm)
r General Concrete Shear
10.0 in. (254 mm)
1 Strength. Vc 6.0 in. (152 mm)
Predicted Ultimate Shear

CRITICAL SHEAR:
'~.~

(~
@ 'd/1 0.32
Centerline of
Support VTESTI-.[1;- 2.85
d From Face of I ' , '-..._ vPREDi-{f;; 2.24
Face of of Support 1 , "'-.. vTEST/vPREO 1 27
Support I '
''\.
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 o.s
DISTANCE ALONG BEAM x.J! ,

Fig. 3 - Variation in shear strength and shear force in a frame under uniformly
distributed load

used to develop the relationship of variables given by
Eq. (I), (3), and (IS) is described in detail in Reference
6 and summarized below.
Thrust factor
The effect of axial load was investigated by deter-
mining a thrust factor FN that relates the shear strength
of a reinforced concrete flexural member also subject
to axial load to the shear strength of the same member
without axial load. A trial expression for FN first sug-
gested by Parmelee'"
F:v = 0.5 +jo.25 + U"v)' - :V
474
was evaluated by comparing the test ratios FN, with the
theoretical value of FN given by Eq. ( 17) for the slab
tests described in Reference 6. FN, is the ratio of the
test shear strength of flexural members without axial
load to the test shear strength of companion members
with various levels of axial load.
Fig. 4 is a plot of the thrust modified test shear
strength v"' FNVl: as ordinate versus the test shear
strength of similar companion specimens without
thrust vjVl7 as abscissa. The test results should lie
on a 45 deg line when FN, = FN, and the clustering of
the test results along this line in the figure shows that
(17)
the proposed Eq. (17) adequately accounts for the ef-
fects of the thrust-to-shear ratios in these tests. Thus,
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982
 ~:
Thrust (psO
Regression line
95
190
El
285
/
Tests with
thrust
v~t F
-FJ N
~0.25 WJ -(6~)
2 Simplified Expression for FN
FN = 0.5 + +
Note: 1000 psi = 6.89 M Po
Tests without thrust vet
~
Fig. 4 - Evaluation of thrust factor F, for slab tests
Eq. (17) can be used to account for the effect of axial
thrust on shear strength. However, Eq. (4) and (5),
given earlier for thrust factor, were developed as sim-
plifications for use in design. This is illustrated in Fig.
5. Values of thrust factor above the solid curved line
are conservative approximations of Fw Once the thrust
factor was established, the test shear strengths of all
specimens with axial load' were modified by the thrust
factor FN to obtain modified test strengths for analysis
of the other major variables that affect shear strength.
This is described later.
Curvature factor
The curvature factors F. given by Eq. 6 and 7 were
developed to account for the increase, or decrease, in
shear stress that occurs in a curved flexural member
because thrust, as well as moment, changes along the
length of the member. This produces increases, or de-
creases, in the theoretical maximum shear stress in a
curved, cracked, reinforced concrete flexural member,
compared to the shear stress in a straight cracked flex-
ural member, as given by the conventional shear stress
equation
v loaded by the "horizontal" shear force between the
v=
bd
The curvature effect on shear strength was investi-
gated by the senior author in an earlier study and re-
ported in Reference 19. See Reference 6 for the deri-
vation of Eq. (6) and (7).
The curvature factor also includes a crack depth fac-
tor Fd that is explained below, and a plant process and
local materials factor Fp, that can account for varia-
tions in the ratio of diagonal tensile strength to VT'
of concrete due to pipe manufacturing process and lo-
cal materials characteristics. If no value is established
for f;,., the minimum value of Fp, = 0.9 may be used
for design.
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982
Y/ / 1.2
/
/
/ ~-Simplified Thrust Foetor
~~
~
~
0.8
0.6
FN 1.0 - 0.14~ -2.0 < ~ ~ 0
0.4
1-lote: "egotive N/V 1.0 -o.12~ ~ u.7s o.o<~
Katio indicates
axial tension
0.2
-2 -1
Thrust to Shear Ratio (N/V)
Fig. 5 - Variation of thrust factor with N/V ratio
Crack depth factor
The crack depth factor F,, was developed based on
an analysis of ultimate strength test data for a large
number of three-edge bearing test pipe specimens with
various effective depths to the tensile reinforcement d
that failed in shear. Also, the much larger general ex-
perience of the pipe industry, accumulated from many
years of testing, is that small diameter pipe, having
wall thicknesses that are decreased in proportion to di-
ameter, have significantly greater nominal shear
strength v = V Ibid than larger pipe. This increase in
shear strength with decrease in member depth probably
occurs because in members with flexural cracks, shear
between tensile reinforcement and surrounding con-
crete produces secondary flexural tension stresses in
segments of concrete between flexural cracks. In effect,
the uncracked block between flexural cracks acts as a
"tooth," cantilevering from the neutral axis and
(18)
flexural cracks.' This shear force equals the difference
in reinforcement tension at two adjacent cracks as mo-
ment and thrust vary along the member axis. When
crack depth is reduced relative to crack spacing in thin
wall members, secondary flexural tension caused by
bending of the "teeth" is reduced at the root of the
flexural cracks compared to thicker members.
An effective depth d = 8 in. (203 mm) is arbitrarily
selected to give Fd = 1.0 in Eq. 8. This depth is used
because most of the pipe test specimens had d in the
range of 5 to 10 in. (127 to 254 mm). When dis greater
than 10 to 12 in. (254 to 305 mm), only a slight further
decrease in Fd results. The analysis that led to the sug-
gestion of Eq. (8) for Fd is summarized in Fig. 6.
475
 2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Fd
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
Fd
0.2
Noh>: I in. = 25.4
Fig. 6 - Analysis of size effect on diagonal tension strength of pipe
The nominal shear stress at failure was also found
to reduce with increasing depth of section in the ex-
tensive investigation of the shear strength of beams re-
ported in Reference 20. In view of this additional data,
the factor F,, can probably be applied to the shear
strength of straight members as well as to pipe.
Reinforcement and M/Vd ratios
The variables (A+ BQ) and M/Vd were investigated
by systematically plotting the nondimensionalized test
shear strength vjVf7, modified by some form of
M/Vd, versus the steel reinforcement ratio Q for var-
ious groups of tests. The following multipliers of
vjVf7 were considered:
1. M/Vd not considered as a variable
2. M/Vd
3. M/Vd raised to various fractional or integral
powers
4. M/Vd + 1)
In addition, data were evaluated based on Q" instead of
Q.
The best correlation was obtained using (M/Vd + 1)
as a multiplier of vjvr:' to obtain Eq. (15), the pro-
posed general design equation for shear. However, a
study of the test results for members with M/Vd ratios
above about 3 shows no significant influence of M/Vd
in this high range, leading to the suggested maximum
M/Vd ratio of 3.0 in Eq. (15). Eq. (I) for basic shear
strength is then obtained by substituting M/Vd = 3.0
in Eq. (15). The basic shear strength is a lower limit
of shear strength in flexurally cracked reinforced con-
crete members whose shear strength is governed by
combined flexure and shear.
476
X
X
X
X X
X
X " X
IC
X "x
X
" ~
~ xX
X
xxxx
'kl<Xjf X
X
" X
" ""
" )C
M
v ctr[tc ( Vd I) 1
(1.1 + 60 p) --4-- = 0.8 + ~
'11m
d- (ln.)
The investigations of variables also confirmed that
the type of variable for reinforcement ratio (A + BQ)
recommended by the joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426
report is valid, although different values were ob-
tained for the coefficients A and B, since the Com-
mittee 426 proposal did not include any correction for
M/Vd. The equation proposed in Reference 4 signifi-
cantly overestimates the effect of Q on shear strength
in the range from Q = 0.005 to 0.015. Values of Q in
this range are common in pipe, box sections, joists,
and one-way slabs.
The predicted shear strength of various test speci-
mens obtained using the proposed design method is
compared with test shear strengths in the next section.
Plots for some of the other relationships of variables
investigated in the preliminary analysis are given in
Reference 6.
COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND TEST
RESULTS
In Fig. 7 to 11, test shear strengths for members with
concentrated loads - slabs (with and without axial
force), pipe and various beams and frames - are com-
pared with shear strengths predicted using Eq. (15) and
the measured dimensions and concrete strengths. The
plots of test strengths are based on the value of M/Vd
at the section located at the concentrated load, or at
the face of the support, whichever location has the
larger shear force and/or M/Vd ratio. The test shear
strength v,, is the nominal shear stress given by Eq. 18
when V = V,,, where V,, is the test shear force at the
critical section when the first diagonal crack is ob-
served in the concrete. For some test specimens, higher
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982
loads were supported prior to total collapse. However,
the strength of a member without shear reinforcement
after a diagonal crack has appeared is too variable to
consider for design, and the occurrence of diagonal
cracking is considered as shear failure in this investi-
gation.
The term v,,FNFJMIVd + l)/4v'(' is plotted versus
the steel reinforcement ratio Q in Fig. 7 to 10 to show
the importance of steel ratio as a variable for members
with Q ~ 0.02. The great majority of pipe, box sec-
tions, one-way slabs, and joists whose strength may be
governed by shear have steel ratios well below 0.02,
indicating the need to account for steel ratio when de-
termining shear strength. Also, the need for stirrup re-
inforcement in these types of members sometimes can
be avoided by increasing the amount of flexural rein-
forcement to obtain an increased shear strength.
The extensive series of beam tests reported in Ref-
erence 20 is plotted separately from other tests, in Fig.
10, because these tests represent an integrated program
designed to systematically evaluate the variables (', Q,
and M/Vd. The same tests are plotted again in Fig. II

KEY:

o slob M/Vd "' 2.0

*C box
slob M/Vd 3.0 <::
culvert, M/Vd "' 3.0

11.-'Z p = 0.02
G
f.l
G

Proposed Design Equation v ct = ( 1.1 + 60 p) ~c

N
( -i !)+

0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035

STEEL RATIO

Fig. 7 - Comparison of test data for slabs and box culverts under concentrated
loads with proposed design equatiod"

KEY:

IZI d < 4.5

*x;; 4.5 < d < 5.5
5.5 < d < 6.5
+ 6.5 < d < 1.5
0 7.5 < d < 8.5
5 8.5 3 d

"
"' I
:s \_ Best Fit Equation:

vet= (1.3 + .Jfc

60 p) FNFC (4)
-M-
Vd
+I
Proposed Design Equation:

F pv = 0.9
vet = (1.1 + ..Ire N
60 p) F::l":'C (4)
-M--
w I

0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035

STEEL RATIO p

Fig. 8 - Comparison of' test data for pipe in three-edge bearing tests with pro-
posed design equation"

ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982 477

 KEY:
T ~d ( 1.0

;><. 1.0~~ (2.0

....
0 2.0 ~~ ( 3.0
-:- 3.0.:;_~

I? ....
(;'

.. li<
(j * (
~
X
.,.
*X
;P
.. X
' . X
X i. .~ X
X y l J"J
i~
x-: 'I )<
X X

\_* P:o~ed Design Equation vct=(l.l +60

I
'.ftc
r (~
N
4 )
wl'

0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 O.Q35

STEEL RATIO p

Fig. 9 - Comparison of test data for beams and frames under concentrated loads
with proposed design equation''"

7.0
Key:
Concrete Beam
Strength lfC:,. psi) Depth (h, in.)
6.0 2500 0 6
+ 3800 0 12
X 5000 c. 24
0 48
-<> 6 (T Beams)
5.0

4.0

...~.
lo- ~
...
3.0 ~ rL p = 0.02 ~'
ojoe I ~&
(' I '

2.0
' --~"-.,.$,_-----
{--------- I
,,--"- Pm~r
Proposed Design Equation
'
vet = ( 1.1 + 60p) T:-
~ 4
1 N M/Vd +I
I.
I

Note: 1000 psi = 6.89 M Po, I in. = 25.4 mm

'-----.----r
0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 O.D25 0.030 0.035

Fig. 10- Comparison of Kani test data for beams under concentrated loads with
proposed design equation"'

with M/Vd instead of Q as abscissa and V.,! Vh as or-
dinate. This plot shows the increase in shear strength
that occurs when M/Vd < 3.0. None of the data shown
in Fig. 10 and II were used in developing the proposed
shear strength equations since the authors only recently
obtained the data. The test series reported in Reference
20 also contains tests where depth of section was sys-
tematically varied. Results tend to confirm the reduc-
tion in shear strength with increasing depth, as given
by the depth factor Fd proposed for pipe [Eq. (8)], but
no depth factor has been included in the data analysis
shown in Fig. 10 and 11.
After Eq. (I) and (IS) were tentatively developed,
based on the tests of flexural members under concen-
trated loads producing various M/Vd ratios, they were
used to compare shear strength predictions with test
results for the extensive tests of beams and frames with
simulated uniformly distributed loads described in Ref-

478 ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982

 6.0 Key:
I Beam
Concrete
Strength (f ~ psi) Depth (h, in.)
2500 0 6
5.0 0 12
+ 3800
24
X 5000 "0 48
-<> 6 (T Beams)
4.0

vut \
Vb 3.0

2.0 i:"t
f

1.0

Note: I000 psi = 6.894 M Po, I in. = 25.4 mm

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 s.o 6.0 7.0 8.0

M/Vd

Fig. 11 - Comparison of shear strength and M/Vd ratio for beams under con-
centrated load'"

KEY:

)(. - beams
:!1 - frames

B
X
B

3
B X
~
8

vc 1<FtJ ~~+I) B
*
8 8 X
..jf.c 4
8

Proposed Design Equation

I
v cl = (1.1
I
+ 60 p) ~
N
(-J-)
w I

0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035

STEEL RATIO p

Fig. 12 - Comparison of test data for beams and frames under uniformly dis-
tributed load with proposed design equation"

erence 15. This comparison is given in Fig. 2 for a typ-
ical test of a simply supported beam and in Fig. 3 for
a typical test of a frame. Similar plots were made for
all simply supported uniformly loaded test beams and
all uniformly loaded test frames reported in Reference
15. These additional plots are provided in Reference 6.
A study of these plots confirms that the critical section
for shear strength is the section in the positive moment
region where M/Vd = 3.0. The only exceptions are
those test frames where either the negative M/Vd ratios
at the support face or the upper limit of shear
strength v, = 4.5 VT.'I FN at that point governs the shear
strength.
A summary plot of shear strength test results versus
reinforcement ratio Q, similar to the plots previously
described for the concentrated load tests, is given in
Fig. 12 for the test beams and frames with uniformly
distrubuted load. A plot of the proposed general shear
strength v,. = VJ bd, where V, is given by Eq. (15), is
also shown in the figure. The test shear strength v,, in

ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982 479

 Eq. (19) is also plotted in Fig. 13.
As described earlier in this paper, when locations of
5.0
Max. SGH - - - - - - - - - - , maximum shear and moment coincide, as at the ends
,.::q. 15 (SGH), M/Vd = 1.5 of restrained members with distributed loads and at
ol9:l F:q. 19 (SL.H)

Eq. ?.6, M/Vd : 1.0 ,\ 3.0

concentrated loads, a direct comparison between the
4.0 proposed Eq. ( 15) and other methods based on shear
strength at the point of maximum shear is valid. When
M/V~d ~ 3.0 at the section of maximum shear, Eq.
3.0 (1), which is plotted in Fig. 13, represents the proposed
shear strength at the section of maximum shear. When
M/V~d < 3.0 at this section, the more general Eq. (15)
should be used. A plot of the proposed shear strength
2.0
for a section of maximum shear where MIV~d = 1.5
is also given in Fig. 13. The effect of axial force or
M/Vd = 3.0
curvature is not included in any of the above plots of
1.0
[q. ?.2 (Comm. 426)
shear strength.
The following existing Code shear strength equations
.. 111n11nu-n p
and other proposed equations are also plotted in Fig .
13
0.002 0.005 0.0 I0 0.015 O.o20 0.021
1. Equations in References 2 and 3 for general rein-
STEELRATIO- p
forced concrete design

Fig. 13 - Comparison of shear strength equations at d from sup- ( 0)

2
port
or
this figure is the shear force at the critical section di- 2500 e
vided by bd. The critical section is either the section v, = 1.9 V7:' + ~----- M/Vd ~ 1.0 (21)
M/Vd'
where M/Vd = 3.0 in the positive moment region, or
the section at the support face. In the latter case, the
The latter equation is plotted for M/Vd = 1.0 and 3.0
uniformly distributed load over the distance d out from
and Vf.' = 5000 psi (34.5 MPa).
the support is disregarded in determining the applied 2. Equation proposed in 1977 by the joint ASCE-
shear force V, at the critical section at the support face. ACI Committee 426

COMPARISON WITH CODE OR OTHER

PROPOSED SHEAR STRENGTH EQUATIONS
(0.8 + 120 e) VT' ~ 2.3 V77
at d from support (22)
The basic shear strength vh is plotted in Fig. I3 along
with other currently used or proposed equations for
Although not included in the Committee's proposed
shear strength that are described later. The basic shear
ACI Code revisions, the following equation for the
strength v" represents the strength at a critical section shear strength of simply supported beams under uni-
where M/V~d ~ 3.0, and is the lowest shear strength
formly distributed load was suggested as a lower bound
of a reinforced concrete flexural member without shear of the shear strength of such beams'
reinforcement. In many flexural members with distrib-
uted loads, MIV~d = 3.0 does not occur at the section
of maximum applied shear force. For example, a typ- v, = (2.2 + 700 e : ) V7:' at d from support (23)
ical ASTM C 789 box section may have a ratio e/~d
= 9 and a critical section for shear located at 0.2I times
the inside span from the centerline of the span. where die is the ratio of effective depth to span length.
To obtain a valid comparison of shear strength given If e/d= 12, a typical value for a box section,' the shear
by various equations, the strengths given at the same strength becomes
section should be compared. With present Code meth-
ods, this section is usually taken by d from the support v, = (2.2 + 58e) VT: at d from support (24)
face. Thus, in the case of the above box section, the
strength given by Eq. (I) at the critical section should Eq. (24) is also plotted in Fig. 13.
be multiplied by the ratio of the applied shear at d 3. New (1981) equations in Reference 3 for buried
from the haunch tip to the applied maximum shear at box sections
the critical section, or about I .6. Thus, the strength at
a section a distance d from the tip of the haunch of 3.0 V7:' at d from support (25)
the above box section predicted by the method pro- or
posed in this paper is 4600 e
v, = 2.14 Vf7 + M/Vd ~ 3.5 Vf7

v, = 1.7 vh = (1.76 + 96 e) VT' (19) M/Vd ~ 1.0 (26)

480 ACI JOURNAL 1 November-December 1982
 The latter equation is plotted for M/Vd = 1.0 and
3 .0. No restrictions are placed on the magnitude of
corner moments, or on whether corner haunches are
required, when using Eq. (25).
4. CEB Equation'
v, = (1.0 + 50 e) VT.: at d from support (27)
Again, remember that direct comparisons of shear
strengths between the different methods cannot be
made, since for the equations that contain M/Vd as a
variable, the critical shear section may not be the sec-
tion with the maximum shear force. The simplified
shear strengths given by Eq. (20), (22-25) and (27) are
always to be compared with the shear stress at the sec-
tion of maximum shear. In the above methods, this
section is taken at a distance d from support faces. In
the SGH-ACPA method described in this paper, the
section at the distance d from the end of a member
will be the critical shear section only if the combination
of moment and shear at that section produces the low-
est ratio of ~ V/ V".
Lack of space precludes a comparative analysis of
the thrust factor F.~ with the thrust modifiers of shear
stress equations given in References 2, 3, and 4. The
proposed thrust factor is based on the ratio of thrust
to shear N/V, rather than the average compressive
stress, or the ratio of thrust to axial compressive
strength, that are used in those references. This makes
the magnitude of the thrust factor more directly related
to the change in principal tension stress associated with
the combined action of thrust and shear. Thus, the
proposed method is a more rational adjustment for
thrust. Furthermore, the same basic approach is ap-
plicable for low levels of tensile thrusts. The correla-
tion of the proposed equations for F" with the slab test
results given in Reference 6 that is shown in Fig. 5, as
well as a similar correlation with Mattock's tests," both
are very good.
DISCUSSION
The direct design of pipe and box sections requires
an accurate evaluation of the shear strength of mem-
bers with distributed earth pressure loads. These loads
often produce maximum shear and maximum moment
at different sections. Furthermore, most precast box
sections have haunches at corners, reducing the shear
stress at sections of maximum negative moment. The
shear strength of this type of structure is governed by
a critical section near the quarter point of the span and
is one and one half to two times the strength given by
ACI 318, and sometimes an even higher multiple of the
strength proposed by ACI-ASCE Committee 426. On
the other hand, the indirect design of pipe to meet
three-edge bearing test strengths, a widely used ap-
proach in current practice, requires an accurate eval-
uation of shear strength of members with concentrated
loads that produce maximum shear and moment at the
same location. The shear strength of this type of struc-
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982
ture is only 70 to 90 percent of the strength given by
ACI 318.
The existing ACI 318 shear strength equations [Eq.
(20) and (21)] greatly underestimate the shear strength
of buried pipe and box sections, because in these mem-
bers the critical section for shear strength occurs where
M/V~d = 3.0, and this section is not the section of
maximum ultimate applied shear force. The actual
shear strength of these structures is usually about 130
to 200 percent of the strength given by Eq. (20). Also,
Eq. (20) overestimates the shear strength of pipe in
three-edge bearing by 10 to 40 percent, because most
pipes have reinforcement ratios ewell below 0.015. Eq.
(I), proposed by the writers, and Eq. (22), proposed
by Reference 4, both show that the present ACI Eq.
(20) or (21) are unconservative for flexural members
with M/V~d ~ 3.0 at the section of maximum shear
(i.e., usually members with concentrated load) when e
< 0.01.
Eq. (19), (24), and (26) (with M/Vd = 1.0) all give
about the same shear strength for a typical buried sin-
gle cell box section with e = 0.01 to 0.015. This shear
strength is 140 to 160 percent of the shear strength
given by ACI 318. The greatly increased shear strength
indicated by these three methods for an earth-loaded
box section confirms the above finding that major re-
visions are needed to the shear strength design proce-
dure given in ACI 318 to achieve accurate and eco-
nomical design of the full range of structures encoun-
tered in design practice. The proposed shear equations
provide the needed flexibility to cover a wide range of
structures where shear reinforcement is impractical and
shear strength without such reinforcement is likely to
be a governing design parameter.
When the shear strength of T -beams or joists is gov-
erned by sections at monolithic supports where nega-
tive moment produces tension in the top flange, the
additional stiffness and tensile strength of the flange
concrete between flexural cracks probably acts like ad-
ditional reinforcement, and probably increases the
basic shear strength above the strength given by Eq.
(I). Tests of two-span continuous T -beams without
web reinforcement, subject to a uniformly distributed
load and proportioned to achieve M/Vd ~ 3.0 at the
faces of the center support, should be conducted to de-
velop a modification of Eq. (I) that reflects the poten-
tially higher strength of T -beams with flanges in ten-
sion. In the absence of such tests, the lower limit shear
strength of v, = 2.2 VT.:, as given in the present ACI
Code for joists, could be continued in use when the
critical shear section has a T -beam flange on the ten-
sion side.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The equations for shear strength of flexural mem-
bers without shear reinforcement that have been de-
veloped in Reference 6 for design of pipe and box sec-
tions also have general applicability to a wide range of
reinforced concrete flexural members. Analyses of tests
for a variety of member and loading types show that
481
the proposed equations provide a more accurate as-
sessment of shear strength than obtained with any of
the methods of current use'' as well as the methods
proposed by ASCE-ACI Committee 426.' The most
significant difference between the shear strength deter-
mination given in this paper and the other methods is
the concept that the critical section for shear strength
is located at a section that is also subject to substantial
moment, and often is not the section with maximum
shear stress. For members such as pipe, box sections,
and some joists that are designed for distributed loads,
the critical section for shear is the section where
MIV~d = 3.0. At this section, the applied shear stress
may be only 50 to 70 percent of the shear stress at the
maximum shear design section used in existing and
proposed code shear provisions.
Although the procedure suggested herein is some-
what more complex to apply than the simplified meth-
ods currently in the design codes, the additional com-
plexities are not great, and they are needed to obtain
practical designs over the range of loading and shear
strength conditions that occur in general design prac-
tice. Pipe may have to be designed for either concen-
trated test loads, where current design methods'' would
overestimate their shear strength, or for deeply buried
conditions where just the opposite is true. If equations
in References 2, 3, or 4 were applied to deeply buried
pipe, stirrup reinforcement would have to be added to
designs that have been successfully used for many years
with no shear reinforcement and few problems. Also,
when stirrup designs are based on current methods, the
stirrups may not be continued to locations of critical
shear strength.
The shear strength equations recently incorporated
in Reference 3 for design of box sections provide sim-
ple criteria that are reasonably accurate for determin-
ing the shear strength of single cell box sections with
haunches at corners. However, they are unsafe for use
with multiple cell box sections, they do not provide
useful criteria for determining the strength of either
buried or test pipe, and they do not indicate the severe
limitations under which they should be used.
In view of the above, the shear strength equations
presented in this paper for flexural members without
shear reinforcement, and the accompanying provisions
for locating the critical section that governs shear
strength, should be used for designing reinforced con-
crete pipe and box sections. They also should be con-
sidered for general, use in designing one-way footings
and other one-way flexural members not required to
have minimum web reinforcement.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As part of their long-range research program, the American Con-
crete Pipe Association provided financial support to Simpson Gum-
pertz & Heger lnc. for the tests and investigations that led to the
proposed design method for shear. The continued support and sug-
gestions provided by the ACPA Technical Committee are acknowl-
edged and appreciated. Main Committee Chairman Lee Stockton,
Sub-committee Chairman Harry Peck, members Joseph Zicaro and
Robert Spiekerman, and ACPA Chief Engineer Mike Bealey, re-
482
viewed the research work and the design method, and made valuable
suggestions for its implementation.
NOTATION
A constant
A, tension reinforcement area on width b, in. 2
b width of section which resists M, N, V
8 constant
coefficient for bending moment 7 W S/2
distance from compression face to centroid of tension re-
inforcement, in.
DL,., D-load ultimate strength of test pipe that fail in diagonal
tension where D-load is total test load of pipe divided by
pipe inside diameter, lb/ft/ft
factor for effect of curvature and crack depth on diagonal
tension (shear) strength in curved components
factor for crack depth effect resulting in increase in di-
agonal tension (shear) strength with decreasing d.
coefficient for effect of thrust on shear strength
factor for process and local materials characteristics that
affect shear strength of pipe
f.' design compressive strength of concrete, lb/in. 2
f, specified yield strength of reinforcement, lb/in. 2
h overall thickness of member (wall thickness), in.
I span length of member with uniformly distributed load,
in.
span length between inflection points in member with uni-
formly distributed load, in.
1\1 moment acting on cross section of width b service load
conditions, in.-lb (taken as absolute in design equations,
always +)
moment at center of span between inflection points (max-
imum positive moment) acting on cross section of width
b, in.-lb
A1a ultimate moment acting on cross section of width b, in.-
lb
N axial thrust acting on cross section of width b, service load
condition (+ when compressive, - when tensile), lb
N, ultimate axial thrust acting on cross section of width b, lb
radius to centerline of pipe wall, in.
s inside span (diameter) of pipe, in.
clear cover distance from tension face of concrete to edge
of tension reinforcement, in.
v shear force acting on cross section of width b, service load
condition, lb (taken as absolute value in design equations,
always+)
basic shear strength of section, lb
ultimate shear force acting on cross section of width b,
which produces diagonal tension failure without stirrup re-
inforcement, lb
ultimate shear force acting on cross section of width b, lb
ultimate shear force at flexure failure, on width b, lb
test ultimate shear force on width b, lb
basic shear strength of concrete, lb/in. 2
general shear strength of concrete, lb/in. 2
test shear strength of concrete, lb/in. 2
the total uniformly distributed load on width b, lb
weight of pipe per unit length, lb/ft
total factored uniformly distributed load on full span
acting on width b, lb
total factored uniformly distributed load on beam length
between inflection points e,.
distance from centerline of span between inflection points
(points of zero moment) to point where M,/ V,d = 3.0 in
members with uniformly distributed load
ratio of reinforcement area
capacity reduction factor for variability in manufacture
REFERENCES
l. "Standard Specification for Precast Reinforced Concrete Box
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982
-------------- - - - - - - ------
Sections for Culverts, Storm Drains, and Sewers," (ASTM C 789-
79), /981 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 16, American So-
ciety for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 545-564.
2. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-77)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1977, 102 pp.
3. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 12th Edition,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials, Washington, D.C., 1977, 496 pp.
4. ACI-ASCE Committee 426, "Suggested Revisions to Shear
Provisions for Building Codes," Abstract. ACI JoURf'AL, Proceed-
ings V. 74, No. 9, Sept. 1977, pp. 458-469.
5. MacGregor, J. G., and Gergely, P., "Suggested Revisions to
ACI Building Code Clauses Dealing with Shear in Beams," ACI
JouRNAl, Proceedings V. 74, No. 10, Oct. 1977, pp. 493-500.
6. Heger, F. J ., and :\lcGrath, T. J ., "Design !\let hod for Rein-
forced Concrete Pipe and Box Sections," Report to Technical Com-
mittee of the American Concerte Pipe Association, Vienna, Virginia,
Dec. 1980.
7. Heger, Frank J.; Nawy, Edward L.; and Saba, Robert B.,
"Structural Behavior of Circular Concrete Pipe Reinforced with
Welded Wire Fabric," ACI JoURN/11, Proceedings V. 60, No. 10,
Oct. 1963, pp. 1389-1414.
8. Heger, Frank J., and Gillespie, James W., "Design of Circular
Pipe Reinforced with Welded Deformed Wire Fabric," Highway Re-
search Record No. 176, Highway Research Board, 1967, pp. 1-34.
9. Heger, Frank J.; Chambers, Richard E.; Podolny. Walter, Jr.;
and Ballard, Lawrence L., "Evaluation of Welded Deformed Wire
Fabric Reinforcement in Machine-Made Concrete Pipe." Highway
Research Record No. 320, Highway Research Board, 1970, pp. 41-
54.
10. Merz, Harry W., Jr., "Investigation of the Structural Behav-
ior of Reinforced Concrete Pipe Using Curved Beam Elements," Re-
search Report No. R63-2, Department of Civil Engineering, Mas-
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1982
sachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Jan. 1963.
II. Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Miscellaneous 3-edge bear-
ing and curved beam tests conducted for Pittsburgh Steel Corpora-
tion, 1963. (unpublished)
12. Boring, Marvin R.; Heger, Frank J.; and Bealey, Mike, "Test
Program for Evaluating Design Method and Standard Designs for
Precast Concrete Box Culverts witn Welded Wire Fabric Reinforc-
ing," Transportation Research Record No. 518, Transportation Re-
search Board, 1974. pp. 49-63.
13. Mattock. A. H., "Diagonal Tension Cracking in Concrete
Beams with Axial Forces," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 95, ST9, Sept.
1969, pp. 1887-1900.
14. Morrow, Jo Dean, and Vies!, I. M., "Shear Strength of Rein-
forced Concrete Frame Members Without Web Reinforcement."
ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 53, No.9, Mar. 1957, pp. 833-869.
15. De Cossio, Roger Diaz, and Siess, Chester P., "Behavior and
Strength in Shear of Beams and Frames Without Web Reinforce-
ment," ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings V. 56, No. 8, Feb. 1960, pp. 695-
735.
16. Batchelor, Barrington de V., and Kwun, Mankit, "Shear in
RC Beams Without Web Reinforcement," Proceedings, ASCE, V.
107, ST5, May 1981, pp. 907-921.
17. Palaskas, Michael N.; Attiogbe, Emmanuel K.; and Darwin,
David, "Shear Strength of Lightly Reinforced T-Beams," ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 78, No.6, Nov.-Dec. 1981, pp. 447-455.
18. Parmelee, R. A., "Shear Criteria for the Design of Buried
Concrete Pipe," Report to American Concrete Pipe Association
Technical Committee, June 1978.
19. Heger, Frank J., "Structural Behavior of Circular Reinforced
Concrete Pipe - Development of Theory," ACI JoURNAL, Pro-
ceedings V. 60, No. II, Nov. 1963, pp. 1567-1614.
20. Kani, Mario W.; Huggins, Mark W.; and Wittkopp, Rudi R.,
Editors, Kani on Shear in Reinforced Concrete, University of To-
ronto Press, 1979, 225 pp.
483