Shear strengthening
of continuous concrete beams
using externally prestressed
steel bars
Swoo-Heon Lee, Hee-Du Lee, Kyung-Jae Shin,
and Thomas H.-K. Kang
■ This paper reports on the use of externally prestressed steel
bars to strengthen continuous reinforced concrete beams in
shear.
■ The load-carrying capacity of the strengthened beams was
increased by about 35% compared with the control beam.
■ Both the ACI 318-11 detailed approach and AASHTO LRFD
specifications method accurately predicted the measured shear
strength and failure location of the strengthened continuous
beams.
F
or aging precast, prestressed, and reinforced con-
crete structures, it may be necessary to repair, retro-
fit, and improve serviceability or increase strength.1,2
External prestressing is a retrofitting and strengthening
method with simple and rapid installation. Because precast
and prestressed concrete members may experience cor-
rosion of longitudinal and web reinforcement, PCI has
published research on a variety of rehabilitation technolo-
gies, including external prestressing.3–5 However, most of
these publications have focused on the effect of external
prestressing on the flexural behavior of prestressed and
reinforced concrete members.
A few investigations have been conducted on the behavior
of members strengthened in shear with external steel or
fiber composites. The behavior and strength of retrofitted
beams in shear have not been well understood. The follow-
ing summary discusses prior research on shear strengthen-
ing of concrete beams using externally prestressed steel
strands or carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars.
Tan and Ng conducted a test and analysis on the shear
strength of simply supported reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with straight external tendons.6 A total of
seven beams with different concrete strengths, shear
reinforcement, loading types, and shear span–to–effective
depth ratios were tested. The external tendon system was
installed using an aluminum tube deviator at midspan and
anchorage blocks at the beam ends. A prestressing force
corresponding to 0.4fpu (equal to 760 MPa [110 ksi]) was
PCI Journal | Fa ll 2014 77
 applied to 12.7 mm (0.50 in.) diameter seven-wire strands,
where fpu is the average tensile strength of the tendons. The
test results compared well with the predictions from the
strut-and-tie model of Tan and Naaman, which had been
developed for a simply supported beam with external ten-
dons and a deviator.7 Most of the beams failed in shear. The
measured external tendon stress and shear strength were
lower for the beam with lower concrete strength and/or less
shear reinforcement.
Ng and Soudki conducted an experimental investigation
of reinforced concrete members with external CFRP bars.8
The variables included shear span, shear reinforcement,
and prestressing force. CFRP bars were installed externally
above the tension reinforcement level, and the prestress-
ing force was provided locally using a hydraulic jack. As a
result, the external prestress increased the shear capacity,
with a greater increase with higher prestress. However, the
external prestressing system of Ng and Soudki may not be
easy to apply in the field.
Nguyen et al. experimentally evaluated the effect of exter-
nal prestress according to the location of anchorage and
deviators.9 Two-point loading was imposed on three simply
supported concrete beams with both internal and external
tendons and with a shear span–to–depth ratio of 3.5. Two
deviators were used for the external tendon. The angle be-
tween the deviator and anchorage was 9.0° or 14.2°. While
the distance of 400 mm (16 in.) between the two load
points remained constant, the distance between the two
deviators was 800 or 1600 mm (31 or 63 in.). The shear
strength of the beam with a more draped tendon profile,
which failed in shear compression, was higher. Despite a
difference of deviator location and tendon angle, however,
similar elastic stiffness and cracking load were exhibited.
This study investigated the shear strengthening effect of
external prestressing. As shear strengthening materials,
prestressing steel bars were used with a V-shaped profile.
The external prestressing steel bar system has been practi-
cally applied in Korea. To attach the anchorage system to
concrete, holes were drilled for anchor bolts that provide
combined shear and tensile forces (Fig. 1). The anchor
system was inserted through the anchor bolts and fixed by
tightening nuts. A clevis was needed for each anchorage
system (Fig. 1). A deviator was installed at the center of
the slab, where four steel bars were connected using four
clevises. Finally, prestressing was applied by tightening
turn buckles at midlength of the steel bar.
Experimental program
Test specimens
An experimental program was conducted to investigate the
shear strengthening effect of external prestressing bars on
continuous concrete beams in a building (Fig. 2 and 3). The
78 F a l l 2 0 1 4 | PCI Journal
positive moment at midspan was reduced by the nega-
tive moment at the interior supports, which induced shear
failure rather than flexural failure. A total of three beams
with a 400 × 600 mm (16 × 24 in.) rectangular section
and 9400 mm (370 in.) total length were prepared. The
compression bars were two 22M bars (no. 7), and the
tension bars were five 22M bars with a yield strength of
441 MPa (64.0 ksi) at midspan. By contrast, five 22M
bars of bonded mild steel reinforcement were provided
at the interior support section. The shear reinforcement
consisted of 10 mm (0.4 in.) stirrups with a yield strength
of 402 MPa (58.3 ksi) spaced at 400 mm (16 in.) along the
beam length for all beams. The interior span length was
6000 mm (236 in.), and both exterior spans were 1500 mm
(59 in.). Two point loads 1000 mm (39 in.) apart were
imposed inside the interior span.
One beam was an unstrengthened control beam, and the
other two beams (CB-T18V and CB-T22V) were strength-
ened with 18 or 22 mm (0.7 or 0.9 in.) mild steel bars
(where CB indicates continuous beam, T indicates tension
bar, 18 or 22 is the diameter of external steel tension bars,
and V indicates the V-shaped profile of the external bar
system). The yield strength was 635 MPa for the 18 mm
(92.1 ksi for 0.71 in.) diameter bars and 695 MPa for the
22 mm (101 ksi for 0.87 in.) diameter bars. The external
bar system was installed only on the interior span. Anchor-
ages passing through the beam width were located near the
top of the interior supports, and a deviator (or saddle pin)
was located at the bottom at midspan. The vertical distance
between beam top and anchorage centroid d2 and the hori-
zontal distance between interior support center and anchor-
age centroid d1 were both 150 mm (6 in.), and the effective
depth of external steel bars at midspan dp0 was 644 mm
(25.4 in.). The external prestressing force was applied by
tightening nuts or turnbuckles, which was monitored us-
ing two strain gauges attached at one location. The target
effective prestress fse was about 35% of the nominal yield
strength 400 MPa (58 ksi) of the external bars.
The concrete mixture was designed to have a compressive
strength of 24 MPa (3500 psi). The average compressive
strength f 'c of the concrete was about 25.9 MPa (3760 psi),
which was measured in accordance with ASTM C3910
for twelve 150 × 300 mm (6 × 12 in.) cylinders. Tables 1
and 2 summarize the test specimens and material test
results.
Loading and measurement
All continuous beams were subjected to two-point load-
ing. The loading was applied under stroke control using an
actuator of 3500 kN (770 kip) capacity. Linear variable dif-
ferential transformers (LVDTs) were located at the bottom
to measure midspan deflection including prestress-induced
uplift. Crack gauges or strain gauges were attached on
the front face of the beam at midspan and interior support
 Drilling for anchor bolts Anchorage system

Connecting steel rod to anchorage using clevis Connecting steel rod to deviator using clevises

Prestressing steel rods using turnbuckles After construction

Figure 1. Strengthening and uplifting of existing slab.

PCI Journal | Fa ll 2014 79

 Four 25 mm diameter P/2 P/2 18 mm or 22 mm diameter
threaded bars external steel bar
Load cell T1,T 1000
T2 T4
T3,T T6
T5,T

60 mm or 72 mm Saddle pin
LVDT
diameter yoke pin

1500 1500
1700 6000 1700

Figure 2. Dimensions and details of test specimens. Note: LVDT = linear variable differential transducer; P = load; T1 = tensile force in first strain gauge; T2 = tensile
force in second strain gauge; T3 = tensile force in third strain gauge; T4 = tensile force in fourth strain gauge; T5 = tensile force in fifth strain gauge; T6 = tensile force
in sixth strain gauge. All measurements are in millimeters. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

400 400
Two 22M bars Five 22M bars
10M stirrups 10M stirrups

600

600
560

560
at 400 mm at 400 mm
Five 22M bars Five 22M bars

(63 mm or 75 mm diameter) At midspan At interior support

Core drilling after concrete curing
3160 3000 3160

Outer 2 bars Inner 3 bars

10M stirrups at 400 mm along total length

750 750 6000 750 750
9000

Figure 3. Details of reinforcement. Note: All measurements are in millimeters. 10M = no. 3; 22M = no. 7; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

Table 1. Summary of specimens

Specimen As, mm2 , mm2 Aps, mm2 fse, MPa dp0, mm d1, mm d2, mm

1936
CB 774 (two 22M) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
(five 22M)

1936 509
CB-T18V 774 (two 22M) 138 644 150 150
(five 22M) (two 18 mm)

1936 760
CB-T22V 774 (two 22M) 173 644 150 150
(five 22M) (two 22 mm)

Note: Aps = area of external steel bars; As = area of tension reinforcement; = area of compression reinforcement; CB = continous beam; dp0 =
effective depth of external steel bars at saddle point; d1 = horizontal distance between the interior support and anchorage; d2 = vertical distance
between the beam top and anchorage; fse = effective external bar stress; n/a = not applicable. 22M = no. 7; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

80 F a l l 2 0 1 4 | PCI Journal
Table 2. Material test results
Bar diameter,
Type A, mm2
mm
10 71.3
Reinforcing bar
22 387.1
18 254.5
External bar
22 380.1
Concrete
Note: A = cross-sectional area of reinforcing bars or external steel bars; Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete; f'c = compressive strength of
concrete; fpu = tensile strength of external prestressing steel; fpy = yield strength external prestressing steel; fpy /fpu = prestressing steel yield ratio;
fu = tensile strength of mild steel reinforcement; fy = yield strength of mild steel reinforcement; fy /fu = mild steel yield ratio. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.;
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
to measure longitudinal deformations at various levels.
Displacement and strain data were used to find the curvature
or neutral axis location (Fig. 4). To increase the distance
between demountable mechanical strain gauge points, a
300 mm (12 in.) extension bar was connected to the original
crack gauge, resulting in a gauge length of 410 mm (16 in.).
The reaction force and moment diagram were obtained by
two load cells installed at the exterior supports. The load cell
was inserted between the beam top and the reaction plate
fixed by four threaded bars. Several strain gauges were at-
tached to the internal reinforcing bars before casting.
Experimental results
This section presents the measured load versus midspan
deflection, load-carrying capacity (first and second peak
loads), stiffness before and after cracking, and cracking
pattern and failure mode of the specimens.
Observed crack pattern
Vertical cracks initiated in the flexural span, where bend-
ing moment was highest and shear was zero. As the load
increased, flexural cracks also formed near the interior
supports at the top of the beam; however, for the strength-
ened beams these cracks were not prominent inside the
anchorage where the tensile stress was very low due to
the external prestressing. The increased loading caused
inclined cracking within the shear span, which was devel-
oped toward the loading point. Finally, high shear stress led
to diagonal tension failure. Figure 4 illustrates the crack
pattern and failure mode.
Applied load versus midspan
deflection responses
Figure 5 shows the applied load versus midspan deflec-
tion relation for three beams, and Table 3 summarizes the
fy (or fpy ), MPa fu (or fpu ), MPa fu/fu (or fpy /fpu ), %
402 627 64
441 629 67
635 800 77
695 824 82
= 25.9 MPa
Ec = 23.9 GPa
test results. In the control specimen, the initial stiffness
decreased due to flexural cracking at midspan at an applied
load of about 200 kN (45 kip). Shear failure occurred
in the shear span outside the loading point at 477 kN
(107 kip), which is the load at first peak, and its corre-
sponding midspan deflection was 13.6 mm (0.535 in.).
Loading was terminated at the rapid load reduction after
the second peak of 465 kN (105 kip).
The cracking load was around 200 kN (45 kip) for the two
specimens strengthened with external steel bars. The initial
deflections had negative values (camber), and the initial
uncracked stiffness was increased by 21% to 31% due to
external prestressing. The axial stiffness of the prestressed
steel bar appeared to increase the stiffness of the uncracked
system. The postcracking stiffness (slope) of the strength-
ened beam, however, was almost equal to that of the con-
trol beam (that is, the external prestressing hardly affected
the elastic stiffness of the cracked beam itself). Overall,
the application of external prestressing induced upward
deflection (recovered the existing deflection), improved the
initial uncracked stiffness, and increased the load-carrying
capacity.
The first peak load was 538 kN (121 kip) for CB-T18V
and 536 kN (121 kip) for CB-T22V, which are larger than
the control beam’s first peak load of 477 kN (107 kip) by
at least 12%, and the corresponding deflections were 15
and 14 mm (0.59 and 0.55 in.), respectively. After the first
peak load, the load declined temporarily with increas-
ing deflection during which the shear-crack width also
increased (but not as much as in the control). The load
then increased up to the second peak of 633 kN (142 kip)
for CB-T18V. For CB-T22V, the load decreased more
than CB-T18V after the first peak load but recovered more
quickly due to the higher postyield stiffness and increased
up to 656 kN (148 kip). This observation is important
because the external prestressing prevented rapid deg-
PCI Journal | Fa ll 2014 81
 Specimen CB (front face)

Specimen CB-T18V (front face)

Specimen CB-T22V (back face)

Figure 4. Recorded cracks. Note: All measurements are in millimeters. CB = continous beam. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

82 F a l l 2 0 1 4 | PCI Journal
 700
Specimen CB-T22V

600

500
Specimen CB-T18V
Applied load, kN

400
Specimen CB
300

200

100

0
-5 5 15 25 35 45
Deflection, mm

Figure 5. Applied total load versus midspan deflection. Note: CB = continous beam. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN =0.225 kip.

radation of the load and even enabled the beam to carry
additional load due to the catenary action of the external
steel bars (Fig. 7). As a result, the load-carrying capacity of
the strengthened beam was greater than that of the control
by 33% to 38% due to the catenary action of the externally
prestressed bars as well as the increased shear capacity of
the beam.
Figure 6 shows the external bar strain histories from initial
prestress to testing termination. Based on these strain data,
the external bar stress values for three points (at effec-
tive stress and at first and second peak loads) are marked
on the plots of stress-strain curves obtained from coupon
tests (Fig. 7). The first point represents the effective stress
due to external prestress, and the second and third points
represent the bar stresses at first and second peak loads,
respectively. The effective stress of 138 MPa (20.0 ksi) in
CB-T18V increased to 274 MPa (39.7 ksi) at the first peak
and to 359 MPa (52.1 ksi) at the second peak. Similarly,
the bar stress in CB-T22V increased from 173 to 267 to
328 MPa (25.1 to 38.7 to 47.6 ksi). For both CB-T18V and
CB-T22V specimens, the external steel bars did not reach
yield because the testing was terminated abruptly by shear
failure.
Figure 8 shows the variation of longitudinal concrete
strains at a midspan section and at the neutral axis. The y-
axis is the height of the location where crack gauges were

Table 3. Comparison of applied load-deflection responses

Before cracking After cracking First peak load Second peak load

Kini, kN/mm Increase, % Kpost, N/mm Increase, % P1st peak, kN Increase, % P2nd peak, kN Increase, %
Specimen

CB 42.4 n/a 31.9 n/a 477 n/a 465 n/a

CB-T18V 55.5 +31 31.0 -3 538 +13 633 +36

CB-T22V 51.4 +21 32.5 +2 536 +12 656 +41

Note: CB = continous beam; Kini = initial stiffness before cracking; Kpost = stiffness after cracking; P1st peak = first peak load; P2nd peak = second peak load;
n/a = not applicable. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN =0.225 kip.

PCI Journal | Fa ll 2014 83

 700
Specimen CB-T22V

600

500 Specimen CB-T18V

Applied load, kN

400

300

200

100

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
External bar strain,

Figure 6. External bar strain histories of two strengthened specimens. Note: CB = continous beam. 1 kN =0.225 kip.

1000

800
Stress, MPa

18 mm diameter
600
22 mm diameter
fps2 of specimen CB-T18V

400 fps1 of specimen CB-T18V

fse of specimen CB-T18V
fps2 of specimen CB-T22V
200 fps1 of specimen CB-T22V
fse of specimen CB-T22V

0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Strain,

Figure 7. External bar strain and stress monitored during testing. Note: CB = continous beam. fps1 = external steel bar stress at first peak load; fps2 = external steel
bar stress at second peak load; fse = effective prestress of external steel bar. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

84 F a l l 2 0 1 4 | PCI Journal
 600
CR1 45
500
0 170

170
400

dep mmm
CR2
CR2
170

a depth,
45
300

CR3
CR3 eam
Beam
200

1st peakk load

100 = 536
3 kN
200 kN
CR4
CR4 0 kN 400 kN
100 kN 300 kN
0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Strain,

Figure 8. Longitudinal concrete strain and neutral axis position at midspan in CB-T22V specimen. Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN =0.225 kip.

120
y=0.2941x y =0.2083 x

Specimen
ec CB-T18V
Specimen
e CB
90
Specimen CB-T22V
CB
Reaction force, kN

60

30

0
0 200 400 600 800
Applied load, kN

Figure 9. Reaction force in exterior support. Note: CB = continous beam. 1 kN =0.225 kip.

PCI Journal | Fa ll 2014 85


Nominal shear strength Vn , kN
600
500
400 Simplified
fied equation of ACI 318-11
300
200
100 Measured shear force
0
-1500 -1000
Figure 10. CB specimen. Note: crack patterns are from the front face. CB = continous beam. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN =0.225 kip.
attached. The longitudinal strains in the concrete at the
various points were proportional to the distance from the
neutral axis. Before loading the CB-T18V and CB-T22V
specimens, the concrete strain was positive at the top of the
beam and negative at the bottom due to the prestress. The
signs of the strains were reversed at around 60 kN (13 kip).
The absolute strain values of the strengthened beam are
lower than those in the control at each loading step. The
external prestress appeared to restrain the bending of the
beam between the loading points. Between the first and
second peak loads, the concrete strain did not significantly
increase and the vertical distribution of the strain remained
linear until shear failure. After the first peak, the beam
deflection increase was attributed mainly to the widening
of diagonal cracks and shear deformation of the shear span.
The neutral axis shifted upward as the load increased, and
the neutral axis movement was the smallest for the control
beam where no prestress was applied.
Figure 9 plots the upward reaction force at the exterior
support against the total applied load. The reaction force
varied from about 21% to 29% of the applied total load.
For the control, the relationship between the exterior sup-
port reaction and the applied load was linear up to an ap-
plied load of 200 kN (45 kip), beyond which the relation-
ship became slightly nonlinear, possibly due to substantial
cracking and crack opening. On the other hand, there was
86 F a l l 2 0 1 4 | PCI Journal
Loading
Centerline
Detailed equation of ACI 318
8-11
AASHTO
TO LRFD specifications
specificatio
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Distance from interior support, mm
an essentially linear relation between the support reaction
and applied load for the strengthened beams. This confirms
that for the strengthened beams there were no plastic bar
deformations or moment redistributions before failure.
Comparisons with predictions
The measured shear forces are compared with predictions
obtained from the code equations of the American Con-
crete Institute’s Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary (ACI 318R-11)11
and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials’ AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications12 (Table 4), despite the fact that these equa-
tions are intended to apply to prestressed concrete beams
with internal tendons. Figures 10, 11, and 12 show the
measured shear forces along the half span and the predict-
ed nominal shear strengths (provided by concrete, shear
reinforcement, and/or external steel bars) without design
factors. The predictions of Appendix B5.2 of the
AASHTO LRFD specifications are generally more con-
servative than the simplified or detailed predictions of
ACI 318-11 for all of the members of this study. Both the
ACI 318-11 simplified and detailed approaches overesti-
mate the actual shear strength of the control beam without
external bars and thus may not be appropriate for predic-
tion of the shear strength of a continuous concrete beam.
 Loading

Centerline
600
Nominal shear strengthVn , kN

Simplified
fied equation of ACI 318-11
500
Detailed
ailed equation
q of ACI 318-11
400

300

200
AASHTO
TO LRFD specificatio
specifications
100 Measured
red shear fforce
0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Distance from interior support, mm

Figure 11. CB-T18V specimen. Note: cracking patterns are from the front face. CB = continous beam. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN =0.225 kip.

Loading

Centerline
600
Nominal shear strength Vn , kN

Simplified
fied equation of ACI 318-11
500
Deta
ailed equation of ACI 318-11
400

300

200
AASHTO
TO LRFD specificat
specifications
100
Measured
red shear force
0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Distance from interior support, mm

Figure 12. CB-T22V specimen. Note: cracking patterns are from the front face. CB = continous beam. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN =0.225 kip.

PCI Journal | Fa ll 2014 87

 Table 4. Shear strength equations (SI units)
Reference Equations
1. Eq. (11-3) of ACI 318-11 (simplified approach)

2. Eq. (11-5) of ACI 318-11 (detailed approach)

ACI 318-11 (nonprestressed member)

where

3. Eq. (11-15) of ACI 318-11

1. Eq. (11-9) of ACI 318-11 (simplified approach)

where

2. Eq. (11-10) or (11-12) of ACI 318-11 (detailed approach)

Vc = lessor of (VciVcw)
ACI 318-11 (noncomposite prestressed member)
where

in which

3. Eq. (11-15) of ACI 318-11

On the other hand, the AASHTO LRFD specifications
predict the shear failure and its location (between 1400 mm
[55 in.] and 2500 mm [98 in.] from the interior support)
reasonably well.
For the strengthened beams, the prestress force and the
vertical component by external bar force significantly
increased the nominal shear strengths between two anchor-
ages (Fig. 16 and 17), whereas the shear strength outside
the anchorages (from -1500 to 150 mm [-59 to 6 in.] from
the interior support) was the same as that of the control
beam. At a distance of 1100 or 1200 mm (43 or 47 in.)
from the interior support, both the ACI 318-11 (detailed ap-
proach) and AASHTO LRFD specifications shear strengths
begin to diminish. This is because the factored moment-to-
shear ratio Mu/Vu increases with distance from the interior
support of the continuous beam. In particular, the nominal
shear strength based on the ACI 318-11 detailed approach
decreases more substantially (compared with AASHTO
LRFD specifications or the ACI 318-11 simple approach)
near the loading point. For the ACI 318-11 simplified ap-
proach, the predicted shear strength does not correspond
to the observed result and is greater than the strength
calculated using the detailed equation. This is due to the
high values of Vu/Mu in the continuous beam; the upper
limit (where λ is the modification factor
reflecting the reduced mechanical properties of lightweight
concrete, b is the beam width, and d is the distance from
extreme compression fiber to centroid of longitudinal ten-
sion reinforcement) is also quite large, suggesting that the
simplified equation may not be conservative for most cases
of continuous prestressed concrete beams.
In the prestressed region, the effect of external prestress-
ing bars is reasonably estimated by both ACI 318-11
(detailed approach) and AASHTO LRFD specifications.

88 F a l l 2 0 1 4 | PCI Journal
Table 4. Shear strength equations (SI units) cont'd.
Reference Equations
AASHTO LRFD specifications 1. Vn shall be determined as the lessor of:
Eq. (5.8.3.3-1) of AASHTO LFRD specifications
Vn = Vc + Vs + Vp
Eq. (5.8.3.3-2) of AASHTO LFRD specifications

2. (5.8.3.3-3) of AASHTO LFRD specifications

3. (C5.8.3.3-1) of AASHTO LFRD specifications

Note: As = area of tension reinforcing bars; Av = area of vertical components of shear reinforcement within spacing s; b = beam width; bv = effective
beam width; d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of prestressing and nonprestressed longitudinal tension reinforcement (≥ 0.80h);
dp = effective depth of external prestressing steel (≥ 0.80h; except for ACI 318 simplified equation [Eq. 11-9 of ACI 318] in Table 4); dv = effective shear
depth between resultants of tensile and compressive forces due to flexure (≥ 0.90de or 0.72h); f c' = compressive strength of concrete; fpc = compres-
sive stress in concrete at centroid of cross section resisting externally applied loads; fpe = compressive stress in concrete due to effective prestressing
forces only at extreme fiber of section where tensile stress is caused by externally applied loads; fyv = yield strength of transverse reinforcement;
I = moment of inertia; Mct = moment causing flexural cracking at section due to externally applied loads; Mu = factored moment at section; s = center-
to-center spacing of transverse reinforcement; Vc = contribution of concrete for shear strength; Vci = nominal shear strength provided by concrete
when diagonal cracking results from combined shear and moment; Vcw = nominal shear strength provided by concrete when diagonal cracking results
from high principal tensile stress in the web; Vn = nominal shear strength; Vp = contribution of prestressing steel for shear strength; Vs = contribution of
shear reinforcement for shear strength; Vu = factored shear force at section; yt = distance from centroid axis of gross section to tension face;
β = factor indicating ability of diagonal compressive stresses; λ = modification factor reflecting the reduced mechanical properties of lightweight
concrete; θ = angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses; ρ = ratio of As to bd.

Both predicted a shear strength less than the applied shear
in the region between about 1500 and 2500 mm (59 and
98 in.) from the interior support, where the shear failure
occurred (Fig. 16 and 17 show the shear cracking and
failure patterns). The flat region of the AASHTO LRFD
specifications curve is bounded by the upper limit of shear
strength, while the flat region of the ACI 318-11 curve is
governed by the Vcw equation and the diminishing curve is
determined from the Vci equation (where Vcw is the nomi-
nal shear strength provided by concrete when diagonal
cracking results from high principal tensile stress in the
web and Vci is the nominal shear strength provided by
concrete when diagonal cracking results from combined
shear and moment). In the tested beam, the combined
(constant) shear and moment caused the failure associated
with the latter case. Overall, either the ACI 318-11 detailed
approach or AASHTO LRFD specifications appears to
be suitable for assessing the shear strength of continuous
concrete beams with externally prestressed steel bars.
Conclusion
In this study, an experimental investigation was conducted
on shear strengthening of continuous concrete beams with
externally prestressed steel bars. Three 3-span concrete
beams, including an unstrengthened control beam, were
subjected to monotonic two-point loading that induced
shear failure. Load versus midspan deflection, load-
carrying capacity, stiffness before and after cracking, and
cracking pattern and failure mode were obtained. The
measured shear capacities were then compared with those
from the equations of ACI 318-11 and the AASHTO
LRFD specifications.
By using externally prestressed steel bars, the initial
uncracked stiffness and secant stiffness were increased
by about 20% to 30%, an upward deflection (camber) of
about 0.5 to 0.8 mm (0.02 to 0.03 in.) was created, and the
load-carrying or shear capacity was increased by about
35% compared with that of the control beam. When the
first peak loads are compared, the strengthened beam had
about 12% to 13% higher shear capacity than the control.
The basic failure mode of the tested beams was gener-
ally shear failure, but with much greater ductility for the
strengthened beams. This is important because the external
prestress prevented rapid degradation of the load capacity
and even enabled the beam to carry additional load due
to catenary action of the external steel bars. The stress in
the external bars was increased from 22% to 25% of the
measured yield strength to 47% to 57% of the measured
yield strength. Higher-strength steel bars may be used
if it is cost effective. The long-term effects of creep and
shrinkage would not be a concern because a significant
amount of shortening is likely to have already occurred

PCI Journal | Fa ll 2014 89

 at the time of stressing. For the prestress loss due to steel
relaxation, at least a procedure of retensioning (retighten-
ing) is recommended after a certain period and can be done
with minimal cost.
The shear strength and failure location of these continu-
ous beams were accurately predicted by ACI 318-11
(detailed approach) and AASHTO LRFD specifica-
tions for prestressed concrete beams. The comparison
between the test data and calculation suggests that
for a nonprestressed continuous beam, ACI 318-11
(both simplified and detailed equations: Eq. [11-3] and
[11-5]) may not be conservative, and for an externally
prestressed concrete beam, the ACI 318-11 simplified
approach (Eq. [11-9]) may be overly unconservative.
On the other hand, the detailed approach of ACI 318-11
and AASHTO LRFD specifications method could be
reasonably used to predict the shear strength of exter-
nally prestressed continuous beams. Additional tests of
continuous concrete beams with perhaps higher-strength
steel bars would be needed to confirm the findings of
this study.
Acknowledgments
The work was supported by National Research Foundation
of Korea grants funded by the Korean government (nos.
2012-0005108 and 2012-005905). The views expressed are
those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those
of the sponsor.
References
1. Ramseyer, C., and T. H.-K. Kang. 2012. “Post-damage
Repair of Prestressed Concrete Girders.” International
Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 6 (3):
199–207.
2. Shin, K.-J., S.-H. Lee, and T. H.-K. Kang. 2013. “Ex-
ternal Post-tensioning of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Using V-shaped Steel Rod System.” ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering. 140 (3): pp. 04013067.
3. El-Hacha, R., and M. Gaafar. 2011. “Flexural
Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using
Prestressed Near-Surface-Mounted CFRP Bars.” PCI
Journal 56 (4): 134–151.
4. Harajli, M. H. 1993. “Strengthening of Concrete
Beams by External Prestressing.” PCI Journal 38 (6):
76–88.
5. Kim, Y. J., M. F. Green, and R. G. Wight. 2010. “Ef-
fect of Prestress Levels in Prestressed CFRP Lami-
nates for Strengthening Prestressed Concrete Beams:
A Numerical Parametric Study.” PCI Journal 55 (2):
96–108.
90 F a l l 2 0 1 4 | PCI Journal
6. Tan, K.-H., and C.-K. Ng. 1998. “Effect of Shear in
Externally Prestressed Beams.” ACI Structural Jour-
nal 95 (2): 116–128.
7. Tan, K.-H., and A. E. Naaman. 1993. “Strut-and-Tie
Model for Externally Prestressed Concrete Beams.”
ACI Structural Journal 90 (6): 683–691.
8. Ng, S. T. K., and K. Soudki. 2010. “Shear Behavior
of Externally Prestressed Beams with Carbon Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Tendons.” ACI Structural Journal
107 (4): 443–450.
9. Nguyen, D. H., K. Matsumoto, K. Watanabe, T.
Hasegawa, and J. Niwa. 2011. “Shear Carrying
Capacity of Segmental Concrete Beams with Draped
External Tendons.” Materials and Concrete Structures
67 (4): 564–577.
10. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials).
2004. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength
of Cylinder Concrete Specimens. ASTM C39. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
11. ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 318.
2011. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary (ACI 318R-
11). Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
12. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials). 2012. AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. 6th ed. Washington,
DC: AASHTO.
Notation
A = cross-sectional area of reinforcement and external
prestressing steel bar
Aps = area of external prestressing steel bars
As = area of tension reinforcing bars
= area of compressive reinforcing bars
Av = area of vertical components of shear
reinforcement within spacing s
b = beam width
bv = effective beam width
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to
centroid of prestressing and nonprestressed
longitudinal tension reinforcement (≥ 0.80h)
d1 = horizontal distance between the interior support
 and anchorage Mu = factored moment at section

d2 = vertical distance between top of beam and P = load

anchorage centroid
P1st peak = first peak load
dp = effective depth of external prestressing steel
(≥ 0.80h; except for ACI 318 simplified equation P2nd peak = second peak load
[Eq. 11-9 of ACI 318] in Table 4)
s = center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforcement
dp0 = effective depth of external steel bars at saddle point
T1 = tensile force in first strain gauge
dv = effective shear depth between resultants of tensile
and compressive forces due to flexure T2 = tensile force in second strain gauge

Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete T3 = tensile force in the third strain gauge

f 'c = compressive strength of concrete T4 = tensile force in fourth strain gauge

fpc = compressive stress in concrete at centroid of cross T5 = tensile force in fifth strain gauge
section resisting externally applied loads
T6 = tensile force in sixth strain gauge
fpe = compressive stress in concrete due to effective
prestressing forces only at extreme fiber of Vc = contribution of concrete for shear strength
section where tensile stress is caused by externally
applied loads Vci = nominal shear strength provided by concrete
when diagonal cracking results from combined
fps1 = external steel bar stress at first peak load shear and moment

fps2 = external steel bar stress at second peak load Vcw = nominal shear strength provided by concrete
when diagonal cracking results from high principal
fpu = tensile strength of external prestressing steel tensile stress in the web

fpy = yield strength of external prestressing steel Vn = nominal shear strength

fpy/fpu = prestressing steel yield ratio Vp = contribution of prestressing steel for shear strength

fse = effective prestress of external steel bar Vs = contribution of shear reinforcement for shear strength

fu = tensile strength of mild steel reinforcement Vu = factored shear force at section

fy = yield strength of mild steel reinforcement yt = distance from centroid axis of gross section to
tension face
fyv = yield strength of transverse reinforcement
β = factor indicating ability of diagonal compressive
fy/fu = mild steel yield ratio stresses

h = height of beam λ = modification factor reflecting the reduced

mechanical properties of lightweight concrete
I = moment of inertia
θ = angle of inclination of diagonal compressive
Kini = initial stiffness before cracking stresses

Kpost = stiffness after cracking ρ = ratio of As to bd

Mct = moment causing flexural cracking at section due

to externally applied loads

PCI Journal | Fa ll 2014 91


About the authors
Swoo-Heon Lee, PhD, is a
postdoctoral researcher in the
Department of Civil Engineering
at the University of Texas at
Arlington.
Hee-Du Lee is a graduate student
in the School of Architecture and
Architectural Engineering at
Kyungpook National University in
Korea.
Kyung-Jae Shin, PhD, PE, is a
professor in the School of
Architecture and Architectural
Engineering at Kyungpook
National University.
Thomas H.-K. Kang, PhD, PE,
PCI member, is an associate
professor in the Department of
Architecture and Architectural
Engineering at Seoul National
University in Korea.
Abstract
This study focuses on the shear behavior of continu-
ous reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
externally prestressed steel bars. Three 3-span beams
were tested to failure in shear. One conventionally
reinforced beam without external steel bars was used
92 F a l l 2 0 1 4 | PCI Journal
as the control, and the other two beams were strength-
ened with external steel bars of 18 or 22 mm (0.71
or 0.87 in.) diameter. The external steel bars were
installed only on the interior span and had a deviator
(or saddle pin) at midspan. The shear span–to–depth
ratio was 4.6. The target effective prestress was 25%
of the measured yield strength of external steel bars.
Test results show that the load-carrying capacity of
two strengthened beams with externally prestressed
steel bars was increased by about 35% over the refer-
ence beam and that their serviceability characteristics
(uncracked stiffness and recovering of deflection) were
greatly improved. In addition, the measured shear
strength was compared with the strength predicted
by ACI 318-11 and AASHTO LRFD specifications
for prestressed concrete beams. Both the ACI 318-11
detailed approach and AASHTO LRFD specifications
method predicted the measured shear strength and
failure location of the tested continuous beams with
external bars quite accurately.
Keywords
Continuous beam, externally prestressed steel bars,
rehabilitation, retrofit, shear strength, shear-to-moment
ratio, unbonded, shear strengthening.
Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process.
Reader comments
Please address and 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