## 5 Proposal and Evaluation of New Shear Capacity Formula
### New Shear Capacity Formula
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Specimen** & **V\({}_{\text{Bayvk. [23]}}\)** & **V\({}_{\text{AASHITO [15]}}\)** & **V\({}_{\text{Tymmo [17]}}\)** & **V\({}_{\text{AFTF [26]}}\)** & **V\({}_{\text{Rombach [24]}}\)** & **V\({}_{\text{Equation (20)}}\)** & **V\({}_{\text{F}}\)** \\ \hline J-1 & 110.56 (1.23) & 83.37 (0.93) & 53.95 (0.60) & 69.61 (0.78) & 71.10 (0.79) & 95.44 (1.06) & 89.7 \\ J-2 & 137.76 (1.21) & 102.58 (9.90) & 68.34 (0.60) & 92.41 (0.81) & 84.10 (0.74) & 114.43 (1.01) & 113.9 \\ J-3 & 109.85 (1.36) & 82.71 (1.02) & 53.41 (0.66) & 68.82 (0.85) & 70.12 (0.87) & 91.22 (1.13) & 80.8 \\ J-4 & 109.85 (1.16) & 82.71 (0.88) & 53.41 (0.57) & 68.82 (0.73) & 70.12 (0.74) & 91.22 (0.97) & 94.5 \\ Z1 & 269.25 (1.40) & 201.78 (1.05) & 129.43 (0.67) & 166.13 & 167.95 (0.87) & 223.86 (1.16) & 193.0 \\  & & & & (0.86) & & & \\ Z2 & 378.52 (1.13) & 293.51 (0.88) & 202.42 (0.60) & (0.81) & 261.70 (0.78) & 316.07 (0.94) & 335.0 \\  & & & & 198.00 & 207.50 (0.98) & 245.74 (1.16) & 211.0 \\ Z3 & 296.75 (1.41) & 227.31 (1.08) & 150.74 (0.71) & (0.94) & & & \\  & & & 282.07 & & & & \\ Z4 & 385.75 (1.14) & 301.36 (0.89) & 209.31 (0.62) & (0.84) & 273.60 (0.81) & 322.25 (0.96) & 337.0 \\  & & & 308.62 & & & & \\ Z5 & 429.99 (1.19) & 326.35 (0.91) & 225.30 (0.63) & 308.62 & 268.30 (0.75) & 349.46 (0.97) & 360.0 \\  & & & & (0.86) & & & \\ Z6 & 469.04 (1.32) & 336.53 (0.95) & 229.66 (0.65) & (0.94) & 259.85 (0.73) & 356.51 (1.01) & 354.0 \\  & & & 425.25 & & & & \\ L-1 & 544.15 (1.55) & 410.48 (1.17) & 297.47 (0.85) & & & & \\  & & & (1.21) & 298.32 (0.85) & 325.68 (0.93) & 351.9 \\ B-1 & 66.31 (1.01) & 65.34 (0.99) & 43.33 (0.66) & 42.86 (0.65) & 57.10 (0.87) & 62.69 (0.96) & 65.5 \\ B-2 & 84.61 (1.00) & 84.16 (0.99) & 57.94 (0.69) & 56.73 (0.67) & 59.81 (0.71) & 82.01 (0.97) & 84.2 \\ B-3 & 112.6 (1.01) & 116.4 (1.05) & 83.83 (0.76) & 81.88 (0.74) & 80.02 (0.72) & 82.01 (0.74) & 111.0 \\ \(\mathbf{R_{Av}}\) & 1.222 & 0.978 & 0.662 & 0.835 & 0.800 & 0.998 & \\ \(\mathbf{R^{2}}\) & 0.956 & 0.973 & 0.968 & 0.937 & 0.976 & 0.982 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Summary of comparative test results (unit: kN). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Reference** & **Specimen Number** & **Specimen Number** & **Concrete Strength (MPa)** \\ \hline Jiang [31] & F1.0-d35-A25/35-B100-H100 & J-1 & \(f_{\text{cav}}\) = 48.5 MPa \\  & F2.0-d35-A25/35-B100-H100 & J-2 & \(f_{\text{cav}}\) = 48.5 MPa \\  & F1.0-d25-A25/25-B100-H100 & J-3 & \(f_{\text{cav}}\) = 48.5 MPa \\  & F1.0-d50-A25/50-B100-H100 & J-4 & \(f_{\text{cav}}\) = 48.5 MPa \\ \hline  & F1.0-D50-A25/50-B250-H100 & Z-1 & \(f_{\text{cav}}\) = 38.7 MPa \\  & F1.0-D50-A25/50-B250-H100 & Z-2 & \(f_{\text{cav}}\) = 50 MPa \\  & F2.0-D50-A25/50-B250-H100 & Z-3 & \(f_{\text{cav}}\) = 59.6 MPa \\  & F3.0-D50-A25/50-B250-H100 & Z-5 & \(f_{\text{cav}}\) = 48.8 MPa \\  & F4.0-D50-A25/50-B250-H100 & Z-6 & \(f_{\text{c}}\) = 37.1 MPa \\ \hline Liu [27] & F10-D50-A25/50-B150-H100 & L-1 & \(f_{\text{f}}\) = 4.6 MPa \\ \hline  & F0.68-D32-A32/32-B76.2-H100 & B-1 & \(f_{\text{f}}\) = 4.33 MPa \\ Buyukozturk [23] & F2.07-D32-A32/32-B76.2-H100 & B-2 & \(f_{\text{f}}\) = 3.97 MPa \\  & F3.45-D32-A32/32-B76.2-H100 & B-3 & \(f_{\text{f}}\) = 4.38 MPa \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Summary of test specimens in references. Furthermore, for high level of lateral prestress situation, the shear capacity predicted by AASHTO and Equation (20) are compared with FE simulated values in Figure 19. All the specimens are the same as in Table 4. Different from AASHTO overestimating the shear capacity of the keyed dry joint, the predicted results of Equation (20) showed perfect consistency with both tests and the FE simulation results. Figure 18: Relation between the experimental and predicted joint shear strength of different formulas.