Ultimate analysis of
prestressed and partially
prestressed sections by
strain compatibility
Antoine E. Naaman
Assistant Professor of Structural Design
Department of Materials Engineering
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle
Chicago, Illinois
he analysis of prestressed concrete
T sections at ultimate capacity is a
simple procedure if one follows the
ACh or the AASHTO2 specifications.
These specifications provide a num-
ber of simplifying assumptions, namely,
that the state of strain in the concrete
compressive zone at ultimate is known,
that the force in the concrete can be
approximated from the equivalent rec-
tangular stress block and that the stress
in the prestressing steel can be approxi-
mated from materials and section prop-
erties.
It has been shown3 ,4 that these as-
sumptions lead to satisfactory predic-
tions of ultimate moments for fully pre-
stressed and somewhat partially pre-
stressed normal weight concrete beams.
Partial prestressing implies the use
in combination with prestressing steel
of non-prestressed conventional rein-
32
forcement in the tensile and/or com-
pressive zone of the section.
Prestressed concrete is today being
used in combination with substantially
Iarge amounts of non-prestressed rein-
forcement. Newer concrete materials
such as high strength, lightweight, fiber
reinforced or polymer modified con-
cretes, where all the Code assumptions
related to ultimate compressive strain
and dimensions of the stress block may
not apply, are also being used.
Thus, there is an increasing need in
these types of applications for a tool to
predict flexural capacity of the section
and more importantly to predict with
enough accuracy, curvatures, rotations
and deflections at ultimate. It should be
based on a more accurate analysis in
which the actual stress-strain properties
of the materials involved are taken into
consideration. 5, 6
 Such a procedure (referred to as
"strain compatibility") is suggested by
the ACI specifications (Reference 1,
Section 18.7) in order to determine the
stress in the prestressing steel (fps) at
ultimate behavior; it is accepted in all
cases in lieu of the more approximate
Code formula for f.,s and required when
the effective prestress is less than one-
half the steel strength and/or when the
steel stress-strain curve does not con-
form with specified ASTM standards.
Furthermore, the use of a more ac-
curate analysis may lead to substantial
savings7 in the amount of prestressing
steel required which more than offset
the additional cost in design.
The purpose of this paper is to pre-
sent a simplified procedure to analyze
the behavior at ultimate of bonded
prestressed and partially prestressed
concrete structural elements in which
the non-linear behavior of the prestress-
ing steel is fully accounted for. A com-
puter program was written to imple-
ment the above procedure.
For given conditions of reinforce-
ment the program leads to the values
of stress and strain in the prestressing
steel at ultimate, the ultimate moment
capacity and the corresponding curva-
ture of the section and other relevant
information. Corresponding values ob-
tained by strictly applying the ACI
specifications are also computed for di-
rect comparison.
The program allows a quantitative
assessment of the influence on ultimate
behavior of important parameters such
as amount of non-prestressed reinforce-
ment, effective prestress, type of pre-
stressing steel, ultimate compressive
strain of the concrete, and stress block
dimensional factors.
Numerical results are applied to a
rectangular and a box (T) section and
a typical design example is developed
using the ACI code approach, the
strain compatibility procedure, and a
combination of prestressed and non-
prestressed reinforcement.
PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1977 33
Synopsis
A non-linear analysis proce-
dure which attempts to pre-
dict the behavior at ultimate
of prestressed and partially
prestressed sections is pre-
sented.
It takes into consideration the
non-linear characteristics of
the steel but assumes that
the strains and forces in the
concrete at ultimate are well
approximated by the ACI
specifications.
The numerical techniques
and the computer program
implementing the proposed
procedure are rapidly re-
viewed.
They help analyze the influ-
ence on ultimate behavior of
major variables such as type
of prestressing steel, amount
of non-prestressed reinforce-
ment, ultimate compressive
strain and stress block di-
mensional coefficients of the
concrete. Examples of appli-
cations and typical results
are presented.
It is shown that although the
ACI recommended procedure
to predict ultimate moment
capacity is reasonably accu-
rate and conservative, it may
lead to substantial error in
predicting strain in the pre-
stressing steel and the cor-
responding curvature of the
section.

Non-Linear Analysis
In the non-linear analysis of rein-
forced concrete elements, two assump-
tions are generally considered: first
that the strain distribution in the section
remains linear up to maximum moment
capacity and, second, that the actual
stress-strain relations of the steel and
concrete are known and used.
In order to determine maximum mo-
ment capacity the moment versus curv-
vature curve is plotted and the peak
value selected. 8 This can be achieved
numerically in the most general case
first by selecting a value of concrete
extreme fiber compressive strain and
then finding by iteration a location of
neutral axis which simultaneously satis-
fies compatibility and equilibrium.
The process is repeated for increas-
ing values of the extreme fiber com-
pressive strain. By calculating at every
step the internal moment and the cur-
vature, the ultimate (maximum) mo-
ment and the corresponding strain and
curvature at ultimate can be deter-
mined. Practically speaking, a substan-
tial computational effort is needed even
when a computer is used.
The above exact method was applied
to prestressed concrete sections and
was found (Appendix I) to lead to con-
ditions at ultimate not significantly dif-
ferent from a less exact method de-
scribed below. This later method was
selected because first it reduces by an
order of magnitude the required com-
putations, and second it accommodates
the ACI specifications and is, there-
fore, of more direct use to designers.
The proposed method takes into ac-
count the actual stress-strain curve of
the prestressing steel but considers that
the ACI assumptions leading to the
equivalent rectangular stress block in
the concrete are representative of the
forces in the concrete at ultimate.4
The rationale of this approach stems
from the fact that in predicting the
34
stress-strain properties of concrete,"
one usually encounters much more va-
riabilities than for the steel.
The practically constant elastic mod-
ulus of the steel as well as the require-
ments of ASTM standards on propor-
tional limit, yield strength, ultimate
strength and elongation make the pre-
dicted stress-strain relation of a given
steel quite close to, and representative
of the actual relation. This approach
will be followed in this paper.
Stress and Strain in
Steel at Ultimate
for Bonded Members
The design assumptions of the ACI-
318-71 1 , 11 concerning the linear strain
distribution and the concrete stress
block at ultimate are followed and
could be visualized by referring to Fig.
1. It is also assumed that the stress-
strain relation of the prestressing steel
is known either graphically or numeric-
ally.
It is further assumed that the strain
in the top fiber of the concrete section
under effective prestress alone is negli-
gible and that if non-prestressed tensile
reinforcement is used it has the same
center of gravity as the prestressed re-
inforcement.
Note that in Fig. 1, and later in Fig.
5, the non-prestressed tensile reinforce-
ment for T sections is shown entirely in
the web while, in a particular design, it
may be partly associated with the
flange.
The determination of the actual
stress and strain in the prestressing
steel at ultimate requires also the
knowledge of a relation between stress
and strain as derived from compatibility
of strain and equilibrium of the section.
The derivation procedure for rec-
tangular sections can be found in Refs.
3, 12-15. It is generalized here to in-
clude auxiliary non-prestressed rein-
forcement and T-type sections.
 RECTANGULAR TEE OR DOUBLE TEE I FORCES AT ULTIMATE
It o.esf c
b-bw
b I - bw --- J_ --- f =
Asfcs , { cs J
fY
C^ As a^ ^_^hf ^IC
NA -l, - -------- ------------------- --- ---- o.eaf^bO,C or
:GC d 0.85f^(b-b^hf
e- -^
As ^^f
TENSILE
.,,.....4
0.85f^b
c w^c

AsAS FORCE'Apsfps + ASfts [f

,s i fYJ

TENSION ..l---j I I . COMPRESSION

0.003 IF ACI CODE

C f --- STRAIN N
CONCRETE
fps UNDER
CONCRETE AT ULTIMATE d
MOMENT CAFACITY^,^ECU Ece
---

`ps
1 I TENSI%
`se
STRAIN IN
PRESTRESSEDI fps 0
STEEL

Fig. 1. Assumed forces and strains at ultimate capacity of prestressed beam

sections.

Stress-strain relation as derived E,.e = compressive strain in concrete

from compatibility and equilibrium at level of steel under effective
Referring to the strain diagram in prestress
the concrete at ultimate capacity (Fig. E 8 = tensile strain in prestressing

1), it can be shown 13 "4 that the dis- steel at ultimate capacity of
tance from the top fiber to the neutral beam
axis is given by: Note, that for a given beam cross
section, Eq. (1) is a relation between
C=( Eu I d (1) c and Eps as all other terms are known.
\Cps + Eu E .s, Ecc/ In general, E,,, is small as compared to
where the other terms and could be neglected.
An additional equation translating
d = distance from top fiber to cen- the equilibrium of tensile and compres-
troid of tensile force sive forces in the section at ultimate
E,, = extreme fiber compressive strain capacity (Fig. 1) can be written, but
of concrete at ultimate (as- its form depends on whether the sec-
sumed equal to 0.003 in ACI tion behaves as a rectangular section
Code) or as a T section.
E,Ye = tensile strain in prestressing If the section behaves at ultimate
steel under effective prestress as a rectangular section the equilibrium

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1977 35



condition leads to the following equa- It can be shown' that if the section
tion: behaves at ultimate as a T section the
A po fps + A s Its relation between fp,, and Ep, takes the
0.85 f'r. b 13 1 c + A's f' c a
(2) following form:
where fps is the tensile stress in the x 0.85 f3 1 f' ebwd^ X
prestressing steel at ultimate moment fns=[
capacity, f, is the tensile stress in the Aps
non-prestressed tensile steel (Its G fy) Euu +
and f' G , is the compressive stress in the [Eps+EuEseEce
non-prestressed compression steel (f',,
G fp) 0.85 f c(b bw) hf + A' sf cs Asfts
Generally, f5 equals f, at ultimate Aps
(5)
while f',, can be substantially different.
Other symbols of Eq. (2) are standard where f' s , and ft5 can also be replaced
and can be found in Appendix III. by their values from Eq. (4).
Note that this equation can easily Whether a rectangular section or a
be modified to accommodate concretes T section behavior exists at ultimate,
for which the dimensional factors of the relation between fps and E 5 given
the stress block are different. by Eq. (3) or (5) can be reduced to the
following most general form:
Eliminating c from Eq. (1) and (2)
leads to the following relation between _ A
fps and Ep,: fps E
CEpa -I- D (6)
pa -I- B +

0.85 f3 f' ebd X where A, B, C, and D are parameters

fps
Ap8 depending on materials characteristics,
effective prestress and geometric prop-
E,, + erties of the section.
i
[Eps+EuE;reEce
The graphical representations of Eq.
(A'sfes A;fts) (3) (6) corresponding to various cases
Aps where C and D can take on zero or
non-zero values are shown in Fig. 2.
In this relation f' e , and f3 are func-
tions of Eps provided their actual value Steel stress-strain
is less than their y eld limit. relation
Referring to the strain diagrams in Eq. (6) relating the stress f p3 and
Fig. I it can be shown that f',, and f is the strain Ep5 in the prestressing steel
are given by: at ultimate capacity of the section has
been primarily derived from considera-
d' tions of equilibrium and linear strain
Es Ei a+ d X distribution in the concrete section.
f"'
Actual values of fps and E, s must
d' (4) also satisfy the stress-strain relation of
(e,+ Ece Eu) a Ep S ?J
the prestressing steel. The problem is
the same as having two equations with
Its E s( Eps Ese' Eee) G fii
two unknowns and solving for these
where E 3 is the modulus of elasticity of unknowns.
conventional non-prestressed reinforce- As these equations are generally of
ment. a high order, charts are developed for

36
 TYPICAL RELATION AS DERIVED
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION
FROM EQUILIBRIUM

_ A
fPS C B BI Equilibrium

A>0
Stress
B<0 4 I Strain

Rectangular beams with pre-

stressed reinforcement only,
A 0 cps
gs '

A
fps a +B + C BI
ps Equilibrium
C<0
a Stres
IS
Rectangular beam with Aps , As 4-p' t Strain
and/or AS when fts = fy and/or
fp s = fl',

TEE beam: with Aps only C

TEE beam: with Aps, A s and/or 0 E
A's when f = f y and/or f'cs = fy gs

+D
fps = c A + B + Cc
p

Rectangular beam with Aps , As

and/or As when Its <fy and/or s-
f' <f' y
Cs

TEE beam with Aps , As and/or ID_

A s' when fts < f y and/or 11 ai
0 ps
f <s fY
p

Fig. 2. Typical relations between stress and strain in prestressing steel as

derived from equilibrium and compatibility.

their solution such as, for example, in
References 15 and 17 and in the PCI
Design Handbook (Reference 18, Fig.
5.25); they lead, for purely prestressed
beams, to the stress in the prestressing
steel at ultimate; but they do not cover
the case where auxiliary non-pre-
stressed reinforcement is used.
In this case a graphical solution (Fig.
2) can, in general, be obtained4,13.15
by determining the point of intersection
of a curve representing Eq. (6) with
the stress-strain curve of the prestress-
ing steel.
The graphical solution, however, is
not very suitable if a repetitive analy-
sis is to be performed with many cross-
sectional shapes, types of prestressing
steel and different values of prestressed
and non-prestressed reinforcement ra-
tios. The use of a computerized nu-
merical technique such as the one ex-
plained below becomes a necessary tool
for solution.

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1977 37



Using a polynomial fit 19,20 for the

Numerical Technique middle portion, the stress-strain curve
of Solution of a typical prestressing strand (diame-
ter 0.50 in.; strength = 270 ksi; elastic
There are two aspects of the numer- modulus = 27,890 ksi; ultimate strain
ical technique as used here; the first is = 0.070; produced by Kurt Orban
to find a numerical equation which Company) was represented by the fol-
adequately represents the stress-strain lowing equations:
curve of the prestressing steel espe-
cially in its non-linear portion; the sec- f =27890 for 0G 1-0.006
ond is to find the point of intersection f = 259 + 196.43(E 0.014)
of two curves, namely, Eq. (6) and the for 0.014<1-0.070
stress-strain relation. f = 167.34 + 254.68443
This point of intersection leads to [100( 0.006)]
the solution sought, i.e., the compatible 37.19658 [100( (7)
values of f,8 and ep,g at ultimate. 0.006)] 2 419.53833
[100( 0.006) ] 3 +
Curve fitting 308.89136[100(
The stress-strain curve of the pre- 0.006)]! for 0.006 <
stressing steel was approximated by e G 0.014
three equations, two of them linear,
representing the initial and final por- The maximum error between actual
tion of the curve, and one non-linear stress value and the value estimated
representing the middle portion (see from the polynomial equation is
Fig. 3). around 0.4 percent.

PRESTRESSING STRAND
(270 KS I)
?50 I LINEAR

200
y
of PRESTRESSING
0) NON LINEAR PORTION BAR (160 KSI)
1^
150 .
I
F (POLYNOMIAL FIT]

100 NL

LINEAR REINFORCING BAR

f =EE
50

0.
0. 0.010 0.020 0.030

STRAIN

Fig. 3. Stress-strain curves of prestressed and con-

ventional steel as used in numerical fits.

38


Another type of prestressing steel, f = 28750E for 0 G E G 0.004

namely, a prestressing bar (diameter f = 144.90 + 503.33(E 0.010)
= 1.25 in.; strength = 160 ksi; elastic for 0.010 < E G 0.040
modulus = 28,750 ksi; ultimate strain f = 115.0 + 244J2300{100(
-^- 0.055, produced by Stressteel 0.004)] 896,22266
(8)
Corp.) was also used in the numerical [100( 0.004)] 2 +
examples. 1521.94995 [ 100(E -
Its actual stress-strain curve was ap- 0.004)] 3 946.56592
proximated by the following linear and [100( 0.004)] 4
polynomial equations: for 0.004 < e 0.010

GIVEN MATERIALS CHARACTERISTICS

AND CROSS SECTION PROPERTIES

Bl = 0.85
6 1 = 0.85 YES f- 5 4000. psi NO
- 5x 10 -5 (f! -4000.)

1 6 se f/E
5e s
Af
c = s se (l +
ce AE r2 Plot: fps= E+B +Ceps+D
a u = 0.003 if ACI Code ps
on graph containing stress-
strain curve of steel and
select the point of inter-
Design First as Rectangular Section section as compatible value
0.85B l f'bd cu for fps:
Ifps Aps cps + c u - c se - Ece f
+ (A s fCS -A sf)/Aps
ts
d
ps
w '
peps
strain
Use Compatible Value of f ps to Compute:
A f A f A'f'
_ ps ps + s is _ s cs I OR T SECTION
q bdfc bdfc bdf,
where d is average for A As

DESIGN AS
1.18 qd/8 1 S hf ?--YES RECTANGULAR
SECTION

0.855 f1 bd
w eu
f ps Aps Eps c - E se - Ece
[0.85f b-b)h + A CS
' -ASft51/As USE COMPATIBLE'
* c w f s
VALUE OF fps TO
COMPUTE ULTIMATE
Plot: f ps= E A + B Cc ps +D as for I RESISTING MOMENT,
ps
rectangular section and select new fps

NO \ NEW VALUE OF L CLOSE

TO f INITIALLY USED /j- YES
PS

Fig. 4. Flow chart to determine stress in prestressing steel at ultimate for

bonded members.

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1977 39



1
0
9 f > O.SfGET EXACT f ps FROM
se pu NO
CII FLOW CHART FIG. 4
p =A /bd
11 YES
p ps
(On f = f5e
ps 10,000. + Pp = Aps/bd
100p
O 5 fp`, p
NOBONDED MEMBERYES f
+ 60,000. f = fp (1-O.SP
p f ^)
yC1 < fse ps u
(D c

n O A f A f A'f'
-s _ is s s s
3 y
bdfAf
c + bdf
c
bdf
c
NO PRESTRESSED
YES=A
REINFORCEMENT ONLY q p bdf'
fD p 0' WW
+- , c

fp yUse here and in following steps

average d for A ps and As
O
3 p I OR T SECTIONNO
C'
CD
3 1 =0.85(b-b )h f'/f
y - ' pf w f c Ps ; hf mo w, b/ W AS
b-b YES

p1 .A w =A -A f > 0
pa
n p p ^ DESIGN AS
O y < hYES
ALL + Asfy AsfY ^f A 1.18
NO RECTANGULAR
fl. IC qw bwdf' bwdfc'p As
bwdf''
Bl f SECTION
3 3
(0 O

ONO YES
qw 5 0.30 q <_ 0.30
NO YES
.H.

O co
C W OVER REINFORCED
NORMALLY OR UNDER REINFORCED
OVER REINFORCED
NORMALLY OR UNDER REINFORCED
cD

Mu= I0.25fc'bw d 2 = d(1 -O) Mu = 0I0.25f,'bd 2Mu = $[A ps fps d ( I - 0.59q)

-'CL Mu (1 85
V O
s O. 0. f'(b-b
c )h (d-h /2) + 0.SSf'(b-b )h (d-h /2) A'f'(d-d')] A f d(1 - 0.59q)]
w f f c w f f s y s y

A'f'
sy
(d-d')] A sf d(1 - 0.59gw)]
t

fl1 Note: In the exact analysis f y and fY should be replaced by f ts < f y and fp s s fy .
 Here the maximum error between
input stress and stress estimated from
the polynomial is around 1 percent.
Intersection of two curves
The point of intersection of the two
curves representing Eq. (6) and (7)
or (8) was obtained using the Newton-
Raphson's numerical technique.19,20
In this technique convergence is very
fast (quadratic), and only a few itera-
tions are needed. For the results de-
scribed below, the stress in the pre-
stressing steel at ultimate was deter-
mined with an accuracy of 0.1 ksi.
Test Examples
A computer program was written im-
plementing the preceding analysis. For
a given prestressed and partially pre-
stressed rectangular or T section, the
program leads to the values of stress
and strain in the prestressing steel at
ultimate behavior as well as the ulti-
mate moment, curvature and other rele-
vant parameters. Corresponding values
using the design procedure suggested
by the ACI Code are also computed for
direct comparison.
Two relevant flow charts of the com-
puter program may be of interest to the
reader and are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.
The first chart describes the pro-
cedure to determine the stress in the
prestressing steel at ultimate capacity
d'= 2
i
48'
Fig. 6. Cross sections of beams used in examples.
PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1977
by strain compatibility and the second
one describes the steps for the ultimate
moment design of prestressed and par-
tially prestressed sections according
to the ACI specifications.)
This latter chart can also be used
to determine the ultimate moment ca-
pacity according to the procedure de-
scribed in this paper, provided the
value of f s and the corresponding val-
ues of in G f, and f', G f' as derived
from strain compatibility are used.
Two beam cross-sectional shapes, a
rectangular and box-type section
(which behave as a T at ultimate) are
used to illustrate the results obtained
by the above non-linear analysis. Their
dimensions are given in Fig. 6.
In the following figures, where ob-
served results are described, reference
to Rectangular or T relates directly to
one of these two beams and indicate
trends expected on similar shapes of
beams.
Furthermore, reference to f p,,, = 270
ksi and f,,, = 160 ksi relates to the
prestressing strand and the prestressing
bar described in the previous section
on "curve fitting," for which the stress-
strain relationships are respectively
given by Eq. (7) and (8).
Conventional non-prestressed rein-
forcement is assumed to have a yield
strength of 60 ksi and to have an elasto-
plastic stress-strain relation as shown in
Fig. 3. A typical design example is
treated in Appendix II.
d'2. IN.
d=45 IN.
A C 784 IN?
["227549 IN4
5'1
41

Analysis of Results
Most relevant test results are de-
scribed graphically in Figs. 7 to 12.
The first series of results relates to the
variation of the stress in the prestress-
ing steel at ultimate behavior of the
section, fps.
Fig. 7 shows the variation of fps
versus the prestressed reinforcement
ratio for two different values of con-
crete compressive strength f', and two
values of effective prestress, f se.
Also, the ACI recommended value of
fps for bonded members is plotted on
It can be seen that the ACI equa-
tion, as usually expected from a code
specification is quite conservative. For
example, for p, = 0.4 percent a differ-
ence of 7 percent in stress is observed
between the value of fp. proposed by
ACI and the value predicted by the
present analysis.
However, this relatively small differ-
ence in stress leads to more than 35
percent difference in strain and a simi-
lar large discrepancy may be expected
in computing curvature, rotation or de-
flection.
Note, too, that a 7 percent difference

the same figure and corresponds to
the following equation:
fPSfeu[1-0.5p^f-1
in stress leads to about an equal dif-
ference in the amount of steel required
and the corresponding cost (see also the
example in Appendix II).
(9)
The influence on j a concrete

RECT. BEAM fpU=270.KSI, e10.003

260 fSe =0.s5 xfpu

c fc = 6000. PSI

250 fSe =0.55 xfpu

fC =5000.PSI

f se =0.45 x fpu
240
y
N
L f^= 5000.PSI
n.
230

G ACI
CODE
220 FOR f >0.5xfpu
f^ = 5000 PSI.

210

0.006
0.004
0.002 0.008
0.010

PRESTRESSED REINFORCEMENT RATIO, PP

Fig. 7. Influence of concrete compressive strength and

effective prestress on f.

42
having a compressive strain at ultimate
different from the ACI recommended
value of 0.003 is explored in Fig. 8.
It can be seen that the code recom-
mended value of f,1 allows for a rea-
sonable range of variation of e,, with-
out loss of safety. However, here too a
slight difference in the value of f
lead to a substantial difference in strain
and curvature.
Fig. 9 shows the influence of non-
prestressed tensile and compressive re-
inforcement on the value of f, for the
rectangular and the T section of Fig. 6.
The ACI recommended value of Eq.
(9) is also plotted for comparison.
It can be observed that the trend
predicted by the ACI equation for the
rectangular section is well followed
over a wide range of variation of the
260
250
240
230
N
220
210
200
PRESTRESSED REINFORCEMENT RATIO, pP
Fig. 8. Influence of ultimate concrete compressive strain on fps.
PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1977
prestressed reinforcement ratio pp . This
is not the case, however, for the T
section at relatively large and not very
common values of pp.
This result may be due to the defi-
nition of the prestressed reinforcement
ratio for T sections, pp = Aps /bd,
where b is the flange width. This ratio
is the same as for an equivalent rec-
tangular section of width b.
Actually if p P keeps increasing and
the section behaves as a T section, the
corresponding reinforcement ratio of
the web alone A,,,/b,u d increases at a
much faster rate than pp and thus the
stress and strain in the prestressing
steel decrease at a faster rate than for
the equivalent rectangular section.
Similar trends on T sections were
observed when different prestressing
43
 RECT. BEAM
fc
= 5000. Si
p
f
fU= 27o ksi
260 =

fse = 0.55 x fpU

eu =0.003
240
ACI
N
/p=0.006
p=0
- 220
N p'= 0.
d p=0.
=0,
200 p= 0.006

.002

T BEAM ff =5000. psi

fps =27o ksi
fS e=0.55 x fpa
260

ACI CODE
N 240
Y

N
a-
220
(p' "0., p=oJ

(po, p=o.002)
200

0.001 0,002 0.003 0,004 0,005

PRESTRESSED REINFORCEMENT RATIO, pP

Fig. 9. Influence of non-prestressed reinforcement on fps.

steels or different effective prestress = Eu = (Eps + Ell E ve Ece)

were used, but they are not shown
herein. It is interesting to note that
this is a unique case where the ACI
Code is on the unsafe side.
The influence of prestressed and non-
prestressed reinforcement ratios on the
curvature of rectangular and T sections
at ultimate is shown in Fig. 10. The
curvature has been computed from the
following equation:
(10)
c d
which could also be derived from
Eq. (1).
If on Fig. 10 one plots the curvature
at ultimate using E1)8 corresponding to
the fps predicted by ACI Eq. (9) it will
almost follow the lower curve for both
the rectangular and T section. How-
ever, it was not plotted to keep the
figure clear.

44


RECT, BEAM fps =27o ksi

16 f' =5000.psi

fSe =0,55 X fpu

'c 12
7o
x
w
8 o- (p=0,p =o)

o (p'=o,p= 0.006)
U
4

0
.002
.004
06
.008
.010

11

T BEAM
12

x 8
o- (p=o,002,p =o)
w
DI.- 0- (p=O,P=o)
0 (p=0, p=0,002)
o4

PRESTRESSED REINFORCEMENT RATIO, pp

Fig. 10. Influence of non-prestressed reinforcement on

curvature at ultimate.

It can be concluded from Fig. 10 observed that the theoretical ultimate

that the higher the prestressed rein-
forcement ratio the smaller the influ-
ence of non-prestressed reinforcement
on curvature and the more accurate
the curvature predicted from ACI Eq.
(9).
In the numerical tests carried in this
study with various beam cross-sectional
shapes and ratios of prestressed and
non-prestressed steel, it was generally
moment capacity predicted by ACI was
less than 10 percent smaller than the
value derived from the present analysis.
This conclusion confirms the 7 per-
cent average difference observed in ac-
tual tests as reported by Mattock.4
However, as can be observed in Fig.
11, a severe restriction on ultimate mo-
ment is applied by ACI for "over-rein-
forced" beams with prestressed and

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1977 45

 RECT. BEAM fp0= 270. KSI , fSe=0.55 X fpu
f8 = 5000 PSI
8

6
M OVERREINFORC
0
X
4
z
a
Y p=0.0
Z
W2
O
a
7
W 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010

78

6p'=0.006

0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010

PRESTRESSED REINFORCEMENT RATIO,pp

Fig. 11. Comparison of ultimate moment by ACI

Code and present analysis.

non-prestressed tensile reinforcement. amount of compressive reinforcement

In this figure a capacity modification
factor of 0.9 has been used for all val-
ues of moments.
In computing the reinforcement in-
dex according to ACI, it is assumed
that the compressive steel yields; this
assumption does not seriously affect the
ultimate moment capacity. Fig. 12 illus-
trates the actual variation of the stress
in the non-prestressed compressive
steel at ultimate for the rectangular
section.
It can be seen that the higher the
and the lower the strength of the pre-
stressing steel, the higher the pre-
stressed reinforcement ratio necessary
to assure yielding of compressive steel.
In order to illustrate the influence of
non-prestressed tensile or compressive
reinforcement we have used each of
them separately in combination with
prestressed reinforcement. Let us note
that if they are used simultaneously
they tend to compensate each other's
effects on the stress in the prestressing
steel and the curvature at ultimate.

46
 RECT. BEAM

_fpu =270. KSI , fSe =o.58 xfpu

___fpu =160. KSI fSe =0.45 Xfpu

60

N
O 40

20

I/
0
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012

PRESTRESSED REINFORCEMENT RATIO , p

P

Fig. 12. Typical variation of the stress in non-prestressed

compressive steel.

Conclusion NOTE
The use of computerized numerical
Three Appendices follow:
Appendix I presents a
techniques to model and analyze the
numerical comparison of
behavior of prestressed and partially four methods of analysis.
prestressed concrete beams in the non- Appendix II contains a
linear range may become a useful and design example solved
efficient design tool when such infor- using three different
mation is necessary. approaches.
Once a model has been proven satis- Appendix III summarizes
factory, the influence of many para- the notation used.
meters can be qualitatively and quanti- Lastly, a list of
tatively analyzed, thus substantially re- references is given.
ducing the amount of experimental
work which would otherwise be re-
quired.
From a practical viewpoint, the cost
of a more accurate method of analysis Discussion of this paper is invited.
may be largely offset by the savings on Please forward your discussion to
the amount of steel used. PCI Headquarters by July 1, 1977.

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1977 47

 APPENDIX I-COMPARISON OF METHODS
OF ANALYSIS

The exact method of non-linear crete (i.e., f e,), E. the corresponding

analysis was applied to prestressed con- strain, and n a material parameter.
crete beams using the stress-strain The recommended values of E and
curve of prestressing steel say from Eq. n for normal. weight conerete 1 are
(7), and that of concrete provided by ,,riven by:
Popovics9 1 and given by:
=2.7X10 - 4 X 4 f
(12)
()(k)1;()fl (H) n=0.4X10- 3Xf+1
and were used in the example de-
where f is the peak stress in the con- scribed in Table 1.

Table 1. Typical results using different methods of analysis.*

REINFORCEMENT METHOD OF ANALYSIS MOMENT STRESS STRAIN CURVATURE

RATIOS AT ULTIMATE $ Mu fps eps
kip-in. ksi in. x 10

Exact Nonlinear 2348 261.1 0.02472 10.6

pp = 0.002 present Nonlinear 2332 260.9 0.02203 9.31
P = 0 PCI Handbook (=261)
p = 255.4 0.01172 4.40
ACI *0 2286

Exact Nonlinear 2859 260.2 0.02014 8.40

P p = 0.002
P = 0.002 present Nonlinear 2818 260.0 0.01843 7.59

p' = 0 ACI 2781 255.4 0.01172 4.40

Exact Nonlinear 2357 261.5 0.02676 11.6

P p = 0.002
p = 0 present Nonlinear 2359 261.2 0.02425 10.36
p' = 0.002
ACI 2320 255.4 0.01172 4.40

Exact Nonlinear 4374 258.5 0.01370 5.30

P p = 0.004 Present Nonlinear 4310 257.5 0.01255 4.71
P =0 PCI Handbook (=254)
= 240.8 0.00968 3.35
ACT 4067

Exact Nonlinear 5188 256.1 0.01200 4.50

p p = 0.004
P = 0.004 present Nonlinear 5060 251.3 0.01084 3.90
P' = 0
ACI 4917 240.8 0.00968 3.35

Exact Nonlinear 4501 260.0 0.01917 8.28

p p = 0.004 259.6 0.01708 6.87
present Nonlinear 4464
P = 0
p' = 0.004 ACI 4197 240.8 0.00968 ,35

*For the rectangular section of Fig. 4 with f, = 5000 psi; r pu = 270 ksi; f Se = 0.55 fpu
and y = f^, = 60 ksi.
For this method the strain was obtained from the corresponding stress on the
stress-strain curve. The stress was computed from Equation (9).

48
 In the less than exact non-linear
analysis described in this study it was
assumed that the forces and strains in
the concrete at ultimate are well ap-
proximated by the ACI assumptions
(Fig. 1) while the exact stress-strain
curve of the prestressing steel [see Eq.
(7)] is considered.
Using the ACI Code allows the ap-
proximation of not only the forces in
the concrete at ultimate but also in the
prestressing steel through the use of
Eq. (9).
Typical results obtained by using the
three above described methods are
shown in Table 1. Also shown are the
stresses in the prestressing steel for
purely prestressed sections as derived
from the PCI Design Handbook, Fig.
5.2.5.
APPENDIX IIDESIGN EXAMPLE
Consider a prestressed concrete rec-
tangular slab with dimensions given in
Fig. 6 (assuming a 1-ft wide strip) for
which: f', = 5000 psi; fv ,, = 270 ksi;
Ise = 0.55 f,, and f5 = f'y = 60 ksi.
Assume that the ultimate moment
required at the critical section is equal
to 425 ft-kips and that conditions at
ultimate control the design. Several
solutions can be derived as follows:
(a) Using the ACI Code approach
(see flowchart Fig. 5) for purely pre-
stressed sections and after few itera-
tions leads to:
p P = 0.0055 ep4 = 0.0890
Ap, = 1.38 sq in. q = 0.253
f ps = 229.90
Factorized moment capacity =
(PM,, = 427 ft-kips (ok)
(b) Using the strain compatibility
procedure described in the text leads
to:
pp = 0.005 es = 0.01085
Ass = 1.26 sq in. q = 0.251
fr, 251.3ksi
PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1977
It can be seen that although com-
parable values of ultimate moments are
obtained by the three procedures, sub-
stantial differences in strains and curva-
tures at ultimate exist between the ACI
method and the others.
It can also be observed that the ex-
act non-linear analysis and the less than
exact present non-linear analysis lead to
substantially similar results over a wide
range of variation of prestressed and
non-prestressed reinforcement ratios.
Note that the results of the exact
non-linear analysis are dependent on
the equation predicting the stress-strain
curve of the concrete. Eq. (11), for
example, may not be accurate enough
in predicting the descending branch of
the stress-strain curve in the range of
interest.
Factorized moment capacity =
= 425 ft-kips (ok).
Note that this solution which is
also accepted by the ACI Code results
in about 9 per cent savings in the
amount of prestressing steel required.
This is due primarily to the more ac-
curate estimation of the value of fp,g.
The value of fp,s can also be determined
in this case from the PCI Handbook,
Fig. 5.2.5, which leads to f5, = 250 ksi.
(c) Using a combination of pre-
stressed and non-prestressed tensile re-
inforcement, the same ultimate mo-
ment capacity can be achieved and
leads, using the ACI Code approach,
to:
p p = 0.004 p = 0.0049
fps = 240.8 ksi A, = 1.24 sq in.
A5, = 1.01 sq in. q = 0.253
while the more accurate analysis with
the same prestressed reinforcement
ratio leads to fP = 250.3 ksi and an
area of non-prestressed tensile steel
49
A s - 1.09 sq in. about 12 percent
smaller than in the previous case.
Note that the PCI Design Handbook
does not include a chart for f pg when
APPENDIX IIINOTATION
a = B,c, depth of equivalent rec-
tangular stress block
A58 = area of prestressing steel
A8 = area of non-prestressed tension
reinforcement
A' 8 = area of non-prestressed com-
pression reinforcement
b = width of flange of flanged mem-
ber or of rectangular member
= width of web of flanged mem-
ber
= 0.85 if f', G 4000 psi
i31 = 0.85 5 x 10 - 5 (f' 0
4000) if f' 8 > 4000 psi
c = distance from extreme compres-
sion fiber to neutral axis
d = distance from extreme compres-
sion fiber to centroid of pre-
stressing steel or to combined
centroid when non-prestressed
tension reinforcement is in-
eluded
d' = distance from extreme compres-
sion fiber to centroid of com-
pressive reinforcement
E3 = modulus of elasticity of non- 4)
prestressed steel if different
from E55
E, = modulus of elasticity of con-
crete
E53 = modulus of elasticity of pre-
stressing steel
E = strain in general
E Ce = concrete strain at centroid of p
prestressing steel due to effec-
tive prestress
= equivalent concrete strain at
centroid of prestressing steel, pp
at ultimate flexural capacity
E ps = strain in prestressing steel at co
ultimate flexural capacity
Eye = strain in prestressing steel due wp
50
auxiliary non-prestressed reinforcement
is used. Note also that most of the
above results can be estimated from
Figs. 9 and 11.
to effective prestress f86
E,,, = concrete strain at ultimate on
extreme compression fiber
f = stress in general
fp,g = average stress in prestressing
steel at ultimate load capacity,
psi
f p ,^ = ultimate strength of prestressing
steel, psi
fse = effective stress in prestressing
steel after losses, psi
f is = tensile stress in the non-pre-
stressed tensile reinforcement,
ksi, Its ' Iv
fy = yield strength of non-prestressed
conventional reinforcement in
tension
f' 8 = specified compressive strength
of concrete, psi
f' 6s = compressive stress in non-pre-
stressed compression reinforce-
ment,' firs
f' = yield strength of non-prestressed
conventional reinforcement in
compression
= capacity modification factor
= curvature of section
hf = average thickness of flange of a
flanged member
q = top + co co', reinforcing index
of a rectangular member or of a
flanged member designed as a
rectangular member
= A$/bd, ratio of non-prestressed
tension reinforcement
p' = A's/bd, ratio of compression re-
inforcement
= A58/bd, ratio of prestressed re-
inforcement
=
co' =
= ppfp8/f'c
 References
1. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Con-
crete (ACI 318-71)," American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, 1971, Chap-
ter 18.
2. AASHTO, Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges, Section 5Rein-
forced Concrete, American Associa-
tion of State Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials, Washington, D. C.,
1973.
3. Janney, J. R., Hognestad, E., and
McHenry, D., "Ultimate Flexural
Strength of Prestressed and Conven-
tially Reinforced Concrete Beams,"
ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 52,
January 1956, pp. 601-617.
4. Mattock, A. H., Kriz, L. B., and Hog-
nestad, E., "Rectangular Concrete
Stress Distribution in Ultimate
Strength Design," AC/ Journal, Pro-
ceedings V. 57, February 1961, pp.
877-928.
5. Abeles, P. W., "Design of Partially-
Prestressed Concrete Beams," ACI
Journal, Proceedings V. 64, No. 10,
October 1967, pp. 669-677.
6. Heimdahl, P., and Bianchini, A. C.,
"Ultimate Strength of Beams Rein-
forced with Steel Having no Definite
Yield Point," AC/ Journal, Proceed-
ings V. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1974, pp.
600-603.
7. Aswad, A., "Strand Savings Using
Strain Compatibility in Strength De-
sign," PCI JOURNAL, V. 21, No. 2,
March-April 1976, pp. 78-81.
8. Burns, N. H., "Moment Curvature Re-
lationships for Partially Prestressed
Concrete Beams," PCI JOURNAL,
V. 9, No. 1, February 1964, pp. 52-63.
9. Popovics, S., "A Review of Stress-
Strain Relationships for Concrete,"
ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 67, No.
3, March 1970, pp. 243-248.
10. Popovics, S., "A Numerical Approach
to the Complete Stress-Strain Curve
of Concrete," Cement and Concrete
Research, V. 3, No. 5, Sept. 1973,
pp. 583-598.
PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1977 51
11. ACI Committee 318, "Commentary on
Building Code Requirement for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-71),"
American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1971, Chapter 18.
12. Abeles, P. W., Introduction to Pre-
stressed Concrete, V. 2, Concrete
Publications Ltd., London, 1966, pp.
457-462.
13. Khachaturian, N., and Gurfinkel, G.,
Prestressed Concrete, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1969, pp. 72-122.
14. Libby, J. R., Modern Prestressed
Concrete: Design Principles and Con-
struction Methods, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York, 1971, pp.
109-128.
15. Warwaruk, J., Sozen, M., and Siess,
C. P., "Investigation of Prestressed
Reinforced Concrete for Highway
Bridges: Part 3: Strength and Behav-
ior in Flexure of Prestressed Con-
crete Beams," Bulletin 464, Engi-
neering Experiment Station, Univer-
sity of Illinois, Urbana, 1962, pp. 105.
16. Naaman, A. E., "Computerized De-
sign at Ultimate of Prestressed and
Partially Prestressed Beams," Pro-
ceedings, 5th Panamerican Sympo-
sium on Structures, IMME, Universi-
dad Central de Venezuela, Caracas,
Dec. 8-12, 1975.
17. Beeby, A. W., and Taylor, H. P. J.,
"Cracking and Deformations of Par-
tially Prestressed Concrete Beams,"
Cement and Concrete Association,
Technical Report No. 42.465, Janu-
ary 1972, 26 pp.
18. PCI Design HandbookPrecast and
Prestressed Concrete, Prestressed
Concrete Institute, Chicago, 1971,
Fig. 5.2.5.
19. Acton, F. A., Numerical Methods
That Work, Harper and Row, Pub-
lishers, New York, N.Y., 1970.
20. Dahlquist, G., and Bjorck, A., Nu-
merical Methods, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1974.