Professional Documents
Culture Documents
f:.
January-February 1997
References
I. ASTM Designation C31, "Standard Practice for Making and
Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field," ASTM Standards
V. 04.02, American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1995.
2. AASHTO Designation T23, "Standard Practice for Making and
Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field," AASHTO Standard Specification, Part II Tests, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1993.
3. "Cylinders Strength and IQ," Portland Cement Association
Newsletter, March 1996, Skokie, IL.
[Contributed by Xiaoming Huo, Ph.D. Candidate, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nebraska-Lincoln and
Maher K. Tadros, Cheryl Prewett Professor, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.]
.
r
r'.
(1)
I~
c=fJEc;
(3)
Substituting for fpi = 189 ksi (1303 MPa), Aps = 3.06 in. 2
(1974 mm 2) , Ag = 324 in. 2 (209044 tnm 2 ), n = Ep/Eci =
7.945, the following results are obtained:
f c = 1.68 ksi (11.58 MPa) or f c = 0.48fri
= 467
Number of strands
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
1.00
Stress
Ratio
0.80
0.60
OR
0.40
Strain
Ratio
0.20
E I Ecu
0.00
Fig. 6. Release stresses and strains in an 18 x 18 in. (457 x 457 mm) section using linear analysis.
96
PCI JOURNAL
(4)
E0 =
Ecu
0.00225
= 0.003
(5)
Discussion of Results
(6)
/poAps = f cAc
Combining Eqs. (5) and (6), the concrete stress after release:
(7)
Number of strands
20
1.00
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
Stress
Ratio
0.80
0.60
OR
Strain
Ratio
0.40
0.20
0.00
Fig. 8. Release stresses and strains in an 18 x 18 in . (457 x 457 mm) section using nonlinear analysis.
January-February 1997
97
Number of strands
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
1.00
Stress
ratio
0.80
0.60
Linear
crushing limit
OR
I
I
0.40
-'
Strain
ratio
0.20
- - - - Linear analysis
- - - Nonlinear analysis
0.00
Recommendations
At this time, the authors cannot make definitive recommendations. The PCI Standard Design Practice report prepared jointly by the PCI Technical Activities Council and
the PCI Committee on Building Code6 indicates that the initial compression is frequently permitted to go higher than
0.6fc' in order to avoid debonding or depressing strands. It
also states that no problems have been reported by allowing
compression as high as 0.75//;. Readers are encouraged to
communicate their suggestions to the PCI JOURNAL. One
possible approach is to apply a load factor of 1.2 to the pretensioning force and a "strength" reduction factor of 0.6 to
the ultimate concrete strain.
Nonlinear analysis similar to that shown here would then
be conducted to determine acceptable prestress levels. For
the example considered, the corresponding maximum number of strands would be 42, rather than the ultimate crushing
value of 62 strands. This corresponds to concrete and steel
stress ratios of 0.86 and 0.55, respectively. It is recognized
that nonlinear analysis may be unattractive to most designers. However, it should be noted from Fig. 9 that linear analysis for this particular prestress level conservatively overestimates the concrete and steel stresses by about 10 percent.
PCI JOURNAL
Notation
Ag = gross cross-sectional area
Ac = cross-sectional area of concrete
Aps = area of prestressing steel
Eci = modulus of elasticity of concrete at prestress release
Eps = modulus of elasticity of prestressed steel
f;; = compressive strength of concrete at time of initial
prestress
fc = compressive stress of concrete
/p; = stress in prestressed steel just before prestress release
fpo = stress in prestressed steel after elastic shortening
fr,u = ultimate strength of prestressing steel
n =modular ratio= EPJEc;
0 = concrete strain at maximum concrete stress in stressstrain diagram
= strain of concrete
Ecu = ultimate concrete strain
References
ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-95)," American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1995.
2. AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th
Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1996.
3. Huo, X., Savage, J. M., and Tadros, M. K., "Re-examination of
Service Load Limit Compressive Stress in Prestressed Concrete
Members," ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 2, March-April
1995, pp. 199-210.
4. PC/ Design Handbook, Fourth Edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 1992.
5. Lin, T. Y., and Bums, Ned H., Design of Prestressed Concrete
Structures, Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
6. PCI Technical Activities Council and PCI Committee on Building Code, "PCI Standard Design Practice," PCI JOURNAL,
V. 41, No.4, July-August 1996, pp. 31-43.
1.
[Contributed by Xiaoming Huo, Ph.D. Candidate, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nebraska-Lincoln and
Maher K. Tadros, Cheryl Prewett Professor, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.]
Camber Variations
Q7: How much camber variation should be expected in a
precast concrete member?
A7: The most significant design parameter in many precast concrete applications is the camber at the time of product installation. For systems where no cast-in-place topping
is required, differential camber between adjacent elements
must be minimized in order to facilitate connecting the elements and to minimize "bumps" along their connected
edges. For composite construction such as !-girder bridge
systems, it is important to have an accurate estimate of the
January-February 1997
99