Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
PRESTRESS LOSSES
IN
PRETENSIONED CONCRETE
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
by
Ti Huang
Lehigh University
Research Proiect 339 Reports
PRESTRESS LOSSES IN PRETENSIONED
CONCRETE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEVERAL CONCRETES REGARDING THEIR
POTENTIALS F'OR CONTRIBUTING TO PRESTRES,S LOSSES.
Rokhshar, A. and Huang, T., F. L. Report 339.1, June 1968
CONCRETE STRAINS IN PRE-TENSION,ED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL
MEMBERS - PRELIMINARY REPORT. Frederickson, D. and Huang, T., ,
F. L. Report 339.3, June 1969
RELAXATIO,N LOSSES IN 7 /16 in. DIAMETER SPECIAL GRADE
PRESTRESSING STRANDS. Schultchen, E. and Huang, T.,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Department of Transportation
Bureau of Materials, Testing and Research
Pre~ensioned
PRESTRESS LOSSES
IN
PRETENSIONED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
FRITZ ENGINEERING
LABORA1-ORY lJBRARY
by
Ti Huang
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Office of Research
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
August 1973
1. Report No.
4.
Author( s)
5.
Report Date
6.
8.
Fritz Enginee~ing
Laboratory Report No. 339.9
Ti Huang
9.
August 1973
3.
t---------------------------------"II
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
P.o. Box 2926
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
PennDOT
Research Project 66-17
11.
13.
Type
Final Report
14.
Examples
Unclassified
Form DOT F
1700~7
(8-69)
18.
Distribution Statement
Unclassified
143
22.
Price
ABSTRACT
re~ults
of a comprehensive
'beh~vior
tively the upper and the lower bounds, and a study of the relaxa~tibn~characteristics of
prestressing strands.
~~lationship~'we~e developed
~
Stress-strain-time
.,
properties. . A basic procedure for the evaluation of stress conditiol1sinapretensioned member was established by linking these
~tres~~str~in~~i~e relationships by conditions of compatibility
and equilibrium.,
A practical procedure is recommended for predicting pre-
bas~c procedure~
Exam.ples of ap.plicati'on of
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ii
ABSTRACT
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
1.2
1.3
Objectives
Summary of Project Work
1.4 Definitions
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.43.
4.
Preliminary Study
Main Concrete Specimens
Relaxation Study
Supporting Testing Programs
10
11
13
3.1
13
3.2
19
3.3
Basic Procedure
Parametric Study
26
3.4
29
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE
4-4-
Description
44-
4.1
4.3
S.
46
Discussion
52
59
Introduction
The Flat Value Methods
59
5.1
5.2
iii
61
Page
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
50.
62
63
65
67
68
69
CONCLUSIONS
74
6.1
74
6.2
Recommendations
Future Research
76
7.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
78
8.
TABLES
80
9.
FIGURES
85
REFERENCES
98
10.
Implementation Statement
A-I
APPENDIX B.
Notations
A-15
APPENDIX C.
A-19
APPENDIX D.
Example Problems
A-29
APPEND~X
A.
iv
LIST OF TABLES
i
Table
1
81
82
83
.84
LIST OF FIGURES
FI,GURE
1
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
10
95
11
96
12
vi
Lower Bound
97
10
1,,1
INTRODUCTION
Bac'kground
One of the main problems in the analysis and design of
In pretensioned
causes:
prestress~
shrink-
instan~
time~dependent
and'
phenomena are also dependent upon one another, hence cannot be:',.. .':.,.\,,'.,
separateJd completely.
Some
4
~.I
.:.
value'
16
14:'-"
neers.
"a
16
"
~f
6000
+ 16 f cs + 0.04 f 81
0
where
cs
si
mem~
16
:' Sl
"
12
los~
-2-
represents;a~.effort
~ethod
to improve the
for estimating
pre~
stress losses.
1.2
Objectives
The primary purpose of this research project is to es-
losses~
Special
concre~es
supplied by
~.
..
Based on this
findin~,
the
Summ~ryof
Project,Work
1966~
Orig-
extend~d
1973~
charact~ristics
-.3-
of concretes
observation.
strai~
The
Strands
loading
~ode
of
~ere p~imarily
de-
estimat~on
repo~ts
prest~ess
of
loSses.
prog~am,
1.
FL
Repo~t
399~1:
Comparative
... 4-
Loss~s,
2.
FL Report 339.3:
crete
st~uctural
Members
FL Report 339.4:
by T.
Preliminary Report,
Jun~
19690
4.
FL Report 339.5:
by R.o J.
Batal~and'
5.
FL'Report 339.6:
Strands,
60
by
E~
FL Report 339.7:
1.4
'1972-~
by
H~,~.
Ying,
P'ri:'ntiEfd',J1arch'19'7'3.-
Definitions
te~ms
For
the sake of clarity, the definitions listed below have been adopted
he~
'-5-
pronounc~
profession~
By this definition,
Therefore, pre-
not considered.
Shrinkage:
panion.,,member.
pendent of stress.
-=-6-
.phenomenon~
The
time-depend~nt
In
However, the
to a sustained strain$
Relaxation loss of
transfer~
~7-
2.1
Preliminary Study
'd~ffer
studied~were
age"characteristics.
long, 8 in.
These speci-.
,ili';,d,iatne.'t\ep~;w.it h
inches.
we~e
examined.
Additional specimens
we~e
addi~
post-
-8-
signific~nce
several plants.
fo~
.resul~ed
As a result, tne
preli~inary
11,
..
The
con~
which
con~ain uRstretche~
In total,
t~~re
,--9-
through the end surfaces thus effectively prevented, the volumeto-surface ratio of the specimens was a constant 4 inches which
was approximately the average value for the PennDOT standard
sections.
A'll strain: measurements' were made by a Whi ttemore mechanical strain gage over gage lengths of 10 inches. Measurements
started immediately upon transfer of prestress, and continued in
accordance with a pre-selected schedule, for a total period of more
than, four years.
De,tailed descriptions of the main and shrinkage speci-
res~lts
port No.2, FL
2.3
for the
Re~o~t
Relax~tibn
fi~st
No. 399.3
,.
Study
Steel strands were tested for their relaxation character, istics primarily under a constant length c~ndition.
frames usedwette
4 in. x
~O
~,in. steel
The loading
thei~
stress-reliev~d
seven-wire strarids
-10-
apatt~
of~the
1.
Manufacturer:
2.
Strand size:
3~
Initial.stress:
diam~ters
nominal
to
O~50
O~,80
strength.'
in~
~el1
was
obtained each time the strand force 'was measured, thus overcoming
.
order to verify the findings from the main testing programs de=
scribed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.
A series of strand specimens were tested under a
lated constant load
condition~
simu~
load level
...llc=
A'second series of strand specimens were contained in-side, but not bonded to, concrete slender members.
On account of
apretens~oning
This constrand in an
under.aconstantconcentrated load.
i '
-12-
I.
present~d
in
3D
3.1
process~
339~S
The reduction of the Whittemore gage readings into concrete strain values were more involved, on account of the need to
separate the three components of concrete strain:
elastic,
-13-
strains.
relaxation data were used. in, order to isolate the creep strain
data.
11
and 339.l
strains.
3.1.2
with respect to both time after tensioning and the initial stress.
The manufacturer and strand size were kept out as non-analytical
parameters.
speci~
sion described in the preceding paragraph, and the result was rearranged in terms of stress, strain, and
time~
The equation of
--14-
where
f
f
S
t
pu
Specified ultiinate'tensile
strengt~
of steel, in ksi
in days
re~tricted
lim~
on account of the
:5.
< 36500
The
&
specimens~
The values of
l~
data only, Eq. 3-1 has been used to predict the behavior of
strands under the simulated constant load condition, and the
sults were found to agree very well with experimental values
-15-'
re~
:l'~l
19
based on the
stra~n
The selection of
time function was based on similar criteria as used for the steel
surface, and coincidentally, the same time functions were deter-mined to be the most suitableo
report
339,~
21
concre;e'ejfiS~tft';face
is as
follows:
where
'c
f
t
(3-2)
~he-time
of
-16-
l.b
In
~q.
3-2, the three terms on the right hand side represent the
The second
As stated earlier, Eq. 3-2 was developed based on empirical information from uniformly prestressed specimens.
When appli-
strain.
unpr~stressed
specimen,
rede~
In other
of concrete strain.
evalu~
3~2
A new
set of creep data was obtained, and new sets of creep coefficients
:;;17;;;
= C1fc +
(D 1 +D 2 log (t c + l)J
+ ([E l + E2 log
(t
+ 1)] + f c
[3
+ E4 log
(t
+ 1)] }
(3~3)
It should be-emphasized that because of the reanalysis of the revised creep data,
tion of
stance
Eq~
3~2o
Eq~
w~redeveloped
faces
regres~ion
sur~
o <
fc
1 S t
<
303
< 36500
21
~tress,
-18-
and
un~
3.2
Basic Procedure
strain-time surfaces
Time compatibility
t
(2)
=",k 1
(3-4)
(3)
prestress~
ss
+e
S
=
'k
a
(3-5)
Equilibrium conditions
J fcdA c
J f c xdAc
- ~ fsaps
(3-6)
- i: f xa
=-M
(3-7)
ps
of'
"
+
= Initial
Ac
= Area of
= Area
pS
in./in.
= Distance
= Applied
-19-
= Applied
kip~ino
In Egs ()
3-6 and 3-7 the int-egrations' are over the entire" l1e't concrete area,
and the summations are over all pretens'ioriing 'eleme'ntsG
'All 'of
p,aramet~,rs ~nd
are
Thus,
the Egs. 3-1, 3-3 and 3--4 through 3.- 7 represent a set of six can<=>
and t
and strain variables (Ss' Se' f s adn fa) which are all functions
Xo
With this condition added, there are now sufficient equations for
all unknowns to be evaluated for; any 'given time', i.e. ,the
time~
Vega
V3 g a + V4 g 21 +V 5 g 1 g Z + VB gaa
=0
=0
(3~g)
3~1
-20-
Once gl and
g~
and
IQ
and f
A sample calcula-
tion showed that the error i'D"f introd,ucG'd by neg,let~iring the"- Efpread
s
:of s'tee:l, in, \ the ,s~qt:~.,b!ll.;,1rS-',::~":M.e'r,y;",::'S:ttf~?1il.(jj-;,~pp.~e'd:
.'- -iThe'~~fore" ,'-f,o,!> the
sake of simplicity and practicability, all subsequent developments
were based on a single layer of steel., In other words, prestressing steel is assumed to be concentrated at one point, the e.g.s.
In this case, the, simultaneous quadratic Ega. 3-9 can be combined
and simplified' into one single quadratic equation" as follows:
(3 -10)
where
as
= Concrete
(= gl. + ga e g )
f'
at c.goso caused
at = Nominal concrete fiber stress
p
= - -
Ag
Me
-21-
'':'~"
AgI g
1
= -------=
2 ),
'ps
where
A
g
Ag
= Area" of
= Moment
in in .
e,g
= Eccentricity
= Total
,a,,~"Ql
([3 - 1) f
CS
+ ~flp
Cv
(3-11)
-22-
.f
.'
II~.. sumri}ary,
',:
'
,~.!':: ~
'. "
(2)
(See
Appendix C)
(3)
(4)
(5)
by
Eq~
3-110
a
by Eqso
3~3
~he ~rogram
accepts
any combination of the nine steel and three concrete stress-straintime surfaces, and in addition, also has the capability of
sup~
lOSSe
un~
pre~
The
-23-
It
S '"
It should be
point~d
es
removed~
To facilitate further
the life of a pretensioned
shown in FigQ 30
and f
loads~
discussion~
memberal'"~e
=0
10
2~
Im~ediately
3:"
40
50
6~
Figure 3
before transfer, t
=k1
= k1
;l
= 00
l.oads~
= M = 00
a
arld/or M ~
= 36500"
~hows
a0
represents the case where the external loads are applied at the
transfer~
time of
faces~
with
5~6** .
- f
81
), the difference (f
86*
'81
- f
8e
caused by applied load must be added, and the true loss of prestress, in line of the definition given in Section 1 . 4, is
TL
(f
where
LD
- f
81
86
) + (f
(3-12)
Clearly, the segment 1-2 is solved by the steel relaxation surface alone, and does not depend upon the choice of the conThe stress condition at stage 3 'can be determined
crete material"
to zero.
However, in
this case, the bas-ic procedure actually d-egenerates into a familiar theoretical elastic analysis.
(f
ss
), (f
84
sa
86*
provid~d
-25-
81
- f
S6*
3.3
Parametric Study
and
+ (R 2 + 1 -
S'
= f"p
(.~
~)
cs
a
cs '-
+ R f2
'3
1) f' '
(3-10a)
(3-11a)
cs
prest~ess
and k a
~,
Steel material:
basis.
See Table 1.
Concrete material:
See Table 2.
~:
From 40 to 200
k1 :
From 1 to 30 days
k2 :
~,
Sl
If pu ) range from
0.5 to 0.8.
= 0.675
(f
81
<'
Ifpu = 0.7)
and'k 1 '
= 2'to
3 'days.
-
Fo~
_ 16 16
~'.,
the reciprocal of
- f _ )/f
81
Sa
81
all
~
All
typical~case
of f
81
= 0.70
pu
,and k 1
=3
nine curves associated with the nine steel surfaces combined with
the upper round concrete surface (plant :AB) formed a fairly tight
bundle.
curve in the AB group, the other curves in the same group deviate
<t)
values, and
1
<i3)
values. The group of curves for CD concrete
surfaces",:for :the
Tt.
'potent~al
prestress losses.
~s
On the other
18
19
However,
these two curves ,are 'seen to deviate from the average curve by no
more ,than 3% for concrete AB, and 4% for concrete CD.
Since er-
of,~
the statistical scatter of experimental data, it is felt that although the difference is real, its magnitude does not warrant the
inclusion of an additional parameter.
Figure 5 shows the. effect of th,e initial tensioning
stress f S 1
. on,the ultimate. prestress
loss (f s . - f 86.).
...
~
Here f S 1
A positive-corre-
lation between the total loss and the initial stress is clearly
indicated, though the relationship was, not linear.
-28-
A plotting of
th~
ultimate percentage
stress
~arameter
lo~s,
(f . - f
,81
)/f"S 1,
86:
_ .
A series
~f
practic~l
range for k 1 is
extrem~ly
small when
compared with the final value of t c (36~OO). The rang~ of variation of the final value of log (t + 1) was less than 0.01 of one
s
percent~
Clearly, variation of this magnitude can be ignored
without any ill
It should be pointed
c~nsequences.
however,
o~t,
p~estress
loss at
c
is zero,
Introduction
This section deals with the simplification and approximation of the basic procedure into a procedure suitable for
practical usage.
In line with the original objective of this research
project, an attempt was first made to separately estimate the four
components of prestress losses.
la~gely
unsuc-
-29-
A moment of reflection
of average steel, f Sl
for the
= 0.70
pu
,and k 1
=3
days.
The topmost
For
a numerical example.
= 100, the
-30-
Components Included
Percentage Loss
Shrinkage only
15.0
Relaxation only
16.7
26.1
23.2
29.6
~lastic,
~reep
All components
30.4
35.5
40.0
thi~
each component.' Thus, it is observed that the contribution of relaxation in'creases with
iincreasing
~,
~,
~.
-31-
Once the inseparability of the s'ever'alcomponents of prestress loss was established, the attention was turned tothe, estimation of "total prestress losstT, including all components, at
various times during the service life of a pretensioned member.
Special emphasis was given to the two loading stages which are
usually critical in the design' of prestressed concrete members,
the "initial n stage irrunediately after transfer, and the
namely:
81
It should be
,
is riot pre-
(fS6~tc
Sa
sa
- LD),which is the
81
- f
Sa
-32-
3.4.2
ten~
One; pos-
the,' curing period, which may ,cause an ,increase 'of the' relaxation
loss.
After the
cu~ing
period, when
glected, and
,th~
follqwing,equqtion:
= f pu
pu
tia1 tension
stress ratio (f 81 If pu ) and transfer time k 1
.
It is
Sl
If pu
FbI'
-33-
70% f
As
R3
is
cs
is
( 3-14)
cs
= R+
1
R f'
2
CS
(3-15 )
-34-
Realizing that R 2
= -ni
sa
at the transfer
Therefore
cs
:::
:::
:::
S3
E1
Sa
+ n.~
( 3-14a)
sa
n.f
~ C3
Sa
f S3 ::: n.f
(3-15a)
Ca
n.
:::
+ n.~
(3-16)
sa
By the theoretical elastic analysis, the concrete prestress at the level of prestressing steel is
a
C3
::: A
ps sa
1:....
At
et
It
( 3-14b)
inertia,
resp~ct~v~,ly,
s,_~c~ion,
wherein
equilibrium of
'."
<
I , " . ' ,
inter~al stre~ses.
~h~ Eqs~
:Ls
";
n~ge~sitated
by ,the
~nd 3~16
enable
3-14a
betwee~
c.
However,
-36;'"
Based
~,
= 0,
The
or
~uch
an area
ratio would have zero prestress in concrete, consequently the elastic and creep strains would both vanish.
Therefore, it is obvious
Sl
81
th~
s~vere,
and is nearly
in Fig. 9. ,The vertical distance between the dashed line and the
corresponding~,solid line
tioD of the nominal shrinkage and relaxation parts may enable the
establishment of a simple formulation.
case.
S1
Instead,
by means of
elastic and creep strains to the loss of prestress including elastic rebound due to diminishing prestress.
truly the' combined effect of elastic loss and creep, but merely
as a convenient term in the prediction procedure.
parameter~.
-38-
,~.
against- fC3
81
,A ,sec;...
S1
'It
is also in-
teresting to note that the ECR curves for the two concretes do
not differ significantly, indicating that the upper and lower
bound concretes differ primarily in their shrinkage characteristics.
It is felt that a sufficiently accurate estimation of
ECR may be achieved by using a linear approximation of the curves
in Figs. 10 and 11.
2
,
However, there is a
cs
basic difference between the basic concepts used by the AASHO
metho,d and the proposed.procedure.' While AASHO implies that these
cs
-dependent portion of
to be used for the upper bound concrete can be taken as 13, 13,
12.5, and 11.5, respectively, for f
and 0.8.
81
If pu
-39-
9-.6~~'
factors would', exert- on" the total pr.estress loss and whence to ,the'
mig~t_not
be. warranted.
Therefore,
the recommended procedure employs only, the typical ,values (corresponding ,to 0.7 initial stress level) of:12.5 and 11 for the
upper, and lower bounds. "The further refinement is made q'ptional.
3.4.5
be appended separately.
mediate stresses caused by the application of loading can be calcuIated by a theoretical elastic analysis.
3-15, the. concrete and steel stresses caused by applied loads are:
ct
s~
=:
r3
+ n
(3-17a)
c.{,
ff
(3-17b)
ct
In these equations
f
= Actual
ct
concreteifiber stress, at
c.g~s.,
caused
by applied loads
t st
= Change
-4'0-:-,
f~t
= Nominal
a~
e.g.s., caused
f~t.
~esult
(Section 3.2)
of opposite sign. con-
f~t,
as well as f st '
The equivalence of
But for
It
= 36500).
t~e
At the end of service life, the total effect of steel stress 'would
be f
-41-
.This concept
s.tf
s~~
is consistent with the 'definition in Section; 1.4, as unloading of
In
order to develop a practical means for estimation of LD, a par?meter Y is introduced which stands for the ratio n/n. and repre1.
,n.1.1'..1
Q
f St1.ll.
9'
=~
+ n,1. - 1
f'r I
C'I.I
= n.1. f
9
c~
:Yn. r3 .
1.
f
f =-~---:!!""
,s~
Q
+ Yn,1. ,~ 1
tJ
And
LD
= f s;{,f -
= (~
ff
c,e,
f s -t,'~
, n.~ ff'oe,
J..
+ n. - 1) (~ +. yn.J..
J..
- (y, -
1) f't,
s 1.
e-
(y
- 1)
1)
(~
- 1)
- 1,
1 + Yn.
, ,,'~
( 3-18)
1..,
(~
- l)/CS + Yn
- 1) may
The
~rror
values
(lightly prestressed members), but may be as high as 30% for extremely low
values.
By the
3.4.6
Still
21
it has been pointed out that the growth of prestress loss was
nearly the same for the two concrete mixes, and also differs very
little for the various initial concrete prestresses.
In Fig. 12
loss growth rate among the several uniformly prestressed main concrete specimens tested.
where
PL
Such an approximation
= Total
= 0.22
prestress loss t
-43a-
( 3-19)
1L
= Total
= 0)
-43b-
4.
4.1
RECOJ:v1MENDED PROCEDURE-
Description
Based on the analysis and
~iscussion
of Chapter 3, a
procedure is as follows:
Input data needed:
Transfer time
81
k1
load f~t
Ste:p 1:
after transfer)
IL
= REL 1
+ EL
( 4-1)
= Initial
-44-
EL
= Transfer
where n.1.
ela~tic
= n.f Ca
loss
,
C3
= Initial
= f 82 I(~
where 'f Sa
+ n. - 1)
1.
= f 81'
REL 1
Therefore,
EL
Step 2:
=~
n.
1.
+ n.
~
82
( 4-2)
( 4-3)
SRL
= Value
ECR
= TTStress-dependent
TT
81
component' of prestress
loss
= 12.5
C3
-45-
LD
81.
= (y
of applied load
- 1) f
f S~.J..
y
( 4-4)
S"",,1
=~
n.~
J.
+ n.J..
= 3.3
2.9
Step 3:
= Effect
where
Ca
ff
( 4-5)
c~
PL
= I1
where PL
= Total
(4-6)
prestress loss at t
days
after transfer
4.2
Example Calculations
In order to demonstrate the application of the recommended procedure, several example problems have been solved.
of these is presented in detail in this section.
One
The superstruqture
consists of PennDOT standard 24 x 42 I-beams, spaced at 5 ft. center to center, and supporting a
7~
Con-
strands of the 270K grade, with a total steel area of 6.08 sq. in.
Initial tensioning stress (upon anchoring to the pretensioning bed)
is 186 ksi.
= 588
= 108,000
= 7.31
sq. in.
in.
in.
= 294,400 in.
18.75 in.
sche~ules
are as
follows:
Transfer of
prestres~
transfe~
transfer
-47-
20~44)
- 18'0' 'days
after transfer
The midspan bending moments
ca~sed
= 5880 .k-in.
= 4500
k-in.
= 1440
k-in.
=3
days.
= 0.69,
,~
1
=--- -.-aA ps (
+I eg )
g
=-..,..--...-..--------
The
~ads,
is
calculated assuming that the girder. and slab loads are carried by
the precast section only, and the
-48-
subsequent~y
l
carried by the composite section.
c~
Step 1:
~lso ,.
.transi~nt
nature.
= (5880
= 0.702
+ 0.092
O.794"ksi'
From Fig. 8,
for f
:::
Sl
REL l
82
EL
. 1L
f
Final
0.69 f
= 0.027
::: 186
pu
and k 1
83
cs
:::
74.9, + 6
::: REL 1 + E1
= 186
=:
pu
Step 2:
1
:::
=6
(178.8) ::: 13.4 ks:l
20.6 ksi
_ 1
- -6 EL ::: 2.23 ksi
Prestress~Loss:
From Fig. 9,
for f
81
= 0.69
pu
concrete
SRL
-49-
= 0.193
pu
ksi and f
ECR
= 0.lU8
= 0.794
ksi
pu
81
= 29.2
= 0.69
= (3.3
- 1) (4.46)
TL
= SRL
+ ECR - LD
final prestress
= 186
- 71.0
86
= 115.0
pu
4 46
=.
..
= 10.3
= 71.0
= 115.0
+ 4.46
ksi
6 ( 74. 9)
sti = 74.9
+ 6 - 1(0 794)
LD
Step 3:
= 2.23
ksi
ksi
ksi
= 119.5
ksi
PL
= 20.6
= 20.6
= 20.6
+ 0.56 (50.4)
+ 28.2
= 48.8
ksi
Prestress at the
end of first yea~
= 186
- 48.8
= 137.2
ksi
Steel stress at
= 137.2
+ 4.46
= 141.7
ksi
7~
in. thick
The fabrication
k '
81
-------------------
-- - - - - - - - - - - -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j
Details of cal-
of
34 straight
eg
= 7.95
in.
Aps
= 5.20
sq. in.
Transfer
time is 3 days.
REL 1
EL
= 19.42
16.60
I1
= 26.98
24.16
SRL
= 52.8
38.9
ECR
= 40.9
36.5
c~
LD
TL
Example 3:
7.56 ksi
1.171
= 14.7
= 79.0
= 56.1
7.56 ksi
1.171
10.3
65.1
47.1
sists of sixty-six 7/16 in. strands, with a total area of 7.72 sq.
in.
ports.
19.51 in. for the middle portion and 11.49 in. at the supports.
Initial tensioning stress is 186 ksi.
~51-
IL
= ~7 .4
= 22.5
19.8
SRL
= 52.1
38.0
ECR
= 36.4,
= 1.563
= 19.8
= 68.7
32.4
EL
at
LD
TL
5.'1 .'
ksi
14.,7
1.563
13.8
56.6
=4~.3
40.4
Discussion
3.4~'3)
As pointed outearlien,
"
modular ratio is 6.
= 588+
et
It,
.2
in.
- 6.95)
=109,500
4-
1n.'"-'
EL
= (6
+ I:;
8) (1 8 8)( GlK.
An approximate solution could be obtained by 'using the gross section properties in'the above calculations.
estimated.
about 7%.
infl~ence
of both f
the influence of f
Sl
03
and f
s~
is only marginal.
= 0.70
--53-
--
81
0.8 f
pu
is 0.011 f
pu
or 3 ksi).
becom~
However, an
upper bound of the error resulting from its being neglected can be
easily determined.
= 6.95
ksi
Section 4.2 was the implication that all loads were applied at the
time of transfer.
has elapsed after transfer, the demonstrated calculation overestimates the effect of applied load.
-54-
----------,
of
minor importance
fs~i'
~/(~
= 74.9
This value would correctly convert the stresses due to girder and
slab loads, but not the stresses caused by the superimposed dead
load (as well as live and impact loads).
Interestingly,
viously negligible.
The example problem was calculated based on the characteristics of the upper bound concrete.
-55-
REL
7.2
EL
C3
SRL
38.1
ECR
25.1
LD
=
=
=
TL
56.0
167.5
final prestress
130.0
133.8
5ti
53
Sa
ksi
11.3
2.27
3.77
7.16
Compared with the values obtained for upper bound, it is seen that
the prestress remains nearly the same at the initial stage, but is
13% higher for the final stage.
sam~
The recom-
= 74.9
and
l/~
= 0.0134.
~56
..
(disregarding load
~ffects)
is 0.435 f
Sl
steel,
0.432 f 81 (80.5 ksi) for average 7/16 in. strands, and
.
0.421 f Sl (78.5 ksi) for 7/16 in. strands from manufacturer C.
The numerical values above show that distinction among the several
It must
In addition, the
first year accounts for only 56% of the total long term prestress
loss in contrast to a much higher percentage customarily assigned
to that period of time.
-58-
5.
5.1
Introduction
This chapter contains a critical comparison between the
Several of the
16
,the BPR
a
12
14
pcr
and
Committee on Prestress
The same example problems used in Section 4.2 have been reanalyzed
using each of these methods and the results compared to those pre-
viously obtained.
For
-59-
method.
prestres~
It should be pointed out that even for this very restricted scope of comparison, information is not fUlly available
from all methods.
These two methods are also the only ones which take into
the tabulated values for initial loss represent the elastic shortening component only.
age and flat sum, the initial loss columns are left blank.
Inci-
initial stage.
-60a-
particularly the weight of the member itself, are probably included in "prestress" by many methods, although explicit information is not available.
Similarly, in several
metho~s,
the
To be truly
fair, an adjustment would have to be made to the calculated results before comparison is made.
whic~
-60b-
5.2
members.
16
used a flat
rate of 20% of initial stress (f 81 ) for box girders and 22.8% for
I-girders.
There is no provision for an initial loss up to the time of immediately after transfer.
Therefore, an Qver-
Comparison of the final prestress losses with those obtairied from the recorrunended procedures shows that these methods
underestimate prestress losses, therefore under,estimates the
material stresses under the final stage (fUll dead and live load).
S3
-61-
5.3
Roads
= 6000
+ 16 f as + 0.04 f S1.
(5-1)
~_______
for creep, and the third term the loss due to relaxation.
Based on preliminary information generated in this present project (PennDOT 66-17), and from elsewhere, the Pennsylvania
Department 'of Transportation made a slight modification to this
formula for their new standard designs
16
-62-
As r,evealed in Table 4, the BPR methods predicted prestress losses lower than the ,reconunended procedure.
The PennDOT
mended procedure.
Examp~e
5.4
The shrinkage
Elastic loss is
where f
is the average concrete stress at e.g.s.
cr .
cr
Creep loss is estimated as 16 fed' where f cd is the
And the
(5-2)
-63-
of fer and
fed~
pre~
of the member.
Examination of Table 4 shows that the 1911 AASHO method
tends to yield very high values of the final prestress loss,
particularly when the concrete prestress is high (e.g. example 2).
The effect of the averaging is apparent in example 3 where on
account of the harping of the prestress force, the high prestress
loss expected at midspan is partially compensated by low losses
near the ends, resulting in a moderate overall loss value.
A proposed amendment to the 1971 AASHO Interim Specification has recently been suggested by Professor W. L. Gamble of the
8
University of Illinois.
-64-
= 20000
'~7
(f
. - f
cr
cd
( 5-3)
for
cr
however,
As'
sub~"
shown in
'It
is
consid~ration
the
The
pcr
General Method
14
prestress losses.
method
-65-
~tep-by-step
procedure, ,by' which the steel and concrete stresses are adjusted at
the
~g~
and the
upc:>n the
of
at transfer, the
prevail~ng concret~.~
me~ber,
modulus of elasticity
tim~"
interval.
vol~me-surface ,ratio
t~on, 10~~
,Estim~tion
~uringqondition,
concret~
Shr:Lnkage_jl~$s
and the
interval~
of the member.
Estimation
pre~la,i~i,ng _st;eelstre,_~s
0+
relaxa-
at the beginst
ning,of tlle time interval by.means of a semi-logarithmic
is, based on the
h~p 13
re 1 a t ~ons
REL
where t and t
(5-5)
-66-
seen that "this :method and 'the recormnended procedure agree reason-
Comparison of predicted
5.6
pcr
Numerous charts
th~ ~volume-
The 'inter-
action of the several; time-dependent phenomena is partially,considered by an adjustment to the relaxation loss in a' form similar
to that Used 'in the 1971 AASHO method.
A step-by-step pro-
-67-
,lo~s
13
The ,i,nitial
European Committee based their recommendations on concrete characteristics which are significantly different from those commonly
BransonTs Method
Based on his studies at the University of Iowa, Professor
Ei
acast-in-plac~
slab.
-68-
the lower bound values, but considerably lower than the upper
bound.
are rather small, the difference between the final loss values
,amounts to approximately 20%.
comparable initial loss values, while all the other methods appear
to grossly underestimate.
-69-
- - --..
-------------------------------~~~~""""'=""'~l
s~e,n,
that most of the predicted values fall between the upper and lower,
bounds of the recorrunended procedure, but with a disti,nct bias towards the lower bound.
p~as,is
resea~ch.
'a
While
lif~
for the
oth~r
excellent. agreement.
of the members may not have been unduly impaired on account of the
common over-strength of concrete .(e.g. 5000 psi design vs. 7000 psi
actual), 'the infrequent occurrence of full live load, the possible
beneficial effect of live load, and the relatively short period of
time when pretensioned members have been in service (less than 25
Of.,~,.theseveral'methods
Both:,CEB and
and a
pcr
step~by-,stepprocess
of 'calculation.
method a,180 are the most erratic when compared with the' upper' and
Branson's
either the
si~plicity
or the accuracy
~f
y~ields
It is therefore, con.. .
tWQ important
mental program,
own limita'tions.
3.1,
recorrune~ded
na~e~y,
However,,: .
~o
the specifications
-71-
The stress
of the PennDOT standard beam members, and the environmental condition for the state of Pennsylvania does not show drastic variapility, therefore flexibility with respect to these parameters
sections differs not much from 4.0 inches, the value selected for
tthe main specimens.
results of this research could be extended to nationwide application without serious difficulties, particularly for the regions
with a moderate climate.
1 2
Spec~f
~cat~ons\"
l~st
as
ty,p~cal
recommende~
To be strictly correct,
However, it is
ratio n ~..
In line
,~Sl
side in this case, it should be clear from Table 4 that this error
may be excessive.
computations.
-73b-
6.
6.1
CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations
In conclusion, the prediction procedure as described in
As the procedure
Indeed,
phenomena on individual basis does not provide a reasonable means for the estimation of prestress losses.
2.
The basic procedure, as described in Section 3.2, involving the interaction of the two stress-strain-time surfaces, enables a complete analysis of stress and strain
conditions in a pretensioned structural member.
By this
procedure, the prestress loss is controlled by the concrete and steel characteristics, the initial tensioning
stress f
Sl
parameter
f~t.
3.
4.
5.
6.
con~
The effect of
However, the
effect is less than 8% of the average loss, and consequently may be neglected for practical purposes.
7.
of transfer.
8.
-75-
= 50
to 70%), and a
----l
These analyses can be accomplished by using the fol1owing simplified (but precise) formulas
Ca
fst
10.
1
~
=~
+ n.~ - 1
n~
+ n
S2
f'
c~
6.2
Future Research
During the time when this research proj'ectwas being
-76-
1.
3.
4.
5.
tion in resisting loads applied at a later time, the eastin-place slab may also affect the behavior of the member
through differential shrinkage, partial continuity, lateral compatibility, and interference to moisture movement
into or out of the structure (volume-surface ratio), etc.
-77a-
6.
. I ".
4.
are avail.;3.ble:a,7.
~:
~ .
I.
co~fficients
.. _ ,
~;
pI,'ovid~
the
;.
I . .
n~ce~sary
question that the basic concept used in the general procedure should be equally valid when applied to posttensioned structural members.
-77b-"
.... -
__ __
_..
_ __ .. _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - -
Losses -in Pretensioned Concret'e S:t~ructu!'al Members" is being conduct'ed'at Lehigh U'niver's-fty", and ':LS financiallysponso:r'ed by the
Fri:tzEngi~eering Laboratory,
the laboratory.
Depart-
department.
The author
joined the project staff in January 1967, and has served as the
principal investigator and project director since July 1967.
-78-
Bethlehem
u.
S. Steel Corporation.
-79-
",
8.
TABLES
-80~
------ - - - - - -
TABLE
IAll Sizes
All
M~nUfact~~:rs[.____ A~ = -0.04229,
Aa
= 1.21952,
".~
A3 = -0.17827-
Relaxation Coefficients
Si'ze
Manufacturer
B1
Ba
B-3
B4
._~----
!
B
I
(X)
7/16 in.
-0.0524-3
. -0.04697
0.00113
-0.01173
0.11502
0.05228
a .10015
0.05943
f-I
I
All
-0.06036
0.00891
-Oo0532l~~002~1
Ii
0.12068
Ii
0.11294
i
f
1/2 in.
-0006380
0.00359
.C
-0.07880
-0.00762
. -0.06922
0.0081.1-4
t
i
it
-- -'---
0.14598
:
0.13645
...
0.03763
0.12037
0.02660
~- ~-_.----_._-
II,
l
0.05673
0.04394
0.05920
i"
All
All
-0.07346
0.00620
0.13847-
All
-0.05867
0.00023
0.11860
0.04608
0.04-858
coeffl-C-ie-n-t-$'--or---p-l-..an-t---AB--l-U
.
CD
f,;,:
----
r
0.02500
I,
,C.O~b_ in:7l.-.,.
ed.
1 .
---...11--1- - - -
!
!
0.02105
--,
0.02299
~o.
006'68 "
-0.00289
0.01500 '
0.02454
0.004-39
-0.00474
0.02031
-0.00016
. 0.00-128
-0.00432
+-----oi----I-~-.---.:-----t--------+--I-Creep.
El
I
I
Ez
-0.01280
0.00675!
-0.00060
0.01609
I
j
-0.00664
... 0.01592
-0.00331
Ii
0.00649
-0.00371
0.01409
i
,
1,-
0.00256
0.01153
......L----.4--_----~----~'~,-:.---
L....-
Note:
C1
= loolE
:
C
where E
is modulus of elasticity
for concrete, in
-82'....
ksi~
TABLE 3
-.
Initial
.Final
20.6 ksi
71.0 ksi
--~
Effects
Variations
".
I
(X)
LA,).
Using typical-f
ECR:
5J.
Linear approximation
LD :- Including live load
+0.9 ksi
I
I
+1.6 ksi
-_._.-
-0.2 ksi
----
-1.3 ksi
----
----
-r
I
I
negligible
of composite section
Concrete:
Steel:
lower bound
----
-2.1 ksi
7/16 TT strands
- negligible
Manufacturer
negligible
!
I
I
I
I
-15.0 ksi
- negligible
negligible
TABLE 4
Example
---~-----
------.
Given
k1
Conditions
S~
=
=
=
f~,e,
= O. 794 ksi
81
186 ksi
3 days
74-.9
S].
Sl
1
3
_""', .......
= 189 ksi
3 days
50.5
f ~ {, = 1 . 171 ks i
_~
.,~
Sl
.........
---~..,.-....
- -_
.....
.... "
- ......
_--...-
....
O. 75 days
~l
57.3
fT
1.563 ksi
c..f,
T--
_--
. ..y...... -
..-
- .........
~
Method
Initial
Loss
Final
Loss
Initial
Loss
Final
Loss
Initial
Final
Loss
Loss
PennDOT 1964-
---- ksi
42.5 ksi
---- ksi
43.1 ksi
---- ksi
42.5 ksi
AASHO 1969
+----
35.0
----
35.0
----
35.0
12.4-
53.1
18.7
73.4-
16.2
65.1
12.4-
60.6
18.7
81.0
16.2
72.5
15.0
72 . 1
24-.7
94-.4-
16.8
70.1
55.454.2
21.6
68.5
PCI
14.5
22.5
29.4-
65.9
14.8
26.2
CEB
9.6
39.2
20.1
66.2
14.8
49.2
13.4-
52.1
21 . 0
63 . 4-
15.7
53.7
20.6
71.0
27.0
79 ..0
22.5
68.7
18.5
56.0
24.2
65.1
19.8
56.6
I
00
I
----r-
-+=
.. .
= 186 ksi
AASHO Gamble
Branson
Recommended
54-.3
60.4-
9.
FIGURES
-85-
SERIES 1.0
Fj
= 2 0.6
0.5
1.0
k/ STRAND
0.0
0.0
4.0'
~-...1.5
1.0
SERIES 1.5
20 - 7/,6" STRANDS
"'------ 2.0
= 21.6
Fj
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.33
11
2.0
------"1.5
SERIES 2,0
k/sTRAND
28 - 7/16" STRANDS
.....----....2.0
~----3.0
Fj
= 20.6
k/ STR AND
0.4
0.0
...-.------- 3.0
SERIES 3.0
~------3.6
Fj = 21.6 k/STRAND
. . . . - - - -...... 3.0
0.,0
"""'-----.... 3 .0
16'
SERIES 3.6
48- 7/ STRANDS
Fj=21.6 k/STRAND
. . . - - - - -.... 3.6
- No. Inside of Fig. Represent I e I
0.0
- - - - - - - -..... 3.6
Fig. 1
Y,6'
4>
7 Wire
-86-
e.g, (gross
section)
x
x
dA c
eg
e.g.s.
Fig. 2
-87~
Steel Stress f s
5 s = k2
REL,
---+-1
fsli
1~--------------~TL-
66
J
fsli
~LD
____
I
OJ
6*
00
I
1-
O1k,
o
,
TIME
Fig. 3
ts
36500 c
f SI
f S6
f51
o
tn
I\)
m
a
(J1
0
0
()
0
N_
::::t
..,0
CD
-+
CD
CD
"
l.\)
"'C
-+
t)
PC
~
()J
l.\)
(1
.U1
-0
en
...........
s:::
to
+
CD
(J1
lON
"H
(')
::::t
..,
CD
-+
(1)
n
0
1O
............
tn
Fig. 4
-89-
AS
CD
40 50
Average Steel
kl = 3days
~ \I~
Concrete AS
30 40
Concrete CD
I
lD
o
I
10
20
10
200
100
0.5
1.0
1.5
I/~
Fig. 5
{3
50
40
2.0
2.5
pct.
ct:
:I:
:t:
CJ)
..J
-I
en(/)
tn+
.35
...J
..J
W
-I
W:I:
a::(f)
a::
lIJ
UJ lJJ
FUJ
et::
+ +
-I -I
0-1
C/)
ILl
L&J 0::
et:: U
c+
:t:
CQ
lIJ
to
(\J
o
N
to
CD
<I
..
:J
....en
+-
Q)
I'-
c..
Q)
u
c:
..
u ....en
olO
o
v
Fig. 6
C\J
rt)
-91-
f SI -fS6 ,pet.
50
Concrete CD
-51
f SI
=0.7 fsu
Total Los.s
EL+CR +SH
EL+ CR+REL
40
EL+ CR
30
t
lD
f\J'
SH+R'EL + EL
20
1
:,;P
~
"",...::;::;
::::>'
7'
/'
10~
<
SH +REL
/"
REL
EL
SH
__200
0.5
1.5
1.0
1/[3,
Fig. 7
Components of
2.0
pet.
Pr~stress
2.5
6
..-
c:
Q)
. . \ \e{\s\Q{\\{\q
....
Q)
\(\\\\0
Q.
::J
S,~ess , \S\
....
0.
I
lO
-UJ
I
.""","""""
"-
-l
W
0::
",....
...--
--o
...........
2
3
TRANSFER TIME
(log scale)
Fig. 8
10
k l (days)
SRL/f pu
pet
Average Steel
k, = 3 days
Concrete AS
20
en
UJ
0
Concrete CD
t..:J
en
en
QJ
~
-I-J
en
15
ClJ
~
r-1
cd
'r-l
~
tH
0
..J-J
~
cd
P-t
I-:J
~
CJJ
Concrete AS
10
Shrinkage Loss
.......
Concrete CD
5----------a...----..L...------L.----..L0.5
0,6
0.7
0.8
en
bD
'r-i
~
ECR /fpu
pet
20
Concrete AS
16
.,.o~
I;
I\9\)"
'S\
12
Concrete CD
I
1O
u-r
I
f SI / f pu
=0.7
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
fC3 ,ksi
Fig. 10
3.5
4.0
ECR /f pu pet
J
Concrete CD
16
-;.o~
12
LD
,~\
I'\>\)
01
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
f C3 , ksi
Fig. 11
3.5
4.0
1.0
:\
en
en
0.8
0:::
W
JI
~ 0.6
-.J
l..L..
0
I
t..O
...........
0.4
0::
lL.
0.2
1
~/
YEARS
102
10
J
10
10
1.03
I4
10
--.- _.- _ . _ - . _ . - - _ __
- - - - -_._ __ __.. -_
10.
- _
_ . _ . - _ ._ _ _
_.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 1
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Branson, D. E., Meyers, B. L. and Kripanarayanan, K. M.LOSSES OF PRESTRESS, CAMBER, AND DEFLECTION OF NONCOMPOSITE AND COMPOSITE STRUCTUR.ES USING DIFFERENT
WEIGHT CONCRETES, Report No~ 70-6, University of Iowa,
August 1970.
Se
6.
7.
8.
Gamble, W. L.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AASHO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES - ARTICLE 1.6.7.(B), PRESTRESS
LOSSES, Submitted by Department of Civil Engineering,
University. of Illinois, April 1972.
-98-
9.
Huang, T.
Huang, T.
PRESTRESS LOSSES,Report to Lehigh Prestressed Concrete
Committee, August 10, 1972.
11.
12.
19~9.
Kotalik, B. F.
Memoranda to L. D. Sandvig, P.E., dated June, 23, 1971
and April 19, 1972.
13.
A STUDY OF STRESS RELAXATION IN PRESTRESSING REINFORCEMENT, Journal bf the P~estr~ssed Concrete Institute,
Vol. 9, No.2, April 1964.
14.
15.
,.
-99-
180
,Ying, H o To
-100-
APPENDIX-A
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT
(August, 1'973)
A.1'
Preface
Based on the findings of an extensive research program,
Proposed Specifications
Pretensioned Members:
prestr~ssing
A-l
Conversely,
(b)
Initial loss:
stress loss is
It
= REL l
(A-I)
+ EL
where
REL 1
= Relaxation
in ksi.
Its value
i~
= n.f
1 C3
EL
= Elastic
n.1
= Initial
= Concrete
C3
C3
= ~ S1+
ll.
1
REL l
-
(A-2)
where
1
s=
ps
ps
(.l..+-L)
A
I
= Cross
in sq. in.
A-2
A ,e ,I
g
= Area,
Final loss:
= SRL
TL
+ 'ECR - LD
(A-3)
where
SRL
= A value
dependent upon f
81
pu
LD
81
81
For in-
IfPU
SRL (ksi)
0.5
24 - 42
0.6
30 - 46
0.7
39 - 53
0.8
so -
62
C3
A-3
Cd)
(A-4)
where
t
A.3
= Time
Commentary
The recommended procedure is based on the findings of a
In a preliminary part of this research project, concretes from several regular prestressed concrete suppliers were
compared for their creep and shrinkage characteristics.
All con-
Nevertheless, their
ef~ects
In fact, the
tempting to evaluate each of these effects separately, the recommended procedure aims at providing realistic estimates of the
total prestress losses at any time during the service life of the
structural member.
A-S
the initial stage upon transfer and the final stage at the end of
service life (taken as 100 years).
Part (a) of the proposed amendment provides a rational
definition for 1Tprestress1T.
The prestress
where S
pu
81
A-6
_._-,
In order to maintain
C3
shall be calculated
In Eq.
A-3, the first two terms have no real physical meaning, but are
separated merely for the convenience of calculation.
The sum of
Ca
A-7
can
following:
f
where
fT
ct
at
= nominal
=~
~
fT
+ n. - 1 at
(A-S)
The
= 0)
= 36500).
The coeffi-
~6500.
ment of the general procedure (tbat of combining the two stressstrain-time relationships) is completely rational.
Therefore, it
is expected that the same procedure can also be applied to posttensioned members, provided that the several empirical constants
(in EL, SRL, ECR and LD) are adjusted to reflect the casting of
A-8
A.4
Demonstrative Example:
To demonstrate the recommended procedure, an example is
7~l/2
initi~l
tensioning.
The gross section properties are Ag
e
= 7.31
in. and I
perties are A
= 1008
= 108000
in.
= 588
sq. in.,
These are:
A-9
/fpu
Sl
= 186/270 = 0.69
C~
p
= 74.9
1
7 .31
6'. 08 ( 588
+ 108000
= ( 331
294400
1.794 ksi
The corresponding
= 0.69
and k 1
=3
= 74.9
and n.
1
C3
186
2.21
= 74.9 +- 77.2
- 1=
EL
=7
IL
= 7.2
x 2.21
= 15.5
+ 15.5
A-IO
ksi
ksi
= 22.7
ksi
[ 5J
[2.26 ksiJ
[ll.~
ksiJ
[,18.5 ksiJ
Step 2:
81
Ifpu = 0.69
SRL
= 52.3
ECR
= 2.2
[38.1 ksiJ
ksi
x 7 x 2.21
= 34.1
[24.9 ksiJ
ksi
Step 3:
LD
= 14
TL
= 52.3
x 0.735
= 10.3
794
= 0.735
[7.5 ksiJ
ksi
+ 34.1 - 10.3
= 76.l
ksi
[55.5 ksiJ
transfer:
From Eq. A-4, for t
PL
A.S
= 22.7
= 22.7
= 22.7
= 365
= 52.8
ksi
[39.4ksi]
Notations
The notations used in this Appendix are listed here for
easy reference
Ag
= Area
A
ps
= Total
A-II
= Eccentricity
ECR
= Part
EL
t
D
Clv
= Nominal
applied loads (including member's own weight), calculated based on gross section properties, in ksi
fct
= Elastic
C3
= Initial
pu
= Ultimate
Sl
= Initial
= Moment
of inertia of gross
cro~s
section, in in.
IL
k1
= Transfer
LD
= Part
= Initial
PL
= Total
REL 1
= Relaxation
prestress loss t
A-12
= Strain
SRL
= Part
of final prestress
= Time
TL
= Final
= Parameter
los~defined
A-13
......
c
~ a.eO '9u
6
. (\ S\t eSS , 'S\
Q.)
.'
,e<,S\o<,\<'':'
\<,\\\0\
<...>
~
(J)
0:::J
~
'.
f-l
-i=
Cl
'+-
.",.".".""""""
--.J
W
n::
--- ........
..........
.............
TRANSFER TIME
20
10
, 30
kl (days)
(log scale)
Fig. A-I
_,,,=~_
,,'<~~:
""""'~~;'-.~'"
mnii-..'
_,
_n __
""=._=_ _........
..................................
-------------------------------------~.""l
APPENDIX' B
NOTATIONS
Several nota-
tions are used only once and are not included in the following
listing.
symbols consistent.
= Area
Ac
= Area
= Area. of
A
ps
= Total
At
= Area
CR
= Prestress
= Eccentricity
cross section
et
= Eccentricity
cross section
ECR
= One
off
, see Section
3.~.4
A-IS
EL
.fc
et
= Prestress
= Fiber
stress in concrete
= Concrete
loads
cs
= Concrete
Als~,
an arbitrary
time.
C3
= Concrete,
= Prestress
in steel
fpu
= Specified
steel
f
f.
Sl
= Stress
in prestressing steel
= Initial
= Steel
set-vice life
i
sti
81
= Steel
= Initial
prestressing bed
A-16
f
f
Sa
83
= Steel
= Steel
= Parameters
= Moment
It
= Moment
IL
= Initial
transfer
k1
= Time
ka
= Initial
LD
= Prestress
applied loads
M
= Bending
= Effective
n.
= Modular
= Axial
PL
= Total
prestress loss t
REL
= Prestress
REL 1
= Relaxation
= Strain
in concrete, in 10-
A-I?
= Steel
strain, in 10-
SH
= Prestress
SRL
= One
c
8
= Time
from transfer
= Time
TL
= Total
= Distance
= A dimensionless
1
= --------A
ps
= Magnification
= For
= Ratio
A-IS
APPENDIX C
DERIVATIONS OF EQUATIONS AND FORMULAS
C .1
= f pu
tAl + AaS s + A 3 Sa
S
a
- [B 1 + Ba log (t +l)J S - [B a + B4 'log (t + 1) ] S }
s
s
S
,8
(3-1)
S
= Clfc
+ [D t + Da log (t c + 1) ]
+ ([E l + Ea log (t +1),]
"
c'
.f, [E
C
(3-4)
(3-5)
J.' f c dAc
Jf c xdA
- l:fs a ps
=P
(3-6)
- Lf xa-
= - M
(3-7)
1J8
(3-8)
A-19
In these equations, f , f ,S
c
Egs.
3~6
s'
and S
and 3-7 ',: the, integrations are over the net concrete
section area and the summations cover all prestressing steel elements.
the integrations,
, (3-6a)
I g'~
g ~ - ~ (f
+ f cs ) xs aps
,S
where
(3-7a)
xs
Therefore f
=-
= g1
cs
(C-l)
+ g,ax s
P1
= Alfpu
P a = [A a - B1 - B2 log (t S + 1) ] f pu
Pa =
Then
[A 3
- B 3 - B4 log (t S + 1) ] f pu
Q1
= D1
= p 1+
+ E 1 + (D s + Ea ) log (t C + 1)
p S
as
+ P 3Sa
8
(C-2)
(C-3)
A-20
=ka
(C-4)
- Q 1 - Qa f cs
where
.a
= R1
+. R~f CS + R3 f CS
R1
= P1
=P
(C-5)
a
Q
2
Substituting" Egs. C-l and C-S into the equilibrium conditions 3-6a
and 3-7a
Agg l - L: [R l + (Ra + 1)
=-
(C-6)
M
(C-7)
and can be writen in the form of Egs. 3-9 by introducing the following parameters.
A-21
Ul
= R 1 ApS
Ua
= eRa
Ag
~xa
+ 1)
U4 = R A
U
+ 1) Aps
(Ra
+P
ps
pS
= 2R 3 Exaps
U 6 = Rsl:x aps
u1
V
C.2
= R1 ~xapS
- M
Va
(Ra
(R
= R3 ~xaps = 21
U
l:xa
3
ps =
+ 1)
~x
1)
a +
V g
3
Us
Va
(C-8)
= R3 Ex
ps
.a
a
+ V g g + Vega
6 1
a
V g
a + 4 1
aps
+ Uag1 + U3 g S + U4 g1 + U5 g 1 g a + Uega
+ V g
"6
Then:
=a
} (3-9)
=a
Special Case 1:
+ P
(R :a + 1) A
- Ag
a =
pS
U
U
= R 1 ApS
(R.a + 1) e g Aps
= 2R 3 Aps e g = 2V4
U6
1
= RsAps e ga =-v
2 6
g ps
Va = (R a
= Va
V6
= R 3 Aps
U5
= ReA
A-22
= R 3e g
- M
a
+ 1) e g Aps - I g
3
A
ps
and
Therefore
Pe
g
I
(C-9)
g
= [1
A e x
i gg
Pe '
gl -
+ M
x
g
It is clear that Egs. 3-9 can be transformed into a quadratic equatioD in terms of gl by means of Eq. C-9.
Replacing x
Agg 1 ,-- [R 1 + (R a + 1)
(g
+ g2 e g) + R 3 (g + g2 e g) ] A
ps
1
=P
(C-6a)
- M
.T
(C-7a)
O
"\:
I.f
(C-4a)
g g
g cs
- [R 1 + eRa + 1) f cs + R. 3 f cs 2] Aps (I g + Ag e g 2)
A--23
= PI g
- MA e
g g
Therefore
.
cs
- [R1
+ eRa +1)
+R fesa ]
es
ps
1
(A
a
e
)
+...zI
g
pMe '
-& (C-IO)
= -A g
Ig
= - - -1- - - .a-
A
ps
(-1.+i&-)
Ag
g
Me
L + ---&
Ag
Ig
f~~is
is closely
assoc~ated
The dimensionless
with the ratio of
= 0,
A-24
;:
V1 =
= V:a
M
vanish.
Therefore,
=v4 = V6 = a
=0
ga = 0
ps
Dividing through by A
ps
= --&.
A
ps
fT
et = -
p
A
g
cs
A-25
In fact,
C.3
C3
=~
+ n.1 - 1
sa
2
Eq. 3-14b
By definition
C3
(1
e t- )
-+-
= Aps f sa
At
It
AI
ps
(.l+-Z....)
A
I
g
g g
A e 2)
ps (I g + g g
Therefore
.a
ps (1 g + Ag e g )
a
+ n.1 - 1 = Ag I g + (n.1 - 1) (I g + Ag e g ) Aps
A
(C-12)
At
= Ag
+ (n.1. - 1) Aps
= Ag e g
= Ig
+ Ag e g
= [Ag
.a [
= AtI t
+ At e t
= A I
- Age g
At -
CUi - 1) Aps
Therefore
a
= Aps (A +
t
C.4
et
-r-
Q.E.D.
r3 + n - 1
= Aps (
At
Aps CIt + At e t
Atl t
A-27
2
)
~ +
Therefore
n - 1 f
cl
- Ag e g
=-
:a
At
= -
= - LAt
P (e
- e )
t
_ 1 f~
f3 + n
Therefore
==
P (e
- +
At
- -
At
e
g - e"t) t
It
Met
[M + P (e - e t ) ]
g
It
e
It
properties.
eJ
Q.E.D.
A-28
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
Three examples have been worked out to illustrate the
application of the recommended procedure as presented in Chapter 4.
One problem is shown in detail in Section 4.2.
in.
All pre-
S1
= 0.70
= 189 ksi
f pu ,k 1
=3
ps
= 5.20
days.
sq. in.,
= 7.95
= 20.77
= 417
sq. in_,
= 165,492
in.
= - - - - -1 - - - - = 50.5
2
1
7 . 95
5.20 ( 417
+ 44,754
ct -
= 1.171
ks~
Step 1:
= 0.028
fsa
= 189
= 7.56
pu
- 7.56
+5
IL
= 7.6
+ 16.6
= 24.2
83
= 189
- 24.2
= 164.8
Cs
=~
= 36.5
ksi
= 11
TL
Final
Final
o. 70,
(3.32)
ECR
Eq. A-4:
If pu
k5i
st i -- 50.55(50.5)
+ 5 - 1(1 171)
LD
= (1.9)
= 38.9
(5.42)
ksi
ksi
ksi
= 16.6
ksi
= 38.9
= 0.144
_ 1 (181.4)
pu
SRL
Eq A-5:
51
days
ksi
= 3.32
(16.6)
.:>
=3
=5
ni
EL
50.5
and k 1
ksi
= 181.4
= 50.5,
Step 2:
If pu = 0.70
Sl
= 10.3
5 42
=.
k
s~
ksi
= 65.1 ksi
prestress = 189 - 65.1 = 123.9 ksi
steel stress = 123.9 + 5.42 = 129.3
+ 36.5 - 10.3
A-3D
ksi
Step 3:
PL
= 24.2
+ 0.22
= 24~2
= 47.1
+ 0.56 (40.9)
(6~.1
ksi
141.9 ksi
141.9 + 5.42
147.3 ksi
Example 3:
Prestressing steel
S1
= 186 ksi
=~0.69
eg
= 355,185 in.
= 848 sq . in.,
at midspan, and I
13
790,734 in.
fT
et -
= 34.02 in.
1
19 . 51
7.72 ( 848 + 355,185
57.3
)-
(14 00 + 1 7 01 1 .51
337034. 2
355185
+
790734
A-31
= 1.563 ksi
Step 1:
REL 1
f
Sa
= 0.019
.
81
= 186 - 5.1
= 57.3
k1
= 0.75
day
= 5.1
ksi
180.9 ksi
= 57.3,
= 0.69,
If'
pu
=6
and n.1
+ 6 _ 1
IL
f cs
Step 2:
= -61
= 2.9
(17.4)
ksi
= 0.69,
= 0.193
pu
Sl
Ca
ksi
= 2.9
Ifpu = 0.70
ECR
= 0.135
pu
= 52.1
= 36.4= 57.3,
6 (S 7 3)
sti ~ 57.3 + 6 - 1
ksi
n
=6
(1.563)
and f
= 8.6p
= 1.563ksi
ksi
= 3.3
LD
TL
(2.3)
et
(8.60)
= 19.8
ksi
Final prestress
Final steel
A-32
ksi
Step 3:
= 22.5
= 22.5
= 48.3
+ 0.56 (46.2)
ksi
Prestressing remaining
Steel stress
= 137.7
A-33
= 186
+ 8.6
- 48.3
= 146.3
= 137.7
ksi
ksi