1. Yes, fse “consumes” compressive capacity for PM computation.

However, that is just

one point in the PM diagram. Accounting for “fse” has beneficial effects when
looking at tensile capacity and flexure capacity.
2. Regardless of how the loads are considered in the model, if you want to compute
the PM diagrams correctly, prestressing tendons should be considered. This is not
difficult to do, as tendons are just an additional layer of reinforcement, whose stress
is determined by the initial stress + change in stress.
3. I do not agree with your statement about “Change in prestress, Δfp”. It seems you
might have confused Δfp with Δfps. Please see ACI extract below. I would remove
that paragraph.

4. As said, it is very simple to compute the current stress at the tendons following your
strain compatibility approach. For any given neutral axis depth “c”, you can work out
the Δεp as you do for normal steel. Then, the stress in the tendon is:
a. fp = fse + Δfp = fse + Δεp*Ep
5. Assuming you have successfully computed the PM diagrams for the prestressed
member, then it is time to think how these could be considered in the context of
your model, and the fact that prestressing is already being considered as external
loading. A potential approach to overcome the problem of double-counting the
prestress effects would be to actually add the primary effects of PS (i.e. PS and PS*e)
to the diagram.
6. I have amended your spreadsheet called “[A1]PMdiagram_verification” to include
the effects of prestress, so you are encouraged to have a look at the attached. I have
highlighted in yellow all cells that I have modified. I have compared 3 cases as shown
below (from sheet DIAGRAMS).

1000
800 (φPn, φMn)
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-200
-400
-600
Not prestressed
-800
Prestressed with eccentricity
-1000
Prestressed no eccentricity
-1200
 7. If we accept the approach of adding the primary effects to the PM diagram, then the
new graphs will be as shown below:

1200

1000 (φPn + PS, φMn+ PS*e)

800

600

400

200

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-200

-400 Not prestressed

Series2
-600
Series3
-800

8. As you can see above, ignoring the contribution of prestress (blue diagram) would
be quite conservative in this example.
9. Regarding the implementation in the wizard, users should be careful with:
a. The PM diagrams would be valid for a specific prestressed condition.
Possibly we should use the long-term condition, as the prestress will be
smaller.
b. When looking at combinations, PM results would only really make sense for
combinations that include prestress loading.
10. Another alternative to avoid double-count the prestress effects would be:
a. Use the PM diagram derived normally (but including prestress)
b. Compare it to results in the model but subtract first the primary effects from
prestress. That is Nx’ = Nx – PS and Mx’ = Mx – PS*e.
11. In summary, I see two options:
a. Magnify the PM diagram by adding PS and PS*e and compare it to Nx,Mx
from the model results.
b. Keep the PM diagram and compare it to Nx’, Mx’.
12. Finally, yes, fse would be required for shear resistance, regardless of how prestress
sis applied in the model. I think the intention of the equations from Table 22.5.8.2 is
to allow users to increase the contribution from concrete to shear resistance.
Concrete resistance to shear depends on the level of cracking expected. When we
have a prestressed section, cracking is expected to be much less than in a normal
reinforce section, hence the equations from Table 22.5.8.2. will generally result in
larger resistance.