Sie sind auf Seite 1von 34

Design of Post-Tensioned

Girder Anchorage Zones


William C. Stone
Research Structural Engineer
Center for Building Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Washington, O.C.

John E. Breen*
The Carol Cockrell Curran
Chair in Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Texas
Austin, Texas

Synopsis
The post-tensioned anchorage etry, and the effect of supplementary
zones of several thin-webbed box anchorage zone reinforcement.
girders, which were designed in ac- Three-dimensional computer analy-
cordance with AASHTO and ACI re- ses were used to generalize these re-
quirements, have cracked along the sults. A failure theory developed to
tendon path during stressing. This explain tendon path crack initiation
cracking presents paths for potential agreed well with the experimental
corrosion and frost damage. In addi- data.
tion, such cracking negates a major A general equation for cracking load
benefit of prestressed concrete, in specimens without supplemental
namely, the minimization of service anchorage zone reinforcement is pre-
load cracking. sented along with provisions for de-
This report summarizes the major signing supplementary reinforcement
design-related observations and con- and calculating the effect it will have
clusions from an extensive analytical on cracking and ultimate load. Sug-
and experimental study of the behav- gested code and commentary
ior of post-tensioned anchorage zones changes, based on the results of the
with single large tendons. The ex- above mentioned data, are presented.
perimental program considered vari- Examples showing practical applica-
ables such as tendon inclination and tions of the tentative recommen-
eccentricity, anchor width and geom- dations are included.

28
Table 1. Regression Analysis Data.

Pc, t 2a fdn 2a e 8
Case Specimen (kips) (in - ) (in.) (ksi) (in.) (in.) (deg)

I M R1 A 39 3 2.625 0.723 20.5 0 0


2 MR1B 43 3 2.125 0.725 20.5 0 0
3 MI1B 41 3 2.125 0.697 20.5 0 0
4 MU 30 3 2.625 0.582 205 0 30
5 FS1A 400 12 8.5 0.451 82 0 0
6 FS1B 400 12 10.5 0.401 82 0 0
7 FS2B 330 12 10.5 0.455 82 0 30
8 M7A-4 15 3 2 0.327 20 3 0
9 M7C-4 32 3 2 0.548 20 3 0
10 MIA-4 31 3 2 0.495 20 6 0
11 M8B-4 31 3 2 0.707 20 6 0
12 M1-2 43 4 2 0.627 20 0 0
13 M2-2 34 3 2 0.627 20 0 0
14 M3-2 24 2 2 0.627 20 0 0
15 M3-2R 18 2 2 0.460 20 0 0
16 M2A-4 18 3 2 0.495 20 6 0
18 FS2A 440 12 10.5 0.532 82 0 15
19 M 1-3 28 3 2 0.610 20 0 30
20 M2-3 32 4.5 2 0.637 20 0 30

Note; I kip = 4.45 kN; I inn. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi - 6.9 MPa.

tic finite element computer analyses


T his paper is the second in a two-part
series summarizing a study per- was used to generalize these results and
develop a failure theory to explain ten-
formed at the University of Texas at
Austin on the behavior of post-tensioned don path crack initiation based upon
girder anchorage zones. In the first pa- specified peak spalling strains at the
per' a summary of the major behavioral edge of the anchorage.
observations and conclusions from an In this paper specific methods of pre-
extensive analytical and experimental dicting cracking and ultimate loads are
program2,3 was presented. presented based on a comprehensive
The experimental program investi- regression analysis of the test data and
gated the primary variables affecting the on the indications of the three-dimen-
formation of the tendon path crack: ten- sional finite element method analyses.'
don inclination and eccentricity, section A limit state design philosophy with ap-
height and width, tensile splitting propriate factors of safety for cracking
strength of the concrete, anchor width and ultimate loads is presented.
and geometry, and the effect of supple- There are two general approaches
mentary anchorage zone reinforcement, available for the design of post-ten-
both active and passive. An extensive sioned anchorage zone reinforcement.
series of three-dimensional linear elas- These are:
1. To design the section geometry
'Also, Director, Phil M. Ferguson Structural Engineer- and supplementary anchorage zone
ing Laboratory, University of Texas. Currently, Chair- reinforcement so that cracking will not
man, ACI Commltiee 318, Building Code Require- occur at maximum stressing load levels.
ments for Reinforced Concrete. Recipient of PCI's
State-of-the-Art Award in 1981 (paper published in 2. To allow anchorage zone cracking
Jan.-Feb, 1980 PCI JOURNAL). to occur during stressing but to provide

PCI JOURNAIJMarch-April 1984 29


proper reinforcement so that crack ported. A step-wise linear regression
widths at the stressing load will not ex- analysis considering all geometric vari-
ceed an allowable value selected to min- ables in the test program was performed
imize the possibility of water penetra- using the results9 of the 20 tests for
tion and corrosion. which no supplementary anchorage
In either case the anchorage ultimate zone reinforcement was provided. Both
load capacity must be kept well above model and full-scale data were included
the cracking load to ensure adequate as shown in Table 1.
safety and to give warning of structural Variables with low statistical meaning
distress. were gradually eliminated. The result-
ing empirically based general cracking
equation for thin web members is ex-
CRACKING LOAD pressed as a function of six key vari-
PREDICTION ables, Elimination of any of these vari-
ables made major and undesirable
In the earlier paper' and detailed re- changes in the correlation.
ports an extensive series of physical tests The resulting expression with slight
of thin web anchorage zones was re- modifications to simplify terms is:

P^' ,Iafe) r 2 (38a 120) 81 {2B 252 (ela) f a.}

_ 103
(c/a j 7 I + 39a' + fdp { 166 975 (a' /t)2 } 9.1 (1)
9 5

where, as shown in Fig. 1: ical specimen tests performed by Coop-


e = tendon eccentricity (always as- ers and Berezovytch. r The results are
sumed positive), in, shown in Table 3.
2a = section height, in, For the 16 comparisons made of these
2a' = width of anchor plate (assumed independent tests, the mean value of P,,
square), in. (test)/P ,. (calculated) was 1.127, indi-
t = section thickness, in. cating a moderate conservatism in the
0 = angle of tendon inclination (al- calculated values. The standard devia-
ways assumed positive), deg tion was 0.23, which is high but not un-
= split cylinder tensile strength, reasonable given the expected scatter
ksi (may be conservatively esti- for tests which depend heavily on the
mated in psi units as 6.5 ,/7) tensile strength of concrete specimens.
Pcr sw^re) = cracking load for section Eq. (1) was developed from the test
with plate anchor, but with- results for bearing or plate-type anchors.
out supplementary anchor- The results need to be modified for
age reinforcement, kips "bell" and "cone" type anchors. The
To demonstrate the accuracy of Eq. three anchor types are shown in Fig. 4 of
(1), Table 2 compares the measured ex- Ref. 1. The "cone" type anchor has stiff
perimental cracking Ioad against the hearing walls in the conical section. A
calculated value. The mean of P,,. (test)I thin-walled transition trumpet on a plate
Pcr (calculated) was 1.004 with a stan- anchor would not be classed as a "cone"
dard deviation of 0.072. As an external type anchor. Test results reported in
check, Eq. (1) was used to calculate the Ref. 3 indicate the following factors are
expected cracking fbr a number of phys- appropriate:

30
f
e
f s
-
P
C

2p

2c

H-H
Fig. 1. Geometric data for Eq. (1)

Plate: strictions due to lack of data in some


Per = 1.00 pll^p ntel (2a) areas. They are appropriate for speci-
mens and applications similar to the thin
Bell: rectangular sections tested. Since the
Pc. = 1.08 Pcr ,,.,,, `2h) units on all terms are not physically con-
sistent, the constants contain dimen-
Cone:
sionally related values. Hence, Eq. (1)
P" = 0.61 P-11.1P> (2c) must be used in the customary unit sys-
tem. In addition, some other restrictions
include:
LIMITATIONS 1. Inclinations in the test program
were always positive, as were eccentric-
Eqs. (1) and (2), although intended for ities (see Fig. 1). Any combination of
general applications, are empirical negative tendon eccentricity (i.e., below
equations and hence have certain re- the centroici rather than above it) with

PCI JOURNAUMarch-April 1984 31


Table 2. Regression Analysis Results - Comparison of
Predicted and Actual Cracking Loads.

Pr(test) P[E q . ( Ij l P,..(test)


Case Specimen (kips) (kips) P.,[Eq. (1)1

1 MR1A 39 42.5 0.9176


2 MRI B 43 42.2 1.0189
3 MI1B 41 41.0 1.0
4 M12 30 31.7 0.9464
5 FS1A 400 400.9 0.998
6 FS1B 400 398.4 1.004
7 FS2B 330 330.35 0.999
8 M7A-4 15 15.8 0.949
9 M7C-4 32 27,5 1.163
10 MIA-4 18 18,5 0.973
11 M8B-4 31 31.4 0.9873
12 M1-2 43 42.2 1.016
13 M2-2 34 36.6 0.929
14 M3-2 24 19.85 1.21
15 M3-2R 18 18.8 0.958
16 M2A-4 22 22.1 0.995
17 M1A-4 18 18.5 0.973
18 FS2A 440 438.8 1.0027
19 M1-3 28 29.1 0.962
20 M2-3 32 29.6 1.081
X = 1,0041; o = 0.072

positive tendon inclination or vice versa Although not specifically tested in


is not directly covered. It is likely that in this study, several practical applications
such cases the tendon path crack would should be soluble using Eqs. (1) and (2),
form at a higher load than when both and proper consideration of the geome-
inclination and eccentricity are positive. try. These are:
By using absolute values for angles and (a) Laterally eccentric anchors and
eccentricities, Eq. (1) should yield con- edge anchors, particularly in thick
servative solutions for such problems. web sections.
This has not been verified experimen- (h) Multiple anchors across thick web
tally. sections.
2. Thin prismatic web sections are as- (c) Rectangular anchor plates orient-
sumed. The limits of the experimental ed such that 2a' <2h'.
and computer data are for These cases are illustrated in Fig. 2.
0.05_t/2a_-0.25. Figs. 2a through 2c indicate that a con-
3. Multiple tendons anchored in the servative solution should be obtained by
same web section are not covered. Lim- replacing the value t in Eq. (1) with the
ited experimental evidence 3 indicates value 2g which equals twice the edge
further conservatism is warranted for distance or the distance between the an-
that case. chors. Strip type rectangular anchors
4. The anchorage is assumed to be such as shown in Fig. 2e where 2b' <
square. Until further test data are avail- 2a' cannot be accurately handled by Eq.
able, the shorter edge distance should (1) without further experimental or an-
be used for 2a when rectangular an- alytical investigation. However, rectan-
chors are used (see Fig. 2d). gular anchors, such as shown in Fig. 2d

32
Table 3. External Check of Eq. (1).

Eq. (1)
P r (test)
Prr ^ lap E 2a B e 2' PK
Ref. Specimen (kips) (psi) (ksi) (in.) (in.) (deg) (in.) (in.) (kips) 1', r[R4 ( 1 )i

Spiral Reinf. 12.6 7480 0.707 1.67 16 28 1.5 1.42 11.52" 1.09
No. 1, Set 3
Spiral Reinf 12.1 5550 0.595 1.67 16 28 1.5 1.42 10.11t-t 1.19
No. 1, Set 4
LPT Reinf. 19.6 6830 0.661 1.67 16 28 1.5 1.42 16.76t,i 1.16
No, 1, Set 10

II-1 37 3160 0.365 3 36 0 0 2 38.96 0.949


1I-2 36 3850 0.403 3 36 0 0 2 33 1.09
TT-3 40 38,50 0.403 5 36 0 0 2 52 0,78
II-4 44 3850 0.403 5 36 0 0 2 52 0.846
n 111-1 40 2860 0.347 5 36 0 0 2 45 1.34
111-2 54.5 2860 0.347 5 36 0 0 2 45 1.21
11I-4 40 2860 0.347 3 36 0 0 2 38 1.05
II1-5 75 4470 0.434 5 36 0 0 2 57 1.31
I1I-6 100 4470 0.434 7 36 0 0 2 66 1.51
III-8 107 4315 0.426 7 36 0 0 2 64 1.6
IV-1 32 2460 0.323 3 36 0 0 2 35.4 0.904
IV-2 55 3535 0.386 5 36 0 0 2 50.2 1.09

for Cooper's test" estimated at 8 4fr; 6.5^+ 'j for Berezovytch's tests.' 1( = 1.127
t Anchor laterally eccentric web. Effective thickness used (as shown in Fig. 2). a- = 0.2.3
t Modified to account for reinforcement.

W
w
(a) LATERALLY ECCENTRIC ANCHOR (b) EDGE ANCHOR
SUBSTITUTE 1 = 2g in EQ I SUBSTITUTE t= 2g in EQ.

cH
it 2p^ Ir g

2Q

rg^ I

t=2g i
I
^

(t = 2g) (c) MULTIPLE ANCHOR


ACROSS THICK WEB
SECTION

SUBSTITUTE
t=2g IN
EQ. 1

2g J 2g

(d) RECTANGULAR ke)


PLATE 2a`< 2b'
ANCHORS ^^ 2q EQ < 2a
EQ, I NOT
APPLICABLE

I` -tH
Fig. 2. Special cases for Eq. (1).

fM'
where 2a' < 2b', should be conserva- These equations are valid only for
tively designed using Eq. (1). reinforcement amounts and locations
For other complex applications, a designed in accordance with the provi-
more exact solution should be obtained sions presented later in this paper.
using a linear elastic, three-dimensional
finite element analysis, 2 or by further
experimental investigation. ULTIMATE STRENGTH
PREDICTION
EFFECT OF A review of the ultimate load data for
specimens without supplemental an-
SUPPLEMENTARY chorage zone reinforcement shows a
REINFORCEMENT considerable amount of scatter. Some
inclined tendon models developed ul-
Cracking loads calculated from Eqs.
timate loads 60 percent above cracking.
(1) and (2) represent the minimum value
Most (particularly among the straight
to be expected for a normally reinforced
tendon tests) exhibited very brittle be-
section without supplementary anchor-
havior with an explosive failure of the
age zone reinforcement. A substantial
anchorage zone occurring at a load coin-
number of tests dealing with various
cident with or only slightly above that
supplementary reinforcing methods in-
which caused formation of the tendon
dicated that cracking loads could be
path crack.
raised significantly by the addition of
For this reason the ultimate load for
such reinforcement (passive or active).
an anchor with no supplementary rein-
The expected rise in cracking load for a
forcement should conservatively he
given type of reinforcement was pre-
equated with the cracking load. The ul-
sented in Refs. 3, 4, and 1.
timate load, however, is substantially
Using these percentage increases and
increased for sections containing ade-
assuming a linear variation between the
quate supplementary reinforcement in
values for straight and inclined tendons,
the anchorage zone (active or passive),
the cracking load for the reinforced an-
thus providing a desirable margin of
chorage zone with supplementary rein-
safety between cracking and ultimate
forcement is given by:
load. The relative increase in the ulti-
Spiral reinforcement: mate load for a given supplementary an-
P^,= (2.03 0.0326) P er (3a) chorage zone reinforcing method was
presented in Ref. 4.
orthogonal reinforcement: Again, assuming a linear variation
P" ,. = (1.61 0.019 0) P ^,. (3h))
between the straight and inclined val-
Active reinforcement ues from Ref 4, the ultimate load for a
(Lateral post-tensioning): given situation can be calculated as:
P,. = (2.37 0.0372 0) Pcr (3c)
Spiral reinforcement:
P., = (3.18 0.538) P,. r (4a)
where
P,r = predicted cracking load with orthogonal reinforcement:
supplemental reinforcement, Puu = (1.71 0.170)Per(4b)
kips
Active reinforcement:
B = angle of tendon inclination, deg
P.,r = (3.89 0.0460)Prr (4c)
Pr = cracking load for section with
no supplementary reinforce- where
ment as calculated from Eqs. (1) P, = ultimate load with supplemen-
and (2) tal reinforcement, kips

PC[ JOURNALIMarch-April 1984 35


0 = angle of tendon inclination, deg (h) If the environment is nonhostile
Per = cracking load for section with and minor cracking can be tolerat-
no supplementary reinforce- ed, the limit state would consti-
ment as calculated from Eqs. (1) tute the load at which crack
and (2), kips widths became excessive [greater
These equations are valid only for than about 0.012 to 0.013 in. (0.3
reinforcement amounts and locations to 0.33 mm) as currently implicitly
designed in accordance with the provi- specified].
sions presented later. Since there is less danger of loss of life
in the second group, a higher probabil-
ity of occurrence can be tolerated than
LIMIT STATE DESIGN in the case of the ultimate limit state.
The design philosophy for these two
In general, when a structure or stntc- limit states is to arrive at a best estimate
tural element becomes unfit for its in- of the highest load that will come into
tended use, it is said to have reached a the structure with respect to a particular
limit state.7 Limit state design is a de- limit state. This load is then multiplied
sign process which involves identifica- by an appropriate load factor which
tion of all possible modes of failure takes into account possibilities of over-
(limit states), determination of an ac- load, in addition to anticipated varia-
ceptable level of safety against occur- tions in the maximum load due to mate-
rence of each limit state and considera- rial tolerances.
tion by the designer of the significant This new load (with safety factor in-
limit states. Limit states for the post-ten- cluded) must he less than the best esti-
sioned anchorage zone fall into two mate of the nominal resistance of the
basic groups: structure to a particular limit state mul-
1. Ultimate limit states which are re- tiplied by a strength reduction factor (
lated to the structural collapse of part or factor) which takes into account both the
all of the structure. Such a limit state undesirability of a particular type of
should have a low probability of occur- failure, as well as the possibility of ma-
rence since it may lead to loss of life and terial and construction defects (for ex-
major financial losses. Ultimate limit ample, substandard concrete).
state for the post-tensioned anchorage Expressed in equation form:
zone would be evidenced by:
( PP.5) (LF) -- 4' Pnon LS t 5)
(a) Explosive rupture of the anchpr-
where
age zone.
P, = best estimate of highest load
(b) Complete side face blow-out of a
to come onto structure at a
multiple strand curved tendon at
particular limit state
the point of maximum curvature.
best estimate of nominal
2. Damage limit states which are re- strength of structure with re-
lated to damage of the structure in the spect to a particular limit
form of premature or excessively wide state
cracks, For the post-tensioned anchor- LF = load factor representing a
age zone the damage limit state falls into factor of safety against reach-
two categories: ing a particular limit state
(a) If the environment is a hostile one = strength reduction factor
(corrosion and freeze-thaw dam- which accounts for material
age possibilities), formation of any and constriction defects and
tendon path crack would consti- undesirability of a particular
tute a damage limit state. limit state

36
LIMIT STATE DESIGN FOR there is no practical bound on the upper
limit of the load due to misloading. With
CRACKING prestressing forces, the tensile strength
Under the ACI Building Code the of the tendon imposes a practical upper
maximum permissible specified tempo- bound. For the ultimate limit state, the
rary prestressing load to be applied to nominal maximum stressing load on the
any structure is 0.8fm , that is to say, 80 structure would be the nominal ultimate
percent of the guaranteed ultimate ten- capacity of the tendon (1.0fA p.). How-
sile strength of the prestressing tendon. ever, this is not the best estimate of the
highest load which could come onto the
Thus P = 0.8f A,, where A. is the
nominal area of the tendon. structure.
In practice, a 10 percent overload Mill reports and metallurgist recom-
could occur due to a jacking error such mendations indicate that the actual steel
as miscalibration, misreading or over- area for a given tendon could be as much
pumping. A 15 percent margin for error as 2.4 percent above the nominally spec-
above that would constitute a reason- ified cross-sectional area. Likewise, pre-
able factor of safety against a damage stressing steel with a nominally speci-
limit state. Thus, the total load factor fied ultimate strength of 270 ksi (1863
recommended is equal to 1.25. MPa) may reach 300 ksi (2070 MPa)
On the other side of the inequality is maximum, representing an 11 percent
the cracking load derived from Eqs. (1) rise in strength. Both of these values
and (2) with appropriate modification to constitute upper bound limits, ones
account for tendon geometry and sup- highly unlikely to occur simultaneously
plemental reinforcement, Since Eq. (1) for all tendons in practice.
was selected as a lower hound predic- An additional consideration, hard to
tion, the variance is relatively low, and quantify, is the possibility of a greater
since quality control is fairly good for number of strands being used than the
prestressed concrete construction, a 4) number specified. This chance seems
factor of 0.90 is reasonable. Thus: more remote but has been known to
Occur.
(P) (LF) An appropriate load factor which
would account for these effects at ulti-
mate would be about 1.20. This is the
(1.25) ( 0.8fnu) (Av,)
1.10f, A n, (6) value used by CEB-FIP for tendon
0.90 force. Liven the same material and con-
struction quality as before, the capacity
Note that the application of consistent
reduction factor for ultimate failure
limit states procedure requires the an-
should be lower than for cracking, as an
chorage zone to he designed so cracking
explosive anchorage failure may have a
would not occur at a load less than the
disastrous effect on the integrity of the
tendon ultimate. This may appear ex-
overall structure. For this brittle-type
tremely conservative but in reality, with
failure, a value of 4 = 0.75, similar to
the large number of possible factors
which can lower the cracking load, this that used for spiral columns, is recom-
is a minimal requirement. mended.
The design check for ultimate is thus:

LIMIT STATE DESIGN .2)f A 8


Pnom. 0 : 1.60fruA,, (7)
FOR ULTIMATE 0.75

In general considerations of ultimate In the case of bonded tendons, the


loading which may come on a structure, force at the anchorage is less likely to

PC! JOURNAL/March-April 1984 37


increase once stressing is completed. A Traditionally, in the United States a
higher value of would be justified but consistent design philosophy has not
the further complexity introduced been applied to the anchorage zone,
makes such refinement questionable. These load levels seem high when com-
pared to what have been used. In the
CEB-FIP criteria they have been more
APPLICATION OF LIMIT realistic. They require a load factor on
STATE PHILOSOPHY prestress forces of 1.2 and resistance
factors on concrete in the anchorage
It is anticipated that the application of zone of 1.5. Thus, the comparable ulti-
a reasonable limit state philosophy to mate load when adjusted for variations
post-tensioned anchorage zones will he in concrete quality control would be
a controversial subject. A cracking crite- equivalent to:
rion based on a design tendon force of
1.10 f,^A, as suggested above, at first Q.8f^ Ap . x 1.2 x 1.5 x 1.10 = 1.58 f As
glance seems wildly conservative in an
which is very close to the 1.6{) f,A,,
industry which takes pride in "load
recommended. Therefore, the limit
testing" every structure during the
states recommended are not revolution-
post-tensioning process. Yet it is just this
ary but represent more of a world norm.
load testing that makes the requirement
so important
Almost every tendon is loaded to ap- DESIGN CRITERIA
proximately 0.8f A p, during jacking.
With errors in ram calibration, pressure The various factors affecting the de-
gauges, and human fallibility, certainly sign of post-tensioned anchorage zones
some are loaded beyond that point and in Refs. 2 and 3 and the preceding dis-
probably more than 10 percent beyond. cussions can now be restated in terms of
The remaining difference is the margin specific design criteria. A complete de-
of safety which must not only account sign may follow one of two routes,
for possible dimensional errors, material namely, not to permit any cracks at all to
understrengths and constructional defi- form at service loads, or alternatively, to
ciencies like honeycombing, but must permit the formation of cracks at service
provide for the wide variability as- load but limit their maximum widths.
sociated with the imprecision of our Both routes must satisfy the serviceabil-
knowledge and the general variability of ity and ultimate limit state requirements
concrete tensile properties. of Eqs. (6) and (7).
It is even more important to focus on
the ultimate state. The tendon can be
called on to develop its full tensile ca- CRACK FREE DESIGN
pacity if the structure is overloaded.
This tensile capacity is not the guaran- Although in some instances, such as
teed minimum tensile strength but the for interior members, the formation of
actual tensile strength, based on actual anchorage zone cracks at service load
(not nominal) area and actual tensile levels may be acceptable, for the most
properties. The failure of an anchorage part they should not be tolerated for rea-
may he sudden, explosive, and devas- sons of freeze-thaw durability or corro-
tating. A suitable reserve should be pro- sion threats and for general aesthetics.
vided. The values suggested are actually There are two means of achieving ser-
less than are accepted for a ductile beam vice load level crack-free anchorage
failure because of the higher confidence zone design:
in the level of load. 1. Proportion the segment to remain

38
Table 4. Statistical Evaluation of Crack Width Data for
Various Types of Tendons.

X rr X-rr R-2o-
(per- (per- (per- (Per-
Type oftendon cent) cent) cent) cent)

Straight tendons with spiral


reinforcement 36 14 22 8
Inclined tendons with spiral
reinforcement 51 26 25 0
Inclined tendons with 100
psi* lateral tx>st-
tensioning 25 5 20 15

Note: X = the mean lwnent increase in load above the cracking load
before crack widths begin to exceed 0.013 in, (0.33 mm).
*1 psi = 0.006895 MPa.

uncracked with no dependence on sup- larly lateral prestressing. Due to scatter


plementary anchorage zone reinforce- in the experimental crack width data,
ment using Eqs. (2) and (6) wh il e pro- the assessment of allowable load in-
viding sufficient supplementary rein- crease beyond cracking load is difficult.
forcement to satisfy the ultimate The data shown in Table 4 were ob-
strength requirement of Eq. (7). tained from Ref. 3.
2. If, due to geometric restrictions the The values for the full-scale inclined
section would not remain uncracked at tendon specimens were calculated from
the service level stressing load accord- crack width data measured within a
ing to Eq. (2), then supplementary re- distance of 4u' (see Fig. 1) from the
inforcement, either active or passive, loaded face, thus inside the range of in-
should be used to raise the cracking load fluence of the supplemental reinforce-
to a level which satisfies the require- ment. Crack widths at the point of max-
ments of Eq. (6). The expected increase imum tendon curvature were generally
in cracking load above that given by Eq. wider at a given load, but since no sup-
(2) for a given geometric configuration plementary reinforcement was provided
and reinforcing scheme is given by Eq. at that location the results were not us-
(3). A final check must be made to satisfy able. Selection of one standard devia-
the ultimate strength requirement of Eq. tion below the mean values implies that
(7). with adequate spirals or lateral post-ten-
sioning, nominal loads approximately 20
percent above the cracking loads calcu-
ACCEPTABLE lated from Eq. (3) can be tolerated with
CRACK DESIGN acceptable crack widths.
Specimens with orthogonal supple-
If for some reason the requirements mentary reinforcement exhibited unac-
mentioned above cannot be met, it is ceptably wide cracks at first cracking
possible in some cases to maintain ser- and thus no increase is recommended.
vice level crack widths within the gen- The more conservative use of a criterion
eraI AASHTO-ACI acceptable levels two standard deviations below the mean
[0.013 in. (0.33 mm)] through the use of would indicate that only lateral post-
supplemental-y reinforcement, particu- tensioning would give a useful increase

PCI JOURNAL/March-April 1984 39


in allowable load beyond cracking (15
percent). A. > f f Ds05 in. 2 (8a)
0.05
4 9 (32 mm2)
Until more extensive experimental
where
evidence is available concerning crack
A,p = spiral wire cross-sectional area,
width control in the anchorage zone, the
sq in.
above recommendations must be con-
sidered very tentative and the prudent fi = post-tensioning design load di-
designer should make every effort to use vided by area confined by spi-
the more certain "no crack" design pro- ral (fi = 4PIrD 2, psi)
cedure above. Should a large overload fit = specified compressive strength
occur on a section designed for no of concrete at time of stressing,
cracking, an additional buffer would be psi
available (20 percent) before the section D = outside diameter of spiral, in.
would experience severe cracking dis- s = pitch of spiral, in.
tress. f8 = allowable stress in spiral steel
(f, = 0.7f., psi)
= spiral yield strength, but not
DESIGN OF SUPPLEMENTAL more than 60,000 psi
0 = 0.70 for spiral design
REINFORCEMENT Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; I psi = 0.006895 MPa.
In order to obtain the strength in- See Fig. 3a for details concerning spi-
creases indicated in Eqs. (3) and (4), ral geometry.
supplementary anchorage zone rein- For the design of a spiral based on Eq.
forcement must meet certain minimum (8a), the following recommendations are
requirements. made:
1. The outside diameter of the com-
Spiral Reinforcement pleted spiral, D, should be as large as
possible within the confines of the web
Spiral rcciriforcement for the anchor- or slab, while still satisfying cover re-
age zone should be proportioned to en- quirements. This recommendation is
sure that the spiral confinement is suffi- limited to thin web applications where
cient to control early cracking. The 0.05 -_ t/2a -_ 0.25, For tendons located
amount of spiral required can be deter- near the side face of thick web sections,
mined from the general relation be- the radius of the spiral should be the
tween degree of internal confinement edge distance less the required cover.
and increase in compressive strength as For tendons located in the center por-
proposed by Richart et al." tions of wider webs, the spiral diameter
In keeping with the general philoso- should he the maximum linear dimen-
phy of limit state design, a strength re- sion of the anchorage projected bearing
duction factor should be applied to the surface (or approximately 2a J2 for
capacity carried by the confined con- square anchors).
crete. In addition, wherever a spiral is 2. The spiral pitch should be as small
required, an arbitrary minimum diame- as possible, but not less than that re-
ter of Y4 in. (6.4 mm) is suggested so that quired to readily pass the maximum ag-
a sturdy unit which will hold its shape is gregate size used in the concrete mix.
furnished. Thus: The AASHTO Bridge Specifications9
and the ACI Building Code 1 ' recom-
A8y } fi mend a minimum spiral clear distance
(0.85f) Ds > 0.05 in. 2 (8)
(8. 2fs) (32 mm2) pitch of 1 in. (25.4 mm) or 1 1/2 times the
maximum aggregate size for column spi-
or for design: rals.

40
C=COVER

20
1 sf
I_
5= PITCH

f ,Q = 4a'

fi -4F/7D 2 (SPIRAL)

(a) SPIRAL

CLOSED STIRRUP

t
S S = SPACING

2fl D

D Q -4a1H

fr = 4P /7Y D 2 (ORTHOGOF'AL)

MESH

U\U
nnn__ ________
O + 0

DUCT

(b) ORTHOGONAL

Fig. 3. Passive reinforcement design.

PCI JOURNAL/March-April 1984 41


3. The spiral should begin at the an- in the form of lateral post-tensioning
chor bearing plate and the minimum (LPT) should he designed as follows:
length of the spiral should be 4a'. 1. LPT tendons should be placed as
Longer spirals affixed to the anchor will close as possible to the loaded face and
not raise the cracking load significantly.' should extend throughout the height of
The design of spiral reinforcement in the web.
regions of tendon curvature to control 2. LPT load levels should be designed
cracking due to multistrand effects is to produce a minimum of 100 psi (690
discussed later. kPa) lateral precompression across the
web section after losses. Considering
Orthogonal Reinforcement the possible seating losses over the short
length, initial stressing should provide
For passive reinforcement applica- between 150 and 200 psi (1035 and 1380
tions where spiral reinforcement cannot kPa) precompression. The lateral pre-
be used, an orthogonal grid of closely compression stress can be estimated as
spaced closed stirrups or a mesh similar the total lateral post-tensioning load di-
to that shown in Fig. 3h may be substi- vided by a nominal effective area (at),
tuted. Since massive amounts of orthog- where a is the half height ofthe web and
onal reinforcement were shown to have t is the web thickness (see Fig. A2).
little effect in preventing cracking in the 3. LPT tendons should be placed in
anchorage zone, $ the required rein- pairs or as U stirrups with tendons lat-
forcement can be calculated by using erally equidistant from the longitudinal
the same procedure and equation pre- tendon duct to minimize lateral mo-
sented for spiral reinforcement design ments being set tip in the web.
above. 4. LPT tendons should be grouted and
While this method may at first appear should utilize the most positive seating
unconservative, since it is known that load lock-off mechanism available.
orthogonal reinforcement is substan-
tially inferior to the spiral, the trends Reinforcement for
presented in Ref. 3 clearly show that ad- Multistrand Effects
dition of substantial reinforcement be-
yond that calculated by Eq. (8) is non- Although no tests were performed in
productive. this series to investigate the most effec-
The only required definition changes tive control measure for multistrand
from those presented above are that the cracking with curved tendons, previous
spiral diameter, D, becomes the mini- model tests" have shown spiral rein-
mum lateral dimension of the orthog- forcement to be an efficient means of
onal closed stirrup (see Fig. 3b). The de- control. Until other detailed tests can be
sired configurations for confinement are performed, the following design method
square closed stirrups, or better, a should produce a conservative solution:
square mesh as shown in Fig. 3h. The s 1. Given the internal diameter of the
tern in Eq. (8a) becomes the stirrup tendon duct and the number of strands
spacing, rather than spiral pitch. All to be used, make a scale drawing of the
other recommendations on placement duct with all strands placed as close as
remain the same as for the spiral. possible to the concave side of the duct
as would occur when the stressing load
Active Reinforcement is applied. Draw two tangential lines
from the center ofthe duct to the outside
For full utilization ofthe cracking and of the outermost strands as in Fig. 4a.
ultimate load increases recommended This defines the loaded half angle a.
in Eqs. (4) and (5), active reinforcement 2. The radial force per unit length, p,

42
)N DUCT

x
z
I
Y

(a) GEOMETRY AT
+rx- _ STRESSING LOAD

n INDIVIDUAL STRANDS
2

(b) APPROXIMATE LOADING

r = INSIDE RADIUS OF TENDON


DUCT
Q =EQUIVALENT PRESSURE
0 Q_ = P90
d7rr R.7rr

+oc ^ oC

27rr
ARC LENGTH = 2o-- = c(Trr (oc in DEGREES)
360 90

T F (c} EQUILIBRIUM

Fy =0

F = FORCE IN SPIRAL
0 a
oc -;
2

^F

n
2

Fig. 4. Spiral confinement for multistrand loading.

PCI JOURNAL/March-April 1984 43


(p = PIR where P = post-tensioning load Using the expression forQ above:
in kips, R = radius of curvature at the
point of interest, in.) is assumed to be _ 45,000 Ps (1 cos a)
unifbrmly applied over the duct bearing AsP a a Rf.e
arc length between the two lines drawn
> 0.05 sq in. (32 mm s) (11)
during Step 1. The quantity Q is the
equivalent uniform pressure along the The amount of spiral reinforcement
loaded are segment, as illustrated in Fig. needed to resist the forces set up by the
4b. multistrand effect is not excessive. As an
3. The lateral force that would have to example, assume a 45-deg inclined,
be resisted by spiral reinforcing, F, as curved tendon with a minimum radius
shown in Fig. 4c, can be calculated by a
of curvature of 143 in. (3630 mm) and
simple equilibrium analysis from IF, _
duct inside diameter of 2'/a in. (63 mm)
0 as:
at a design load of 400 kips (1.78 MN).
For a = 90 deg (tendon duct one-half
- 12 (Qsr da) cos a 2F = 0 full), a spiral f, of 0.7 (60) = 42 ksi (290
- NJ4 MPa) (Grade 60 reinforcement) and a
pitch of 2 in. (51 mm) would require a
spiral rod diameter of ^o in. (4.8 mm).
Qsr sin a = 2F In this case the arbitrary minimum
-M size of a V in. (6.4 mm) spiral would
govern. The spiral hoop diameter, as
Qsr (I cos a) = 2F
previously mentioned, should be as
F Qsr (1 cos a) (9) large as possible while meeting the
cover requirements and minimizing
2
placement difficulties.
where Spirals to control multistrand effects
F = force in spiral, lbs should be provided throughout any re-
Q = equivalent uniform pressure gion where significant lateral forces may
along the arc segment as calcu- be set up. This may be conservatively
lated in Step 2 estimated as regions where the nominal
IQ = 90,000 PI(Rirar), psi] shear stress in the cover concrete beside
P = design post-tensioning load, the tendon duct exceeds the usual lim-
kips iting shear diagonal tension stress of
R = minimum radius of curvature of 2 7T This will occur when:
tendon at critical location, in.
r = inside radius of tendon duct, in. 2 Fo y 2 j (Cs) (12)
s = pitch of the spiral, in.
Where:
a = one-half the loaded arc angle,
deg, but not greater than 90 deg, 2 \J = 1.7
= nominal shear strength of
If the allowable steel stress in the spi- concrete, psi
ral is given by f0 = 0.6f1, (psi), then the C = minimum concrete cover
required rod area to he used in fab- on one side of tendon duct,
ricating the spiral would be: in.
= spiral pitch, in.
Qsr(1 cos a) F = lateral force equivalent to
(10) a
Adn = fe = 2f, that resisted by one leg of a
spiral, lbs
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lb = 4.45 N; I kip 4.448
kN, 1 psi = 0.006895 N Pa; 1 sq in. = 6452 mm=. Combining Eqs. (9) and (12), the spi-

44
rat is required throughout those regions Since P,8 = 400 kips (1.78 MN) <P0,
where: no side face cracking near the point of
minimum radius of curvature would be
F > F(13) expected until after anchorage zone
cracks had appeared. Similarly, use of
Therefore: Eq. (15) would indicate R to be 162 in.
(4.11 m), Since the minimum R was 191
} 2 0 Y[frr C
(14) in. (4.85 m), R > R , so no supplemen-
r (i - cos a) tary spiral in the area of maximum cur-
vature is needed. Specimen FS2B did
This expression corresponds to those
crack in the anchorage zone at 330 kips
regions where:
(1.5 MN) and did not experience initial-
R` 90,000 P (1 - cos a)
side face distress.
C (15) For Specimen FS4A, first cracking oc-
zraC24^
curred at 400 kips (1.78 MN) and was
This may extend along the tendon for definitely due to multistrand effects. A
several web thicknesses on either side 17-strand -in. (12.7 mm) diameter 270
of the point of minimum radius of cur- ks (1863 MPa) tendon was used in a
vature (R). Since the designer would use I2-in. (305 mm) wide web. The original
the tendon force P in his calculations, ductwork was removed to provide extra
Eq. (15) may he written in terms of a space so that r = 1.5 in. (38.1 mm), C =
side face cracking load, P , as: 4.5 in. (114 mm), a = 90 deg for this
case, f,: was 5200 psi (36 MPa) and min-
24.7 CR ir a imum R = 178 in. (4.52 m). Thus, from
(16) Eq. (16) with 4) = 1.0:
P 90,000 (1 - cos a)

where the minimum value of R should P - 2 H( (4.5) (178) ar (90)

be used and 0 = 0.85. 90,000 (1 - cos 90)


To check the general applicability of = 363 kips (1.62 MN)
these expressions, results of several of
the full-scale tests may be examined ,1 = 567 kips (2.52 MN) > P,
Since P d
using 0 = 1.0 since all properties are initial cracking would be expected to
known. For example, Specimen FS2B occur in the region of maximum curva-
had a 2.6 in. (66 mm) inside diameter ture. The 400-kip (1.78 MN) level at
duct with a 12-strand '/2 -in. (12.7 mm) which the cracking actually occurred is
diameter 270 ksi (1863 MPa) tendon in a in good agreement with P . Eq. (15) in-
12 in. (305 mm) wide web. In Specimen dicatesR to be 278 in. (7.1 m). Since the
FS2B the measured P^, was 330 kips (1.5 minimum R was 178 in. (4.52 m), a spiral
MN), Pahl,, was 400 kips (1.78 MN), the is required in the tendon curvature
minimum R was 191 in. (4.58 m), a was Zone.
67.5 deg, ff was 4627 psi (31.9 MPa), In design applications, the side face
and r = 1.25 in. (31.8 mm). Thus: cracking limit state should be checked
by using P,,,^ r from Eq. (6) for P. in Eq.
12 - 2.5 (16) with 0 = 1.0 in that expression. In
C= 2 = 4.75 in. (121 mm) (17)
reality such a calculation is only a crude
approximation. To achieve ultimate
From Eq. (16) with di = 1.0: rupture, failure must occur on at Ieast
two radial planes connected to the duct.
(2.0) 4627 (4.75) (191) yr (67.5) This would tend to raise the capacity.
Po =
90,000 (1 - cos 67.5) Likewise, the use of the value 2 7
= 471 kips (2.1 MN) for the limiting shear strength of the

PCI JOURNALJMarch-April 1964 45


concrete in this type of application is a AE = area of the anchorage surface
very approximate and conservative concentric with and geornetri-
value. However, the results indicate that cally similar to the anchor

fi t
use of this model is reasonably consis- plate, sq in.
tent with test results. In view of the = compressive strength of con-
seriousness of this type of failure, the crete at time of initial pre-
provision of spiral reinforcement in stress, psi
areas defined by Eqs. (15) and (16) is a
prudent requirement pending further
experimental study. SUGGESTED CODE OR
SPECIFICATION
ANCHOR BEARING AREA REQUIREMENTS
Both the experimental and the The general design criteria and rec-
analytical results presented in Ref. 4 in- ommendations described above are dif-
dicated that the cracking Ioad is rela- ficult to reduce to simple, concise lan-
tively insensitive to appreciable guage suitable for direct inclusion in
changes in hearing area and that bearing regulations such as the AASHTO Speci-
stress should not be the primary criter- fications or the ACI Building Code. The
ion for anchorage zone design. How- provisions are best expressed as general
ever, it is a useful tool in sizing anchor performance requirements in the Spec-
plates and web thicknesses. In addition, ification or Code but with accompany-
all tests in this investigation were ing commentary indicating possible
short-term tests and did not reflect pos- ways of satisfying the performance re-
sible creep effects at extremely high quirements. The best advice to give a
stressing levels. design engineer is to require prototype
Comparison of the results of this study testing of unusual or untried anchorage
with the various specification trends in- configurations.
dicated in Ref. 4 shows that agreement
is much better when an increase in an-
chorage bearing is allowed for increased SUGGESTED CODE
concrete surrounding the anchor. Thus, PROVISIONS
AASHTO should consider adoption of
an expression similar to ACI and CEB- A.0 Notation
FIP. As suggested in Ref: 4, an effective A Da = nominal area of post-tensioning
bearing stress design criterion for tendon, sq in.*
post-tensioned anchorages is: f,,, = specified tensile strength of
post-tensioning tendons, ksi
L air = O,8 f A 2 lA, -_ 1.33f f, (IS)
where
where fh = maximum concrete bearing
fb allowable bearing stress stress tinder anchor plate of
under the anchor plate of post-tensioning tendons, psi
post-tensioning tendons, psi A, = hearing area of anchor plate,
A, = bearing area of anchor plate, sq in.
sq in. A2 area of the anchorage surface
concentric with and geometri-
cally similar to the anchor
*For code provisions and accompanying com-

f.
mentary the following S) conversions apply: plate, sq in.
1 sq in, = 6452 mm'; 1 psi = 0.006895 M.Pa; t kip = compressive strength of con-
4.45 kN; 1 in. 2.5.4 mm; 1 lb = 4.45 N. crete at time of stressing, psi

46
A.1 Post-Tensioned Tendon COMMENTARY
Anchorage Zones
C.A.1 The general problems of an-
A.1.1 Reinforcement shall be pro- chorage of post-tensioned tendons are
vided where required in tendon anchor- significantly different from the devel-
age zones to resist bursting, splitting, opment of prctensioned reinforcement.
and spalling forces. Regions of abrupt Items concerning pretensioned element
change in section shall he adequately anchorage zones such as now included
reinforced. in AASHTO Section 1.6.15 should be
put in a separate section, The last para-
A.1.2 End blocks shall be provided
where required for support bearing or graph of AASHTO Section 1.6.15 also
applies to control of spalling stress in
for distribution of concentrated pre-
post-tensioned beams.
stressing forces.
C.A.1.1 This general performance
A.1.3 Post-tensioning anchorages and statement alerts the user to the fact that
supporting concrete shall be designed to the actual stresses around post-tension-
resist maximum jacking forces for ing anchorages may differ substantially
strength of concrete at time of pre- from those obtained by means of usual
stressing. engineering theory of strength of mate-
rials. Consideration must he given to all
A.1.4 Post-tensioning anchorage
factors affecting bursting, splitting, and
zones shall be designed such that the
spalling stresses. A refined strength anal-
minimum load producing cracking along
ysis should he used whenever possible
the tendon path shall be at least equal to
considering both the cracking and ulti-
1.10 fApe.
mate limit states. The engineer should
A.1.5 Post-tensioning anchorage require prototype scale testing of un-
zones shall be designed such that their usual or untried anchorage patterns or
strength shall be at least equal to 1.60 anchorage applications.
f a.UAa C.A.1.2 Where convenient, widening
of the anchorage region to distribute the
A.1.6 Supplementary anchorage zone high localized forces is an effective way
reinforcement required for control of of reducing bursting and spalling
cracking or development of minimum stresses and raising the cracking and ul-
strength may consist of passive rein- timate capacities. The effect of in-
forcement such as spirals or orthogonal creased width is indicated in Eq. (A) in
closed hoops or mats. Active reinforce- Section C.A.1.4.1.
ment such as lateral post-tensioning may C.A.1.3 In application of all anchorage
be used. zone design, the level of prestress ap-
plied and the concrete strength at time
A,1.7 Supplementary reinforcement
of application must be considered. This
such as spirals shall be provided to resist
is particularly important with stage pre-
web face rupture in regions of high ten-
don curvature when multiple strand stressing.
or parallel wire tendons are used. C.A.1.4 It is highly desirable that the
anchorage zone remain uncracked at
A.1.8 Unless structural adequacy is service levels to protect this vital area
demonstrated by comprehensive tests or from corrosive and freeze-thaw deteri-
a more comprehensive analysis, anchor- oration. This can be ensured by propor-
age bearing stress at 1.1 f,.A,, shall not tioning the anchorage zone so that the
exceed: cracking load is greater than any antici-
pated stressing load. In this propor-
fb-0.8ff,VA2/A1-_1.33ff,. tioning the anchor zone can be designed

PCI JOURNALJMarch-April 1984 47


to remain crack free without supple- loaded face) at the anchor plate edge
mentary anchorage zone reinforcement must be calculated. For most cases this
by use ofEqs. (A) through (D). The zone will require a detailed mesh refinement
can be designed to remain free of sur- in the vicinity of the anchor plate edge
face cracks through provision of sup- following a preliminary analysis with a
plementary reinforcement which will coarse grid. This is particularly impor-
raise the level of the cracking loads as tant for inclined tendon blackouts with
indicated by Eqs. (E) through (C). The square corners. Anchorage zone rein-
service load level specified, 1,10f,,A1P, forcement need not be modeled for this
contains allowances for jacking errors, analysis.
material tolerances, and a margin of 2. The peak spalling strain corre-
variability. sponding to a load of I kip should be
C.A.1.4.1 Cracking Loads. The computed. The approximate cracking
cracking load for thin web post-ten- load (for a section without supplemen-
sioned sections without supplementary tary reinforcement) can be calculated as
anchorage zone reinforcement can be follows:
determined for certain conditions from
Eq. (A) [Eq, (1) in the text]. Pc . = Ecr (B)
E 1 klpIFEMI

P.r (rxa1) = See Eq. (1) (A) where

All variables are illustrated in Fig. Al = cracking load, kips


(Fig. 1 in text, not repeated). Limitations fcr = threshold cracking strain,
on the use of Eq. (A) assume: 14 E

(a) e, 0 are both positive 1 -up(mw peak spalling strain at


(b) 0.05-_t12a--0.25 plate edge from program
(c) Anchors are assumed square, with unit post-tensioning
plate type load of! kip
(d) Single tendon anchored in the Calibration studies 4 indicate that ap-
web propriate values of E tr are 170 p.E for
The equation can be easily extended plate anchors with straight tendons and
to some other practical applications as 1100 j. for plate anchors with inclined
shown in Fig. A2 (Fig. 2 in text, not re- tendons in which a right angle blockout
peated). However, the cracking loads for is used.
multiple tendons in the same web must For other than plate bearing-type an-
be assessed conservatively until further chorages, the cracking loads obtained
exploration of their behavior is carried from Eqs. (A) and (B) should be modi-
out. fied as follows:
For sections which do not meet the Conical anchor:
above criteria, cracking loads can be Pcr = 0.61 Pcr (,,,I,) (C)
obtained using three-dimensional finite
Bell anchor:
element analysis techniques, or by
Pcr = 1.08 Pcr (mie?
comprehensive physical tests. (D)
The cracking load can be calculated These coefficients apply only when
from a three-dimensional finite element the anchorages present approximately
computer analysis which has been cali- the same projected bearing area.
brated to extensive physical tests. One In any physical tests to determine
such calibration (see Refs. 2 and 4 for cracking loads, the conditions to be ex-
details) indicates: pected during construction of the actual
1. The maximum spalling strain structure must be replicated as precisely
(transverse tensile strain parallel to the as possible. These include the effects of

48
tendon eccentricity, inclination, curva- cording to Section A.1.6, the ultimate
ture, multiple tendons, and multiple load will be:
strands, as well as anchor size, section No supplementary reinforcement:
width and height, and supplementary Ptt = Per (H)
reinforcement. Spiral reinforcement:
C.A.1.4.2 Effect of Reinforcement on Ps = (3.18 0.0530)P,. (I)
Cracking. Cracking loads as calculated Orthogonal reinforcement:
from Eqs. (A) through (D) represent the P., = (1.71 0.0178)P er(I)
minimum value to be expected for a Active reinforcement:
section with no supplementary rein- P, = (3.89 0.06400) (K)
forcing in the anchorage zone. The ad- where
dition of supplementary reinforcing will Pu = ultimate load for reinforced
raise both the cracking and ultimate section, kips
load. For sections provided with spiral, 0 = angle of tendon inclination, deg
orthogonal, or active reinforcement de- P,.= cracking load for unreinforced
signed in accordance with Section A.1.6, section as calculated above
the cracking load can be determined as: C.A.1.6 In order to obtain the strength
Spiral reinforcement: increase indicated in Eqs. (E) through
P,' r = (2.03 0.0320) P, r(E) (K), supplementary anchorage zone re-
Orthogonal reinforcement: inforcement must meet the following
Pe r = (1.61 0.0190)P^r (F) minimum requirements.
Active reinforcement: C.A.1.6.1 Spiral Reinforcement. Spi-
Ph,. = (2.37 0.03720) PAY (C) ral confinement must be adequate to re-
where sist cracking and fully develop the an-
= cracking load for the reinforced chorage. To insure a sturdy unit the min-
section, kips imum spiral wire diameter is 1/4 in. Min-
B = angle of tendon inclination, inmm spiral area is:
deg
Per = cracking load for the unrein- },-0.6f^
forced section as calculated 4 ' Us=O.OSsgin.
f,
above, kips
C.A.1.5 The proper development of where
the post-tensioning force in unbonded Ax = spiral wire cross-sectional area,
tendons and in bonded tendons prior to sq in.
completion of grouting is completely fE = post-tensioning load divided by
dependent on proper anchorage of the the area confined by the spiral
tendons. The anchorage capacity must = 4PIirD 2 , psi
be greater than any anticipated tendon f^ i = specified concrete compressive
load with a reasonable factor of safety. strength at time of stressing, psi
The capacity specified 1.60 f ,A,,, con- D = overall diameter of spiral, in.
tains allowance for tendon tolerances, s = pitch of spiral, in.
actual strength range rather than guar- fp = spiral yield strength, psi (but
anteed minimum strength, and a margin not more than 60,000 psi)
of safety against the explosive type fail- In thin webs, the spiral diameter, D,
ure which would occur if an anchorage should be as large as possible while still
zone failed. satisfying cover requirements. In gen-
The ultimate load for sections without eral, the spiral diameter should be the
supplementary anchorage zone rein- maximum linear dimension of the an-
srcement is conservatively assumed to chor projected bearing surface (the di-
be equal to the cracking load. With the agonal for square or rectangular anchor
addition of reinforcement designed ac- plates). Spiral pitch should he as small

PCI JOURNALJMarch-April 1984 49


as possible but must allow for concrete gions of small radius of curvature, lateral
placement. The spiral should begin at forces due to the flattening out of the
the anchor plate and have a minimum multistrand tendon under stressing
length of twice the anchor plate depth or loads can cause tendon path cracking at
width, whichever is larger. loads below those which initiate crack-
C.A.1.6.2 Orthogonal Reinforce- ing in the anchorage zone proper. Such
ment. While spiral reinforcement is cracking will be likely if:
usually superior to orthogonal rein-
forcement, in some applications an or- = 7 CR7ra
2 y
thogonal grid of closely spaced closed P8 PO 90,000(1 cos a)
stirrups or a mesh of orthogonal bars
may be used. The minimum area of bars or
in such close stirrups or meshes should
be calculated using the expression given 90,000 (1 -- cos a)
Rmire a x W=
in Section A.1.6.1 with the minimum zraC2
lateral dimension of the orthogonal
closed stirrup or mesh substituted forD where
and the stirrup spacing substituted fors. P = minimum cracking design
C.A.1.6.3 Active Reinforcement. Lat- load (I.10 f As ), kips
eral post-tensioning (LPT) is highly ef- Pa = side face cracking load, kips
fective as active reinforcement. Such ( = strength reduction factor for
shear = 0.85
reinforcement should be designed on
the following basis: f^ E = compressive strength of' con-
1. LPT tendons should be placed as crete at time of stressing, psi
close as possible to the loaded face and C = minimum concrete cover on
should extend throughout the height of one side of duct, in.
the web. R = minimum radius of curvature
2. LPT tendons should produce amin- of tendon, in.
imum lateral precompression in the an- a = one-half the duct loaded arc
chor zone of 100 psi after losses. Initial angle, deg (hut not more than
stressing should provide 150 to 200 psi, 90 deg)
The nominal effective area for stress If P,, Pa or R,,,i,, ' R. then supple-
calculation should be taken as the web mentary reinforcement will he required
thickness times a length equal to half in the regions where R -- R. Since the
the section height. region of minimum radius of curvature
3. LPT tendons should be placed in is typically some distance removed from
pairs equidistant from the tendon cen- the anchorage zone (and the benefit of
terline to minimize lateral moments in the supplemental reinforcement there),
the web. additiona] reinforcement must be pro-
4. LPT tendons should be grouted and vided. This can be accomplished most
efficiently through the use of spiral re-
should utilize the most positive seating
load lock-off mechanism available. inforcement designed as follows:
1. The radius of curvature along the
C.A.1.7 Reinforcement for Multi-
tendon profile is calculated as:
strand Effects. For post-tensioning ap-
plications with significant tendon cur- R _ [i +
(dxldz)2 ) 32
vatures and with multiple strand ten-
j d2x/dz2
dons, a side face failure mechanism may
govern the failure of the section, Any where x is the dependent vertical vari-
time a loaded tendon follows a curved able and z is the longitudinal variable.
path, normal and friction forces are set Most tendon profiles can be defined
up along the length of the duct. In re- by the equation:

50
x= Az3+Bz4 +Cz+D stantial liberalization over current
AASHTO values for anchors which do
The minimum radius of curvature R not extend fully across the web.
can thus be calculated.
2. Given the internal diameter of the
tendon duct and the number of strands CONCLUSIONS
used, make a scale drawing of the duct At the inception of this study the
with all strands placed as close as possi- common American practice for post-ten-
ble to the concave side of the duct as sioned anchorage zone reinforcement
would occur when the stressing load is design was for the structural designer to
applied. Draw two radial lines from the specify tendon force and location and to
center of the duct, tangent to the outside allow the contractor to choose a post-
of the outermost strand, as in Fig. A3 tensioning system. Both then usually
(Fig. 4 in text, not repeated). This de- relied on the hardware supplier to fur-
fines m The area of spiral required is nish detailed advice on the use of the
then: system. Often the supplier's knowledge
was based on limited tests, on practical
45,000 Ps (I cos a)
A =' 0.05 sq in experience (generally with enlarged
7raR (0.6f)
cast-in-place end blocks), and on the
General spiral proportioning should published work of such investigators as
follow the requirements in Section Guyon or Zeilinksi and Rowe, who re-
A.1.6.1. The spiral should extend lied on the classical bursting stress ap-
throughout those regions where R ^ Ro proach to design of supplementary an-
but at least 2t (where t = web thickness) chorage zone reinforcement.
to either side of the point of minimum Although these designs usually
radius of curvature. Such spiral rein- worked well for straight tendon appli-
forcement designed for multistrand cations with little eccentricity, they
cracking need not be used in areas were insufficient to control anchorage
where equivalent or stronger primary zone cracking in some thin member ap-
anchorage zone reinforcement has al- plications such as in precast segmental
ready been supplied. box girder bridge web sections. In these
C.A.1.8 Bearing Stress. In many cases applications, the tendons were often not
the adequacy of anchorage assemblies only eccentric, but also highly inclined
will have been demonstrated by com- in order to pick up a portion of the dead
prehensive tests or analyses. However, load shear.
in other cases it is desirable to have a Because of the highly proprietary na-
relatively simple method to proportion ture of the industry, those companies
the size of bearing plates. Comprehen- which did have experience with such
sive tests and analyses show that the problems were often reticent to publish
tendon anchorage cracking load is rela- this knowledge in the public literature.
tively insensitive to hearing area and American specifications such as
bearing stress. However, the confine- AASHTO and the ACI Building Code
ment provided by concrete surrounding were framed in very limited terms of
the bearing plate does increase the allowable bearing stresses, and did not
cracking load somewhat. The value of reflect the effects of section aspect ratio,
allowable stress given in Section A.1.8 of tendon eccentricity, curvature, and
reflects recent test experience and tends inclination, nor the effect of supple-
to be a conservative bearing stress for mentary reinforcement.
use in sizing bearing plates. The expres- This investigation provides a starting
sion given represents a slight liberaliza- point for the practicing engineer to ad-
tion over ACT 318-77 values and a sub- dress many common thin web post-ten-

PCI JOURNAi_)March-April 1984 51


sioning applications as well as a sepa- 4. The anchorage is assumed to be
rate check method to evaluate the rec- square. Rectangular plates with the long
ommendations of the hardware supplier. dimension oriented parallel to the web
In the test program and the analytical face can also be used. Equivalent areas
investigations, the scope was restricted of circular plates may be used.
to the anchorage of single large tendons For those applications which fall out-
in an anchorage zone. Both the analyti- side these limits, such as multiple ten-
cal and experimental study should be dons, solutions can be obtained from
expanded to cover the practical case of comprehensive three-dimensional finite
multiple tendons anchored in close element analysis programs such as the
proximity which may greatly increase program PUZGAP using calibration
the cracking problem. techniques described in Ref. 4.
The results of this study reflect a
composite formed from three sources. Major Conclusions
These include physical tests of approx- 1. The load required to cause forma-
imately forty quarter-scale microcon- tion of the tendon path crack increases
crete models, physical tests of nine full- with increasing web width. Increasing
scale prototype concrete specimens de- the angle of inclination, or the eccen-
signed to replicate post-tensioning con- tricity of the tendon, decreases the
ditions found in the web sections, and cracking load. The cracking load for
results of an extensive series of three- plate-type bearing anchors with no sup-
dimensional linear elastic finite element plementary anchorage zone reinforce-
computer analyses. ment can be calculated from Eq. (1).
A linear regression analysis of the ex- 2. Anchor geometry can affect the
perimental data yielded an empirical cracking load. Tests using plate-, belI-
equation for the load causing formation and cone-type anchors indicate factors
of the tendon path crack in sections should be applied to calculated cracking
without supplementary anchorage zone loads for plate anchors as given in Eq.
reinforcement. This type of crack has (2). Those values are for sections with-
previously been referred to as the out supplementary anchorage zone re-
"bursting" crack in the literature. These inforcement. Ultimate load for rein-
values were then modified by appropri- forced plate- and cone-type anchors oc-
ate factors to yield results where rein- curred at loads only nominally above the
forcement was present. The variable cracking load. Unreinforced bell an-
trends observed experimentally were in chors exhibited ultimate failure at loads
close agreement with the computer approximately 25 percent above those
analysis results. which cause cracking.
The empirical equation for cracking 3. Tendon path cracks can occur at
load in this study has the following points well removed from the anchorage
limitations: zone in sections where the tendon pro-
1. For inclined tendons, the eccen- file has significant curvature and multi-
tricitye and inclination 0 must always be ple strand tendons are used. This is due
assumed positive. to the tendency for the bundle to flatten
2. Thin web sections are assumed. out within the confines of the duct, thus
Web thickness { creating lateral forces sufficiently high
0.05 _ 0.25 to cause not only cracking but side face
Section depth
nipture as well.
3. Multiple tendons anchored in the 4. When using passive reinforcement,
same web section are not expressly cov- spirals exhibit much better performance
ered. The cracking load for such appli- than standard orthogonal reinforcement
cations may be significantly lower. both for increasing cracking and ulti-

52
mate loads, and for controlling crack above that for an unreinforced section.
widths. Spiral reinforcement has the The optimum location for the Iateral
effect of changing the cracking pattern prestress is as close to the loaded face as
from a single tendon path crack to a is feasible.
series of parallel cracks which exhibit a 6. Static, linear elastic, three-dimen-
reduction in the average crack width. sional finite element analyses can be
The spiral advantage is greater for thin- used to predict the state of stress of the
ner web sections, making it the pre- anchorage zone with reasonable accu-
ferred choice of passive reinforcement. racy up to the cracking load. Calibration
Design equations for the spirals are pre- studies show that for straight tendons, a
sented which are similar to those used peak spalling tensile strain of 172 p.e
for design of spiral column reinforce- near the edge of the anchorage as cal-
me nt. culated by the program corresponds to
5. Active reinforcement (lateral initiation of tendon path cracking in test
post-tensioning) is the most efficient specimens without supplementary re-
means of controlling anchorage zone inforcement. The corresponding strain
cracking. A relatively small precompres- for inclined tendons in which a right
sion of 100 psi (0.69 MPa) across the an- angle blockout is modeled is 1150 AE,
chorage /.one of a section with an in- due to the high stress concentration in-
clined, curved, multiple strand tendon duced by the presence of the idealized
raised the cracking load 33 percent comer.

REFERENCES
1. Stone, W. C., and Breen, J. E., "Behavior ing Anchor in Concrete Slabs," Unpub-
of Post-Tensioned Girder Anchorage lished Masters Thesis, The University of
Zones," PCI JOURNAL, V. 29, No. 1, Texas at Austin, May 1970.
January-February 1984, pp. 64-109. 7. MacGregor, J. G., "Safety and Limit
2. Stone, W. C., and Breen, J. E., "Analysis States Design of Reinforced Concrete,"
of Post-Tensioned Girder Anchorage Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
Zones," Research Report 208-1, Center V. 3, No. 4, 1976.
for Transportation Research, The Uni- 8. Richart, R. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and
versity of Texas at Austin, April 1981. Brown, R. L., "A Study of the Failure of
3. Stone, W. C., Paes-Filho, W., and Breen, Concrete Under Combined Compressive
J. E., 'Behavior of Post-Tensioned Stresses," University of Illinois Engi-
Girder Anchorage Zones," Research Re- neering Experiment Station Bulletin No.
port 208-2, Center for Transportation Re- 185,1928.
search, The University of Texas at Au- 9. AASHTO, Standard Specifications for
stin, April 1981. Highway Bridges, American Association
4. Stone, W. C., and Breen, J. E., "Design of of State Highway and Transportation Of
Post-Tensioned Girder Anchorage ficials, 12th Edition, Washington, D.C.,
Zones," Research Report 208.3F, Center 1977.
for Transportation Research, The Uni- 10- ACI Committee 318, "Building Code
versityofTexas at Austin, June 1981. Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
5. Breen, J. E., Cooper, R. L., and Galla- and Commentary (ACt 318-77)," Ameri-
way, T. M., "Minimizing Construction can Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michi-
Problems in Segmentally Precast Box gan, 1977.
Girder Bridges," Research Report 11. Kashima, S., and Breen, J. E., "Con-
121-6F, Center for Highway Research, struction and Load Tests of a Segmental
The University of Texas at Austin, Au- Precast Box Girder Bridge Model," Re-
gust 1975. search Report 121-5, Center for Highway
6. Berezovytch, W. N., "A Study of the Be- Research, The University of Texas at Au-
havior of a Single Strand Post-Tension- stin, February 1975.

PC! JOURNAUMarch-April 1984 53


APPENDIX
EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATING DESIGN PROCEDURE

48"

25 25
P

PIER

120"

4i
H
Fig. Al. Example 1 cross section and tendon profile,

EXAMPLE 1 Problem
Assume a preliminary design for a Given the above data:
post-tensioned, segmental precast box (a) Will the anchor plate satisfy the
girder bridge has developed a tendon bearing stress requirements of
profile and cross section as shown in Section A.1.8?
Fig. Al. The maximum temporary pre- (b) Will the section satisfy Sections
stress in each web section is 495 kips A.1.4 and A.1.5 with no supple-
(2.2 MN). Also assume that the tendon mentary reinforcement?
has fifteen 3 -in. (12.7 mm) diameter (c) If the answer to (b) is no
270-ksi (1863 MPa) strands. A plate (1) Design a reinforcing scheme
bearing-type. anchor 13.25 in. (337 mm) that will satisfy all the re-
square will be used to anchor the ten- quirements of Sections A.1.4
don. The compressive strength of the and A.1.5.
concrete will he 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) (2) Redesign the section for no
within tolerance levels to be expected at cracking with no supplemen-
the precast yard. tal reinforcement. Then sup-

54
ply a suitable passive rein- = 0.8 495 kips (2.2 MN)
forcing scheme to meet ulti- Per . 1. 10 f.A
p w = 680 kips (3.03 MN)
mate requirements.
P, } 1.60 f,.A = 990 kips (4.4 MN)
(d) Since the tendon is curved, check
to see if the section satisfies Sec-
(a) Check Section. A.1.8, Bearing Stress
tion A.1.7 (multistrand effects).
Reinforce as needed. 1 .1f A
0.8f,^ AIA1<1.33fit
A,
Solution 6 80000
^ry = 3864 psi (26.7 MPa)
Available information: 176
t = 14 in. (356 mm) 196
(0.8) (5000)
2a = 120 in. (3050 mm) 176
e = 12 in. (305 mm) 4221 (29.1 MPa)
2a' = 13.25 in. (337 mm) ^ 6620 psi (45.7 MPa)
0 = 25 deg (bearing stress ok)

fin = 6.5,JJ = 6.5 V (b) Check Section A.1.4, Service Level


= 460 psi = 0.460 ksi (3.17 MPa)
Cracking
A, = (13.25)2
= 176 sq in. (113500 mm21
f
= 1.10 p ,A,, = 680 kips (3.03 MN)

A2 = (14) 2 = 196 sq in. (126400 mm2) From Eq. (A):

PST = 14[.6{38(60)_ 120} - 14 {2(25) - 252(12160) (0.46)}

(13.25) 0.46 ( 13.25


103 (12160) - 7 1 f 39 2 f j {166-975 2(14))21- 9.1

= 630 kips (2.8 MN)

Per = 680 kips (3.03 MN) > P,. = 630 kips (2.8 MN)

Therefore, the section does not meet the necessary increase in cracking load:
the cracking strength requirement of
1"er = (2.37 - 0.03729) Per
Section A.l .4. = [2.37 - 0.0372(25)] 630
If spiral reinforcement is provided, = 907 kips (4.04 MN)
the new cracking load from Eq. (E)
would be: which is considerably higher than the
required 680 kips (3.03 MN). Therefore,
Ph,. = (2.03 - 0.0326) P,., Section A.1.4 is satisfactory if either a
= 1 2.03 - 0.032(25) ] (630) spiral or active reinforcement is pro-
= 775 kips (3.45 MN) vided.
This value is greater than the 680 kips
(3.03 MN) required by Section A.1.4, (c) Check Section A.1.5, Minimum
and thus the section will not crack. This Strength
spiral reinforcement can be designed as
shown later. Alternatively, from Eq. (G) PU = 1.60 f,,,,A,,, = 990 kips (4.04 MN)
active reinforcement in the form of lat- To meet service load cracking re-
eral post-tensioning will also provide quirements, either spiral reinforcement

PCI JOURNAL/March-April 1984 55


p i or

C7 LPT ^ ^ LPT X00 psi.


Initial
2

ULT ^ 200psi(60)(15)
P LPT ' 8P

P
ULT =240 kips

USE (3) 1/2 " 270 ksi U GROUTED


STIRRUPS

Fig. A2. Lateral post-tensioning details.

or active reinforcement is required in The required area A,, (LPT) can he


the section. Therefore, the minimum provided by three sets of V2 -in. 270-ksi U
strength check should he made for these stirrups with grouted tendons placed so
cases. that the resultant load will act as close as
With spiral reinforcement, from Eq. possible to the primary load face as
(I): shown in Fig. A2.

P., = (3.18 0.0538) P. (e) As an alternate solution to Part (d),


= [3.18 (0.053) (25)] (630) proportion the spiral reinforcement
= 1169 kips (5.2 MN) to meet Section A.1.6.1.
P. = 990 kips (4.04 MN) -- 1169 kips From Commentary Section A.1.6.1:
(5.2 MN) (ok)
.fi -0.6 fc
With active reinforcement, from Eq. Asa
4f14 'Ds
(K): V

= cross-sectional area of bar used


Pin = (3.89 0.0640) Per to fabricate spiral
= [3.89 (0.064) (25)] (630) 0.05 sq in. (32 mm2)
= 1443 kips (6.42 MN) (ok)
where
Either type of reinforcement must be
provided to allow the section to satisfy 4 P
Section A.1.5. A lrD2
(d) Proportion active reinforcement to _ (4)(990)
satisfy Section A.1.6.3. ^r(13)2
The recommended minimum initial = 7460 psi (51.5 MPa)
lateral precompression of 150 to 200 psi
f f = 5000 psi (34.5 MPa)
(0.69 to 1.38 MPa) across the web can he
D =9in.(229mm)
achieved by:
s = 2 in. (51 mm) pitch
0.200 ks i =
O .8 f A^ 0.8(2 70) Ap
A 7460 0.6(5000) (9)(2.0)
to
(16) (60) (5)(60000)
A, = 0.888 sq in. (573 mm2) = 0.27 sq in. (170 mm2)

56

1.5" k- COVER

t 14

Fig. A3. Sizing spiral diameter.

At x, 0 = 0.436 radians (25 deg)


dm. = 4(0'
27) = 0.58 in. (14.7 mm) x =x1 = 72 in. (1.83m)
7r
z =z1 =0in.
Use % in. (16 mm) diameter 60 ksi At x2 0 = 0.0 radians
(414 MPa) smooth rod spiral 9 in. (230 x =as = 114 in. (2.89m)
mm) overall diameter, at 2-in. (51 mm) z =z= 96 in. (2.44 m)
pitch. The length of the spiral should be Based upon these assumptions:
4a' = 27 in. (685 mm). The details are as
shown in Fig. A3. A = -2(x2 - x 1) +

(a2 - z I) 3 (x2 - z 1 )2
(f) Check Section(s
3 A.1.7, Multistrand 2 - x,) 0
Effects B=
(z2 - a 1) 2 (z2 - zl)
The tendon profile shown in Fig. A4
For this problem:
can be described by the following
equation: A = -4.75 (10)-s
B = 9J3(10)
x = X2 - A( z 2 - z) 3 - B(z 2 - Z)2
Substituting these values into the
where the boundary conditions are as- tendon profile equation and differenti-
sumed to be: ating yields:

x' = -1.425(10)'} (96 - z) 2 + 1.826(10)- 3 (96 - z)


x = 2.85(10) - A (96 - z) - 1.826(10) -s
The radius of curvature is given by:
R = [1 + {-1.425(10)-'(96 - z) 2 + 1.826(10) -$ (96 --- z) }211.1
12.85(10) - 4 (96 - z) - 1.826(l0) -31

PCI JOURNAL/March-April 1984 57


(x2,2
?T42

P=

Iz
Z A p = PIR Q = p120r
(in.} fi n-1 (lb per in.) (psi)

0 136.1 5319 1231


10 106.8 6779 1568
20 89.7 8071 1867
30 82.3 8497 1965
35 81.9 8840 2045
40 83.7 8649 2001
50 94.98 7621 1763
60 121 5983 1384
70 179.7 4022 930
80 366 1978 457
90 547 1323 306
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm: 1 lb per in. 180.6 kg per m; 1 psi = 0.006895 MPa.

Fig. A4. Data for design of spiral reinforcement to resist multistrand cracking.

These values are tabulated in Fig. A4. Thus:


A survey of these values shows that the R. _ (90,000) (680) (1 cos 90)
minimum radius of curvature is 81.9 in.
it (90) (5.625) (1.7) 5000
(2080 mm) at which point Q is calcu-
= 320 in. (8.13 m)
lated to be 2045 psi (14.1 MPa) for a ten-
don duct with a diameter of 2.75 in. (70 Therefore, the spiral to resist multi-
mm) (the recommended flexible duct for strand effects is required wherever the
a 15-strand commercial anchor). This curvature radius is less than 320 in. (8.13
minimum value of R can be checked m). From Fig. A4 it can be seen that a
against the expression for R. in Section confining spiral for approximately 78 in.
C.A.1.7: (2 m) in horizontal projection extending
_ 90,000P (1 cos a) from the anchor over 80 percent of the
curved zone is required.
aaC24f:i The spiral area is given by:
For 15 strands the duct will he half _ 45,000Ps (1 cos a)
full so a = 90 deg and: A+
rrnRO.6f1,
C - V2 (14 2.75) = 5.625 in. (143 mm) 0.05 sq in. (32 mm2)

58
Asp = (45,000) (680) (1'/2) (1 cos 90) with no supplementary reinforcement as
7r(90) (82) (0.6) (60000) indicated by Eq. (H) is the same as the
= 0.054 sq in. (35 mm2) cracking load, it is apparent that a sec-
tion designed to just satisfy the cracking
Thus, a -in. (6.4 mm) diameter spiral
load requirement [680 kips (13.03 MN)]
rod with a pitch of 1-in. (38.1 mm) and
will not meet the ultimate requirements
an overall diameter of 9 in. (229 mm)
[990 kips (4.4 MN)) without additional
should be used.
confining reinforcement.
Assume that in this case the required
EXAMPLE 2 increase (990/630 = 1.57) of 57 percent
Determine the web thickness re- is considered excessive to handle by
quired for the box girder in Example I if web thickening. The designer decides
no supplementary reinforcement is to be to increase the web width to control
provided in the anchorage zone at cracking without relying on confine-
cracking load levels. Determine if sup- ment, but to provide confinement for
plementary anchorage zone reinforce- ultimate.
ment is required at ultimate strength On this basis, an approximate web
levels. width is selected for trial as 110 percent
In Example 1 the design cracking load t = (1.10) (14) = 15.4 in. (390 mm). Thus,
to meet Section A.1.4 was 680 kips (3.03 t = 16 in. (406 mm) is selected as a prac-
MN). The original box girder with 14 in. tical dimension. Eq. (A) is now checked
(356 mm) webs had P,. = 630 kips (2.8 fur the new cracking load:
MN) from Eq. (A). Thus, the cracking t = 16 in. (406 mm)
load has to he raised (680/630 = 1.08) 2a = 120 in. (305 mm)
about 8 percent to satisfy this require- e = 12 in. (305 mm)

f
ment with no supplementary reinforce- 'um = 495 kips (2.2 MN)
ment. 1.10 P .A, = 680 kips (3.03 MN)
Of the three major geometric variables 1.60 f1,A,,, = 990 kips (4.4 MN)
(inclination, eccentricity, and cover), the 2a' = 13.25 in. (337 mm)
most practical and most effective change 9 = 25 deg
in the cracking load can be achieved f,= 0.46 ksi (3.17 MPa)
through modification of web thickness. A i = 176sgin.(113500mm')
Since the ultimate capacity of a section A s = 256 sq in. (165200 mm2)

Pr, = 116 246 [(38) (60) 1201 81f( 2) (25) (252) (60) (0.46)
1 03 (12) (13.25) 0.46 13.25 E
9 (60) 7 1+(39) 2 +5 f I66 975 ( 2) (16) 1 9.1

= 669 kips (2.98 MN)

This value is still less than the 680 However, with no supplementary
kips (3.03 MN) required although it is reinforcement the section does not sat-
close. The next practical increase would isfy the ultimate load requirement of
use a web width t of 18 in. (457 mm). 1.60 fpA p,. Further widening of the
Rechecking Eq. (A) for t = 18 in. yields webs to meet this requirement would
Pe, = 712 kips (3.17 MN) which satisfies probably result in webs over 2 ft (0.61
the requirement: m) wide so it is necessary to include
P,, = 712 kips (3.17 MN) confining reinforcement for satisfying
1.10f,.A,. = 680 kips (3.03 MN) the ultimate conditions. This indicates

PCI JOURNAL'March-April 1984 59


that most sections will require such a pitch of 2 in. (51 mm) would be re-
confinement so that it might as well be quired. The larger diameter of 13 in.
considered for crack control. Using Eq. (330 mm) results in a slightly heavier
(1) for spiral reinforcement: spiral than in Example 1. Bearing stress
Pw ^ _ (3.18 0.0538) P^,. would not be a problem for this wider
web.
_ [3.18 (0.053) (25)) 712
= 1321 kips (5.88 MN) Side face multistrand effect confining
reinforcement should be rechecked be-
This more than satisfies the require- cause of the greater side face cover
ment: thickness.
Puu = 1321 kips (5.88 MN) Checking R. for the new cover:
1.60 f^. A C =' (18 - 2.75)
= 990 kips (4.4 MN) = 7.625 in. (194 mm)
For a web width of 18 in. (457 mm ) a Ra = (90,000) (680) (1 -- cos 90)
maximum spiral diameter D of 13 in. ir (90) (7.625) (1.7) 5000
(330 mm) can be used. Rechecking the = 236 in. (6000 mm)
spiral equation:
Since the minimum R is 82 in. (2080
mm), a confining spiral is still required.
Au= 4 Ds
4f, The expression for spiral area is not af-
A , [7460 0.6(5000)1 (13) (2.0) fected by the cover so a 1/a-in. (6.4 mm)
diameter spiral rod with a pitch of 1'/7 in.
(4) (60000)
(38 mm) and an overall diameter of 9 in.
= 0.48 sq in. (311 mms )
(229 mm) should be used along the ten-
>0.05sg in. (32mm2) don path for approximately 75 in. (1.9 m)
Thus, a ^-in. (19 mm) diameter rod at in the horizontal direction.

NOTATION
2a = section height, in. fs = maximum bearing stress
2a = width of anchor plate (as- under anchor plate of
snmed square), in. post-tensioning tendons,
Al = bearing area of anchor psi
plate, sq in. fb = allowable bearing stress
AQ = area of anchorage surface under anchor plate of
concentric with and geo- post-tensioning tendons,
metrically similar to an- psi
chor plate, sq in. f, = compressive strength of
Ap = nominal area of post-ten- concrete, psi
sioning tendon, sq in. f^{ = compressive strength of
A, = spiral wire cross-section- concrete at time of stress-
al area, sq in. ing, psi
C = cover, in. f,,,,, = specified tensile strength
D = outside diameter of spi- of post-tensioning ten-
ral, in. dons, ksi
e = tendon eccentricity, in. f = allowable stress in spiral
f, = post-tensioning design steel = 0.71;, psi
load divided by area con- f,, = split cylinder tensile
fined by spiral, psi strength, ksi

60
f = spiral yield strength, but Po = side-face cracking load,
not more than 60,000 psi kips
F = force in spiral, lbs P,at = ultimate load with sup-
F0 = lateral force equivalent plemental reinforce-
to that resisted by one ment, kips
leg of a spiral, lbs Q = equivalent pressure, psi
LF = load factor representing r = inside radius of tendon
a factor of safety against duct, in.
reaching a particular urn- R = minimum radius of cur-
it state vature of tendon at criti-
LPT = lateral post-tensioning cal location, in.
p = normal force on tendon Ro = critical radius of curva-
duct, kips per in. ture, in.
P = design post-tensioning s = pitch of spiral, in.
load, kips t = section thickness, in.
P. = cracking load, kips x = vertical direction
Pc,. = predicted cracking load x = horizontal direction
with supplemental rein- a = one-half the loaded arc
forcement, kips angle, deg (but not great-
P^,. (wote , = cracking load for section er than 90 deg)
with plate anchor, but ec, = threshold cracking strain
without supplementary (e)
reinforcement, kips el_s,p (FEM) = peak spalling strain at
PLS = best estimate of highest plate edge computed
load to come onto struc- from finite element anal-
ture at particular limit ysis program for unit
state post-tensioning load of 1
P Q^, LS = best estimate of nominal kip
strength of structure with B = angle of tendon inclina-
respect to a particular tion (deg)
limit state = strength reduction factor

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper is based on results of Re- tion by the University of Texas at Austin
search Project 208 "Design Criteria for Center for Transportation Research at
Post-Tensioned Anchorage Zone the Phil M. Ferguson Structural Engi-
Bursting Stresses," conducted for the neering Laboratory. The contents of this
Texas Department of Highways and paper reflect the views of the authors
Public Transportation in cooperation and do not necessarily reflect the views
with the Federal Highway Administra- or policies of the sponsoring agencies.

NOTE: Discussion of this paper, alone or in conjunction with the


companion paper published in the January-February 1984 PCI
JOURNAL, is invited. Please submit your discussion to PCI
Headquarters by November 1, 1984.

PCI JOURNALMarch-April 1984 61