Experimental
and code
Editors quick points
n A 40-year-old girder was removed from the Interstate 244
highway bridge crossing the Arkansas River in Tulsa, Okla., and
was tested and analyzed to determine whether the experimen-
tal results exceeded estimated shear capacities.
n The results of this experiment provided direct evidence regard-
ing the performance of girders designed according to the
quarter-point rule being overloaded in shear.
n Code-to-code and code-to-experiment comparisons provided
better guidelines and validation for evaluating the safety of
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials bridge girders designed according to the quarter-point
rule.
54 W int e r 2 0 1 1 | PCI Journal
analyses for
shear design
of AASHTO
prestressed
concrete
girders
Randy D. Martin,
Thomas H.-K. Kang,
and Jin-Song Pei
The procedure used to estimate the shear strength of
prestressed concrete girders has evolved over the years.
Design codes typically become less conservative as more
information becomes available through research. Assum-
ing that codes are able to predict capacity more accurately
as knowledge increases, some concerns arise when a new
code is more conservative than an old one.
In particular, the shear capacity of existing prestressed
concrete girders designed in the 1970s may be a concern
because the 1973 edition of the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,1 along with
other AASHTO standard specifications revisions2,3 before
the 1979 interim revisions, employed the quarter-point rule
for shear design. The quarter-point rule is less conserva-
tive for shear demands than the current provisions of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.4 The goal of
this analysis is to determine whether concern is warranted
and, if so, to what degree.
The quarter-point rule raises speculation that there is a
deficiency on the demand side of the design equation. The
AASHTO standard specifications state, For the design of
web shear reinforcement, it is recommended that shear be
investigated only in the middle half of the span length.
This means that only half of the shear from distributed
loads and a maximum of three-quarters of the shear from
point loads is considered for design (Fig. 1). Also, because
the AASHTO standard specifications calculate nominal
shear strength differently from newer codes, such as the
AASHTO LRFD specifications and the American Con-
crete Institutes Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (ACI 318R-08),5
it is not obvious whether girders designed according to
previous editions of the AASHTO standard specifica-
tions are underdesigned by current standards. Therefore,
a detailed analysis of both the shear demand and capacity
was conducted to provide some insight into the condi-
tions for which this situation may exist. Load rating and
posting of the girders were also determined according to
the provisions in the 2003 Guide Manual for Condition
Evaluation and Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR)
of Highway Bridges.6 This analysis focused on AASHTO
precast concrete girders because they are a popular choice
in Oklahoma and other states.
While it is useful to predict when bridges designed using
the AASHTO standard specifications are underdesigned by
current standards, the tested shear capacity of existing pre-
stressed concrete girders gives direct evidence of the actual
condition of structures. The challenge with shear testing
existing girders is that the ratio of applied shear at nominal
moment capacity to nominal shear capacity may be less
than one, so the girder may not experience shear failure
when a concentrated or distributed load is applied. In order
to produce shear failure and to experimentally assess the
shear capacity, the load may need to be placed close to
the support where applied shear is the largest and applied
moment is the smallest. An example is the D-region, which
is a distance twice the member depth from the face of the
support according to ACI 318-08, appendix A. Once point
loads are applied inside D-regions, Bernoulli beam theory
is no longer applicable and it becomes more difficult to
predict the failure mode. Strut-and-tie modeling is one
method for evaluating shear in these D-regions and is used
as an additional method for estimating shear capacity.
A code-to-code comparison is presented in this paper
among the AASHTO standard specifications, AASHTO
LRFD specifications, and ACI 318-08, followed by a code-
to-experiment comparison using data of a tested AASHTO
Type II girder removed from an Interstate 244 (I-244)
bridge in Tulsa, Okla. Within the code-to-code comparison,
the interior girders of the Little River Overflow Bridge in
McCurtain County, Okla., are considered as a case study
because of their large transverse girder spacing and large
shear-reinforcement spacing. The code-to-experiment com-
parison examines code-specified nominal shear strengths,
a strut-and-tie model, and the experimental results of the
tested I-244 girder while also determining the likelihood of
shear failure prior to flexural failure. This paper attempts to
draw conclusions on bridge safety based on code-to-code
and code-to-experiment comparisons and recommends ac-
tions that should be taken to ensure the safety of AASHTO
bridge girders designed according to the quarter-point rule.
(Shear critical section per AASHTO-LRFD)
dv
Point load
u
Dead and lane live load
Quarter
span
Vu
Design shear demand
at shear critical section
per AASHTO-STD
(i.e., at quarter point)
Figure 1. The shear diagram for distributed and point loads following the American
Association of Highway and Transportation Officials' AASHTO Standard Specifica-
tions for Highway Bridges is less conservative than current specifications due to
the location of the critical section. Note: AASHTO-LRFD = AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications; AASHTO-STD = AASHTO Standard Specifications for High-
way Bridges; dv = effective shear depth taken as the distance between resultants
of tensile and compressive forces due to flexure; Vu = design shear demand.
Background
The AASHTO standard specifications and the AASHTO
LRFD specifications are the pertinent methods for de-
termining design shear and shear capacity. Although not
typically used for design of highway girders, ACI 318-08
provides another current method for estimating shear ca-
pacity and is similar to methods included in the AASHTO
standard specifications following the 1979 interim revi-
sions.
1973 AASHTO standard
specifications
As noted previously, a source of concern for this older
design specification is its use of the quarter-point rule. It
states that design shear need only be considered for the
middle half of the girder. The quarter-point rule appears
to be based on the presumption of increased shear capac-
ity due to upward prestressing forces, which are generated
from the harped tendons that have harping points near the
quarter points. This harped-tendon profile was commonly
used for designs of that time period. In addition, there
could be a reduced risk of shear cracking resulting from
flattened stress trajectories produced by prestressing force.7
As a result, the quarter-point rule may have led to less de-
sign shear than the current AASHTO LRFD specifications
design shear in the outer quarters of the span.
The shear critical section for evaluation with the AASHTO
standard specifications is located at the quarter point of the
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2011 55
 18,000 for moment
Concentrated load 26,000 for shear

Uniform load 640 lb per linear foot of load lane

H20-44 loading
HS20-44 loading

15,500 for moment

Concentrated load 19,500 for shear

Uniform load 480 lb per linear foot of load lane

H15-44 loading
HS15-44 loading

9,000 for moment

Concentrated load 13,000 for shear

Uniform load 320 lb per linear foot of load lane

H10-44 loading

H lane and HS loadings

Figure 2. Design loads for the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials' AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges are based on desired
truck loading; however, a single point load and distributed lane load are used. Source: Reprinted by permission from AASHTO 1973. Note: 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 4.448 N.

simply supported girder. The AASHTO standard specifica-
tions specify a distributed lane load in addition to a point
load located to cause maximum stress at the section being
analyzed (Fig. 2); however, practicing engineers have also
been known to apply the actual design truck loads8 (Fig.
3). The analysis in this paper applied the loading case of
a uniform lane load and a single point load. Following the
standard method for shear design including the quarter-
point rule, the point load must be placed at the quarter
span of the girder to determine design shear stress near the
supports (Fig. 1).
Nominal shear strength Vn under the AASHTO standard
specifications is found by summing the shear resistance of

56 W int e r 2 0 1 1 | PCI Journal

 HS 20-44 8,000 lb 32,000 lb HS 20-44 8,000 lb 32,000 lb 32,000 lb
HS 15-44 6,000 lb 24,000 lb HS 15-44 6,000 lb 24,000 lb 24,000 lb
H 10-44 4,000 lb 16,000 lb

0.2 W

0.8 W

0.8 W
14'-0"
14'-0" V
0.2 W

0.8 W
W = Total weight of
truck and load 0.1 W 0.4 W 0.4 W
0.1 W 0.4 W

0.1 W 0.4 W 0.4 W

W = Combined weight on the first two axles which is the same

0.1 W 0.4 W as for the corresponding H truck.
V = Variable spacing - 14 feet to 30 feet inclusive. Spacing to
be used is that which produces maximum stresses.

H Truck HS Truck

Figure 3. H and HS design trucks are used for the basis of loading for AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifica-
tions. AASHTO standard specifications define a distributed load in addition to a point load to determine design shear (Fig. 2). AASHTO LRFD specifications employ HL-93
loading to determine design shear, which defines a distributed load and either a design truck (shown above) or a tandem of wheel loads. Source: Reprinted by permission
from AASHTO 1973. Note: AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1" = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1' = 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 4.448 N.

concrete and the steel shear reinforcement. The following
equation is used to calculate their values.
2Av fy jd
Vn = Vc + Vs = 0.06fclbl jd +
s
where
Vc = shear resistance of concrete not to exceed 180b'd
Vs = shear resistance of steel shear reinforcement
fcl = specified concrete strength
b' = width of web
j = ratio of distance between centroid of compression
and centroid of tension and d
d = distance between extreme compression fiber and
centroid of prestressing steel
fy = specified yield stress of shear reinforcement
Av = cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement within
spacing s
s = shear-reinforcement spacing
The contribution to shear strength from the concrete ap-
pears to be conservative due to its limitation of a maximum
concrete compressive strength of 3 ksi (20 MPa). As a
result, the shear strength from steel reinforcement makes
(1) up a large proportion of the total nominal shear capacity.
Although the effect of prestressing force on the nominal
shear strength is not explicitly included, the calculation of
Vc differs from that for reinforced concrete. Notably, Vc is
25% larger for reinforced concrete considering the same
section. Alternatively, Vs for prestressed concrete is twice
that of reinforced concrete. This significantly changes the
constitution of Vn, giving more weight to reinforcing steel.
With no limit on Vs or Vn, a girder could theoretically ob-
tain nearly all of its shear resistance from reinforcing steel.
2004 AASHTO LRFD specifications
The AASHTO LRFD specifications differ from the
AASHTO standard specifications in that the shear critical
section is dv ( 0.72h or 0.9d) from the face of the support,
where dv is the effective shear depth taken as the distance
between resultants of tensile and compressive forces due
to flexure and h is the total depth of the cross section. This
approach may be more conservative than the AASHTO
standard specifications because there is a potential for
increased shear demands when loads are present on the
outer quarters of the span. Conversely, the AASHTO
LRFD specifications allow the use of a strut-and-tie model

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2011 57

 as an alternative to the general method when a load causing
greater than one-half the design shear force at the support
lies within a distance of 2d from the face of the sup-
port. This should yield less conservative shear capacities
than the standard method and is discussed in the section
Code-to-Experiment Comparison. Design live loads are
defined by the HL-93 loading specification, which includes
a distributed lane load (equal in intensity to the AASHTO
standard specifications HS-20 design uniform lane load)
and a design tandem or an HS-20 design truck. Typically,
the design truck load controls design-shear demands.
The equations for determining shear resistance accord-
ing to the AASHTO LRFD specifications are based on the
modified compression field theory (MCFT),9 an extension
of the diagonal compression field theory.10 The diagonal
compression field theory uses strain in the web of a girder
to determine the inclination of diagonal compressive
stresses. MCFT modifies this by accounting for the mean
principal tensile stresses. The angle of tensile stresses in
the web can vary, which affects the contribution to nomi-
nal shear resistance of the shear reinforcement. As this
angle decreases with respect to the member axis, the shear
resistance of reinforcement increases. This study used
the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet AASHTO Calculator for
Cases with at Least Minimum Reinforcement for efficient
and consistent calculation of the nominal shear strength.
The detailed design procedure refers directly to the
AASHTO LRFD specifications. Equation (2) shows that
the nominal shear strength is divided into components with
the effect of vertical prestressing force included directly.
Vn = Vc + Vs + Vp = 0.0316b fclbv dv (2)
Av fy dv cot i
+ + Vp # 0.25fclbv dv + Vp
s
where
Vp = vertical component of effective prestressing force
= softening parameter of concrete (AASHTO LRFD
specifications, Table 5.8.3.4.2)
bv = width of web, in.
= angle of inclination of shear stress (AASHTO LRFD
specifications, Table 5.8.3.4.2)
ACI 318-08
ACI 318-08 relies on other codes to define loading. Because
the AASHTO LRFD specifications is the most currently
adopted bridge design code, its loads are used in this study
for the ACI 318-08 comparison. The design shear, however,
is not identical because the critical sections for the AASHTO
LRFD specifications and ACI 318-08 are different.
58 W int e r 2 0 1 1 | PCI Journal
The calculation for nominal shear strength is similar to the
1983 through 2002 revisions1115 of the AASHTO standard
specifications, which have been replaced by the AASHTO
LRFD specifications.4,1618 Like the other codes, ACI 318-
08 divides the nominal shear strength into contributions
from the concrete and the steel shear reinforcement. Equa-
tions (3), (4), and (5) are the separate equations.
Vn = lesser of (Vcw and Vci) + Vs (3)
Av fy dv
= lesser of (Vcw and Vci) +
s
where
Vcw = concrete shear strength when cracking results from
high principal tensile stress
Vci = concrete shear strength when cracking results from
combined shear and moment
Vi Mcre
Vci = 0.6 fclbw d p + Vd + (4)
Mmax
where
bw = web width
dp = distance from extreme compression fiber to cen-
troid of prestressing steel
Vd = unfactored shear due to dead loads
Vi = factored shear at section due to externally applied
loads
Mcre = moment-causing flexural cracking at section due to
externally applied loads
Mmax = factored moment at section due to externally ap-
plied loads
Vcw = c 3.5 fcl + 0.3fpc m bw d p + Vp (5)
where
fpc = compressive stress in concrete at centroid of gross
section resisting externally applied loads
As Eq. (3) indicates, the nominal shear resistance of
concrete is taken as the lesser of Vci and Vcw. Typically, Vcw
will control near the supports and Vci will control closer
to midspan. The equation for Vcw directly incorporates the
effective prestressing force with the vertical contribution
of prestressing force Vp and the uniform axial compres-

sion from the effective prestressing force, used in the term
fpc. Although not shown explicitly in Eq. (4), the effective
prestressing force is used when determining Mcre.
Code-to-code comparison
A code-to-code comparison was made in an attempt to
identify AASHTO girder configurations that may be un-
derdesigned by current standards. It starts with a quantita-
tive comparison that calculates the minimum shear rein-
forcement for a Type II AASHTO precast concrete girder
and follows with a detailed comparison of the design shear
demands for three models of AASHTO girders (Types II,
III, and IV). The nominal shear strengths are then analyzed
alone and in conjunction with the design shear demands.
As a case study, the method is applied to the Little River
Overflow Bridge. Finally, AASHTO LRFR is applied to the
tested I-244 girder (discussed in more detail in the section
Code-to-Experiment Comparison) and the Little River
Overflow Bridge to assess the safety of standard live loads.
Minimum shear reinforcement
The minimum shear reinforcement requirements vary
among the codes analyzed in this study based on the
concrete compressive strength. Figure 4 shows the cross-
sectional areas of minimum shear reinforcement Av,min for a
Type II girder with Grade 60 (fy = 60 ksi [400 MPa]) shear
reinforcement and spacing of 8 in. (200 mm).
The AASHTO standard specifications have a constant val-
ue for the minimum shear reinforcement of a given section.
In the other two codes, the minimum shear reinforcement
is a function of the concrete compressive strength. The
only differences between the AASHTO LRFD specifica-
tions and ACI 318-08 are that the latter adopts a multiplier
of 0.75 and specifies a lower limit when fcl is less than
4444 psi (30 MPa). The values for minimum shear rein-
forcement are small for AASHTO girders because the web
width is quite small. Thus, minimum shear reinforcement
is always satisfied for AASHTO Type II girders with at
least one leg of a no. 3 (10M) reinforcing bar at spacing of
8 in. (200 mm).
Design shear demands
Shear demands are quite different among these three codes.
Therefore, it is necessary to identify shear demands sepa-
rately for each code. This study determined design shear
demands Vu by applying the loads and all load and safety
factors as they were presented in each respective code.
Calculations were made for AASHTO Types II, III, and IV
precast concrete model girders with spans of 30 ft, 60 ft,
and 90 ft (9 m, 18 m, and 27 m), respectively. Table 1 lists
the properties used for design and analysis of these model
girders, unless noted otherwise. The model girders were
designed with straight-profile prestressing steel to support
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000
Area of shear reinforcement within spacing, in.2
0.09 0.09
AASHTO-STD
0.08 0.08
0.07 0.07
AASHTO-LRFD
0.06 0.06
0.05 ACI-318 0.05
0.04 0.04
0.03 0.03
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000
Specified concrete strength, psi
Figure 4. Minimum shear reinforcements according to AASHTO Standard Speci-
fications for Highway Bridges, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and
ACI 318-08 are satisfied by a single no. 3 (10M) deformed bar for an AASHTO Type
II girder with concrete strength up to 10,000 psi. Note: AASHTO-LRFD = AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications; AASHTO-STD = AASHTO Standard Specifica-
tions for Highway Bridges. 1 in.2 = 645 mm2; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.
the maximum moment produced by loads according to the
AASHTO LRFD specifications. Reinforcing bars were not
used for simplicity. The nominal moment strength Mn of
the girders was taken as the product of the resultant tensile
force Aps fps at ultimate limit state and the internal moment
arm. Here, Aps is the area of prestressing steel in the flex-
ural tension zone and fps is the stress in tendons at nominal
moment strength determined by Eq. (18-3) in ACI 318-08.
Because ACI 318-08 does not specify loading criteria, the
AASHTO LRFD specifications criteria for loading were
used to represent the current practice for bridge design.
The basic assumptions for determining design shear
demands were to consider only dead, live, and impact live
loads; to consider the weight of the girder, slab, parapet,
and overlay (if present) for dead loads; and to use HS-20
truck loading.
For this analysis, the AASHTO standard specifications
group I load combination controls (Eq. [6]).
>D + a L + I kH (6)
1.3 5
Group I =
z 3
where
= shear-strength reduction factor = 0.90 (per the
AASHTO standard specifications)
D = dead load given by the AASHTO standard specifica-
tions
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2011 59
 Table 1. Dimensions and details of AASHTO Types II, III, and IV precast concrete model girders and existing girders in service

Span, Aps ,
Model st , ft Ac , in.2 h, in. dp , in. bw , in. f'c, ksi f'cs, ksi fpu , ksi fse , ksi s, in. Av , in.2 fy, ksi
ft in.2

Type II 30 9.5 369 36 33.6 6 8 4 1.53 270 150 8 0.4 60

Type III 60 9.5 560 45 41.7 7 8 4 3.37 270 150 8 0.4 60

Type IV 90 9.5 789 54 50.0 8 8 4 5.51 270 150 8 0.4 60

I-244 42 9.5* 369 36 33.2 6 5 4* 2.45 270 150* 8 0.4 60*

LRO 35 11.75 369 36 30.7 6 5* 4* 2.14 270 150* 10.5 0.4 40

* Assumed
Note: Ac = concrete cross-sectional area; Aps = area of prestressing steel in the flexural tension zone; Av = cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement
within spacing s; bw = web width; dp = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of prestressing steel; f'c = specified concrete strength;
f'cs = concrete design strength for slab deck; fpu = specified tensile strength of prestressing tendons; fse = effective prestress in prestressing tendons;
fy = specified yield stress of shear reinforcement; h = total depth of the cross section; I-244 = tested Interstate 244 bridge girder; LRO = Little River
Overflow Bridge girder; s = shear-reinforcement spacing; st = spacing between girders in the transverse direction. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1
ksi = 7 MPa.

L = live load given by the AASHTO standard specifica- maximum stress in the member
tions
The value for l is somewhat ambiguous from its descrip-
I = impact live load given by the AASHTO standard tion. Fortunately, the code provides direction under several
specifications scenarios. When shear is analyzed with truck loading, as in
this case, l should be taken as the distance from the single
The impact live load is taken as a fraction of the live load point load to the far reaction (that is, three-quarters of the
(Eq. [7]). span length). Then the live loads consist of a distributed
lane load and a point load as discussed in the section 2004
AASHTO LRFD Specifications. The AASHTO standard
I= f p L # 0.3L
50
(7) specifications define the intensity of the lane load as 0.64
l + 125 kip/ft (9 kN/m). For HS-20 loading, the point load is 26
kip (120 kN) and is placed at the quarter span, following
where the quarter-point rule. Because the point load is placed at
the quarter span for each model girder, its contribution to
l = length of the portion that is loaded to produce the the applied shear remains constant. The only changes in

Table 2. Analytical results for AASHTO Type II, III, and IV precast concrete model girders and existing girders in service

Lane live
Dead load Total of point live load Impact load factor
Girder load

DC, kip/ft DW, kip/ft LL, kip/ft PLSTD, kip PLLRFD, kip PLACI, kip IMSTD, kip IMLRFD, kip IMACI, kip

Type II* 1.86 0 0.64 32 72 72 1.34 1.33 1.33

Type III* 1.98 0 0.64 32 72 72 1.29 1.33 1.33

Type IV* 2.21 0 0.64 32 72 72 1.26 1.33 1.33

I-244 1.78 0.02 0.64 32 72 72 1.32 1.33 1.33

LRO* 2.03 0 0.64 32 72 72 1.33 1.33 1.33

*Composite section including a 9 in. (230 mm) slab

Noncomposite section (to directly compare with test data)
Note: Results are based on the values in Table 1. ACI = Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (ACI 318R-08);
DC = dead load due to structural component; DW = dead load due to the wearing surface; I-244 = tested Interstate 244 bridge girder; IM = impact live load;
LL = lane live load; LRFD = AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications; LRO = Little River Overflow Bridge girder; PL = point live load;
STD = AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges; Vn = nominal shear strength at shear critical section; Vu = design shear demand at shear
critical section. 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 kip/ft = 15 kN/m.

60 W int e r 2 0 1 1 | PCI Journal

shear demand come from the uniformly distributed dead
and lane live loads. Table 2 presents the calculated design
shear demands for the Types II, III, and IV model girders.
The AASHTO LRFD specifications include several load
combinations to cover limit states and combinations within
these limit states. The strength I load combination controls
for this analysis because of its emphasis on live loads.
Equation (8) shows this load combination, excluding terms
that are neglected or not applicable.
Strength I = 1.25DC + 1.50DW + 1.75(LL + IM) (8)
where
DC = dead load due to structural component given by
AASHTO LRFD specifications
DW = dead load due to the wearing surface given by
AASHTO LRFD specifications
LL = live load given by AASHTO LRFD specifications
(HS-20 design truck = 72 kip [320 kN]; design uni-
form live load = 0.64 kip/ft [9 kN/m])
general method for estimating shear capacity as opposed to
a strut-and-tie model. The truck loads are applied near the
shear critical section, typically dv from the face of the sup-
port. Table 2 presents the AASHTO LRFD specifications
design shear demands.
ACI 318-08 uses the same procedure specified by the
AASHTO LRFD specifications to determine the unfac-
tored demands. The only difference is that the shear critical
section for ACI 318-08 is h/2 instead of dv. The controlling
load combination in section 9.2.1 of ACI 318-08 is 1.2(DC
+ DW) + 1.6LL. Table 2 presents the ACI 318-08 design
shear demands.
Figure 5 illustrates a comparison of the design shear
demands of the three codes. The causes for the different
design shear demands among the codes included the mag-
nitude of live and impact live loads, load or safety factors,
and critical-section locations. As the girder cross sections
and span lengths increased, the AASHTO standard speci-
fications fell progressively behind the requirements of the
other codes. As mentioned earlier, this is largely due to the
fact that the location of the shear critical section lies at the
quarter span for the AASHTO standard specifications.

IM = impact live load equal to 33% of LL (AASHTO
LRFD specifications, Table 3.6.2.1-1)
The load factors for DC and DW vary. To consider the
extreme case, this study chose the maximum values of the
load factors. Whereas impact loading for the AASHTO
standard specifications must be applied to all live loads
(that is, the lane and point loads), the AASHTO LRFD
specifications state that it need only be applied to loads
from the design tandem or truck. A limit is placed on the
shear demand within the D-region to specify the use of the
Because the truck point load is located at the quarter span,
the shear demands for truck loading had a maximum of
only 75% of their loading values. The newer codes base
their critical sections on the geometry of the cross section
and are located closer to the support (Fig. 1). Thus, the dif-
ference in design shear demands increased for longer-span
girders due to larger proportions of the applied loads.
For shorter-span Type II girders, the difference in design-
shear demands was noticeable, but within a relatively
small range. For Type IV girders, the current design-shear

Design shear demand Nominal shear strength Margin of safety

Vu, STD, kip Vu, LRFD, kip Vu, ACI, kip Vn, STD, kip Vn, LRFD, kip Vn, ACI, kip STD LRFD ACI

114 130 133 267 206 262 2.34 1.35 1.68

149 213 207 326 316 376 2.18 1.33 1.54

190 286 276 398 362 499 2.09 1.14 1.54

125 167 161 208 186 202 1.83 1.30 1.47

122 172 168 145 164 186 1.19 0.86 0.94

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2011 61

 300 AASHTO-STD based on the properties specified in Table 1. However, in
AASHTO-LRFD
order to observe the variation in nominal shear strength,
calculations were made with the fcl ranging from 4 ksi
ACI-318
to 10 ksi (30 MPa to 70 MPa) (Fig. 6). The most impor-
tant observation from Fig. 6 is that the AASHTO LRFD
Design shear demand, kip

200 specifications are generally more conservative in terms of

100
0
Type II Type III
Figure 5. Shear demands for AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges are lower than AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and ACI 318-
08 for AASHTO Types II, III, and IV girders. The difference increases with the size
of the girder. Note: AASHTO-LRFD = AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications;
AASHTO-STD = AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. 1 kip =
4.448 kN.
demands were about 50% larger. This may be a cause for
concern, particularly if a long-span precast concrete girder
designed according to the quarter-point rule shows some
deterioration.
Nominal shear strength
The nominal shear strength was calculated for each of the
model girders following each of the codes studied in this
paper. Table 2 summarizes the results for the model girders
shear resistance. This may be another cause for concern
with older girders, particularly using a smaller fcl . Intui-
tive thinking indicates that shear resistance should increase
with fcl , but this does not happen with the AASHTO
standard specifications. The concrete compressive strength
is implicitly limited to 3 ksi (20 MPa) because of the limit
on Vc (equal to 180b'jd). The newer codes have limits on
Vn and/or Vs, but the girders did not reach these limits for
this study.
Type IV
Another useful comparison is the nominal shear strength
versus varying shear-reinforcement spacing. Figure 7
shows the calculations for the Type II model girder where
shear reinforcement provides the largest portion of shear
resistance. The changes in shear-reinforcement spacing
affected the AASHTO standard specifications the most be-
cause of the relatively large value of Vs /Vn. The result was
that the AASHTO standard specifications were accurate
for large shear-reinforcement spacing and less conservative
for small shear-reinforcement spacing compared with the
AASHTO LRFD specifications.
Margin of safety
The previous comparison accounts for only the absolute
nominal shear strength and may not be appropriate in as-
sessing whether a girder designed according to the
AASHTO standard specifications meets the design require-

4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000
550 550
Type II model girder Type III model girder Type IV model girder
500 500
ACI-318
Nominal shear strength, kip

450 450

400 ACI-318 AASHTO-STD 400

350 AASHTO-LRFD 350

AASHTO-STD
300 300
AASHTO-STD AASHTO-LRFD
250 250
ACI-318
200 200
AASHTO-LRFD
Note: AASHTO_N.xls (Bentz, 2000) was unable to compute Vn,LRFD for the Type II with f'c < 4.4 ksi.
150 150
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000
Specified concrete strength, psi Specified concrete strength, psi Specified concrete strength, psi

Figure 6. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are consistently more conservative than AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges and ACI 318-08.
AASHTO standard specifications is the least conservative for AASHTO Type II girders. Note: AASHTO-LRFD = AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications; AASHTO-STD =
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

62 W int e r 2 0 1 1 | PCI Journal

 ments of current codes. As noted previously, both shear 6 8 10 12 14 16
demands and capacities are different between the codes, 400 400
as are load and strength reduction factors and distribu-
tion factors. Therefore, all design considerations should 350 350
AASHTO-STD
be included in the analysis for the purpose of comparison.

Nominal shear strength, kip

300 300
In order to provide a common ground for comparing the
codes, Eq. (9) defines the margin of safety. Comparing the 250 250
margins of safety in different codes is a rational way to ACI-318
examine how the performance expectations have changed. 200 200
AASHTO-LRFD
Factored shear capacity 150 150
Margin of safety = Factored shear capacity (9)

Design shear
Design shear demand
demand
100 100
n or F.S. f n p
zVVn Vn
or F.S. f V p
z V
= 50 50
V
Vuu Vuu
0 0
where 6 8 10 12 14 16
Shear reinforcement spacing, in.
= shear strength reduction factor (0.90 per the
AASHTO standard specifications; 0.75 per the AAS-
HTO LRFD specifications and ACI 318-08) Figure 7. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are most conservative for
a Type II girder with shear-reinforcement spacing up to 15 in.; however, AASHTO
F.S. = factor of safety Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges are more conservative for spacing
larger than 15 in. Note: AASHTO-LRFD = AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifica-
tions; AASHTO-STD = AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. 1 in. =
Figure 8 and Table 2 show the results of margin-of-safety 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
calculations for the model girders with varying concrete
strengths. While the shape of the curves is the same as
those from nominal shear strength analysis, their relative therefore be considered underdesigned. There is a steady
positions are different. For each type of girder, the ten- decline in the margin of safety for the progression of codes
dency is nearly the same. The margin of safety according from AASHTO standard specifications to ACI 318-08 to
to the AASHTO standard specifications is approximately the AASHTO LRFD specifications. Types II, III, and IV
one point greater than that of the AASHTO LRFD specifi- model girders with typical dimensions and details (Table
cations. It is possible that the shear design met all require- 1) have a margin of safety greater than 1.0 for all codes;
ments at the time of design, but when analyzed with a however, this may not be the case for some other existing
current code the margin of safety falls below 1.0 and may AASHTO girders.

4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000
3 3
Type II model girder Type III model girder Type IV model girder

2.5 AASHTO-STD 2.5

AASHTO-STD
AASHTO-STD
2 2
Margin of safety

ACI-318
ACI-318 ACI-318
1.5 1.5
AASHTO-LRFD AASHTO-LRFD AASHTO-LRFD
1 1
Margin of safety = 1
0.5 0.5

Note: AASHTO_N.xls (Bentz, 2000) was unable to compute Vn,LRFD for the Type II with f'c < 4.4 ksi.
0 0
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000
Specified concrete strength, psi Specified concrete strength, psi Specified concrete strength, psi

Figure 8. The margin-of-safety analysis with varying concrete compressive strength shows that the expected performance in shear of AASHTO Types II, III, and IV girders
diminishes as new codes are introduced. Note: AASHTO-LRFD = AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications; AASHTO-STD = AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges. 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2011 63

 6 8 10 12 14 16
3 3
AASHTO-STD
2.5
2 2
Margin of safety
ACI-318
1.5
AASHTO-LRFD
1 1
Margin of safety = 1
0.5
0 0
6 8 10 12 14 16
Shear reinforcement spacing, in.
Figure 9. The margin-of-safety analysis with varying shear-reinforcement spacing
shows that the expected shear performance diminishes considerably more for AAS-
HTO Type II girders with small shear-reinforcement spacing. Note: AASHTO-LRFD
= AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications; AASHTO-STD = AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
The margins of safety are also calculated for a Type II
girder with varying shear-reinforcement spacing (Fig. 9).
This analysis shows that as shear-reinforcement spacing
increases, the disparity of the margin of safety between
the AASHTO standard specifications and current codes
decreases. Type II girders with small shear-reinforcement
spacing designed according to the AASHTO standard
specifications are more likely to have problems meeting the
design requirements of the AASHTO LRFD specifications,
while Type II girders with large shear-reinforcement spac-
ing tend to have smaller overall margins of safety.
The analysis in this section examined the ratios of nomi-
nal shear capacity to demands for each code, considering
all load and resistance (or safety) factors as well as shear
critical section location. It concludes that the code-to-code
comparisons are better able to identify existing girders that
might be underdesigned according to current standards
than a direct comparison of nominal shear strengths. The
following section presents a particular case of a precast
concrete bridge in Oklahoma designed according to the
AASHTO standard specifications that is not compliant with
provisions of the current AASHTO LRFD specifications.
Little River Overflow Bridge
in McCurtain County (NBI No. 19257)
A bridge crossing the Little River Overflow in McCurtain
County, Okla. (Fig. 10), was of concern due to some of its
design features. The bridge was designed according to the
AASHTO standard specifications, which used the quarter-
point rule to determine shear demands. The relatively large
64 W int e r 2 0 1 1 | PCI Journal
transverse spacing st between girders of 11.75 ft (3.6 m)
caused increased shear demands, and the combination of
large shear-reinforcement spacing s of 10.5 in. (270 mm)
with a lower yield stress fy of 40 ksi (280 MPa) caused re-
2.5
duced shear capacity. The focus of this analysis was on the
interior girders because they were subjected to larger loads
than the exterior girders.
1.5 The bridge features a 40.75 ft (12 m) clear roadway with
16-in.-high (400 mm) parapets on each side (Fig. 10). Four
Type II AASHTO precast concrete girders span 35 ft (11
m) and support the roadway with transverse spacing of
11.75 ft (3.6 m). Each girder has fourteen 0.5-in.-diameter
0.5
(360 mm) prestressing tendons with two of the tendons
harped at an 8 deg angle. The shear reinforcement com-
prises two no. 4 (13M), Grade 40 (280 MPa), Z-shaped
bars spaced at 10.5 in. (270 mm). The design concrete
compressive strength of the girder was assumed to be 5 ksi
(35 MPa), equal to the design strength of the tested I-244
girder because both girders were designed around the same
time period. The core samples from the tested I-244 girder
revealed an actual compressive strength of about 6 ksi (41
MPa), greater than the design strength of 5 ksi.
The resulting shear demands of the AASHTO LRFD
specifications were roughly 40% greater than those of the
AASHTO standard specifications. The AASHTO standard
specifications calculated a lesser nominal shear strength
than the newer codes by about 20% because most of the
shear resistance came from the relatively small amount
of shear reinforcement. Despite the lesser nominal shear
strength calculated with the AASHTO standard specifica-
tions, the margin of safety was still less than 1.0 for the
newer codes because of the increased shear demands.
Figure 11 shows this disparity.
This analysis shows that the interior girders on the Little
River Overflow Bridge do not satisfy the requirements of
the AASHTO LRFD specifications and barely meet those
for ACI 318-08. This bridge requires further examination
to ensure that the interior girders will not be damaged by
overloading from a specified load rating, which is covered
in the following section.
Load posting based
on AASHTO LRFR
The load posting schemes based on AASHTO LRFR are
briefly discussed herein along with the determination of
the rating factor for the actual girders studied. AASHTO
LRFR is the current system for rating bridges, though the
load-factor rating from the AASHTO Manual for Condition
Evaluation of Bridges19 may still be used. While the mar-
gin-of-safety analysis is used as a tool to compare codes,
AASHTO LRFR provides a means to statistically deter-
mine the safe live loads. Equations (10) and (11) show the
calculated rating factor RF to compare the applied live
Figure 10. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) design drawings of the Little River Overflow Bridge (Bridge C, NBI no. 19257) feature 11.75 ft girder
spacing and 10.5 in. shear-reinforcement spacing. Source: Reproduced by permission from ODOT, Plan of Proposed State Highway McCurtain County, Little River Overflow
Bridge, Bridge C, Detail of Superstructure & Detail of P.C. Beam (Oklahoma City, OK, 1967). Note: @ = at; CL = centerline. 1" = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1' = 1 ft = 0.305 m.

load with the nominal capacity less the permanent loads. DC = dead-load effect of structural components and
attachments given by AASHTO LRFR
C - cDC DC - cDW DW ! cP P
RF = (10) DW = LRFD load factor for wearing surfaces and utilities
cLL LL a 1 + IM k
DW = dead-load effect of wearing surfaces and utilities
where given by AASHTO LRFR

C = structural capacity P = LRFD load factor for permanent loads other than
dead loads
DC = LRFD load factor for structural components and
attachments P = permanent loading other than dead loads

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2011 65

 250 AASHTO-STD 2
tion is considered safe. In cases in which the RF is less
AASHTO-LRFD
than 1.0, load postings or bridge strengthening may be re-
quired to prevent damage to the structure. AASHTO LRFR
ACI-318
200 also considers the past performance of a bridge. Signs of
1.5
nominal shear strength, kip

distress after years of service might not justify or require

Design shear demand or

such an action.

Margin of safety
150

1
Jamarilla and Huo20 provide detailed AASHTO LRFR
100 procedures. The RF is calculated for three types of load-
ing: inventory, legal, and permit. HL-93 loading, which is
0.5 equivalent to HS-20 truck loading plus uniform lane load-
50
ing, is used for inventory as a means to examine whether
the bridge can withstand all legal loads. In the event that
0 0 the RF is less than 1.0 for HL-93 loading, the bridge can
Design Nominal Margin be rated with legal loads based on either state, local, or
shear shear of
demand strength safety AASHTO LRFD specifications or by loads determined by
the owner. Permit-load rating may be performed on bridges
that satisfy the requirements for inventory or legal loads
Figure 11. Analysis of the margin of safety of the Little River Overflow Bridge if actual truck loads exceed the legal loads. Permit loads
reveals that it does not meet the design requirements of current codes. Note:
(actual loads) may come from state or local guidelines.
AASHTO-LRFD = AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications; AASHTO-STD =
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
The tested I-244 girder (discussed in the section Code-
to-Experiment Comparison) and Little River Overflow
LL = evaluation live-load factor Bridge were rated for shear using inventory and the
AASHTO LRFD specifications legal loads to determine
LL = live-load effect given by AASHTO LRFR their level of performance. However, load rating was not
required on the Little River Overflow Bridge because no
IM = dynamic load allowance given by AASHTO LRFR shear cracks or corrosion were observed. The bridge rating
is represented by its weakest member. In the case of this
C = C S Rn (11) study where all girders are considered equal, the bridge
rating was represented by the member(s) with the largest
where loads (interior girders). The AASHTO LRFD specifica-
tions legal loads consist of three typical trucks that control
= 0.75 per AASHTO LRFD specifications for shear for short spans (type 3, 50 kip [220 kN]), medium spans
(type 3S2, 50 kip [220 kN]), and long spans (type 3-3, 80
C = c ondition factor (0.85, 0.95, and 1.0 for poor, fair, kip [360 kN]). State legal loads might be different from
and good conditions, respectively) the loads used for this study; however, legal loads defined
by the AASHTO LRFD specifications are representative
S = system factor that accounts for the level of redun- across the country. Nominal shear capacities were calculat-
dancy ed for each loading condition due to differences in the ratio
of applied shear to moment at the critical section.
CS 0.85
Table 3 shows the RF for each type of loading along with
Rn = nominal member resistance (as inspected) condition ratings of poor, fair, and good. Although neither
bridge passed the inventory check for most condition
For an RF equal to or greater than 1.0, the loading condi- ratings, they both passed for the AASHTO legal loads.

Table 3. Rating factors for I-244 and Little River Overflow bridges based on AASHTO LRFR

Inventory loading Legal loading

HL-93 Type 3 Type 3S2 Type 3-3

Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good

I-244 0.81 0.95 1.01 1.47 1.70 1.82 1.59 1.84 1.97 1.64 1.90 2.03

LRO 0.67 0.78 0.83 1.03 1.19 1.28 1.18 1.37 1.46 1.22 1.42 1.52

Note: I-244 = tested Interstate 244 bridge girder; LRO = Little River Overflow Bridge girder.

66 W int e r 2 0 1 1 | PCI Journal


Because of this, neither of these bridges might require load
postings despite the margin-of-safety analysis revealing
that the Little River Overflow Bridge did not meet the
requirements of the AASHTO LRFD specifications.
This study limited the approaches of load rating to shear
and considers various condition ratings for the two bridges
in Oklahoma. The load rating for AASHTO precast con-
crete bridge girders based on AASHTO LRFR21 is typically
known to be governed by shear, not flexure. To further
investigate the shear capacity, this study experimentally as-
sessed the I-244 girder. It was in service for about 40 years
prior to replacement due to irreparable corrosion damage
on one end.
Code-to-experiment
comparison
While there is a large quantity of data2225 on the shear ca-
pacity of girders of various sizes and spans, the same can-
not be said for girders that have been in service for nearly
40 years. Thus, an experimental program was conducted on
a girder removed from an I-244 bridge in Tulsa to provide
actual data on shear resistance of aged bridges. A difficulty
in testing the I-244 girder was that flexural failure was
likely to occur prior to shear failure for an applied load.
This design feature affected the test design and is discussed
preceding the details of the experimental program. A
strut-and-tie model analysis is then presented followed by
a comparison made among the code analysis, strut-and-tie
model results, and experimental results.
Flexural versus shear failure
The design of the tested I-244 girder inherently limits the
probability of shear failure. This type of design promotes
ductile flexural failure in extreme loading scenarios. The
analysis of flexural versus shear failure shows that the
shear span must be small in order to induce shear failure
on the I-244 girder. The same analysis of the Little River
Overflow Bridge girder indicates that shear failure is a
distinct possibility when large loads are applied within a
distance 2d from the supports.
An envelope corresponding to the nominal moment
strength was constructed from the support to the midspan
for the tested I-244 girder (Fig. 12). For simplicity, the ap-
plied shear at nominal moment strength was found by ap-
plying a point load at each point along the span. This value
is the maximum possible shear force that could be applied
to the girder before it fails in flexure. Both the nominal
shear strength envelope Vn and the envelope correspond-
ing to the applied shear at nominal moment strength Va are
based on the equations from chapters 10 and 11 of ACI
318-08. According to Fig. 12, the tested I-244 girder is not
likely to suffer shear failure prior to flexural failure outside
a distance 1.2d from the support, unless damages or dete-
0 5 10 15 20
300 300
Pa
250 250
Distance
Nominal shear strength or
200 from the V & V 200
applied shear at Mn, kip
a n
support
center
150 150
d Vn
100 100
50 50
Va
0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Distance from the center of the support, ft
Figure 12. Flexural failure is not likely for the Interstate 244 girder because the
shear capacity is large relative to the flexure capacity even into the D-region.
Note: d = distance between extreme compression fiber and centroid of prestress-
ing steel; Mn = nominal moment strength; Pa = permanent loading other than
dead loads; Va = applied shear at nominal moment strength; Vn = nominal shear
strength. 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
riorations over the past 40 years changed the condition of
the girder. This type of design is safe because it ensures
ductile failure and should be considered for the future
design of highway bridges.
The same analysis of the Little River Overflow Bridge
reveals a different scenario. Figure 13 shows that the shear
capacity and applied shear at nominal moment capacity
are nearly equal at a distance 2d from the support. Given
the uncertainties in shear behavior, it is difficult to predict
whether this girder would fail in flexure or shear.
Brittle failure results from either concrete crushing or
tensile stresses due to applied shear. Concrete crushing
is avoided by ensuring that significant yielding of the
reinforcing steel occurs. There is no connection between
shear and flexure design in the codes; shear capacity is
merely checked for compliance with shear demands. This
leaves a vulnerability to brittle shear failure when flexural
resistance is large relative to demand near the supports.
For example, the shear demand due to unexpected extreme
loading may exceed the shear capacity if the flexure capac-
ity of the girder is not exhausted first. As evidenced by
the analysis of the I-244 and Little River Overflow Bridge
girders, such an event is perhaps unlikely but still possible.
By making sure that the applied shear at nominal moment
strength Va is always less than the nominal shear strength
Vn, the design can be considered safe from brittle shear
failure. This is similar to the seismic design of ductile
reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames (chapter 21
of ACI 318-08).
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2011 67
 0 5 10 15 20

300 300 Research most relevant to this experimental study is a

Pa
series of tests by Runzel et al.27 and Hamilton et al.28
250 250 Runzel et al. tested two cut-off ends of an approximately
20-year-old AASHTO Type IV girder with and without the
Distance
bridge deck. The 88-ft-long (27 m) girder was presumably
Nominal shear strength or

200 from the V & V 200

applied shear at Mn, kip

a n
support
center
150
100 Vn
2d
50
Va
0 0
0 5 10 15
Distance from the center of the support, ft
Figure 13. Shear failure is possible for the Little River Overflow Bridge girder
because theoretical shear and flexure capacity are exhausted simultaneously at
a distance 2d from the support. Note: d = distance between extreme compres-
sion fiber and centroid of prestressing steel; Mn = nominal moment strength; Pa =
permanent loading other than dead loads; Va = applied shear at nominal moment
strength; Vn = nominal shear strength. 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 kip = 4.5 kN.
Experimental program
and test results
An experimental study was conducted to provide data for code
comparison. A series of shear tests were conducted on a Type
II AASHTO girder built in 1967 and serviced on an I-244
bridge in Tulsa until 2005.26 The data acquired from the ex-
perimental study provided a meaningful comparison with the
shear-strength analysis because the girder reflected the actual
condition of similar existing girders. The girder had a long
service history and was designed following the quarter-point
rule, which might be unconservative by todays standards.
designed according to the 1979 interim revision3 to the
AASHTO standard specifications. It was concluded that
150
the measured shear strength was higher than the estima-
tion based on the AASHTO LRFD specifications. A total
100
of four existing AASHTO Type III girders were tested
by Hamilton et al. with shear spantodepth ratios (a/d)
50 ranging from one to five. In all tests with a/d less than or
equal to three, failure was due to strand slip. For a/d ratios
greater than three, either shear compression or flexural
20
failure occurred. Hamilton et al. concluded that ACI 318-
08 provides the most accurate estimation of shear strength,
especially at low a/d ratios. Details of these experimental
studies, such as girder dimensions, age, concrete strength,
and tested shear spantodepth ratio were similar in some
aspects. However, the thicker webs of AASHTO Types III
and IV girders provide significantly more concrete to resist
shear failure.
The tested I-244 girder had a 42 ft span (13 m) and sixteen
0.5-in.-diameter (13 mm) prestressing strands tensioned to
28.8 kip (130 kN).29 Six strands were harped 0.35Lc from
the supports, where Lc is the span length. Figure 14 shows
the half elevation and section views. The concrete design
strength was 5000 psi (35 MPa), though core samples
revealed greater actual strength.26 The transverse rein-
forcement spacing was 8 in. (200 mm) within 0.3Lc from
the supports and 12 in. (300 mm) throughout the middle
section.
The girder was removed from service in 2005 due to
excessive corrosion of the reinforcing steel on one end.29,30

Figure 14. Elevation and section drawings of the tested Interstate 244 bridge girder show a relatively conservative design for the time. Source: Reproduced by permission
from the Oklahoma Department of Transportation 2004. Note: @ = at; CL = centerline; L = length; = diameter. #4 = no. 4 = 13M; #6 = no. 6 = 19M; #8 = no. 8 = 25M;
1" = 1 in. = 25.4 mm;

68 W int e r 2 0 1 1 | PCI Journal


C 300
S1
36 in. S2 30.7 in.
T1
T Test 1
34 in.
0.89Pa 0.11Pa
Figure 15. The Interstate 244 girder was tested four times in this configura-
tion. The figure also illustrates the strut-and-tie model where strut S1 carries the
majority of the load. Although harped tendons are present in the girder, they are
neglected to keep the model efficient in terms of strain energy. Note: C = compres-
sion force acting on strut-and-tie region from Bernoulli region of beam; Pa = ap-
plied load; q = shear-force distribution acting on strut-and-tie region from Bernoulli
region of beam; R = reaction from support; S1 = compression strut in strut-and-tie
model; S2 = compression strut in strut-and-tie model; T = tension force acting on
strut-and-tie region from Bernoulli region of beam; T1 = tension tie in strut-and-tie
model. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
The girder was remediated for the corroded end by restor-
ing the concrete section and applying a fiber-reinforced
polymer (FRP) U-wrap. A similar process is used to retrofit
bridge girders that have been damaged to a lesser degree
and remained in service. A 3 in. 3 in. (80 mm 80 mm)
grid was drawn on the beam to provide a reference system
for documenting cracks and positioning equipment.
The test configurations were designed to obtain four
measurements of shear capacity from the same specimen.
The failure-mode analysis detailed in the previous section
shows that shear failure is not likely to occur prior to flex-
ural failure anywhere along the span. To force shear failure,
the shear spantodepth ratios were kept as small as pos-
sible for each of the four shear tests. The girder was first
point loaded at 34 in. (860 mm) from the support center of
the nonrepaired end (test 1). Simple supports were placed
at 18 in. (450 mm) from the nonrepaired end and 15.5 ft
(4.7 m) from the FRP wrap-repaired end (Fig. 15). The re-
sulting supported span was 25 ft (7.6 m). The same testing
configuration was used for test 2 on the repaired end.
Following the first round of shear tests on the full-length
girder (tests 1 and 2), the damaged ends of the beam were
removed at locations 6.25 ft (1.9 m) from the nonrepaired
end and 9.5 ft (3 m) from the FRP wrap-repaired end. This
created a new span of 26.25 ft (8 m). Tests 3 and 4 were
conducted similarly with a/d equal to 1.0 and a supported
span of 18 ft (6 m).
A 400 kip (1780 kN) load cell measured the load, and 10 in.
(250 mm) wire potentiometers measured the deflection. For
350 350
(328 kip)*
300
(266 kip)* 270 kip
250 250
Applied shear, kip
200 kip
200 200
150 150
100 100
Test 2 (FRP-repaired)
50 Test 3 50
Test 4 (near the damaged end)
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Deflection at loading point, in.
Figure 16. The measured shear-deflection relationships show the ductile failure
of test 1 and the abrupt bond failure of test 4. Tests 2 and 3 show that the shear
strength was larger than 266 kip near the end repaired with fiber-reinforced poly-
mer and the nondamaged end. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
tests on the full-length girder, deflection measurements were
taken at points roughly uniformly distributed over the entire
span. For the shortened girder, measurements were taken at
two points within the supported span. More details on the
testing method are available in other publications.26,31,32
Originally limited by the capacity of the load cell (a 300
kip [1330 kN] load cell was used initially), test 1 was re-
peated. Figure 16 shows the resulting flexural failure (even
at a/d of 1) as evidenced by the observed concrete crushing
at the top of the girder and by substantial ductility. Test 4
resulted in bond failure of the prestressing steel indicated
by significant measured slippage (0.15 in. [4 mm]) of the
tendons at the girder end. Tests 2 and 3 were limited by the
capacity of the loading frame and hydraulic pump. Thus,
additional shear capacity was expected for those tests.
Figure 16 also shows the applied shear-deflection relation-
ships as well as maximum applied shear forces for each
test. A comparison of the experimental results for shear
strength of the I-244 girder with the code-specified nomi-
nal shear strengths is presented in the section Comparison
of Code-Defined Shear Strength, Experimental Results,
and Strut-and-Tie Model.
Strut-and-tie model
Strut-and-tie models may be used to predict shear capacity
when beam theory is not applicable, such as in D-regions.
The girder is modeled as a truss where concrete struts take
the compressive loads and steel ties take the tension loads.
Strut-and-tie models were used to estimate shear capacity
because the shear-capacity tests conducted in this study
were performed within D-regions. For this purpose, provi-
sions from both the AASHTO LRFD specifications and
ACI 318-08 (appendix A) were considered.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2011 69
 Test 2*
(328 kip)
AASHTO-STD - FRP
AASHTO-LRFD
300 Test 1* Test 3
ACI-318 (266 kip) (270 kip)
Test data
Nominal shear strength, kip
Test 4
(200 kip)
200
100
0 the girder for the tested section. The effective prestressing
Code- Strut- Shear
defined and-tie test
strength models data
Figure 17. Experimental results, with the exception of test 4, show that the Inter-
state 244 girder exceeds nominal strengths of American Association of Highway
and Transportation Officials' AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and ACI 318-08. Note: AASHTO-LRFD
= AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications; AASHTO-STD = AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges. 1 kip = 4.5 kN.
Figure 15 shows the selected strut-and-tie model for the
tested girder according to both the AASHTO LRFD speci-
fications and ACI 318-08. Matamoros et al.33 concluded
that strut-and-tie models with nodes containing small
angles between struts and ties are inefficient (strain energy
is increased) and unlikely to represent the actual behavior.
ACI 318-08 prohibits such nodes where struts and ties
intersect at angles less than 25 deg. The AASHTO LRFD
specifications allow them; however, they are discour-
aged through a reduction factor applied to strut capacity.
Although the I-244 girder contains harped strands, they
were neglected because small angles were unavoidable in
strut-and-tie configurations that included them.
The width of tie T1 (Fig. 15) was taken as twice the dis-
tance from the soffit of the girder to the center of gravity
of the steel. The node connecting tie T1 and strut S1 was
considered to be nonhydrostatic to prevent unrealistic node
geometry. Under these circumstances, the width of strut S1
was based on the length of the bearing plate and the width
of tie T1. The available concrete for strut S1 was controlled
by the web because it was the thinnest part of the member.
The location of the horizontal compressive force was taken
as a distance of about half the assumed Whitney stress
block at the loaded section. Detailed calculations are pre-
sented in other publications.31,32
The analysis revealed that the tie T1 governed the failure
load. The AASHTO LRFD specifications and ACI 318-
08 specify bilinear relationships for the development of
prestressing strands, both requiring the development length
70 W int e r 2 0 1 1 | PCI Journal
to be greater than 55 in. (1400 mm) to fully develop the
strands, of which only 10 in. (250 mm) were available.
Comparison of code-defined shear
strength, experimental results,
and strut-and-tie model
The calculated margins of safety of the tested girder were
1.83, 1.30, and 1.47 for the AASHTO standard specifica-
tions, AASHTO LRFD specifications, and ACI 318-08,
respectively (Table 2). These margins of safety indicate
that the tested girder satisfies both the older and current
codes, unlike the Little River Overflow Bridge girder. The
nominal shear strength was analyzed using properties of
force was assumed to be 150 ksi (1000 MPa). The analysis
also included the strut-and-tie capacity to reflect the con-
figuration in which the girder was tested.
All tested sections had the same calculated shear strength
for each code and strut-and-tie model because the shear
spantodepth ratio was about 1.0 and the transverse
reinforcement spacing over the entire shear span was 8 in.
(200 mm). Figure 17 shows these results. The actual tested
strength of the girder exceeds the nominal strength of each
code, including strut-and-tie provisions, except for the
bond failure in test 4. This supports the conclusion that the
beam had enough capacity to satisfy the AASHTO LRFD
specifications.
In this study, strut-and-tie capacity is conservative due to
the lack of sufficient anchorage length for the prestressing
strands, which agrees with the conclusions of Hamilton
et al.28 If the anchorage length is assumed to be sufficient
to fully develop the strands, the compressive strut would
control. However, the nominal shear strength under this
circumstance would still be less than the nominal shear
strength estimated using the general methods for the analy-
sis discussed in the section Background.
Conclusion
Comparing the nominal shear capacity of a given member
estimated using different codes might not give the best
indication of the performance for older girders designed
according to the quarter-point rule due to many other fac-
tors in the codes. The margin of safety includes all consid-
erations in the analysis and thus is adopted in the study for
code-to-code comparisons. For each type of model girder,
the comparison of margins of safety indicates that girders
designed under the older AASHTO standard specifications
might not meet the shear design requirements of the cur-
rent codes. Although each of the model girders analyzed in
this study maintains a margin of safety greater than 1.0 for
current codes, some girders designed during the 1960s and
1970s might not. The Little River Overflow Bridge is an
example of this case.
The margin-of-safety analysis indicated that girders from
the Little River Overflow Bridge do not satisfy current re-
quirements of the AASHTO LRFD specifications (margin
of safety < 1.0). Furthermore, the failure-mode analysis
shows that shear failure was possible for these girders in D-
regions. Although a recent inspection8 confirmed that there
were no signs of shear cracking or premature deterioration,
continued regular inspection and further studies are recom-
mended. Conversely, the tested I-244 girder represents
a fairly conservative design for its time. Shear failure is
not of much concern according to the test results and the
failure-mode analysis.
To check overall safety, the I-244 and Little River Overflow
bridges were rated for inventory loads and AASHTO legal
loads based on AASHTO LRFR. Although neither bridge
passed the inventory check, both bridges have sufficient
rating factors for AASHTO legal loads under any condition
rating. Therefore, neither load posting nor strengthening
for shear are necessary for either of the studied bridges.
Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by the Oklahoma Department
of Transportation (ODOT) under ODOT SPR ITEM 2186,
Rating Precast Prestressed Concrete Bridges for Shear.
The authors express their sincere gratitude to the follow-
ing personnel and organizations: Walt Peters, Bob Rusch,
Richard Moon, Annie Lombardo, Kenny Seward, and Siv
Sundaram from ODOT. They are acknowledged for their
assistance. Colby J. Sandburg, a former masters student,
is acknowledged for his contribution to the project that
led to a portion of the experimental results reported in the
paper. Michael Schmitz, technical staff, and Christopher
Ramseyer, director of the Donald G. Fears Structural
Engineering Laboratory, from the University of Oklahoma
(OU) are appreciated for their laboratory technical assis-
tance. Dewayne Jantz from Becco Inc. is acknowledged for
his donation of the I-244 girder for testing. Also, OU- and
National Science Foundation (NSF)funded Research Ex-
periences for Undergraduates (REU) students assistance
and participation in the field work or laboratory testing
are acknowledged: Priyantha Wijesinghe, Aaron Lan-
drum, Christopher Davis, Krisda Piyawat, Eric Mai, Sarah
Zimmermann, and Craig Borchard. Finally, Yu Huang, a
doctoral student, is acknowledged for his assistance in the
reproduction of the I-244 and Little River Overflow Bridge
girder drawings.
References
1. American Association of State Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials (AASHTO). 1973. Standard Specifica-
tions for Highway Bridges. 11th ed. Washington, DC:
AASHTO.
2. AASHTO. 1977. Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges. 12th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
3. AASHTO. 1979. Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges. 1979 Interim Revisions. Washington, DC:
AASHTO.
4. AASHTO. 2004. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
5. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318.
2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (318R-08).
Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
6. AASHTO. 2003. Guide Manual for Condition Evalua-
tion and Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR)
of Highway Bridges. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
7. N. Rajagopalan. 2002. Prestressed Concrete. Pang-
bourne, England: Alpha Science International.
8. Peters, W. L. 2007. Private Communication. Oklaho-
ma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of Transportation
(ODOT), Bridge Division.
9. Vecchio, F. J., and M. P. Collins. 1986. The Modified
Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subjected to Shear. ACI Journal, V. 83, No.
2 (March): pp. 219231.
10. Mitchell, D., and M. P. Collins. 1976. Diagonal Com-
pression Field TheoryA Rational Model of Structur-
al Concrete in Pure Torsion. ACI Journal, V. 71, No. 8
(August): pp. 396408.
11. AASHTO. 1983. Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges. 13th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
12. AASHTO. 1989. Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges. 14th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
13. AASHTO. 1992. Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges. 15th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
14. AASHTO. 1996. Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges. 16th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
15. AASHTO. 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges. 17th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
16. AASHTO. 1994. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. 1st ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
17. AASHTO. 1998. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2011 71
 18. AASHTO. 2008. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, 4th Edition2008 Interim Revisions.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
19. AASHTO. 2000. Manuals for Condition Evaluation of
Bridges. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
20. Jaramilla, B., and S. Huo. 2005. Looking to Load and
Resistance Factor Rating. Public Road, V. 69, No. 1
(JulyAugust): pp. 5865.
21. Moses, F. 2001. Calibration of Load Factors for LRFR
Bridge Evaluation. NCHRP report no. 454. National
Research Council. Washington, DC: Transportation
Research Board.
22. Olesen, S. E., M. A. Sozen, and C. P. Siess. 1965.
Investigation of Prestressed Reinforced Concrete
for Highway Bridges, Part IV: Strength in Shear for
Beams with Web Reinforcement. Bulletin 493: Engi-
neering Experiment Station. University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL.
23. Russell, B. W., and N. H. Burns. 1993. Static and
Fatigue Behavior of Pretensioned Composite Bridge
Girders Made with High Strength Concrete. PCI Jour-
nal, V. 38, No. 3 (MayJune): pp. 116128.
24. Cumming, D. A., C. E. French, and C. Shield. 1998.
Shear Capacity of High-Strength Concrete Prestressed
Concrete Girders. Technical report, University of Min-
nesota, Twin Cities, MN.
25. Ma, Z. J., M. K. Tadros, and M. Baishya. 2000. Shear
Behavior of Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete
Bridge I-Girders. ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1
(JanuaryFebruary): pp. 185192.
26. Sandburg, C. J. 2007. Shearing Capacity of Pre-
stressed Concrete AASHTO Girders. MS thesis, Uni-
versity of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
27. Runzel, B., C. K. Shield, and C. E. French. 2008.
Shear Capacity of Prestressed Concrete Beams.
Report 2007-47, final report. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota
Department of Transportation.
28. Hamilton III, H. R., L. Gustavo, and B. E. Ross. 2009.
Shear Performance of Existing Prestressed Concrete
Bridge Girders. Report BD 545-56, final report.
Gainesville, FL: Florida Department of Transportation.
29. Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT).
2004. Bridge Repair Details, I-244 over Arkansas
River, Tulsa County, Bridges A & B. Oklahoma City,
OK: ODOT.
72 W int e r 2 0 1 1 | PCI Journal
30. Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT).
2007. Bridge Inspection Report, I-244 over Arkansas
River, Tulsa County. NBI no. 17052, structure no.
7209 0410EX. Oklahoma City, OK: ODOT.
31. Pei, J.-S., R. D. Martin, C. J. Sandburg, and T. H.-K.
Kang. 2009. Rating Precast Prestressed Concrete
Bridges for Shear. ODOT SPR ITEM 2186: Univer-
sity of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
32. Martin, R. D. 2009. Shear Capacity, Flexural Stiffness
and Effective Prestressing Force of AASHTO Girders.
MS thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
33. Matamoros, A., and J. A. Ramirez. 2002. Prestressed
Beam. ACI special publication SP208-04ex.6. In
SP-208: Strut and Tie Models, edited by Karl-Heinz
Reineck and ACI Committee 445, pp. 163184. Farm-
ington Hills, MI: ACI.
Notation
a = shear span
Ac = concrete cross-sectional area
Aps = area of prestressing steel in the flexural tension zone
Av = cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement within
spacing s
Av,min = minimum cross-sectional areas of minimum shear
reinforcement
b' = width of web
bv = width of web
bw = web width
C = structural capacity or compression force acting on strut-
and-tie region from Bernoulli region of beam (Fig. 15)
d = distance between extreme compression fiber and
centroid of prestressing steel
dp = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid
of prestressing steel
dv = effective shear depth taken as the distance between
resultants of tensile and compressive forces due to
flexure
D = dead load given by AASHTO standard specifications
DC = dead load due to structural component given by
AASHTO LRFD specifications or dead-load effect
 of structural components and attachments given by
AASHTO LRFR
DW = dead load due to the wearing surface given by
AASHTO LRFD specifications or dead-load effect
of wearing surfaces and utilities given by AASHTO
LRFR
fcl = specified concrete strength
fcsl = concrete design strength for slab deck
fpc = compressive stress in concrete at centroid of gross
section resisting externally applied loads
fps = stress in tendons at nominal moment strength
fpu = specified tensile strength of prestressing tendons
fse = effective prestress in prestressing tendons
fy = specified yield stress of shear reinforcement
F.S. = factor of safety
h = total depth of the cross section
I = impact live load given by AASHTO standard
specifications or dynamic load allowance given by
AASHTO LRFR
IM = impact live load equal to 33% of LL of dynamic
load allowance
j = ratio of distance between centroid of compression
and centroid of tension and d
l = length of the portion that is loaded to produce the
maximum stress in the member
L = live load given by AASHTO standard specifications
Lc = center-to-center span length
LL = live load given by AASHTO LRFD specifications or
live-load effect given by AASHTO LRFR
Mcre = moment causing flexural cracking at section due to
externally applied loads
Mmax = f actored moment at section due to externally applied
loads
Mn = nominal moment strength
P = permanent loading other than dead loads or applied
load
Pa = applied load (Fig. 15)
PL = point live load
q = shear force distribution acting on strut-and-tie
region from Bernoulli region of beam
R = reaction from support
RF = rating factor
Rn = nominal member resistance
s = shear-reinforcement spacing
st = spacing between girders in the transverse direction
T = tension force acting on strut-and-tie region from
Bernoulli region of beam
Va = applied shear at nominal moment strength
Vc = shear resistance of concrete
Vci = concrete shear strength when cracking results from
combined shear and moment
Vcw = concrete shear strength when cracking results from
high principal tensile stress
Vd = unfactored shear due to dead loads
Vi = factored shear at section due to externally applied
loads
Vn = nominal shear strength
Vp = vertical component of effective prestressing force
Vs = shear resistance of steel shear reinforcement
Vu = design shear demand
xC = condition factor
= softening parameter of concrete
DC = load-resistance-factor-design load factor for struc-
tural components and attachments
DW = load-resistance-factor-design load factor for wear-
ing surfaces and utilities
LL = evaluation live-load factor
P = load-resistance-factor-design load factor for perma-
nent loads other than dead loads
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2011 73
 = angle of inclination of shear stress
= shear-strength reduction factor
S = system factor that accounts for the level of redundancy
About the authors
PCI member Thomas H.-K. Kang,
PhD, P.E., is an assistant professor
in the School of Civil Engineering
and Environmental Science at the
University of Oklahoma in
Norman, Okla.
Randy D. Martin is a former
graduate research assistant in the
School of Civil Engineering and
Environmental Science at the
University of Oklahoma.
Jin-Song Pei, PhD, is an associate
professor in the School of Civil
Engineering and Environmental
Science at the University of
Oklahoma.
Synopsis
A 40-year-old girder was removed from the Interstate
244 highway bridge crossing the Arkansas River in
Tulsa, Okla., and was tested and analyzed to determine
whether the experimental results exceeded estimated
shear capacities. The results of this experiment pro-
vided direct evidence regarding the performance of
girders designed according to the quarter-point rule
being overloaded in shear. In addition, nominal shear
capacity of American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) prestressed
concrete model girders was analyzed to determine
74 W int e r 2 0 1 1 | PCI Journal
the relationship between past and more-recent codes.
Comparisons of nominal shear capacities showed
the progression of analysis but were only relevant to
their corresponding shear demands. In light of this
limitation, the shear demands were calculated so that
a comparison of the margins of safety could be made.
Margin of safety is defined in this study as the ratio
of shear strength to shear demand, considering all
load and strength reduction factors from the respec-
tive codes. Strut-and-tie models were also used to
analyze nominal strength considering provisions from
both ACI 318-08 and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. Overall, code-to-code and code-to-ex-
periment comparisons provided better guidelines and
validation for evaluating the safety of AASHTO bridge
girders designed according to the quarter-point rule.
Keywords
Bridge, design, experiment, girder, shear.
Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institutes peer-review
process.
Reader comments
Please address any reader comments to journal@pci
.org or Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI
Journal, 200 W. Adams St., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL
60606. J