Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Partially Prestressed
Concrete Flexural Members
1
Antoine E. Naaman Muhamed H. Harajii James K. Wight
Professor Assistant Professor Professor
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Michigan American University of Beirut The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan Beirut, Lebanon Ann Arbor, Michigan
64
and prestressing steels is used) has
created the need for additional studies
on ductility. It has also emphasized the Synopsis
need for a more unified treatment of A unified model to evaluate flexural
structural ductility in concrete mem- ductility in reinforced, prestressed,
bers, where steels and concretes of dif- and partially prestressed concrete
ferent strength, and prestressing to vari-
members is proposed. Analytical pre-
ous extents, can be used. dictions are compared to experimental
The main objective of this investiga- data obtained in this study as well as
tion is to evaluate flexural ductility in other investigations. Simple prediction
partially prestressed concrete members equations for curvature ductility and
under static loading and identify com- plastic rotation are derived and rec-
mon denominators (regarding ductility) ommended for design.
between reinforced, prestressed, and The applicability of the results to the
partially prestressed concrete. Using a case of high strength concrete and
nonlinear analysis model, an extensive confined concrete is discussed. An
parametric evaluation was undertaken example illustrating how a minimum
to clarify the effects on ductility of vari- ductility criterion can be used in the
ous parameters such as the type of sec- dimensioning of a flexural concrete
tion, the reinforcing index, the partial member is presented.
prestressing ratio (PPR), the concrete
compressive strength, the grade of pre-
stressing steel, the ratio of compressive
reinforcement, and the level of concrete
confinement. ity considerations for seismic design are
Experimental measurements of cur- left to a future study.
vature ductility on twelve partially pre-
stressed beams are described. A com-
parison between analytical observations STRUCTURAL MEMBER
and experimental data from this and
DUCTILITY
other studies is presented. Simple pre-
diction equations for sectional ductility Structural member ductility can be
and plastic rotation are derived and rec- characterized in many ways. It is gener-
ommended for design. An example iI- ally described by the ratio of a deforma-
lustrating how a minimum ductility tion measure at ultimate (nominal re-
criterion can be used in the dimension- sistance) to the same measure at yield.
ing of a flexural concrete member is Deformation can either represent cur-
presented. vature of the critical section, rotation
The results of this study apply to over a plastic hinging region, or deflec-
flexural members, using normal weight tion of the member. Preference for
concrete of normal or high strength, either definition depends on the appli-
whether reinforced, prestressed or par- cation and the type of study undertaken.
tially prestressed. The control of ductil- The following ratios are often used to
ity is achieved through the control of the express flexural ductility:
reinforcing index instead of that of the
confinement as is generally the case in f+m = ^u l^u (1)
compression members. The evaluation
lLd, = O U IO V(2)
of ductility in lightweight concrete
members, the systematic evaluation of
(3)
the effects of confinement in flexural
and compression members, and ductil- where
66
fp3 = tensile stress in prestressing al is 0.85,(3, .
steel at nominal moment resis- It was shown in Ref. 25 that, for a
Lance given flexural member, w' is directly
fB = tensile stress in nonprestressed proportional to the resultant force in the
tensile steel at nominal moment concrete compressive zone, which is the
resistance same as the net tensile force in the steel
f$ = compressive stress in compres- for members with no externally applied
sion steel at nominal moment axial load. Hence, ra is particularly suit-
resistance able as a unifying parameter in the
fe = compressive strength of con- flexural strength design of reinforced,
crete prestressed, and partially prestressed
A m = cross-sectional area of pre- concrete, because the composition of
stressed steel the tensile force is not needed for the
A, = cross-sectional area of nonpre- solution, only its magnitude.
stressed tensile steel Similarly, because the compression
A,' = cross-sectional area of compres- force depends on the concrete only
sion steel (which is common to reinforced, pre-
b = width of flange of a flanged sec- stressed or partially prestressed cases),
tion or web width of rectangular the reinforcing index can be used as a
section primary variable to characterize ductil-
d = distance from extreme compres- ity in partially prestressed concrete
sion fiber to centroid of tensile members.
force in steel at nominal mo-
ment resistance
Yield Curvature
In the ACI Building Code," 4 a predic-
A comprehensive computerized
tion equation is given fort, while f, and
simulation of the behavior of partially
f8 are replaced by their corresponding
prestressed concrete sections was
yield strength values fa , and f.. The de-
undertaken by Cohn and Bartlett.- The
finition of d is slightly different from
effects of the reinforcing index iu, the
that given in the ACI Building Code
partial prestressing ratio, and the level
(both the 1977 and the 1983 versions).
of effective prestress on sectional duc-
For T section behavior the value of ij is
tility were extensively analyzed. The
adjusted to the web of the section as per
yield curvature was assumed to corre-
the ACT Code approach. However, the
spond to yielding of the reinforcing
contribution of the overhanging portion
steel, which occurs prior to that of the
of the flange is calculated exactly from
prestressing steel.
nonlinear analysis.
This value may be on the unsafe side,
It can be shown that in general the
especially when a small amount of
value of au can be obtained from:
reinforcing steel is present in the sec-
w a, cld (6) tion (i.e., at high values of PPR). On the
other hand, selecting yielding of the
where c is the distance from the extreme prestressing steel to characterize yield
compression fiber to the neutral axis at curvature may be too conservative for
nominal moment resistance, and a, is partially prestressed members, espe-
the normalized area under the stress- cially at low values of PPR.
strain curve of concrete up to a given Two previous definitions of yielding
strain (derived from the stress-strain were used by Park et al. Thompson and
curve of the concrete). For rectangular Parks' defined yield deflection as the
sections and T sections with the neutral deflection calculated for the section as-
axis in the flange, the ACI Code value of suming Iinear elastic behavior up to the
displacement i Curvature
^Y ^y
a) (b)
Actual Ultimate
--- Idealized from analysis D
Mn
B C
8^End of prop.
a / limit of press.
o / i steel
C End
curvilinear port
of o -e curve
A of p rest. steel
95y 95u
(c)
theoretical strength of the section in the the moment-curvature curve while the
first load application (Fig. la). In a sub- second line is an extension of the final
sequent study of the ductility of pre- portion of the curve, assumed Iinear.
stressed concrete piles. Park and Fal- The two points needed to define each
coner2 defined yield curvature as that line are described in Fig. Ic. It is noted
calculated at moment M, assuming the that a similar procedure was used by
pile had a constant flexural rigidity Menegotto and Pinto" to model the
equal to that computed at 0.75M,,, stress-strain response of prestressing
where M. is the nominal moment resis- steels.
tance when the extreme fiber concrete
compressive strain is 0.003 (Fig. Ib).
In the present investigation, the au- Ultimate Curvature
thors used a definition of yield curvature Ultimate curvature was defined in this
for partially prestressed beams based on study as the curvature corresponding to
the shape of the moment-curvature re- the maximum resisting moment. This
lationship of the section. Yield curvature can lead in some cases to very conserva-
was determined at the intersection of tive values since substantial deforma-
two lines (Fig. lc). The first line is an tion capacity may exist after the
extension of the initial linear portion of maximum moment. To account for this
68
1 4 types of section: R, T, I, Box
2 5 concrete strengths: 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 ksi
(35, 48, 62, 76, 90 MPa)
:3 3 types of prestressing steels: 270, 235, 160 ksi _
(1862, 1620, 1103 MPa)
4 2 types of reinforcing steels: Grade 60 and 75
5 4 partial prestressing ratios: 0, 0.4, 0.7, 1
6 7 reinforcing indexes w: 0.08 to 0.30
7 5 effective pre stress:
J lf,- 0,0.15,0.30,0.45,0.60 R, T
ht
AS As
ip
ds h!ds
Ap TL
As AJ
b 1
b rq
Ill
I
AShf
ds dp bw h b
A
hf
effect Park and Paulay29 suggest that ul- curvature since both would strongly de-
timate curvature be defined as that pend on the reinforcing index. How-
when the moment capacity of the sec- ever, this correlation was not investi-
tion has reduced to 80 percent of the gated here.
maximum moment.
It is believed that results predicted in
this investigation will, therefore, be on ANALYTICAL MODEL
the conservative side. It is also believed A computerized nonlinear analysis
that a direct relationship should exist model was developed to investigate
between the two definitions of ultimate ductility in partially prestressed con-
70
Mid span
i 4.5"
'r I
LVDT
i LVDT L 4
NNt
0 Prestressing Steel
Reinforcing Steel
C
0- fpe =0.30 fpu
D fpe = 0.0 f pu
0
x 1.2
0.6
0.0
V 0.6
.48
).12
O.O
ulu V.[u 6.30 V.4V
24
SECTION ; fpu = 270 Icsi
PPR=0.7 0 fpe -0.60 fpu
8 0 fpe =0.45 fpu
O fpe =0.30 fpu
A fpe =0.0 fpu
'7^ I .2
6L
- 0.4 D
Or IB
O. S6 A , A A A
0 2 $
I I
0.10 020 0.30 0.40
()
Fig. 4. Typical effect of the effective prestress on ultimate and yield curvatures
(analytical study).
72
It can be observed that a decrease in ef- decreased (Fig. 7). It was generally ob-
fective prestress leads to a substantial served that the higher the value of con-
increase in yield curvature for any value crete compressive strength, the more
of i . This increase in the yield curvature negligible the influence of PPR.
is relatively more important than that 3. Effect of confinement The
observed in ultimate curvature. Since stress-strain relationships of confined
the yield curvature is in the de- concrete proposed by Scott et al.` 6 were
nominator of the ductility index, a de- used. Typical curves are plotted in Fig.
crease in ductility is expected. The ef- 8 for different values of the confinement
fect of the partial prestressing ratio on index Z. The effect of three different
ultimate and yield curvature is illus- levels of confinement on the flexural
trated in Fig. 5. Here, an increase in ductility index is illustrated in Fig. 9. As
PPR induces a decrease in both ultimate expected, sectional ductility increases
and yield curvatures. significantly at all levels of when the
2. Effect off, and PPR on ductility level of confinement increases. This
Figs. 6 and 7 illustrate the variation of should he of particular interest to com-
curvature ductility versus reinforcing pression members and for seismic de-
index at different values off, and PPR. sign. A systematic evaluation of the ef-
It can be seen from Fig. 6 that the duc- fects of confinement and related mod-
tility index decreases with a decrease in eling of ductility under cyclic loading
f,, while neither a strong nor a consis- simulating seismic excitations is left for
tent trend can be derived when PPR is a future study.
2.4
RECT SECTION
c 25
020
015
O
x 0.10
e. a
00 -
0 0-f 0.2 0.3 04
Fig. 5. Typical effect of the partial prestressing ratio on ultimate and yield curvatures
(analytical study).
25 PPR = 1
f pu = 270 ksi
f 60 ksi
f'C = 5 ksi
20
0 f pe = 0.60fpu
. 15 A fpe = 0.45fpu
q f pe = 0.30fpu
10 Q fpe = 0.15fpu
O f pe = 0.00
0
0-0 0-05 0.10 0-15 0.20 0.25 0.30
(Li
Rect. Section
25 PPR = 0.7
fpu = 270 ksi
f^, = 60 ksi
fc = 5 ksi
0 fpe = 0.60fpu
A f pe = 0.45fPu
15
0 fpe 030fpu
0 fpe = 0.00
10
0 1 1 1
0.0 0.05 0.10 0-15 0.20 0.25 0.30
74
(a) Rect. Section
25 f ^ - 5 ksi
f pu = 270 ksi
fY = 60 ksi
20 0- PPR = 0
6- PPR = 0.4
15 p- PPR = 0.7
\\
0- PPR = 1
10
0 1
0.0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2S (b) T Section
20
15
10
0
0.0 0.05 0-10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2) Z 150
6 3) Z = 50
v) 4
cry 3
1 0 2
O 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
STRAIN X 103
76
Rect. Section
f' = 5 ksi
Q f = 270 ksi
25 1 tup = 60 ksi
,1 p, PPR = 0, 0. 4, 0.
\^
1 &1
20 O1 ^ ^^
O
15
10
o `^
5
Q- Z = 150
3- Z = 100
O- Z = 50
p
p1 . '^
0
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0 . 20 0 . 25 0.30
cld = 0.008 + 1.37i (9) Figs. 12(a) and 12(b) as sectional ductil-
ity and plastic rotation versus w. The
This linear correlation suggests that value of f, was kept in the range of
many trends identified as a function of i 0.5 .f, to 0.6f,,, and the symbol y
could also be described directly as a shown in the notation represents the
function ofcld. An extensive evaluation ratio of compression to tension steel
of the cid ratio led to analytical relation- force at ultimate.
ships to predict the stress in the pre- An attempt was made to model the
stressing steel at nominal moment re- trend shown by the data. Three equa-
sistance,34 and the percent of moment tions were derived to represent an
redistribution32 in prestressed and par- upper bound, an average, and a lower
tially prestressed flexural members. bound for both sectional ductility and
plastic rotation as a unction of the rein-
forcing index c . The plastic rotation de-
PREDICTION EQUATIONS fined in Eq. (4) was used assuming L.
equals one half of d. The prediction
AND VALIDATION
equations are summarized in Table 1.
Further analysis of the analytical and The corresponding curves are plotted
experimental data led to the identifica- in Fig. 12 and numbered 1, 2, and 3.
tion of some important global trends. A Such equations, particularly those pre-
large cluster of data representing a wide dicting plastic rotations, can be used as a
variation in the parameters is plotted in first approximation for design to insure a
Curvature
Ductility
Ratio I 1 1
14o r^ 0.045 1.94 w 0.086 1.5&j-0.075
Plastic
Rotation 1.05 w 1 I^ 1.05 1.65& Lq 1.47 1.58i L,
Bp 185 j 35] d/2 ( 1300r -,40 J r1/2 [ 1050@ 45 J d12
(Radians)
'UAJ <w 14 U.:W.
Rect. Section
Rect, Section PPR=O
25 PPR =f.0 25 fy = 60 K SI
fpu=270 KSI
20 fy =60 KSI 20 o f5KSI
o fc =5KSI o fe=7 KSI
\^` {5
n f, =7 KSI fi
e' {5 + fG=9 KS]
x fc=I1KSI
+ f,=9KSI
10 $' f 0 a f;=13KSI
x f11 KSI
o fc^i3 KSI
5 5
0. 0 l 1 1 1 J 1 1
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 025 0,30
Ui w
T Section
T Section PPR= 0
25 25
PPR =1.0
f =60 KSI
fpu=270 KSI
20 o fc=5KSI
fy =60 KSI 20
L ff =9KSI
15
o fc =5 KSI
o f,=9 K5I
7 f5 + f,=t3 KSI
5 5
'+-cr--_ +
0 0.05 0.10 0. 15 0.20 0.25 030 0 0.05 010 0. 15 0.20 0.25 0.30
78
f' C = 5,7,9 ksi
f = 60,75 ksi
0.5
f pu = 270,235,160 ksi
Y - 0.2,0.3,0.5
0- Reet.Section
0.4
n- T
q -I
Q - Box
Z 0.3
U
0-2
required level of ductility. An example ity and includes the experimental data
is given in Appendix B. obtained in this investigation as well as
The lower bound equation can be four other investigations. Fig. 13(b) il-
used for instance in the case of high lustrates the comparison between pre-
strength concrete, low effective pre- dicted and experimentally observed
stress, and high PPR. The upper bound plastic rotations. It also shows in dashed
equation can be used in the case of nor- lines a limit recommended by Baker'
mal strength concrete, high effective that is often cited as a reference. It can he
prestress, and low partial prestressing generally observed that, given the com-
ratio. plexity of the problem and the number
In order to check the validity of the of variables involved, the proposed pre-
prediction equations given in Table 1, diction equations provide a very reason-
they were compared with available ex- able bound to the experimental data.
perimental data. 7-] 1,30.3i Fig. 13(a) pro- Hence, they can be very useful as de-
vides a comparison for sectional ductil- sign limitations.
I
t 1 Y =0.2,0.3,0.5
\ of 0-Rect. Section
.^20 n-T 0-1 o-Box
5 1
Cr S 1
0
H
U 15 8\
I
>- oo h \
I- \\
-J
i 10
U
,4
0
N
5
D -Q
2
Q ti
fp = 270,235,160 ksi
(3^I f = 60,75 ksi
0.03 PPR = 0,0.4,0.7, 1
a 4y Y = 0.2,0.3,0.5
cb
z a Rect. D I
0
a7 0 Box
0.02 y ^l
y^a1
U
a v 'Q
J
a
1 ..
0
7
0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32
W
Fig. 12. Comparison of analytical results with the prediction equations for
(a) curvature ductility vs. reinforcing index, and (b) plastic rotation vs. reinforcing index.
80
Ca)
35.0
U.TPPraz & 10A ,
Pr e di c ti on Equations
o CORLEY
30.0 o MATTOCK
1
o KENT a PARK
25.0 o BISHARA 5 BRAR
HARAJLI & NAAMAN
20.0 a
I-
C-)
} 15.0 &Q4 Q o
J 4 Q
o 10.0
7)
0 0
5.0 [gyp
G G
^^ p G
0
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0,30 0.35
( cL )
(b)
0 O
Prediction Equations
0.05 MATTOCK
UPPER& 0 CORLEY
0 BAKER (semi exper. )
0
0 ---Recommended by
a 003 Baker for w' 0
0
z p
0 q
0.02 O
A
U
t-
J
a
!1,
.^ 0
0 '' 0 D
O
0
0.0 t
Uu U.(S 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
( c
.^ )
Fig. 13. Comparison of prediction equations with experimental results for
(a) curvature ductility vs. reinforcing index, and (b) plastic rotation vs. reinforcing index.
82
crete and normal levels of effective pre- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
stress in the steel.
9. At the maximum ACT Code recom- This study was supported by the Na-
mended value of the reinforcing index tional Science Foundation under Grant
(Zmax = 0.36 [h), a curvature ductility No, CEE 84-02194 to the University of
factor of 1.5 to 3 is available in partially Michigan, with Dr. Michael P. Gaus as
prestressed sections. For 0.2 (limit program director. The authors are
for moment redistribution), a ductility grateful for that support. Any opinions,
factor in excess of 4 to 5 was obtained in findings, and conclusions expressed in
this study. For low levels of cu (less than this paper are those of the authors and
0.1), curvature ductility factors above 10 do not necessarily reflect the views of
can he counted on. the sponsor.
84
22. Sheikh, S. A., "A Comparative Study of "Evaluation of the Inelastic Behavior of
Confinement Models," ACI Journal, Partially Prestressed Concrete Beams,"
V. 79, No. 4, July-August 1982, pp. 296-306. Report No. UMCE 85-2, Department of
23. Wang, P. T -, ` Complete Stress-Strain Civil Engineering, The University of
Curve of Concrete and its Effect on Michigan, April 1985, 191 pp.
Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Mem- 31. Naarnan, A. E., "An Approximate Non-
bers," PhD Thesis, University of Illinois linear Design Procedure for Partially
at Chicago, 1977, 257 pp. Prestressed Concrete Beams," Comput-
24 AC! Committee 318, "Building Code ers and Structures, V. 17, No. 2, 1983, pp.
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete 287-293.
(AC! 318-83)," American Concrete In- 32. Naaman, A. E., "Partially Prestressed
stitute, Detroit, Michigan, 1983. Concrete; Review and Recommen-
25. Naaman, A. E., "A Proposal to Extend dations," PCI JOURNAL, V. 30, No. 6,
Some Code Provisions on Reinforce- November-December 1985, pp. 30-71.
ment to Partial Prestressing," PCI JOUR- 33. Sargin, M., "Stress-Strain Relationship
NAL, V. 26, No. 2, March-April 1981, for Concrete and the Analysis of Struc-
pp. 74-91. tural Concrete Sections," Study No. 4,
26. Cohn, M. Z., and Bartlett, M., "Nonlinear Solid Mechanics Division, University of
Flexural Response of Partially Pre- Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1971, 167 pp.
stressed Concrete Sections," Journal of 34. Harajli, M. H., and Naaman, A. E.,
the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 108, "An Evaluation of the Ultimate Steel
No. ST12, December 1982, pp. 2747- Stress in Partially Prestressed Flexural
2765. Members," PCI JOURNAL, V. 30, No, 5,
27 `Thompson, K. J., and Park, R., "Ductility September-October 1985, pp. 54-81.
of Prestressed and Partially Prestressed 35. Harajli, M. H., and Naaman, A. E.,
Concrete Sections," PCI JOURNAL, V. "Static and Fatigue Tests of Partially
25, No. 2, March-April 1980, pp. 45-69. Prestressed Concrete Beams,"Journal of
28 Menegotto, M., and Pinto, P. E., the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 111,
"Method of Analysis for Cyclically No, 7, July 1985, pp- 1602-1618.
Loaded R. C. Plane Frames," IABSE 36. Ahmad, S., and Shah, S. P., "High
Preliminary Report for Symposium on Strength Concrete and Its Implications
Resistance and Ultimate Deformability for Precast Concrete," PCI JOURNAL,
of Structures Acted on Well-Defined V. 30, No. 6, November-December 1985,
Repeated Loads, Lisbon, Portugal, 1973, pp. 92-119.
pp. 15-22. 37. Bishara, A. C., and Brar, G. S., "Rota-
29. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Con- tional Capacity of Prestressed Concrete
crete Structures, Wiley Interscience, Beams," journal of the Structural Divi-
New York, N.Y., 1975, 769 pp. sion, ASCE, V. 100, No. ST9, September
30 Harajli, M. H., and Naaman, A. E., 1974, pp. 1883-189.
APPENDIX A - NOTATION
A,,, = area of prestressing steel E, = concrete modulus of elasticity
A, = area of tension reinforcing steel E. = steel modulus of elasticity
A; = area of compression reinforcing & = effective prestress of prestress-
steel ing steel
b = overall width of beam cross sec- fm = prestressing steel stress at nomi-
tion nal moment resistance
b,o = web width fnu = ultimate strength of prestressing
c = neutral axis depth steel
d depth to center of tensile force in = reinforcing steel stress at nomi-
steel nal moment resistance
dD = depth of prestressing steel = yield strength of reinforcing
dA = depth of reinforcing steel steel
APPENDIX B -- EXAMPLE
The following example illustrates in which
how a minimum ductility criterion can
be used to dimension a concrete mem- M = 1.4 MD + 1.7 ML (B2)
ber, whether reinforced, prestressed, or where
partially prestressed.
Consider a simply supported rectan- 1.7ML = 323 kip-ft = 3876000 lb-in. (B3)
gular beam with a span of 40 ft (12.19 m)
to he designed for a uniform live load of 1.4M,, = 0.2917bh kip-ft = 3500 b h lb-in.
0.95 klf (13.86 kN/m) and a minimum (B4)
curvature ductility A = 5. Assuming that h can he replaced as a
Assume normal weight concrete with first approximation by 1.15d leads to:
unit weight y, = 150 pcf (2404 kg/m3)
1.4 M6 = 4025 fed lb-in. (B5)
and design compressive strength f' _
5000 psi (34.5 MPa). Hence:
Other relevant parameters are as fol-
lows :f = 60 ksi (414 MPa) andf u = 270 M = 3876000 + 4025 b d (B6)
ksi (1862 MPa).
Using the strength design method of From the two equations of equilib-
the ACI Building Code for reinforced or rium at ultimate, the following relation
prestressed concrete, four unknowns are is derived:
encountered, namely: b, d, A g orA pg , and
a (or c). In conventional design for flex- ^A = CU (1 0.59&) (B7)
ure, two unknowns are assumed (say b fbd-
and d) and the other two are determined Substituting for M from Eqs. (B1) and
from solving the two equations of force (B6) results in:
and moment equilibrium at ultimate.
The addition of an equation to achieve a 3876000 + 4025 6 d
minimum ductility can be used to de- = (1-0.59w)
4f bd2
termine a third unknown such as d. This (B8)
is the approach followed next.
The design calls for: The minimum curvature ductility
criterion can be expressed using the
M a = 0 Mn (B1) equation (average) given in Table 1 as:
86
1 y Reinforced Concrete Section:
(B9)
0.075 5
= 1.5 w A,=6ibdj^if,
= 0.182 x 12 x 24 x 5/60
from which
= 4.37 in .2 (2519 mm2)
c; :n 0.183 (B10)
Prestressed Concrete Section:
and The stress in the prestressing steel at
nominal moment resistance can be
w(1 0.591)-_0.1635 (811) computed from the following general
From Eqs, (B8) and (Bil), the fol- equation developed in Ref. 16:
lowing inequality condition can be de- f;,, f,,(1-0.3 cld)
rived: = 270 (1 0.3 x 6.44/24)
= 248.3 ksi (1712 MPa)
3876000 + 4025 b d from which:
0.1635 (B12) A,, = cil b d fe If,.
4fr. bd2
= 1.06 in.' (684 mine)
Assuming b = 0.5d and replacing the
Partially Prestressed Concrete Section:
expression in Eq. (B12) leads to a cubic
equation in d: The stress in the prestressing steel at
nominal moment resistance is the same
3876000 + 2012.5d2 as for a fully prestressed section with the
-- 0.1635 (B13)
0.5 Of' d' same value of and c. Hence, f, = 248.3
ksi (1712 MPa).
The solution of Eq. (B13) at equality Assume PPR = 0.7 and d is the same
leads to a minimum value of d = 24 in. for the reinforcing and the prestressing
(600 mm). steels. From the definition of PPR and
Using this value of d in Eq. cu, the equations below can be derived:
(B8) and then solving for leads to (I PPR) w = As fn /bd f,'
0.1832. and
The following variables can then be PPR =A,ej,,,lbdf'
computed: The above equations lead to:
b = 0.5 d = 12 in. (300 mm) A, = 1.31 in. % (845 mm2)
a = 1.18 &i d = 5.15 in. (130 mm) A$ = 0.74 in .2 (477 mm2)
c = a!/3, = 5.1510.80 = 6.44 in. (163 Note that the problem of dimension-
mm) ing a section to achieve a minimum
The reinforcement for the section can strength and a minimum plastic rotation
be one of three possible cases corre- 9, (instead of curvature ductility) is very
sponding to a fully reinforced, fully pre- similar to the above problem, especially
stressed, or partially prestressed sec- if L, = d/2 is assumed (see equations in
tion: Table 1).