John E. Breen*
The Carol Cockrell Curran
Chair in Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Texas
Austin, Texas
Synopsis
The posttensioned anchorage etry, and the effect of supplementary
zones of several thinwebbed box anchorage zone reinforcement.
girders, which were designed in ac Threedimensional 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
designrelated 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 posttensioned 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)
Note; I kip = 4.45 kN; I inn. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi  6.9 MPa.
_ 103
(c/a j 7 I + 39a' + fdp { 166 975 (a' /t)2 } 9.1 (1)
9 5
30
f
e
f s

P
C
2p
2c
HH
Fig. 1. Geometric data for Eq. (1)
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 10.11tt 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
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
^
SUBSTITUTE
t=2g IN
EQ. 1
2g J 2g
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, threedimensional
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 posttensioning): 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
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 crosssectional 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 CEBFIP 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 brittletype
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:
38
Table 4. Statistical Evaluation of Crack Width Data for
Various Types of Tendons.
X rr Xrr R2o
(per (per (per (Per
Type oftendon cent) cent) cent) cent)
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.
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
42
)N DUCT
x
z
I
Y
(a) GEOMETRY AT
+rx _ STRESSING LOAD
n INDIVIDUAL STRANDS
2
+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
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 17strand 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 I2in. (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)
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
shortterm 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 posttensioning
bearing stress design criterion for tendon, sq in.*
posttensioned anchorages is: f,,, = specified tensile strength of
posttensioning 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 posttensioning tendons, psi
posttensioning 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 PostTensioned Tendon COMMENTARY
Anchorage Zones
C.A.1 The general problems of an
A.1.1 Reinforcement shall be pro chorage of posttensioned 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
posttensioned beams.
stressing forces.
C.A.1.1 This general performance
A.1.3 Posttensioning anchorages and statement alerts the user to the fact that
supporting concrete shall be designed to the actual stresses around posttension
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 Posttensioning 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 Posttensioning 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 posttensioning 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 freezethaw 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
fb0.8ff,VA2/A1_1.33ff,. tioning the anchor zone can be designed
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 posttensioning force in unbonded Ax = spiral wire crosssectional area,
tendons and in bonded tendons prior to sq in.
completion of grouting is completely fE = posttensioning 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
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 postten
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)
castinplace 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 31877 values and a sub dress many common thin web postten
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, threedimen
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
posttensioning) 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 PostTensioned Girder Anchorage lished Masters Thesis, The University of
Zones," PCI JOURNAL, V. 29, No. 1, Texas at Austin, May 1970.
JanuaryFebruary 1984, pp. 64109. 7. MacGregor, J. G., "Safety and Limit
2. Stone, W. C., and Breen, J. E., "Analysis States Design of Reinforced Concrete,"
of PostTensioned Girder Anchorage Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
Zones," Research Report 2081, 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., PaesFilho, W., and Breen, Concrete Under Combined Compressive
J. E., 'Behavior of PostTensioned Stresses," University of Illinois Engi
Girder Anchorage Zones," Research Re neering Experiment Station Bulletin No.
port 2082, 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
PostTensioned 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 31877)," 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
1216F, 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 1215, Center for Highway
6. Berezovytch, W. N., "A Study of the Be Research, The University of Texas at Au
havior of a Single Strand PostTension stin, February 1975.
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:
posttensioned, 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
270ksi (1863 MPa) strands. A plate (1) Design a reinforcing scheme
bearingtype. 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)
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 posttensioning will also provide quirements, either spiral reinforcement
ULT ^ 200psi(60)(15)
P LPT ' 8P
P
ULT =240 kips
56
1.5" k COVER
t 14
(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:
P=
Iz
Z A p = PIR Q = p120r
(in.} fi n1 (lb per in.) (psi)
Fig. A4. Data for design of spiral reinforcement to resist multistrand cracking.
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 1in. (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
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
NOTATION
2a = section height, in. fs = maximum bearing stress
2a = width of anchor plate (as under anchor plate of
snmed square), in. posttensioning 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 posttensioning tendons,
metrically similar to an psi
chor plate, sq in. f, = compressive strength of
Ap = nominal area of postten concrete, psi
sioning tendon, sq in. f^{ = compressive strength of
A, = spiral wire crosssection concrete at time of stress
al area, sq in. ing, psi
C = cover, in. f,,,,, = specified tensile strength
D = outside diameter of spi of posttensioning ten
ral, in. dons, ksi
e = tendon eccentricity, in. f = allowable stress in spiral
f, = posttensioning 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 = sideface 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 posttensioning cal location, in.
p = normal force on tendon Ro = critical radius of curva
duct, kips per in. ture, in.
P = design posttensioning 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 = onehalf 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 posttensioning 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
PostTensioned 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.
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.