ULTIMATE FLEXURAL STRENGTH

OF PRESTRESSEDAND
CONVENTIONALLY REINFORCED
CONCRETE BEAMS
By J. R. Janney, E. Hognestad
and D. Mcl-lenry

Authorized
Reprint from Copyrighted
Journal of the American Concrete Institute
January
1956, Proceedings Vol. 52, p. 601

Bulletins

Published

Development
Research

by the

Department

and Development

Division

of the
Portland

D1 $frnfluence

Of

Cement

Volume Change and Vegetation on l+~ghway

soil

Engineering, by E. J.
~&p&@d

Association

??ELT.

frwm Twmt@izth

A?uutwi Hiphway Gonf6r6tweof ZheVniwrei@ of GWorado,May

D2 Nature of Bond in Pre-Tensioned J.kestressedConcrete, by

JACK R. JA~NEY.
ReRrinted

717 (1954).

from Journal

of the American Concrete Zn8titut@ (hlay, 1964); ProwW16,

5%

of the paper Nature of Bond in Pre-Tensioned

Prestressed Concrete, by P. W. ABELES, K. HAJ~AL-KONYI,

D2ADiscussion
\

N. W. HANSOFJ and Author,

..

Reprinted

=. .

oeding8,

fmm Journal of
50, 73e-1 (1054).

JACK R. JANNEY.

the American Concrek I.atitufa (Deeember,

Part

2, 1954):

Pro-

\
D3 -< ~nvestigaticm of the Moisture-Volume
Stability of Concrete
Maqnry
Units, by JOSIIPII J. SHIDELER, March, 1955.
D4 A Method for Determining the Moisture Condition of Hardened
Concrete in Terms of Relative Humidity, by CARLA. MENZEL.
Reprinted

from Pro.eedinpa,

Awrican

80&tu

For !l%diw

kfa&iafa,

55 (1955).

D5 Factors Influencing Physical Properties of Soil-Cement

tures, by EARL J. FELT.
Reprintad

from

Bwlletin 106 of the Highwav Re+earohBoard, P. 139, (1965).

D6 Concrete Stress Distribution in Ultimate Strength

by E. HOGNBSTAD, N. W. HANSON and D. MCHENRY.
Reprinted from
52, 465 (1966).

Mix-

Journal of the Amwium Comrete Indihde (December,

1955);

Design,
Proceedinae,

D7 Ultimate Flexural Strength of Prestressed and Conventionally

Reinforced Concrete Beams, by J. R. JANNEY, E. HOGNESTAD
and D. MCHENRY.
Reprinted

from

S2, 601 (1956).

Journal of the A-cun

Conoretd Institute

(JfummY.1956):Pfwediwau

Title No.

Ultimate

Flexural

Conventionally
By JACK

R. JANNEY,

Strength

of

Reinforced
E!VIND

Prestressed

Concrete

HOGNESTAD,

S2-37

and

Beams

and DOUGLAS

McHENRY~

SYNOPSIS
Based on experimental and analytical studies of flexural behavior and
ultimate strength of beams, the relative performances of various types of
prestressed and conventional reinforcement are compared.
Test results of 19 rectangular beams are given, involving ( 1) three pretensioned, (2) three post-tensioned grouted, (3) five post-tensioned unbended,
(4) three post-tensioned unbended with deformed bars added, and (5) five with
conventional deformed bar reinforcement. For three reinforcement percentages, the characteristics of these five types of reinforcement are compared
in terms of moment-deflection relationships, deflection recovery, and ultimate
strength of beams failing in flexure.

An ultimate strength analysis permitted prediction of measured ultimate

moments for all beams with satisfactory accuracy.
INTRODUCTION

Structural
concrete in buildings
and bridges usually requires some kind
Intermediate-grade
deformed
of tension reinforcement
to resist flexural loads.
bars constitute a major percentage of the reinforcing steel used in the TJnited
States, although an increasing amount of high-strength
steel (usually wire
or strancl) is being used in conjunction
with various applications
of prestressed
concrete.
Interaction
of steel reinforcement
i> one of three ways:

and concrete

is generally

brought

about

prestressed concrete, the

(a) In conventionally reinjor-cedconcrete and in pre-tensioned
steel is embedded and in intimate contact with the concrete. In prc-termioned prestressed
concrete, the pre-tension force is transferred from the steel to the hardened concrete by bond.
Tensile stresses resulting from flexural loading are transferred by bond from concrete to steel
in both cases.
(b) In post-tensioned
bonded or grouted prestressedconcrete the steel is initially not bonded
Following the
to the concrete, and the prestress ia established through end anchorages.
prestressing operation, however, the space between the steel and concrete is filled with a suitable grout.
Tensile stresses due to flexure are therefore transferred from concrete to steel
by bond.
*Re.eived
by the Institute
Feb. 10, 1955.
Scheduled
to be presented
at the ACI 52nd Annual Convention,
Philadelphia,
Pa., Feb. 20-23,
1956.
Title
No. 52-37 is a part of copyrighted
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN
CONCRETE INSTITUTE, V. 27, No. 6, Feb. 1956, Prq.mdkm
V. 52. Separate
prints are available
at 50 cents each.
~scussic.n
(copies in Iriplicale) should reach the Inst,tute
not later than June 1, 1956.
Address 18263 W. McNioholo
Rd., Detroit
19, Mjch.
tM~mber?
American
Concrete
Ins$itute.
Development
Engineer.
M+n+&er Structural
Development
Section,
and Dmector of Deve10r3ment,
respectwely.
Research
and Development
Dlvmon,
Portland
Cement Asm., Chicago,
Ill.

602

JOURNAL

OF THE

AMERICAN

CONCRETE

INSTITUTE

February 7956

(c) In post-tensioned unbended prestressecl crmcretc the reinforcement is not bonded to

the concrete.
The prestrcss force is transmitted through mechanical anchorages at the ends
of the steel tendons.
Tensile stresses due to flexure are also developed in the rei nformment
through the rmxhanical anchorages.
Various
combinations
are of course
possible.
It has been proposed,
for
instance, to combine unbended
prestressed reinforcement
with encmgh embedded conventional
reinforcement
to overcome any load-carrying
deficiency
of unbended prestressed concrete members as compared to bonded members.
There is considerable
information
available
regarding
the comparative
behavior
at working
loads of conventionally
reinforced
concrete
and of
members prestressed in the various ways.
Members prestressed by any of
the describec[ methods will generally behave similarly under normal service
conditions,
since working loads are ordinarily
less than the cracking load
for prestressed members.
The behavior at high loads and the modes of failure of beams reinforced
in the different ways are less clearly understood.
Individual
data have been
reported for most types of prestressing, but few direct comparisons have been
made.
The investigation
reported here w-as undertaken,
therefore, to throw
new light on the performance
at high loads of various types of tension reinforcement in structural concrete.
Obiect of

invtsstigati~n

This investigation
was conducted
at the Research
and DeveIoprnent
Laboratories
of the Portland
Cement Assn. in 1953-54.
The primary objective of the study was to provide a direct and quantitative
comparison
of
the flexural behavior and strength of beams with five types of straight tension
reinforcement:
(1) pre-tensioned
reinforcement,
(2) post-tensioned
grouted
reinforcement,
(3) post-tensioned
unbended reinforcement,
(4) post-tensioned
unbended
reinforcement
with deformed
bars added, and (.5) conventional
deformed bar reinforcement.
Particular
emphasis was given to ultimate beam strength, deflection recovery at various percentages of the ultimate loadj and load-deflection
relationThe opportunity
was also at hand to obtain
ships from zero load to failure.
some additional

data on the bonding

performance

of ~-in.

strand.

Scope of tests

This report is based on 19 beam tests, the principal results of which are
given in Table 1. All beams were 6 x 12 in. in cross section and were loac[ed
Concrete strength was held near 5500 psi,
at the third-points
of a $&ft span.
and the prestressed tendon used was a %i-in. seven-wire
strand with an
The only variable aside from the five
effective prestress of about 120 ksi.
types of tension reinforcement
was the steel ratio, which varied from 1.20
to 4.75 percent in the conventionally
reinforced beams and from 0.322 to
0.965 percent in the prestressed beams.
The ultimate
loads, mode of failure, load-deflection
characteristics,
and
In addition,
concrete and steel strains
recovery properties were observed.
were recordecl

throughout

the tests.

ULTIMATE

FLEXURA1.

STRENGTH

OF BEAMS

603

Notation

Notation proposed by joint ACI-ASCE

forced Concrete, is used where applicable.

area of tension reinforcwuent

. width of rectrmgular section
. internal compressive force in corL

crete at ultimate moment (Fig. ,5)

depth of compression zone at ultimate moment

Committee

f.
fse
f 8.
f?/

. defined by Fig. 5 S O
effective depth == 8.3 in. in t,e~t~;
defined by Eq. (la)

. depth to individual reinforcing layf~rs

. modulus of elasticity of reinforcing
steel

strain in concrete at level of rein.

forcemen t at ultimate
defined by Fig. 5

moment

as

. tensile strain in reinforcement due to

effective prestress

tensile

strain

in reinforcement

at

ul-

timate moment
. ultimate compressive strain in concrete (Fig. 5)

, defined by Eq. (6)

SPECIMENS
Specimens

AND

k,,

323,

compressive

Prestressed

strength

of

Reirl-

lZ-in.

cylinders
= effective prestress in reinforcement,
= stress in reinforcement at ultimate
moment
= yield poiut of intermediate-grade
deformed bars; yield strength at
1.0 percent offset strain for stranck

Ac

c -

==

.
~ c/d (Fig. 5)

coefficient determining average concrete stress in compression zone at

ultimate moment (Fig. 5)
coefficient determining position of
internal compressive force C (Fig. 5)
M.l,
= ultimate moment
M,.,.
= calculated ultimate moment
MLe,t = measured ultimate moment
P
=, A./bd = steel ratio
Iclk,

flu

tension reinforcement index =

Pfw/fc
Pf.lf.
tensile force in reinforcement
ultimate moment (Fig. 5)

at

TEST PROCEDURE
.

The 19 beams comprising the test series were 6 x 12 in. in cross section with
an effective depth of 8.3 in. (Fig. 1). The beams were 10 ft long and were
tested with third-point
loading over a 9-f t span.
As shown in Table 1, the
test program was divided into five groups representing
the five types of
tension reinforcement
which constitute the principal variable of this investigation.
Within groups 1 to 3 of the prestressed beams, the amount of tension
reinforcement
varied from two to six Yg-in. strands or 0.322 to 0.965 percent.
The 1.0 percent offset yield strength f. of the strand, which was near the
ultimate strength, was about five times the yield point of the conventional
deformed bar reinforcement
used in groups 4 and 5. Therefore, and because
ultimate flexuml strength was of primary importance
in this investigation,
the amounts of conventional
reinforcement
were so chosen that qy = pfu/f<,
covered a similar range of values in all groups of tests (about 0.1 to 0.4),
The concrete beams were cast using a 5-bag mix of a blend of Type I cements
and 1~-in.
maximum
size aggregate.
Seven days of moist curing were
followed by three weeks of storage in the air of the laboratory
until testin,g
took place at 28 days.
Concrete strengths at the time of testing are reported

Jold!ddAL OF THE AMERICAN

604

CONCRETE

TABLE

Rcinforcernent
W?.m

GrouDq,

,Stecl

f.,
wi

Percent

INSTITUTE

Measl;red
e~ectlve
prestress
strain, 680

February 1956
1PROPERTIES

13ffectiye
preatrem
f,e, kei

2 strands

0.322

1-0.250

4 strands

0.644

1-0.420

6 strands

Cal. ula.td
COrlcn?tc
pr?str,ss,
mi

Yield
.strengtk
f,,, ksi

Pre-tensioned

lo.141

OF

5350

0.00485

113

0.00450

113

2:]5

+74

117

23,5

+117
1677
.

0.00475

0.96,5

10/30
1

Po@tensitmed

20, 151

2 strands

0.322

5000

0.00529

126

235

+41
601

2O ,306

4 strands

0,044

4950

0.00475

118

2s5

+?8
ll ZB

2L) ,398

68 brands

0.965

5700

0.00470

117

235

+117
1677

Post-tensioned
30.128

2 strands

0.322

5900

0.00440

110

235

+36
526

3-0.144

2 strands

0.322

5250

0.00500

122

2:45

+40
5 s.!

3-0.307

4 strands

0.644

4930

0.00542

130

235

+86
1 MO

3-0.428

slhnds

0.965

5300

0.00490

120

235

+116
1721

strands

0,965

5300

0.00560

133

235

+132!
180S

3-0,428

Post-tensionedunbended beams

,
;;#4n~rs

4o. 131

0.80
0.161

5750

0,00490

120

4O .285

2- #4 bars
3 strands

0.80
0.482

5:300

0,00512

126

40 .455

2 # 4 bars
5 strands

0.80
0,803

4930

0.00500

122

I
I

+20
-286

46 5
235
1

47.0
235
44.3
236

I
1

+63
89EI

+101
14517

Conventianmlly
50 .096

5-0.172
5-0.190
5-0..304
5-0.492

,,

3 # 4 bans
3- Y5 bars
3- # 6 bars
3-17 bars
3 x 8 bars

1.20
1 87
2.65
3.61

5400
5250
6200
5:300

4,75

5420

0
I
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

*All beanm were 6 in. wide with total and effective

depths of 12 and 8.3 in,, rmped,
ively,
All prestremed eteel was %-in. strand.
applied at the thir.1-wints
of a 9-ft epan.

43.0
48.3
44.5
44.6
56.1
Equal

~_
loads

0
0
0
0
0
were

for each beam in Table 1 as an average of three 6 x 12-in. cylinders.

The grc,ut
used in the post-tensioned
bonded beams consisted of + 1 to 1 mix of Type I
cement and sand passing a No. 30 sieve, the W/C-ratio
was 0.50, and 0.01
percent (by cement weight) aluminum powder was added to reduce shrinkage
before hardening.
Grouting took place about 10 days before testing.
The prestressing steel used for th~ entire investigation
was Yg-in. sevenwire strand with a nominal area of 0.080 sq in. The strands used in groups 1

ULTIMATE
BEAMS

AND

M camred
... met

FLEXURAL

STRENGTH

OF BEAMS

605

TEST RESULTS*
Cracking
rnommt,
in.-klp

LT~8:te

Moment
lW,.[C,
in.-kir>

IWeasu
red
Wt

1,,,

0.01557

0.14:3

0 00324

198

0.00765

0.221

().00278

270

0.00364

0 ?,17

o 00225

324

0.00870

0.140

o 00176

17:3

:300

0. 0077!5

0 272

(). 00378

290

485

463

0,0048:3

0,:314

0. 002$)4

MO

640

631

bonded

greu9ed

in.-kip

l!!te.c*
Mc<m

beams
.-

beams

.
unbended

1 05
1.01

beams

0. 00%43

0.0!)3

0. 0004)

204

203

1.00

0.00345

0.10!4

o 00052

222

209

J 06

0.00!218

0.217

0.00077

40s

3!75

1.03

0. 00!200

0.283

0.00103

502

:530

(1. w

0.00193

0.278

0. 000!27

522

560

093

with deformedbars added

I
0.00258

-0,219

0,:333

0.00210

70

208

249

1,08

0.00092

107

408

42(I

1.10

0.00141

270

582

5.52

1.05

reinforced

beams

o 00(;

:46

0.172
0.190
0.:304
0 4!42

:14
m
%

I
224
3s0
4:32
571
791

I
203
:340
4:3!2
561
82(J

1.10
1.08
0.98
1.02

0.96

T.411intermediate grade reinforcement was yidding at failure.

$Average

for all beams

1.03;

standard

deviation

= 0.058.

The stress-strain
and 2 were rusted to obtain a good bond to the concrete.
.kt the
curve shown in Fig. 2 is given only to a strain of about 2 percent.
lhe
corresponding
load the strand broke in the grips used in tension tests
strand was not stress relieved, and an unusually
early departure from a
linear stress-strain relationship therefore took place.
The conventional
reinforcement used was intermediate-grade
deformed bars meeting ASTM specifications A 305-50T and A 15-52T.
A typical stress-strain curve is shown in

606

JC)URNAL

OF THE

P/2
-!

AMERICAN

CONCRETE

INSTITUTE
Fig.

P/z

-+--1~--~--

sol~~

February 1956

lTest
ading

bec~ms

sand

arrangement

=-=
x.-=
x...=
x
x__
-46-

20

;y,, x

-Strain

!!

El

Io+1oq
gages

on

reinforcement
L

k614
Fig. 2, and yield points are reported for the deformed bars used in individual
beams in Table 1.
Pre-tension was released about 7 days after casting at a concrete strength
of about 4000 psi; post-tensioning
took place after about 16 days.
The
effective prestress at the time of testing is reported for each beam in Table 1.
For the post-tensioned
unbended
beams, each strand was surrounded
by
an individual cardboard tube with an internal diameter of ~ in. ~hereb y
the position of the strands in the beam cross section changed only a negligible
amount as the beams were deflected by test loading.
Test procedure
Beam

Fig. 3.
300

specimens

were

tested

to

failure

To assure flexural failures,

in

clamp-on

a testing

machhle

as

stirrups were placed

shown

in

in the outer

*a

ii 20
x
.-c

~ ~Strain of individual
--

Strain

of ~d-in.

w<res(SR4

strand

(8-in.

gage)

extensomete

al

5)

100
/

0.005

Unit
Fig. 2Stress-strain

0.015

0.010
Strain

curves for reinforcement

0.02!0

ULTIMATE FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF BEAMS

Fig.

607

3-Testing
ment

thirds of the beam spans. For the unbonded beams in group 3 stirrups were
not needed. All beams were unloaded and immediately reloaded a t approximately 25, 50, 75, and in some cases 85 percent of the ultimate load to
observe deflection recovery properties.
Measurements were made of deflections and of strains on the concrete
surface as well as in the reinforcement. Strains were measured by electric
wire resistance gages; commonly used methods were satisfactory except for
the strand reinforcement.
Since the strands consist of six wires each forming an individual helix
around a central seventh wire, the strain along an individual helix wire a t
any load will be smaller than the strain of the strand as a whole along its
axis. The action of the strand as reinforcement depends essentially on its
stress-strain properties as a unit. I n tension tests, therefore, strains along
individual wires were measured by electric gages and strains in the strand
unit were measured simultaneously by an 8-in. mechanical extensometer.
I n both cases stress was expressed as strand load divided by nominal strand
area (0.080 sq in.). The difference between the two curves (Fig. 2) may decrease when the strand is embedded in concrete. As far as beam performance
is concerned, however, it should be on the safe side to assume that the stressstrain curves of the strand before and after embedment in concrete are the
same. I n the beam tests, strains were measured by attaching electric gages
to individual wires. The stress corresponding to strains measured in this
manner, and in turn the strand strain corresponding to the same stress, were
obtained with the aid of Fig. 2. All strand strains' reported here, therefore,
refer to the stress-strain curve of the strand as a unit.
TEST RESULTS
General behavior and mode of failure

All beams in the investigation failed in flexure. Differences in the overall comparative performance of the five types of reinforcement were observed in terms of ultimate load-carrying capacity, crack pattern, loaddeflection characteristics, and deflection recovery properties. The variations

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE

608

'

February 1956

in behavior may be traced

to the difference in the
stress-strain propertics of
prestressing and conventional reinforcement (Fig.
2), the degree of bond
between the steel and concrete, and the prestress
which of course was absent
in the conventionally reinforced beams.

Post-tensionedgrouted 2- 306

Final failure in flexure

of a reinforced concrete
Post-tensioned U n bondeded 3 -.I44
beam occurb when crushing
of the concrete in the compression zone takes place.
The stress-strain relationship of the reinforcement is
t
4
Post-tensioned U n bonded w i t h
a major factor governing
deformed bars added 4-,131
the ultimate load-carrying
capacity a t which such
crushing t a k e s place.
Conventional intermediate
f Conventionally reinforced 5-30.1'
grade reinforcement is elnstic nearly to the yield
Fig. 4-Typical crack patterns at failure
point, and the strain a t the
yield point is small compared to the ultimate strain of the prestressing str?nd
(Fig. 2). After the intermediate-grade steel has yielded, considerable further
elongation occurs with little increase in stress. Therefore, all conventionally
reinforced beams in group 5 failed initially by yielding of the tension reinforcement. On the other hand, the stress-strain relationship for the strand
used is curved over nearly the entire stress-strain range. Thus, the stress in
the prestressed strands a t the failure load ranged over the upper half of the
stress-strain curve. The ultimate strength of the strand was developed only
in beam 1-0.141, in which fracture of the steel occurred shortly before the
concrete compression zone failed.
t

A second major factor influencing the ultimate load-carrying capacity of

structural concrete beams is the degree of bond between concrete and steel,
which is reflected in the flexural cracking pattern. Fig. 4 shows typical
beams reinforced in each of the five ways and the resulting crack patterns
a t failure. Conventionally reinforced beams and bc.nded prestressed beams
developed about five cracks in the region of pure flexure while the unbonded
beams developed only one or two. The unbonded prestressed beams of
group 4 with deformed bars added, however, developed several cracks. All

ULTIMA1E

bonded prestressed
unbended
beams.
Load-deflection

beams

FLEXURAL

failed

characteristics

STRENGTH

at

higher

and recovery

OF BEAMS

loads

than

properties

609

the

corresponding

were also influenced

by the stress-strain
prest,ressed concrete

properties of the steel and by the bond.

In acldition,
beams, of course, cracked at higher loads than cmventionally
reinforced. beams.
On removal of load after cracking the prestressing force in the steel tends to pull tension cracks together, and accordingly the deflection recovery of prest,ressed beams was superior to that of
nonprestressed
beams.
Ultimate flexuwrl strength

Several analyses for flexural strength of conventionally

reinforced
and
prestressed beams have been presented following a renewed interest in ultimate strength of structural concrete which began about 1930. These analyses
have varied from simple design rules of limited applicability
to complex
mathematical
+.heorics.
There are three eritcria by which the usefulness
of suck analyses rna,y be judged,
First, with a statistically
satisfactory
accuracyj prediction of the effects on ultimate strength of all important variables should be possible.
Second, the basic assumptions
involved shcmld be
logically
compatible
with our understanding
0[ the behavior
under load
Third, a single fiexural
and the modes of failure of structural
concrete.
analysis should apply for various types of conventionally
reinforced as well
as prestressed structural concrete members.
An analytical approach was originated by F. Stussi in 1932,1 which tlhrough
Applirefinements contributed
later by others has satisfied these criteria.
cation of Stussi 7s approach to conventionally
reinforced concrete was reviewed
in the June 1!352 ACI .JOIJI+NAL, 2 and its applicability y to bonded prest,ressed
concrete was discussed in the June 1954 JOURATAL. 3 Two sets of equations
are involved,.
One set expresses the conditions
of equilibrium,
and these
equations musi; therefore apply regardless of the type of rcinfomemen t used
Reflecting
the different actions of
and whether prestress is used or not.
various types of reinforcement , another set of equations
involves
compatibility of strains.
Stress conditions at the ultimate moment capacity are illustrated
Equilibrium
of forces and of moments is expressed by:
Z=f,ut
flf,,lt

Fig.

.=(;

=f,,,L.4s

(d-k,c)

=k,k,,.fcbc. . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. .. .. . ... . .. . ..

5Conditions
at ultimate ma)ment

in Fig. 5.
. ...(1)

. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. ..

.(2)

610

JOURNAL

Eliminating

C)F THE

the depth
lfi3

S=(
in which
~=P~-

AMERICAN

CONCRETE

to the neutral

,f..

Februmv 1956

axis, c, we obtain

g,,
. . . . .
)
reinforcement
index

the tension

INSTITUTE

. .

. .,,,,,,,.,..,,,.,..(3)

f.

..(4)

If there are several layers of steel with different values of ultimate stress
j,,,, steel area A., and effective depth dn, Eq. (1) to (4) become:
r,
1
=Z(f,UAS) =C=k,k,f=bC
......
.
.
.
.
. .
.(la)
jtfult=

M,,,

x[,f.wA.(dn

--k2C)]

My,.

in which

Zq,, =Z

=(,XJ,L)

. . . . . . . . . .

l+,.

()
44.,

f,,

M f.

. .

)
amid=

. .

. .
x

,?,fsdjL

~(A,f8,,),

.(2a)

. .............(%)
)

...,....,

.(4a)

Throughout
this investigation,
the steel was so arranged in the test beams
that d was always close to 8.3 in. All values of tension reinforcement
percentage and index reported herein are therefore based on d = 8.3 in.
For design purposes, the steel stress at failure, ~,u, must be determined
for various types of reinforcement
from strain conditions.
However,
the
relationship
expressed by Eq. (3) and (3a) may be studied
in terms of
measured ultimate moments and measured steel stresses at failure as indicated in Fig. 6. Though five types of reinforcement
are represented, only a
By least squares, a value of l~,jklh,
reasonable scatter is found in the figure.
equal to 0.52 was determined.
This value of 0.52 is in close agreement with
earlier findings in investigations
of conventionally
reinforced concrete.
In
assumed
their studies of bonded prestressed
beams, Billet and Appletons
kz = 0.42 and an empirical relationship between klk, and cylinder strength
~: was established,
which for the average concrete strength of the beams
=
(). s1.
In the
f = 5400 psi, gives klk~ = 0.83 and k2/klk3
reported here ~.
studies of ultimate strength
are used throughout.

given in Table

1, lc9,/kJc~ = 0.52 and klks = 0.83

Conventiorwlly
reinforced
beamsFor
the beams in group 5 which were
conventionally
reinforced with intermediate-grade
steel, the steel stress at
Ultimate moments can therefore be
failure was at the yield point, ~.. = j..
calculated from Eq. (3) without the aid of strain compatibility
equations.
The average value of M,~s,/ilZ~alc for group 5 is 1.03, which confirms the applicability of I@ (3) as shown also by numerous previous tests of conventionally
reinforced beams.
Compatibility
of slrainsA
more complete understanding
of the action of
various types of prestressed reinforcement
and the magnitude of the ultimate
steel stress may be reached through a study of compatibility
of strains in the
Attempts
to develop rigorous analyses of strain
steel and the concrete.
conditions in cracked members have not been particularly fruitful.
The tests
reported here confirm others in suggesting that certain idealized concepts

ULTIMATE

and empirical
greater utility

OF BEAMS

611

utilityperhaps

of even

of tests have indicated that plane sections perpendicular

axis of conventionally
reinforced concrete beams remain
bending throughout
the loading range to failure, though
must exist near flexural cracks.
Recent tests3-7 and the
confirm that this is so also for prestressed concrete.

Such a linear distribution

be expressed as:
%(1

STRENGTH

relationships
may be of considerable
than a precise analysis.

A large number
to the longitudinal
nearly plane after
some irregularities
tests reported here

~cu=

FLEXURAL

of conmete

strains is sketched

in Fig. 5 and may

L)

k.

.(5)

in which e,U is the concrete strain adjacent to the reinforcement

at the ultimate moment.
As the concrete strain increases from zero to e;., an equal
change of strain may be expected to take place in a well bonded reinforcement.
The actual steel strain will deviate from eCU,however, because of localization
of cracks and because of imperfect bond.
In an unbended beam, the change
in steel strain will be considerably
smaller than c.. since the steel strain will
be nearly constant
between anchorages.
Baker5 has suggested
that the
ratio of change in steel strain to change in concrete strain may be determined
experimentally.
He denoted this ratio by the letter F.
In later investipre~tres~~
gations, TI10 Baker and his associates found that F for unbended
beams varies from 0.1 to 0.3 and depends on conditions
of loading and the
shape of the unbended
tendons, while F is near 1.0 regardless of loading
conditions for well bonded tendons. *
The total

strain e,. in prestressed

of the effective

steel at the ultimate

moment

is the sum

prestress strain ~,~and the change in steel strain due to loading

Few :

.f,,L=&+Fe,u . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Substituting

Eq.

,,, .,

(5) into Eq.

..((3)

(6)

,.,=6,.
+F+6 !........

..

(7)

v.

The prestress strains in the concrete before loading are small compared to
the strains e. and c.u at failure, and their influence on the position of the
neutral axis, AC) may be neglected.
In Fig. 5 we then have c = k,,d, a,nd Eq.
(la) and (7) give

()

ku=~~zqu=~z

pf;

Eq. (8) for Fcu,

.,u ,..) .sq.
(
F,u =

F,
=

c,,, +

c..

Fqi

..

.....

...,.

(8)

Solving

k,k,

--zqw

.({))

The effective prestress steel strain e,, and change in steel strain due 10 loading to failure c,U e,,, were measured as indicated in Table 1. With the aid
Bonded
was developed
in a MS thesis by A. Feldman:
Department,
?Jniveraity
of
m Flexure, Ciyil Engineering

*A similar app~oac:h
crete

Beams

Frubng

and Unbended

Illinois, 19.54

Prestressed

Con-

JOURNAL

OF THE

AMERICAN

CONCRETE

INSTITUTE

Februory 1956

+
1

/___

lo

* ---~2qu
Mu I+,
[

(1-0.52

Eq

qu)

47.

(3)

4
/-

+--

f-

mes+w.sed

--unbended

Eqs. (3) $ (11)

i~~

__.l__~
0.1
q

~fsu

0.2

0.3

( ~u=measured

0. I

0.5

0.4

ult steel stress)

qy

0.3

0.2
= ~,

0.4

(fy = steel

0.5

gield

stress)

Fig.

of
(9)

o Group

i,

Pretensioned

A Group

2,

Posttensioned

grouted

o Group

3,

Pos+tensioned

unbended

6
(left) Relation
between
measured Af.zt and measured q.

Group
with

Group

4,

Posttensioned

deformed
5,

bars

unbended
added,

Conventionally

Fig. 7 (right) Effect of reinforcement

type on ultimate moment

was computed
the stress-strain
curve
in Fig. 2, F.. at failure
for all prestressed beams assuming }Clh, = 0.83.
The results

in Table

reinforced

from

Eq.

are given

1.

Ere-twusioned beamsFor
the three pre-tensionecf
beams, the average of
the calculated values of FE. given in Table 1 is 0.0028, while the measured
maximum concrete strains on the top surface of the beam c. were 0.0025 to
The corresponding
value of F, 1.1 tu 0.7, may indicate that the
0.0040.
bond between strand and concrete failed locally in some beams.
other hand, the average changes in steel stress e,u t.. as measured

(X the
by two

to four strain gages were not always observed exactly at a crack.

If the
measured values of e.. e.. used in Eq. (9) to compute FE. are smaller than
the actual maximum
strains which occur near a crack, the resulting low
values of F arle of course not significant.
To obtain
1.0

the predicted

ultimate

and ,W = 0.003 were assumed,

in Eq.

(8) and[ the stress-strain

moments

given as MC.~c in Table

and $,. was calculated

curve

for the strand

1,

from the last equality

by successive

approxi-

ULTIMATE

FLEXURAL

STRENGTH

mations. * M.at. was then obtained

value of M,@., /M.alG is 1.05.
Post-tcnsiowd

the

average

strands

were

beams---The

grouted

for
well

the

grouted
beams

1 \vere

computed,

beams,

and

tensioned

beams

so that

in

13q. (3).

average

pre-tensioned

ar,d pre-tensiorred
Table

from

should

calculated

be similar.

an average

The

in

value

and

the

of M,,.

613

The

(0.0028).

the strength

therefore,

OF BEAMS

resulting

value

This

of

calculated
same

equal

{;hat

the

of the grouted

ultimate

manner

JfW..Z.

Feu equals

indicates

performance

average

as for

moments
the

pre-

to 1.04 was found.

Post-tensioned unlxmded beamsPer the five unbended beams, the ave?age

F.u is only 0.0007, that is, one quarter of the value for the well bonded bearl-s.
Giffordg found that, 1 for unbended
beams is proportional
to the neutral
axis ratio lCW. This approach is studied in Table 2, in which K., Fe., and
F~u\ku are computed from measured values of zgti and ~,. G,. The ratio
Fc./lc. varies from ().()029 to 0.0040 with an average value of 0.0033.
Assuming 6. = 0.003 we then obtain
F=l.l/cu:~
mu, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (10)
which agrees with the findings of Cxifford. 10 Con~hining

Eq. (8) and (1 O) gives

.(11)

It is important
to note that Eq. (10)
tests of beams loaded at third-points
of
beam depth.
For greater span-to-depth
at midspan, smaller values of F must be

is an empirical equation based on

a span only 13 times the effective
ratios or for a load concentration
expected,

The calculated ultimate moments given in Table 1 were obtained by calculating ~.u from the last equality in Eq. (11) and the stress-strain curve by
successive
approximations,
substituting
the final ~,u into Eq. (3) to find
M,.?,.
The average value of M~..,J/lf,~~. is 0.99.
barsThe ratio FEJIL,of both
Post-tensioned unbended beams with deformed
beams in this group for which strain measurements
were made was 0.0035.
(The strain measuring equipment
did not function properly during the test
of beam 4O. 131. ) Since the average FeJku for group 3 was 0.0033 it appears
that the presence of the deformed bars in group 4 did not appreciably
increase
the F value of the urlbonded strands, in spite of the fact that the crack pattern
of the beams was changed.
TABLE

2STUD%

OF F<.

,.

Be&rn
Groupq.
30 12s

Measured
M.

3o .144
30 .307
3-0.428
:3:.,4;;

0.093
0.109
0.217
0.286
0.278

4O .285
4o .455

0,219
0,33:3

Zqu
m

I
.

graph

gives

a new value

(Eq.

9)

*Assum@g ~ value of csuiu Eq. (8), a corresponding

8 tress-strain

F6u

of c.., etc.

0.112
0.131
0,262
0.341
0,335

0.00043
0.00052
0.00077
0,00103
0,00097

0.264
0.401

0 00092
0.00141

may

be computed,

which

k.
o 0038
0,0040
0.0029
0.0030
0. 00!29

f..

F,.

when

c1.0035
cl.0035

introduced

into

the

614

JOURNAL

Ultimate
stress-strain

C>F THE

AMERICAN

CONCRETE

moments were therefore calculated

curve, and Eq. (3a).
The deformed

The average M,.,,\M..,.

for group 4 is 1.08.
the deformed
bars may have been stressed
failure took p[ace.

INSTITUTE

Februmy 1956

using Eq. (11), the strand

bars were yielding at failure.
This high ratio suggests that
into strain hardening
before

Comparison
of ultimate strengthsThe
effect of reinforcement
t;ype on
ultimate moment is studied in Iig. 7, in which measured ultimate moments
divided by f.bdz are plotted versus g, for all beams tested.
Curves representing the applicable
ultimate strength equations
are also entered in the
figure for an average prestress ~.. = 121 ksi.
All conventional
reinforcement
yielded before the ultimate moment was
reached.
The strength of the beams in group 5 is therefore represented by
Eq. (3) with & = f,.
Yielding of the prestressed reinforcement
is expressed by the 1.0 percent
to a total strain of
offset yield strength, fv = 235 ksi, which corresponds
almost 2 percent.
Only in the lightly reinforced pretensioned
beam 1-0,141,
therefore, was the yield strength of the strands developed
at failure.
The
remaining bonded beams failed by crushing of the concrete compressicm zone
at strand stresses below the yield strength (Fig. 7).
All unbended prestressed beams failed by concrete crushing at lower strand
stresses than the corresponding
bonded beams.
This is clearly evident from
Fig. 8 in which observed changes in strand stress due to flexural 1oading
from zero load to failure are plotted versus qU. Theoretical curves representTO
indicate
effects
of
ing Eq. (8) and (11) are plotted for j$. = 121 ksi.
variations in Eq. (10), a curve corresponding
shown in the figure.

to Icw =

1.2 k. >( 0.003 is also

Increased ultimate moments resulting from the increased ultimate strand

stresses due to bonding appear in Fig. 7 and Table 1. The average measured
ultimate moment of the two bonded beams corresponding
to each of the
unbended
beams 3O. 144, 30.307,
and 30.428,
exceeded
the measured
ultimate moments of these unbended
beams by 39, 26, and 21 percent, respectively.
It is again important to note that these percentages refer to tests
carried out wit h third-point
loading over a span 13 times the effective beam
depth and with an effective prestress of about 120 ksi, Had the span been
longer, the loading been concentrated
closer to midspan, or had the prestress
been lower, the strength of bonded beams would most probably have exceeded
that of similar unbended beams by a greater percentage.
In each of the three beams in group 4, one unbended strand was replaced
by two #4 defcjrmed bars.
The force in the two bars stressed to their yield
point is nearly equal to the force in one ~,$in. strand stressed to its yield
strength.
Fig. 7 indicates
that such replacement
increased the ultimate
lhe reason for this is essentially that the
strength of the unbended beams.
deformed bars carried their full yield-point
load at failure, while the strand
they replaced would not have reached the yield-stress
load.
Though the

UL 1IMATE

FLEXURAL

STRENGTH

OF BEAMS

615

I25

Ioc

75

50

25

0
o

--%.
__.. -

_zr-T--r-l
0.5

q~: pfy/f~~
Fig. 8Effect

of b~nd

on change

(fg

= ~eel

yi~;

0.6

stress)

in strand stress due to bending

to failure

crack pattern of unbended beams was improved, Fig. 8 shows that replacing
one strand did not significantly
increase the stress at beam failure of the
It is felt, however,
that these observations
with 0.8
remaining
strands.
percent deformed bar reinforcement
did not entirely rule out the possibility
that a higher percentage of deformed bars may increase the change in unbended strand stress due to loading.
Midspan

deflections

Performance
of the five types of reinforcement
are compared in terms of
moment-deflection
diagrams in Fig. 9. The applied moments are divided
by the potential ultimate
moment
corresponding
to yielding
of all reinforcement.
This potential strength was, of course, not developed for high
percentages of prestressed reinforcement.
The moment-deflection
characteristics
of the pre-tensioned
beams
of
group 1, post-tensioned
grouted beams of group 2, and the prestressed beams
with deformed bars added of group 4, are similar except that the leracking
moments of group 4 beams are lower.
This may be expected because the
beams of group 4 had a smaller prestressing force retiulting from replacing
one strand by conventional
deformed bars.
Over the entire range of steel percentages
the general moment-deflection
The prestressed beams derelationships
may be characterized
as follows.
flected less in response to load than the conventionally
reinforced members
in the working load range, that is, after cracking of the conventionally
rein-

616

.
F?
i
JOURNAL

OF THE

AMERICAN

CONCRETE

INSTITUTE

February 1956

>5:172

1.0

/<

~
$J
%

L.3-. [44

0.5

g
a)

Ave. qg

-g
-h

275

II
n

0.60

1.20

1
1

1.[

2.40

=0.148
-37

?-a

--1-.250

-u

n
w

5-.304

.4
1-3-.307

N
m

Ave. qg=O. Z90

I

-o

cl.)
.

E-

2
0.5

-=20

0.40
Midspan
Fig. 9Midspan

deflection

O.&l

0.60
in

inches

deflection from zero load to failure

1.00

ULTIMATE

FLEXURAL

STRENGTH

OF BEAMS

617

forced but before cracking of the prestressed beams,

This, of course, is a
result of the prestress employed.
At, loads near ultimate, however, deflections
of the prestressed beams were greater than those of the conventionally
reit~forced ones,
In accord with findings in earlier investigations
the deflection at failure
of all beam groups decreased as the amount, of reinforcement
was increased.
(The

three

portions

of Fig.

9 are

plotted

to

different

horizontal

scales.)

Deflection recovery

The load was released during the beam testti at approximately

25, 50, 75,
and in some instances 8.5 percent of the ultimate load.
The recovery- of the
midspan deflections was noted at each load release, and the results are given
in Fig. 10 in terms of total deflection minus permaucnt set divided by total
deflection,
Bonded

and expressed in percent.

prestressed beams showed

about, !)() percent

recovery

at all load

releases and for all values of qv. Unbondecf beams 1;-0.307 and 30.428, as
well as beam <LO.455 of the group with deformed bars added, also reeovered
about 90 percent at all load releases.
Beams 3-0.144, 4--0.131 and 1-0.28.5
showed about 90 percent recovery at 25 percent of the ultimate load but the
recovery percentage decreased with i]lcreasing load.
The conventionally
reinforced
beams of group 5 showed recovery
of a
smaller percentage at the lower loads than at the higher loads.
This is possibly
because some slip took place near tension crack= in the concrete at th: lower
loads before the bar deformations
were seated firmly.
The recovery i~t high
loads of all conventionally
reinforced beams was about 80 percent.

~50%, 1
r l-cAed+o~25%,
~75%,

~85% O+ Ul,irna+e

qy :

.141 .15[ .144

.13[

.172

.250

.3Q6 .?07

Fig. 10Deflection

.265

.304

recovery

.420

23A
.396

.420

.455 .49Z

618

JOURNAL

OF THE

AMERICAN

CONCRETE

INSTITUTE

February 1956

Bond

Some strain data were obtained from the three pre-tensioned beams of group
1 which indicate the prestress transfer length of the ~-in.
rusted strands.
Gages attached to the strands about 12 in. from the beam ends showed strains
after transfer of 101, 97, and 97 percent of the average strain at the remaining
gage points (Fig. 1). It ~PPears, therefore, that the prestress transfer length
was less than 12 in. for ~-in. rusted strands released into a 4000-psi concrete.
Little can be said of the flexural bond stresses developed in the pre-tensioned
and the post-tensioned
bonded beams by way of comparison with information
obtained from earlier bond studies. II The beams in this series were loaded
at the third-points.
As a result there was no control of the position of flexura,l
cracks, and the strain gages were not usually at or near the cracks, as they
must be to derive the maximum values of flexural bond stress.
However, a
general comparison
between the bond behavior of pre-tensidned
and posttensioned grouted beams may be made from the following observations,
The
distribution
of strand strains at gage points along the length of the strands
was similar for each corresponding
pair of pre-tensioned
and grouted beams.
More important,
a similarity in flexural bond performance
of the two types
of bonded beams is indicated by the ultimate moments (Fig. 7), changes in
strand stress due to bending (Fig. 8), and midspan deflections
(Fig. 9).
If
the grouted beams fell short of the pre-tensioned beams from a bond standpoint,
these properties would have approached
those of the unbcmded beams.
CONCLUDING

REMARKS

The investigation
reported here was conducted with the primary objective
of providing a comparison with respect to behavior at high loads and ultimate
strength of structural
concrete beams in which the type of reinforcement
The principal test variables were three reinforcement
percentages
varied.
and five type~ of straight tension reinforcement:
(1) pre-tensioned,
(2) posttensioned grouted, (3) post-tensioned
unbended,
(4) post-tensioned
unbended
with deformecl bars added, and (5) conventional
deformed bar reinforcement.
Flexural

strength

An ultimate strength analysis of the Stiissi type, involving equilibrium and

strain compatibility
equations, permitted satisfactory
prediction of the effects
of all important
variables on flexural strength.
The basic assumptions
and
the numerical. constants
involved
are confirmed
by the findings cjf other
investigators
and by strain measurements
reported here.
The strengths of the pre-tensioned
and the corresponding
post-tensioned
bonded beams tested were nearly equal, and 20 to 40 percent higher than the
strength of the corresponding
unbended post-ten. sioned beams.
It is lbelieved
that this strength increase due to bonding varies with reinforcement percentage,
magnitude of steel prestress, beam span-to-depth
ratio, and type of loading.
For extreme combinations
of variables, strength increases ranging from zero

ULTIMATE

(high

percentage,

percentage,

high

FLEXURAL

STRENGTH

OF BEAMS

619

prestress,

low prestress,

short beams)
to over 100 percent (low
long beams, loads near midspan) seem possible.

Unbended
beams tested & which one strand was replaced by embedded
deformed bars gave ultimate strengths close to those of corresponding
bonded
prestressed beams.
Deflections

Midspan deflections were, of course, smaller for prestressed than for conventionally
reinforced beams in the working load range.
At loads near ultimate, however,
the reverse was true.
The unbended
prestressed
beams
deflected more than the other prestressed beams when the cracking moment
was exceeded.
The deflection at failure of all beams decreased as the amount
of reinforcement
was increased.
Detlecfion

recovery

Over the entire range of loading,

reinforced
than the conventionally
removal

of loads.

cent

load

for

reinforced
about

The

releases

beams

80 percent

recovery

up to

recovered
at high

the prestressed
beams

of the

85 percent
about

with

beams

prestressed
of the

70 percent

were more elastic

respect
beams

ultimate
in the

to
was

load.
working

recovery
about

after
$)0 per-

Conventionally
load

range

and

loads.

Bond

The prestrew transfer length

strand was released into 4000-psi
larity in over-all performance of
beams indicated that the bond
as that between embedded steel

developed
when pre-tensioned
s~-in. rusted
concrete was not greater than 12 in. Simithe pre-tensioned
and post-tensioned
grouted
between grout and steel was as satisfactory
and concrete.
REFERENCES

1.

Stiissi, F., Ueber die Sicherheit des einf ach bewehrten Eisenbentou-Rechteclcbalens,
Assn. for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, V. 1, Apr.
1932, f)p. 487-495.

Publications, International

2. Hognesta,d, E., Fundamental Concepts in Ultimate Load Lhmign of Reinforced

crete Members, ACI JOURNAL,
June
1952,
Pro.. V. 4$3, pp. gOQS30.

Con-

3. Billet, D. F., and Appleton, J. II., (~plexuralst,~e~gthof I%estressedConcrete Beams,j

AGI JOURNAL, June 1954, Proc. V. 50, pp. 837-854.
4. Baker, A. L. L., A Plastic Theory of Design for Ordinary Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete Including Moment Rc-Distribution
in Continuous Members, Magazine Of COn(London), No, 2, June 1949, pp. 57-W.
crete Research
of

5. Evans, R. H., Research and Developments on Prestressing, JournaL of the ITLStZtUtZOn

Civil Engineers
(London), V. 35, No. 4, Feb. 1951, pp. 231-261.

6. Bakerj A. L. L., [Recent Research in Reinforced Concrete, and Its Application to

Design, Journal of the Institution of Ci@ Engirwers (London), V. 35, No. 4, Feb. 1951, pp.
262-298; Discussion pp. 298-329.
7. Baker, A. L. L., Further Research in Rcinf orced Concrete , and Its Application to
Ultimate Load Design, Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, V. 2, Part III,
Aug. 1953, pp. 269-310; Discussion V. 3, Pm-t III, Apr. 1954, pp. 289-320.

6$20

JOURNAL

OF THE

AMERICAN

CONCRETE

INSTITUTE

Febnmry 1956

8. Itevesz, S., Factors Governing the Ultimate Bending Moment of Normal Reinforced
and Prestrcssed Concrete Beams, with Reference to a Proposed Plastic Theory, Magazine
of Concrete Research (London), No. 13, Aug. 1953, pp. 11-26.
9. Gifford, F. W., Tests on End-Anchored Unbrrnded Prestressed Concrete Beams Having Parabolic Steel Eccentricity,
Subject to Uniformly Distributed Loading, Ma~azzne
of
(London), No. 13, Aug. 1953, pp. 27-36.
Conc~ete
Research
10. Gifford, F. W., The Design of Simply Supported Prestressed Coucrete Beams for
Ultimate Loads, Proce~dings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Louclon, V. 3, Part 111, Apr.
1954, pp. 125-143.
11. Janney, J. R., [Nature of Bond in Ih-e-Tensioned Prestrcssed Concrete, ACI JOURNAL,
May
1954, P~oc. V. 50, pp. 717-736 (POrtkmd Cement ASSII.,
DeVelOpmcnt Department,
Bulletin No. D2).
For such discussion of this paper as may
V.
December 1956 JOI.IRNAL. In Proceedings
follows the June 1956 JOURNALpages.

develop please see Part 2,

52 discussion immediately