1
ASI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 87-531
Effect of Span-Depth Ratio on the Ultimate Steel Stress
in Unbonded Prestressed Concrete Members
by Mohamed H. Harajli
The effect of member span-depth ratio on the predicted steel stress f,,
in unbonded prestressed concrete members at their nominal moment
resistance is implemented in an approximate manner of ACI 318-83.1
The recognition of member span-depth ratio and its implementation
as an independent design parameter was made based on comparison
of limited experimental results. However, there is not yet a clear phe-
nomenological explanation that helps in understanding the mecha-
nism of this parameter and its level of influence on the predicted f,.
at ultimate flexural strength.
Keywords: ductility; flexural strength; prestressed concrete; prestressing steels;
span-depth ratio; stresses; structural design; unbonded prestressing.
This paper presents a theoretical model for evaluat-
ing the influence of span-depth ratio parameter on the
predicted Ips of unbonded prestressed concrete members
at their nominal flexural strength. A general strain
compatibility equation for computing IP., given in
function of span-depth ratio and ACI design parame-
ters, is derived. Parametric evaluation is undertaken
and a modification of Eq. (18-4) and (18-5) of the ACI
Building Code 1 in conjunction with span-depth ratio
parameter is proposed.
To compute the stress Ips in the prestressing steel at
nominal flexural strength of post-tensioned unbonded
prestressed concrete (PC) members, the following
equation was proposed in the 1971 version of the ACI
Building Code
Ips = lpe + 10,000 + - 0-
1: ~ /py or lpe
1 Opp
+ 60,000 (psi)
where lpe = effective prestress (psi); 1: = concrete com-
pressive strength (psi); .{py = yield strength of the pre-
stressing steel and Pp = prestressing steel ratio. Eq. (1)
represents a lower bound of the empirical equation
proposed by Mattock, Yamazki, and Kattula2 in 1971
based on experimental testing· of unbonded PC mem-
bers.
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1990
TECHNICAL PAPER
Comparing experimental results of simply supported
beams and continuous slabs with different span-depth
ratios, Mojtahedi and Gamble3 showed that the span-
depth ratio parameter has a considerable effect on the
observed increase in stress flips in the prestressing steel
above effective flips = Ips - lw They showed that in-
creasing span-depth ratio from about 10 to 50 resulted
in a drop of lllpsin the order of 50 ksi (345 MPa). Based
on this comparative study, the ACI Building Code 1
constrained in its 1983 version the use of Eq. (1) to
members with span-depth ratio ~ 35 and implemented
a new more conservative equation for members with
span-depth ratio > 35
hs = lpe + 1:
10,000 + 300PP ~ IPY or lpe
(2)
+ 30,000 (psi)
Eq. (1) and (2) are applicable for fully prestressed
unbonded members. A minimum amount of bonded
ordinary reinforcing steel As as specified in the ACI
Building Code should be used for the purpose of crack
control and uniformity of crack distribution (As =
0.004A where A is the area of the part of the cross sec-
tion between flexural tension face and center of gravity
of the gross section). In an attempt to accommodate
partially prestressed unbonded members (PPC) where
any combination of unbonded prestressing steel and
ordinary reinforcement is used, the author 4 recom-
(1) mended the following general equation for computing
hs
(3)
ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No.3, May-June 1990.
Received Aug. 2, 1988, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 1990, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the March-April 1991 ACI
Structural Journal if received by Nov. I, 1990.
305
ACI member MolulmH H. HarajU is Assistant Professor in the Deportment of
Civil Engineering at the American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. He
s
p
I I
obtained his BS degree from the American University of Beirut, his MS from
the University of Illinois at Urbana, and his PhD (1985) from the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbar. Professor Harajli has been involved in the design of
prestressed and reinforced concrete highway bridges and multistory buildings.
His research interests are linear and nonlinear behavior and design of rein-
(a)
forced, prestressed, and partially prestressed structures. He is a 1986 recipient
of the PC/ Martin P. Korn award.

"-Ref. 8 lf=3J 11- Ref. 2 (I :6)

CURVATURE -ACTUAL
• - Ref. 7 11:3) 0 - Ref. 7 (l:inf·l

Eq.(3J [= ~ ~ ~
---- f = in f.
<I> IDEALIZED
(b)

Lo
•_!..••
_• _ _• •
Fig. 2 - (a) Simply supported beam loaded by two
concentrated loads, and (b) curvature distribution along
the beam length
0 0·25 0·5 0-75
C/dp
Building Code equation in a homogenous rather than
Fig. 1 - Comparison of Eq. (3), with experimentally limiting manner as currently proposed. Instead of the
observed results (from Reference 4); 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa cumbersome nonlinear analysis method adopted in
Reference 4, a more elegant strain compatibility ap-
where proach is used, as illustrated in the next section.

c = AIM (fpe + a-y,h,u) + A.f, - A;!, - C1 STRAIN COMPATIBILITY

0.85/3 .J:bw + /3-yAIM,h,Jdp
-y=
[
1.0 + S 1.0 J
(n 0 1n)
dp (0.95/f + 0.05)
in which fpu = ultimate strength of the prestressing
steel; b, bw, and h1 = flange width, web width, and
flange thickness, respectively; c = neutral axis depth at
ultimate; S/dP = span-depth ratio; n0 /n = ratio of
number of loaded spans to total number of spans in the
member; f is a load geometry factor: f = 3 for two
equal lh points concentrated loads, f = 6 for uni-
formly distributed load, and f = oo for single concen-
trated load; a and 13 are parameters whose magnitude
depends on the spread of plasticity in the member at its
nominal flexural strength and are related in effect to
the geometry of applied load: a = 0.4, 13 = 0. 70 for f
= 3; a= 2.5, 13 = 0.44 for f = 6; and a = 0.10, 13 =
0.18 for f = oo. Eq. (3) was derived based on extensive
finite element nonlinear analysis and showed remark-
able agreement with experimentally observed results of
both PC and PPC members, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
More details on the development of Eq. (3) are found
in Reference 4.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The primary objective of the current study is to in-
corporate the span-depth ratio parameter in the ACI
306
(3a) Consider a simply supported unbonded bea.m loaded
by two equal concentrated loads separated by a dis-
(3b)
tance La, as shown in Fig. 2(a). Also shown in Fig. 2(b)
are the actual and idealized curvature distribution along
the beam length developed at its nominal flexural
(3c) strength.
Following are three major simplifying assumptions
adopted in the current investigation:
1. While the strain in the unbonded prestressing steel
is incompatible with concrete strains because of slip, a
linear strain distribution between the concrete and or-
dinary reinforcing steel across the depth of the beam
sections is assumed. This simply implies that the total
elongation of the prestressing steel between the anchor-
age ends could be determined from the conventional
curvature distribution along the beam length. This is
particularly true following the experimental observa-
tion made by Mattock, Yamazaki, and Kattula2 that the
addition of a small amount of ordinary bonded rein-
forcing steel to unbonded PC members results in a uni-
form crack distribution that makes them respond to the
applied load as flexural members rather than tied
arches.
2. The total elongation of the prestressing steel be-
tween the anchorage ends is due to mainly the plastic
deformation occurring in the plastic regions of the
beam corresponding to the idealized curvature distri-
bution, as shown in Fig. 2(b). That is, the contribution
of the curvature distribution between zero and "yield"
to the total elongation of the tendon is neglected. The
accuracy of this assumption is verified in Fig. 3 where
JIM results obtained using the strain compatibility ap-
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1990
r
Ecu
A- RECT. SECTION
1-0 0- T
0

0
11.1 a.
::::J u
c.

'.a-
CJ)
5/dp = 5-50
f = 3, 6, inf.
PPR:0.4.0.7, 1 I
fpe =o.5,0.6 .. 7fpu •• I • ·I
0-5 tc =5, 1. 9 ksi ~ • £81 Epe Ece
: ~£1
0.5 1.0 14 .. 1
fpslfpu (Nonlinear Analysis) I Es
Fig. 3 - Comparison of fps results obtained using strain
compatibility with nonlinear analysis results (from Ref- Fig. 4 - Strain distribution across the depth of un-
erence 4) bonded PC beam section

proach are compared with the presumably more accu- aeps

.:leps =s- (6)
rate finite element nonlinear anlaysis method. 4 The pre-
dicted fps tends under this assumption to be a little con-
servative in comparison with the more accurate where Lo is the equivalent plastic region length in the
nonlinear anlaysis predictions at high reinforcement ra- member (shown schematically in Fig. 2) and S = total
tios (see Fig. 3). This is expected since high reinforce- span length between the anchorage ends. Combining
ment ratios reduce the ductility (ultimate curvature) of Eq. (4), (5), and (6) results in the following expression
the member, which makes the contribution of the ne- for comp1,1ting the strain eps in the prestressing tendon at
glected portion of the curvature distribution relatively nominal flexural strength
more significant.
3. The stress in the unbonded tendons at the beam
nominal flexural strength is constant along the beam
length, i.e., the frictional forces that could develop be-
tween the prestressing steel and surrounding duct under
increasing load to failure are neglected.
Typical strain distribution across the beam critical The position of the neutral axis depth c at the critical
section at ultimate flexural capacity corresponding to section at ultimate can be computed from Eq. (7)
the assumptions just listed is shown in Fig. 4. In this
figure: Epe = effective prestrain; .:le = "fictitious" in-
crease in strain above decompression at the level of
prestressing steel; Ece = precompressive strain in the
concrete at the level of prestressing steel; epo = actual The force equilibrium equation at the critical section
increase in strain in the prestressing steel above de- could be expressed for the most general case of a
compression; and Ecu = ultimate concrete compression flanged section as
strain in the top fiber and is taken equal to 0.003 as
specified in the ACI Building Code. Referring to Fig. 4,
and using the preceding asumptions 1. and 2., then the
"fictitious" strain .:le, the total increase in tendon
elongation between the anchorage ends .:lfps, and the Substituting the value of c from Eq. (8) into Eq. (9),
increase in strain in the prestressing steel above effec- the following general compatibility equation is ob-
tive .:leP., could be expressed consecutively as follows tained

.:le d _- _c Ecu
= _P (4)
c

Mps = (.:le + Ece)Lo (5)

ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1990 307
 .......
300 100
f u = 270ksi !1- MATTOCK 2 WARWARUK 7
~
i. 'V
'V- ou 8 [A- SERIES· OS
80
11e " 0- ow
jJ 119 i.
·u; fpu=235ksi !!!- ou
.:.t. .§.. !!I~ •

- t
60
I • •
- ACI IEQ.1)
~
'V
rJl
.;;. !!I e- ANALYSIS EQ."O)

...
40
"
.§. "' •'i
0

•
!
"'
e "' "'
<I
20 !!I
"' ~
II "'
0
Q •
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 .s 0-7

Pp/f~x1Q5
0-01 D.Dz
£ps
0.03
••••
Fig. 6- Comparison of ..1fps results obtained using Eq.
Fig. 5 - Stress-strain curve of prestressing steel; 1 ksi (10) with experimentally observed results; 1 ksi = 6.895
= 6.895MPa MPa

The solution for fps is the intersection point between
the strain compatibility equation (Eq. 10) and the
stress-strain relationship of the prestressing steel mate-
rial, as illustrated graphically in Fig. 5. Eq. (10) is bas-
ically similar to that derived for bonded PC and PPC
members, except that in bonded members the term L
s = 1.0.
The equivalent plastic region length La can be ex-
pressed as follows (see Fig. 2)
La= L. + 2LP
s
= - + 2L
f p
Eq. (14) for L.IS given in function of S/dP and f
makes the strain compatibility equation (Eq. 10) both
span-depth ratio and load-geometry dependent. It
should be pointed out that for the case of uniformly
distributed load where it is difficult to estimate LP ac-
0/ curately, it was found 4 that it is best simulated using
two equal ~ points concentrated loads (f = 6). In ad-
dition to the generality of Eq. (10), it has also two basic
features: 1) It accounts for the basic material and
strength properties that had long been adopted in the
(11) ACI Building Code; and 2) It is derived from the in-
elastic behavior of concrete members that are well es-
tablished in the technical literature.

where S/f is a fraction of the span length representing
the length of constant moment region, and 2LP is the
equivalent plastic hinge length measured outside the
constant moment region.
Many empirical expressions are available in the tech-
nical literature for estimating LP' Almost all of these
expressions, derived from experimental measurements,
are given in function of the beam depth. A detailed
comparison of the various empirical equations is found
in Reference 5. In this study, the relatively simple and
conservative expression proposed by Mattock based on
Corley's experimental work6 is adopted
Lp = 0.5dp + 0.05Z
in which Z is the shear span or the distance between the
point of maximum moment and point of contraflexure
(see Fig. 2). Substituting the value of LP from Eq. (12)
into Eq. (11), the following general expression for L.is
obtained
L. = dp [~ (0.95/f + 0.05) + 1.0]
Therefore
L IS = 0 f' 95 + 0 .05 + -S!dp
1-
• among them are the geometry of the applied load, the
308
VALIDATION AND PARAMETRIC EVALUATION
The validity of the strain compatibility equation is
examined by comparing with the experimentally ob-
served results of Warwaruk, Sozen, and Siess,' Mat-
tock,2 and Du and Tao. 8 Results of comparison are
shown plotted versus the ACI parameter pplf: in Fig. 6.
The experimental results correspond to a variety of PC
and PPC unbonded beam specimens with different
span-depth ratios (between 10 and 34), different ten-
don profiles (straight and parabolic), and tested under
different load applications. Material properties and re-
inforcement details are found in the previously men-
tioned references. In reproducing these experimental
(12) results, the stress-strain relationship of the prestressing
steel material is obtained either from graphical plots7 or
else reproduced using the Menegotto and Pinto9 stress-
strain model corresponding to the given yield and ulti-
mate characteristics of the prestressing steel used in the
experiment. 2·8
It can be observed in Fig. 6 that despite some dis-
crepancy, the strain compatibility equation (Eq. 10) re-
(13)
produces quite accurately the experimental results.
However, regardless of the agreement between the an-
alytical and experimental results, significant scatter is
seen to exist in the predicted and/or observed data
whenever plotted versus the parameter pplf:. This scat-
(14) ter is attributed to several reasons, the most important
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1990
 ·---=-=;..__,""'
40..
(a)
r3'
• 0C'l
~II ''
II
c. ' .... .......... ,
"'
"0
"0 ..._
--
---- ACI CODE
- - - - - - - - - E0-1
Aps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E0·2
0 ---- ----0
---As -----
(b)
a•
(a)
Fig. 7 - Types of section studied
(b)
-
~
8.
I
(/)

II

span-depth ratio, the ratio of ordinary tension rein- .§. -----------

forcement to the total reinforcement content in the <:]
l (c)
beam, and the magnitude of effective prestress. Exten- Yield 1
sive survey of the influence on the predicted fps at ulti- f· lnf. [t::.-
S/dp = 10
mate of the various parameters just indicated is given in EQ·(10) D- = 25
detail in Reference 4. •- = lnf.
Effect of span-depth ratio
To illustrate the influence of member span-depth ra-
tio on the predicted /lfps at ultimate, beams with a wide 0-06 0-10
range of span-depth ratios are studied. A rectangular Pplfc x 105
beam section with dimensions and steel depths as
shown in Fig. 7 is used. While keeping the beam depth Fig. 8 - Effect of span-depth ratio on the predicted
dp constant, the beam span length S is varied to pro- ..::1fP, versus pPif: results for different types of loading,· 1
ksz = 6.895 MPa
duce values of S/dP = 5-50. Typical ll.J;,, results pre-
dicted using Eq. (10) for different span-depth ratios
and load application are shown plotted versus the ACI

: :
80
parameter pPIJ: in Fig. 8. Also, the variation of ll.fP•
with span-depth ratio parameter at p/f: x 10 5 = 0.06
corresponding to the three load applications studied is 60
shown in Fig. 9. These results are obtained using Grade ...;;;
270 prestressing steel with stress-strain curve shown in en
·- f = 3
Fig. 5,/: = 5 ksi (35 MPa), A;= 0.0; and A,= 0.004A ~ 40 Pp/fc = o.o6
<1 Xto5 ·- f = 6
(minimum specified in the ACI Building Code). The ·- f=
inf.
stress-strain curve of the prestressing steel (see Fig. 5) is ACI 318-83
20 I
expressed using the Menegotto and Pinto9 steel model •--------
with general prestressing steel material characteristics
derived statistically by Naaman. 10 0~--~---L---~~---~--~
The following important observations can be made 0 10 20 30 40 50
5/dp
from Fig. 8 and 9:
a. The increase in stress ll.fps of the prestressing steel Fig. 9- Variation of ..::1fP, with span-depth ratio at P/
depends mainly on the geometry of applied load. In f: X 105 = 0.06 for different types of loading; 1 ksi =
6.895MPa
other words, it depends on the length of plastic region
relative to the span length (L 0 / S) expected to develop in
the member at its nominal flexural strength. For in- to be directly related to the length of plastic region in
stance, beams with pplf: x 10 5 = 0.06 and S/dP = 25 the member at its nominal flexural strength. Beams
developed /lfps = 80 ksi (550 MPa) whenever loaded loaded with single concentrated load encountered the
with two Y3 points concentrated loads in comparison highest reduction in ll.fps with increasing S/ dP in com-
with a stress as low as 30 ksi (205 MPa) developed for parison with the two Y3 or ~ points concentrated loads
beams loaded with single concentrated load (Fig. 8). studied.
b. Increasing the span-depth ratio decreases signifi- c. The ACI Building Code equations (Eq. 1 and 2),
cantly the predicted ll.fps at ultimate (Fig. 8, 9). This derived as a lower bound to experimentally observed
consequently supports the current strategy of the ACI results of unbonded beams tested under a variety of
Building Code in incorporating the span-depth ratio load applications, seem to agree quite accurately with
parameter in the /ps computation. However, the reduc- the most conservative values of /ps obtained from beams
tion in stress with increasing span-depth ratio appears loaded with single concentrated load [Fig. 8(c)].
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1990 309
 80
--~Q.tlol •-Experimental
Ldp=as~h •
• tor Slh.& - fc/1oo Pp.2.a
eo for Sl'h•44..4B-f{;looPp4o..l54
;;;
.iloll
!.
~
40
20
0
• 0 0~02--~--~~--~--~--~--~--------~
0 10 20 30 40
S,., -Height RatiO 5.fh
Fig. 10- Analytical trend of variation of .:ifP, with
span-height ratio in comparison with the experimen-
tally observed trend presented by Mojtahedi and
Gamble 3,· 1 ksi = 6. 895 MPa
l
..___ s
I \
---11---
t 1\
s ----f
l above that to cause first hinging, provided there is
wti ~ CURVATURE.~ Lp • 0.5dp + Z/20
l~lp
Fig. 11 - Spread of plasticity in continuous members
in comparison with simply supported beams of the
same span length
Analytical Alps results obtained for different rein-
forcement and span-height ratios using single concen-
trated load (f = co) are compared with the experimen-
tal data collected by Mojtahedi and Gamble, 3 as shown
in Fig. 10. It can be seen in this figure that the analyti-
cal results capture the experimentally observed trend of
decreasing stress with increasing span-depth ratio quite
accurately. Furthermore, it is interesting to observe that
the range of experimental Alps values for continuous
slabs (S/h between 40 and 50 in Fig. 10) obtained from
a variety of load applications is in very good agreement
with the analytically predicted range of values obtained
using single concentrated load [see also Fig. 8(c)]. This
is despite the large difference expected in the predicted
steel stress corresponding to different types of loading
as illustrated earlier. This can be explained as follows:
in continuous members including slabs, the plastic re-
gions are expected to develop near the interior "con-
centrated" support reactions at the location of maxi-
mum negative moment. Therefore, load conditions ex-
isting in continuous members resemble those of simply
supported beams loaded with single concentrated load.
Moreover, since the computed !J..fps depends on the ra-
tio of plastic region length to span length L 0 /S, it is
clear from Fig. 11 that L 0 /S and, ·correspondingly, the
magnitude of Alps during the plastic hinging at the in-
310
IDu , 270,235 ksi EQ.1S [4-Rect· SectiOn
'" .s.7.9ksl •-r
---EQ.(1J
----EQ.(2)
__
J - __f-~~· ~·]
..
L__......
u. ps= aa
<I ...
--- --------
10
o.oe 010 0:14
50 Pp/f~ xd
Fig. 12 - Variation of predicted .:ifP, versus pPif: for
various parameters investigated corresponding to single
concentrated load and S/dp = co,· 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
terior support region are even smaller in continuous
members than in simply supported beams loaded with
single concentrated load. A further increase in Alps in
continuous members is expected with increasing load
enough ductility at the critical interior support region to
allow for load redistribution and spread of plasticity
near the positive moment regions.
Based on these observations, it is recommended that
design equation for computing Ips in unbonded PC
members should be based on safety, generality, and
consistency of Ips values obtained from beams loaded
with single concentrated load.
PROPOSED REPRESENTATION OFf,.
To incorporate the span-depth ratio parameter in the
current ACI Building Code equation, first it is at-
tempted to develop a prediction equation of Ips similar
to Eq. (1), corresponding to S/dp = co. Then modifi-
cation is made for beams with any given finite span-
depth ratio as subsequently illustrated. Based on the set
of observations made earlier, the most conservative
case corresponding to single concentrated load appli-
cation is studied. Notice that the fps predictions are the-
oretically independent of the position of the single con-
centrated load along the span [see Eq. (11-14)]. Replac-
ing f = co in Eq. (14) and assuming conservatively A;
= 0.0 and A, = 0.004 (minimum specified in the ACI
Building Code), the following compatibility equation is
obtained for the previous particular conditions
(f. ) 1
__ 0.85#31 J: bw (O.OSdp) Ecu
ps
00
- Aps Eps - Epe - 0.05 (E<Y - Ecu) {15)
c,- 0.004AJ;.
+ Aps
where the subscript co corresponds to S/dP = co. For
rectangular section behavior: C1 = 0.0, bw = b.
Results of !J..fps predictions using Eq. (15) is shown
plotted versus p/f: in Fig. 12 for two types of sections
(Fig. 7), different concrete strengths, different effective
prestress, and grades of prestressing steel. Comparison
of the ACI Building Code equations [Eq. (1 and 2)]
with the predicted (Afps)ao results as presented in Fig. 12
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1990
shows that Eq. (1) overestimates the predicted l).fps for
the entire range of reinforcement ratios whenever used
for beams with large span-depth ratios. On the other
hand, Eq. (2) intended for beams with large span-depth
ratios S/dP > 35 is seen to be adequate, particularly for
members with low reinforcement ratios, which is the
case of continuous slabs for which Eq. (2) was origi-
nally proposed.
In an attempt to provide a consistent prediction
equation without impairing the intrinsic form of the
1971 ACI Building Code equation [Eq. (1)], the fol-
lowing lower bound expression to the predicted results
corresponding to S/ dP = oo is proposed (see Fig. 12)
The choice of "112.5" reduction is approximate and is
made in such a way that the design equation (to be de-
veloped) agrees with Eq. (1) at S/dP equal approxi-
mately 15. A less or more conservative fraction is pos-
sible if deemed necessary by code authorities.
Everything else is the same, the increase in strain /).eps
in the prestressing steel is linearly proportional to L 0 ! S
[Eq. (4-6)]. Since most of the predictedfps results, par-
ticularly for single concentrated load application, fall in
the "elastic" limit between fpe and JPY' then it is appro-
priate to assume that the increase in stress AJ;,, is also
linearly proportional to LoiS. Notice that this assump-
tion is just an approximation, especially since pre-
stressing steel is not perfectly linear in its "elastic" limit
and does not exhibit a well-defined yield point. Using
this approximation, the increase in stress l).jps for any
given span-depth ratio can be expressed as follows
where
'Y = LJS = 1 20
(LJ S)<» + S/dp
Replacing the value of 'Y from Eq. (18) and the value of
(l).jps)<» from Eq. (16) into Eq. (17), the following de-
sign prediction equation for computing fps in unbonded
prestressed concrete members of any given span-depth
ratio is obtained
1 ~P) (0.4
ips = Jpe + ( 10,ooo +
s~d) ~ J;,y or fpe + 60,000
+ crete Institute constrained in its 1983 version the use of
Comparison of l).jps results obtained using Eq. (19)
and the more accurate strain compatibility approach
[Eq. (10) for A; = 0, A, = 0.004A] corresponding to
different beam span-depth ratios is shown in Fig. 13.
This figure clearly indicates that the assumption of lin-
ear dependence of AJ;,, on Lol S (for fps ~ fpy) used in
deriving Eq. (19) is satisfactorily accurate.
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1990
fpe=O·S, 0·6, o.7fpu
tc =S. 7. g ksi
!::.- S/dp =10
EQ.{10) [ 0- = 20
0- =40
- - EQ.{19l
(16)
20
0·02 0-06 0.1 0.14
Pp/fc x105
Fig. 13- Comparison of results obtained using Eq.
(19) with strain compatibility predictions for different
span-depth ratios; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
A comparative evaluation of l).jps predictions ob-
tained using Eq. (19), the ACI Building Code equa-
tions [Eq. (1) and (2)], and other existing prediction
equations (Warwaruk, Sozen, and Siess7) for a practi-
(17) cal range of reinforcement and span-depth ratios in-
cluding slabs is provided in Table 1. It can be shown in
this table that the range of stress values obtained using
Eq. (19) falls within the range of values predicted by
the ACI Building Code equations. The primary advan-
(18)
tage of the proposed prediction equation is that it elim-
inates the discontinuity in the stress level at the span-
depth ratio of 35 obtained using the ACI Building Code
equations. This is also achieved with very little further
computational effort on the part of the designer.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Eq. (1) was proposed in the 1971 version of the ACI
Building Code to predict the stress in the prestressing
steel of unbonded prestressed flexural members. In an
(19)
attempt to accommodate the effect of member span-
depth ratio on the computed stress, the American Con-
Eq. (1) to beams with span-depth ratio ~ 35 and im-
plemented an additional lower bound equation for
beams with span-depth ratio > 35 [Eq. (2)].
In this study, a span-depth ratio analytical model was
proposed. The model was incorporated into a compat-
ibility-based analysis arid used to study the effect of
member span-depth ratio on the predicted fps results. It
was found that increasing span-depth ratio reduces the
311
 1

Table 1 - Comparison of l1fP• results obtained using Eq. (19) and other de·
sign prediction equations
!if, , ksi 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
Proposed equation ACI 318-83 Warwaruk, Sozen, and Siess'*
p If: X 10' p.lf; X 10' p.lf: X 10'
Sid. 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.12 O.o2 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.12
10 60.0 42.0 27.0 22.0 60.0 35.0 22.0 18.3 28.0 26.0 22.0 18.0
20 48.0 28.0 18.0 14.6 60.0 35.0 22.5 18.3 28.0 26.0 22.0 18.0
35 60.0 35.0 22.5 18.3
35+ 37.7 22.0 14.1 11.5 28.0 26.0 22.0 18.0
26.7 18.3 14.2 12.8
50 33.6 19.6 12.6 10.3 26.7 18.3 14.2 12.8 28.0 26.0 22.0 18.0
• f .. =f.. + (30,000 - P/f: x 1010); f: and f .. in psi.

predicted Ips in magnitude depending on the length of f.. effective prestress

constant moment region or, equivalently, the length of
plastic region expected to develop in the member at its
nominal flexural strength. Beams loaded with single
concentrated load encountered the highest reduction in
Ips with increasing span-depth ratio. The span-depth ra-
tio model and compatibility-based analysis showed very
good agreement with experimentally observed results.
In lieu of more accurate determination based on
strain compatibility, the following prediction equation
is proposed to replace Eq. (18-4) and (18-5) of ACI 318-
83 for computing Ips in unbonded prestressed concrete
members at their nominal flexural strength
Ips= lpe + (10,000 + 1 ~P) (o.4 + S~dJ
where Ips shall not be taken greater than IP, nor lpe +
60,000 psi. Notice that the proposed prediction equa-
tion is similar in form to Eq. (18-4) of the ACI Build-
ing Code except that the span-depth ratio parameter is
accounted for in a homogenous rather than limiting
manner.
It should be indicated that the proposed equation is
excessively conservative for simply supported members
loaded other than with single concentrated load. More
accurate determination of Ips could be based on the
strain compatibility approach illustrated in the body of
the paper.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study was supported by the University Research Board at the
American University of Beirut. The author is most grateful to the
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture for providing the computer
facilities.
NOTATION
A,.. area of prestressing steel
A, area of ordinary tension steel
A: area of compression steel
A area of the part of the cross section between flexural tension
face and center of gravity of the gross section
b width of section
b. width of web
c neutral axis depth at nominal moment strength
d, depth of center of prestressing steel
f load geometry factor
3 for two equal V3 points concentrated loads
6 for uniformly applied load
oo for single concentrated load
h1 flange thickness
312
J;,, stress in the prestressing steel at nominal flexural strength
f.., ultimate strength of the prestressing steel
J;,, yield strength of the prestressing steel
f: concrete compressive strength
1r yield strength of ordinary reinforcing steel
S beam span length
S! d, = span-depth ratio
p, ratio of the prestressing steel
fa precompressive strain ·in concrete at the level of prestressing
steel
f"' effective prestrain in the prestressing steel
f,.. strain in the prestressing steel at nominal flexural strength
jjJ;,, = f., - f ..
(J, ultimate curvature
REFERENCES
l. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1983, Ill pp.
2. Mattock, Alan H.; Yamazaki, Jun; and Kattula, Basil T.,
"Comparative Study of Prestressed Concrete Beams, With and
Without Bond," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No.2, Feb. 1971,
pp. 116-125.
3. Mojtahedi, Soussan, and Gamble, William L., "Ultimate Steel
Stress in Unbonded Prestressed Concrete," Proceedings, ASCE, V.
104, ST7, July 1978, pp. 1159-1165.
4. Harajli, M. H., and Hijazi, S., "Evaluation of the Ultimate
Steel Stress in Unbonded Partially Prestressed Members," Journal,
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, forthcoming.
5. Park, Robert, and Paulay, Thomas, Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, 769 pp.
6. Mattock, A. H., Discussion of "Rotational Capacity of Con-
crete Beams" by W. Corley, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 93, ST2, Apr.
1967, pp. 519-522.
7. Warwaruk, J.; Sozen, M.; and Siess, C., "Strength and Behav-
ior in Flexure of Prestressed Concrete Beams," Bulletin No. 464,
Engineering Experiment Station, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1962,
105 pp.
8. Du, Gongchen, and Tao, Xuebang, "Ultimate Stress of Un-
bonded Tendons in Partially Prestressed Concrete Beams," Journal,
Prestressed Concrete Institue, V. 30, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1985, pp. 72-
91.
9. Menegotto, M., and Pinto, P. E., "Method of Analysis of Cy-
clically Loaded R.C. Plane Frames," Preliminary Report, Sympo-
sium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted
on a Well-Defined Repeated Load (Lisbon, 1973), International As-
sociation for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Ziirich, pp. 15-22.
10. Naaman, A. E., "An Approximate Nonlinear for Partially
Prestressed Concrete Beams," Computers & Structures, V. 17, No.2,
1983, pp. 287-293.
11. Burns, Ned H.; Charney, Finley A.; and Vines, Wendell R.,
"Tests of One-Way Post-Tensioned Slabs with Unbonded Ten-
dons," Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 23, No. 5, Sept.-
Oct. 1978, pp. 66-83. ·
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1990