RC P.S.

C
L (mm) 8000
Ig (mm4) 5.40E+09
Ig (mm4) Composite 5.62E+09 5.49E+09
Ig-comp / Ig 104% 102%
A (mm2) 180000
ρ% 0.40% 0.16%
As (mm2) 672 262.5
∅ rebar 16 17
n ∅ 16 3.3 1.3

e (mm) 260
Prestressing
Pi (KN) 357

E.Ig 1.8E+14
K1: Before Mcr
K1 = [(E.Ig)/L].Km(rot) 9.1E+10

z (mm) 109.6 117.1

Icr (mm4) 9.43E+08 4.67E+08
K2 :After 1st crack (Mcr) Ief (mm4) 9.43E+08 4.67E+08
Ec.Ief 3.17E+13 1.57E+13
K2 = [E.Ie(cr)]/L]].Km 1.58E+10 1.26E+17

z (mm) 109.6 559.1

Also in these 2 Icr (mm4) 9.43E+08 17477708182
trials , Ie K3: At My Ief (mm4) 9.43E+08 5.40E+09
comeup as > Ig. Ec.Ief 3.17E+13 1.8E+14
Thus we'll use
Icr instead. K3 = [Ec.Ie(y)]/L]].Km 1.58E+10 5.4E+10

c (mm) 29.6 90.6

Icr (mm4) 1.13E+09 4.19E+08
K4: At Mu.(between Mu & My) Ief (mm4) 1.13E+09 4.19E+08
Ec.Ief 3.79E+13 1.41E+13
K4 = [Ec.Ie(y)]/L]].Km 1.89E+10 7032758763
Corrected Actual K4 k4 ac. =(K3*3%~5%) 7.92E+08 2.72E+09

Rotational Stifness Modifier

km (rot.) 4
Deflection Stifness Modifier
km 48/L^2 7.50E-07

R.C
Mo 0 ∅o (rad) 0
Mcr (KN.m) 90.0 ∅cr (rad) 9.92E-04
My (KN.m) 158.3 ∅y (rad) 5.30E-03
Mult (Kn.m) 165.8 ∅ult(rad) virtual 5.70E-03
∅ult (rad) actual 1.47E-02

R.C
Po 0 Δo 0.0
Pcr (KN) 45 Δcr (cm) 2.4
Py (KN) 79.1 Δy (cm) 12.7
Pult (KN) 82.9 Δult (cm) 13.7

Correcting the M-Fi Chart (usng actual ult. K)

∅o (deg.) 0 Δo 0.0
∅cr (deg.) 0.06 Δcr (cm) 2.4
∅y (deg.) 0.30 Δy (cm) 12.7
∅ult (deg.) actual 0.84 Δult (cm) actual 35.3
 Concrete Dimensions
Steel b (mm) 300
8000 t (mm) 600
209000 UKB Cover (mm) 40
d(mm) 560

30300 610x305x238

Materials

fy (Mpa) 450
fyp (Mpa) 1700
fc' (Mpa) 50
Es (Mpa)=Ep (Mpa) 2.00E+05
Ec (Mpa) 33587.6
fpi all (Mpa) = 80% fpy 1360
n=Es/Ec 5.95
‫الحالة دي واقعيا مش‬
‫ عند عزم‬,‫موجودة‬
‫التشريخ بيكون لسة‬ Mcr NA depth. Calcs using 1st M. of Area's balance
‫تقريبا كامل وبيبتي‬ R.C P.S.C
‫وحدة وحدة ينتقل من‬ a1 150 a1
‫الكامل للتشريخ‬ b1 4.00E+03 b1
‫ عند عزم‬.‫الكامل‬ c1 -2.24E+06 c1
‫الخضوع بيكون وصل‬ z 109.6 z
.‫للمرحلة دي‬
My. NA depth Calcs using elastic cracked sec. anal.
‫فبستخدم قيمة‬
R.C P.S.C
‫الستفنس بتاع‬ 1
a1 a1
‫المرحلة دي ك‬ b1 2.67E+01 b1
idealised controlling c1 -1.49E+04 c1
K ‫للي قبلها‬. z 109.6 z

Icr >Ig

This virtual R
hardening is not Stifness Comparison 1
accepted.
K1 9.07E+10
This I will use K2 1.58E+10
the Ig instead.. K3 1.58E+10
K4 1.89E+10
Comes out with no Instead of plotting Mps =p.e in
virtual hardening. be comparable to the RC diagra
But still don't know
we should trust this In other words the external loa
value ?! Or induce a
drop on our own. THis makes the PSC beam stron
 Comes out with no Instead of plotting Mps =p.e in
virtual hardening. be comparable to the RC diagra
But still don't know
we should trust this In other words the external loa
value ?! Or induce a
drop on our own. THis makes the PSC beam stron

P.S.C
∅o (deg.) 0 Mo 0
∅cr (deg.) 0.06 Mcr (KN.m) 218.6
∅y (deg.) 0.30 My (KN.m) 259.6
∅ult(rad) virtual 0.33 Mult (Kn.m) 683.5
∅ult (deg.) actual 0.84

P.S.C
Po 0
Pcr (KN) 109.3
Py (KN) 129.8
Pult (KN) 341.8

Correcting the M-Fi Chart (usng actual ult. K)

∅o (deg.) 0
∅cr (deg.) 0.14
∅y (deg.) 0.18
∅ult (deg.) induced softening 9.11
 This is a misconception too. This N.A depth is not at Mcr. It is the N.A
cracked section where the Ma >>> Mcr, and managed to crack the se
fully, below the N.A. In contrast, at Mcr , the N.A is at mid depth.

Getting the same NA depth from 1st m.o.a. and from elastic section
analysis, and from elastic sec. analysis

M. of Area's balance Mcr NA depth. Calcs using elastic cracked

P.S.C R.C
150 a1 1
1.56E+03 b1 2.67E+01
-875323.762816189 c1 -1.49E+04
117.1 z 109.6

tic cracked sec. anal.

P.S.C Mcr using elastic cracked sec. analy
R.C
� ��� 0.015%
fc 1.12
fs 27.34
Mcr 9.62

R.C
Stifness Comparison 2 Stifness Comparison 3
K1/K1 1 K1/K1
K2/K1 17% K2/K1
K3/K1 17% K3/K2
K4/K1 21% K4/K3
Instead of plotting Mps =p.e in the -ve part of the plot. It is added to all values to shift the diagram so it may
be comparable to the RC diagram.

In other words the external load has to counteract the PS moment first !!! Whereas in the RC beam it doesn't.

THis makes the PSC beam stronger by the MPsc as a reserve strenghth. There lies the core idea of PS.
 Instead of plotting Mps =p.e in the -ve part of the plot. It is added to all values to shift the diagram so it may
be comparable to the RC diagram.

In other words the external load has to counteract the PS moment first !!! Whereas in the RC beam it doesn't.

THis makes the PSC beam stronger by the MPsc as a reserve strenghth. There lies the core idea of PS.

P.S.C
∅o (rad) 0 ∅o (deg.) 0
∅cr (rad) 2.41E-03 ∅cr (deg.) 0.14
∅y (rad) 3.16E-03 ∅y (deg.) 0.18
∅ult(rad) numerical 0.02554258 ∅ult(deg) numerical 1.46
∅ult (rad) sudden softening 1.59E-01 ∅ult (deg.) sudden softening 9.11

P.S.C
Δo 0.0
Δcr (cm) 5.8
Δy (cm) 7.6
Δult (cm) 61.3

Chart (usng actual ult. K)

Δo 0
Δcr (cm) 5.8
Δy (cm) 7.6
Δult (cm) induced softening 381.6
Very unrealistic !!! 2.3m :D And thus dismissed

This 0.005 Ku/Ky induced softening proved to be

oversoftening, here particularly.
UOFT beam gave way at 250 mm, 160 KN.

This beam numerically collapses at:

295.4KN , 581 mm . Which is close ot the experiment

range and also makes sense.
h is not at Mcr. It is the N.A of a fully
d managed to crack the section I gross (c
he N.A is at mid depth. R
A1 1.80E+05
A2 4.00E+03
A3 672
X.G*
I g (composite)

a. and from elastic sectional

Bingo ! Gives the same result, as 1st moment of area equilibrium.

But remember , this has nothing to do with Mcr. Because at Mcr, t

epth. Calcs using elastic cracked sec. anal. It gives the same NA results, because the N.A is the C.G for the com
P.S.C
a1
b1
c1
z

Although the strains are correct, proved by giving the same res
Turns Out to be an invalid solution, based on a key invalid assum
cr using elastic cracked sec. analysis conc. tensile force); i.e. using Icr.
P.S.C
Infact , at Mcr I=Ig, and only after a considerable moment incre

Ignoring the concrete in the tension zone, messes up the strain

Mcr 9.62

Stifness Comparison 3 fpce (Mpa)

1 Mcr (add)
17%
100% ��e
120% �ce
m so it may �cu

am it doesn't.

PS.
m so it may

am it doesn't.
"c" NA depth at Mu for PSC
PS.
a1
b1
c1
a (mm)
Steel c(mm)
My 2580 ∅y �ps
Mult ∅ult �ps - ��e
Mu (KN.m)

Limiting tendon strain

c r (mm) =0.26d
Steel a r (mm) =0.26*1.3d
Py Δy �ps r
Pult Δult Mu r (K.m)

Mu produced by Conc. Force

Fc (N)
Mu by Fc (KN.m)

WRONG Predection !! Why??!!

dismissed Horrendous underestimation

proved to be

0 KN.

t the experiment
Is it LOGICAL & correct , the N.A b

Doesn't make sense !!!??

Some mistake is there !! And how

with only being 10 mm away from
Physics wise doesn;t work ??!! So

This also produces 3.18 greater In

Which is virtual !!! Tests do not p

Below are examples of typical exp

This also produces 3.18 greater In

Which is virtual !!! Tests do not p

Below are examples of typical exp
 I gross (composite)
RC
I1 5400000000 X1 300 XCG1 6.7746050163
I2 85365 X2 560 XCG2 253.23
I3 3217 X3 560 XCG3 253.23
306.77
5.62E+09

t moment of area equilibrium.

do with Mcr. Because at Mcr, the sec. is intact.

se the N.A is the C.G for the composite fully cracked section!!!! But Why ??!!

correct, proved by giving the same result

id solution, based on a key invalid assumption: NO concrete in the tension zone (0.0
using Icr.

only after a considerable moment increment, I = Icr.

the tension zone, messes up the strains, and the forces

Mcr of P.S. As expected, both give the same

reference strain self cancell out :D
1.99 Section
35.79

0.68%
Mu of P.S. ��e 0.68% My of P.S.
0.001%
Section �ce 0.001% Section,; using �padd
0.003 �add. 0.17% as fixed strain
 Mu of P.S. My of P.S.
Section Section,; using �padd
as fixed strain

"c" NA depth at Mu for PSC "c" NA depth at My for PSC

1 Ψ a1 1 Ψ1
4.04E+01 4117.6 b1 3.50E+05 591.5
-1.74E+04 Ψ2 c1 -1.96E+08 Ψ2
113.3 40.4 z (mm) 559.1 350000.0
90.6 �py 0.85%
2.24% > ey < eu My (KN.m) 166.7
1.555% excessive
590.72
Mu produced by Conc. Force
Limiting tendon strain fc (Mpa) 1.06
c r (mm) =0.26d 145.6 fc (Mpa) 1.06
r (mm) =0.26*1.3d 116 My (KN.m) 33.2
1.68% > ey < eu
442.55 Mu produced by fs (additional) not fs (total)
fs add 338.01
My (KN.m) 33.2
Mu produced by Conc. Force
4813.17
2.42 WRONG Predection !! Why??!!
Both give the same result , and is an
NG Predection !! Why??!! underestimation.
ndous underestimation

OGICAL & correct , the N.A being at about d !! In the My stage ??!!!

't make sense !!!??

mistake is there !! And how did this deep NA manage to produce enough strain that can extend
nly being 10 mm away from it !!?
s wise doesn;t work ??!! Something has to be wrong !!

lso produces 3.18 greater Inertia,than the gross composit onw, which results in considerable har

h is virtual !!! Tests do not produce such thing !!

are examples of typical experiments:

lso produces 3.18 greater Inertia,than the gross composit onw, which results in considerable har

h is virtual !!! Tests do not produce such thing !!

are examples of typical experiments:
 I gross (composite)
PSC
A1 1.80E+05 I1 5400000000 X1 300 XCG1 6.774605
A2 1.56E+03 I2 96369 X2 560 XCG2 253.23
A3 262.5 I3 4100 X3 560 XCG3 253.23
X.G* 302.68
I g (composite) 5.49E+09

cted, both give the same NA depth. As the

ce strain self cancell out :D

My of P.S. My of P.S.
ection,; using �padd Section; using �py
s fixed strain �py 0.85% as a fixed strain
My of P.S. My of P.S.
ection,; using �padd Section; using �py
s fixed strain as a fixed strain

"c" NA depth at My for PSC

a1 1 Ψ1
b1 3.50E+05 591.5
c1 -1.96E+08 Ψ2
z (mm) 559.1 350000.0
�py 0.85%
My (KN.m) 166.7

Both give the same N.A depth, as it

the reference strain , weather (e add) or
(ey) self cancels out in the math of the
problem.

??!! Both also give the same My ,since I used

and is an in both :
Mu = fpy*Aps*(d-z/3)

strain that can extend the steel significanty

ults in considerable hardening !!??

ults in considerable hardening !!??
Homogeneous Elastic X-Sec.
𝑦�=0.5�

Fully
Cracked:
 Elastic Deflection & Stifness

�=0.5� Cracked & Efective Stifness

For P.S sections
Rebar Limits
Mult. Prestressed Section
fness

fness
 𝑮𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 �:
d Section
�=( 〖 (� 〗 _��.�).�_(�� ))/(0.85��^′.�)

�=(�_𝑝𝑒.�.�_(�� )+�_�𝑒.�.�_(�� )+0.003.(𝑑−1.3.�)/

(0.85.��^′.�)

�=(�_��.�.�_(�� ))/(0.85.��^′.�)+ (�_��.�.�_(�� ))/

(0.003.�.�_(�� ).(�−1.3.�)/(1.3 �))/(0.85.�

�= 〖 Ψ.(� 〗 _��+ �_��+0.003)∗(�/(1.3 �)−1)

�^2=Ψ_2∗�/(1.3 )−Ψ_2.�
a�^2+Ψ_2.� −Ψ_2∗�/(1.3 )=0.0
>,< ?
a= "✓" Ψ
�_��="✓" > , <2�_(𝑦 )=0.85 %?
𝑀�="✓"
 Yield Moment & Cracked

𝑓�=(𝑓𝑦/𝐸�∗𝐸
�)/(𝑑−𝑧)*z
 𝑓�=(𝑓𝑦/𝐸�∗𝐸
�)/(𝑑−𝑧)*z
𝑓�=(𝐴�. 𝑓𝑦)/
(0.5.𝑏.𝑧) Thus

𝑧/(𝑛(𝑑−𝑧))=𝐴�/(0.5.𝑏.𝑧)

e*
𝑧/((𝑛𝑑−𝑛𝑧))=(𝑒∗)/𝑧

𝑧/((𝑒∗𝑛𝑑−𝑒∗𝑛𝑧))=1/𝑧
a1

𝑧^2=(𝑒∗.𝑛.𝑑−𝑒∗.𝑛.𝑧)
𝒈 �:

0.003.(𝑑−1.3.�)/(1.3.�).�.�_(�� ))/

+ (�_��.�.�_(�� ))/(0.85.��^′.�) +
�)/(1.3 �))/(0.85.��^′.�)

/(1.3 �)−1)
t & Cracked Stifness (Inertia at Yield Moment St
 �1=1

𝑏1= (𝐴�.𝑛)/
a1 b1 c1 (0.5.𝑏)

c1=−
(𝐴�.𝑛.𝑑)/(0.5.𝑏)
𝑧^2+(𝑒∗.𝑛.𝑧")"−(𝑒∗.𝑛.𝑑)=0.0
Moment State)
Same applies here, we've lost controlling information: fy
Thus , the resulting NA is a general enquiry !

Or more acurately, the math of the problem indicates that values of strain are
naturally dismissed.

So weather your controlling strain is the ectr, or ey. When u plug in in either force
equilibrium or moment equilibrium; these controlling strain values, end up self
 Same applies here, we've lost controlling information: fy

Thus , the resulting NA is a general enquiry !

Or more acurately, the math of the problem indicates that values of strain are
naturally dismissed.

So weather your controlling strain is the ectr, or ey. When u plug in in either force
equilibrium or moment equilibrium; these controlling strain values, end up self
canceling on the RHS & LHS of the final eqn.

What matters: (fc, As,d., comp.conc stress shape), these are the ones that control Z.

All above also indicates that Z is a fixed value along the elastic-cracked stage, for any
section that has I=Icr, controlled by the triangle stress.

When the triangle stress changes into a nonline-eqv. square, the NA shifts up, and that
is the ULS state.

An acurate (cumbersome) solution would be having to find out how much of conc. in
tension produces tensile force, and lifts down the NA. But probably won't give a very
1 diferent Z.

(𝐴�.𝑛)/
)
𝑀𝑦=(𝐴�.𝑓𝑦)(𝑑−𝑧/3)
−
𝑑)/(0.5.𝑏)
 Mult. R.C Sec.

rain are

either force
nd up self
 rain are
𝑀�𝑟=(𝐴
either force
nd up self
𝑀�𝑟=(0
that control Z.

d stage, for any

hifts up, and that (0.5.𝑓�.

much of conc. in
on't give a very

�_��𝑟

(𝑑−𝑧/3)
�_��𝑟
Mcr. R.C Sec. after the instant of cracking. u
𝑀�𝑟=(𝐴�.𝑓�)(𝑑−𝑧/3) ….. 1

𝑀�𝑟=(0.5.𝑓�.𝑏.𝑧)(𝑑−𝑧/3) ….. 2

(0.5.𝑓�.𝑏. 𝑧 )=(𝐴�.𝑓�) ….. 3

�_��𝑟/((�−𝑧))=�_�/𝑧
….. 4

�_��𝑟/((�−𝑧))=�_�/((𝑑−𝑧))
….. 5
 Solution
Solution
Algorithim:
f cracking. using elastic
Algorithim: cracked sectional analysi
4 →3
5→3 𝑮𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 �
𝑔𝑒� 𝑧= " ✓"
𝑓�= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗((�
Z →4 𝑓�= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�
 5→3 𝑮𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 �
𝑔𝑒� 𝑧= " ✓"
𝑓�= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗((�
Z →4 𝑓�= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�
𝑔𝑒� 𝑓�=" ✓" 0.5.𝑏.�_��𝑟.𝐸�∗𝑍^2/(�−𝑧)=𝐴_�.�
((�−𝑧))
(0.5.𝑏)/(𝑛.𝐴�)= (𝑑−𝑧)/𝑧^2
∴ 𝑀�𝑟="✓"
𝑧^2=(𝑑−𝑧)((𝑛.𝐴�)/(0.5.𝑏))
𝑜𝑟
𝑍→5 =Ψ𝑑−Ψ𝑧
𝑔𝑒� 𝑓�="✓"
𝑧^2+Ψ𝑧−Ψ𝑑=0.0
∴ 𝑀�𝑟="✓"
𝑧= "✓"
onal analysis.
𝑮𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 �:

(� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗((�−𝑧)−�)/((�−𝑧))
Wron
= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗𝑧/((�−𝑧))
 𝑮𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 �:

(� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗((�−𝑧)−�)/((�−𝑧))
= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗𝑧/((�−𝑧))
𝑍^2/(�−𝑧)=𝐴_�.�_��𝑟.𝐸�∗((�−𝑧)−�)/
= (𝑑−𝑧)/𝑧^2
Wron
Should be noted that , this formula is
N.A depth formula, by coincidence, t
gives identical results to the 1st Mom
cracked section.

The sectret is in :
.𝐴�)/(0.5.𝑏)) You've the desired controlling param
strain compatibility for a section that

1- Fully Cracked
Ψ
=0.0 2- Has a triangular stress dist. above

3- Unkonwn, compressed concrete st

So the above formulation, is a genera

moment that is high enough to fully
tensile concrete force.
At Mcr, the section is still elastic, and
extremities increase proportionally.
 One should use intact section's elastic stress
equivalent virtual steel inertia, is an acceptab

Wrong
 Wrong
ted that , this formula is identical to the My
rmula, by coincidence, thus gives the same N.A depth to My. Also, it
al results to the 1st Moment of area approach for deducing the fully
on.

s in :

esired controlling parameter efect , which is (�_��𝑟) . So the result is a

tibility for a section that is :

ked

ngular stress dist. above N.A.

compressed concrete state (fc, �_�)

formulation, is a general enquiry about the N.A depth at the unkown

t is high enough to fully crack the section, and leave no considerable
ete force.
ection is still elastic, and the NA depth is at (t/2), and both stress
ncrease proportionally.
on's elastic stress dist. Ignoring the
tia, is an acceptable simplification.
Note : Dr. Ashraf Shawky lectures ;
state that: NA position is fixed
along the elastic cracked stage.

Which was proved by my calcs !

ky lectures ;
is fixed
ed stage.

my calcs !
 M- φ Chart for R.C Beam
180
160
140
120
Unexpected Hardening.
Because Icr at Mu, is greater th
M (Kn.m)

100
Caused by the increase in Lever
80 (shallowing of N.A).

60 Despite that, it is a virtual incre

actually at ultimate the section
40 composure is low & the stifnes

20
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0
φ @ support (degree)
Ro tati o n a l S ti fn e s s (N /m m )

Elastic Transition Plastic

Stifness Comparison
1.00E+11
Load Increase Load Increase Load Increase resisted by
8.00E+10 resisted by resisted by N.A
N.A both N.A upmoves &
upwards N.A lockdepth Locks
& Strain Strain Increase.
shift. between My & Mcr. &
Increase.
6.00E+10 the increase in strain
yields the rebar. N.A de pth s hi fts up
s i gni fica ntl y, re s ul ting i n a
4.00E+10 vi rtua l I cr (i ncre a s e ) ! & thus
vi rtua l ha rde ne i ng.

2.00E+10

0.00E+00
9.07E+10 1.58E+10 1.58E+10 1.89E+10
 0.00E+00
9.07E+10 1.58E+10 1.58E+10 1.89E+10

P- Δ Chart for R.C Beam

90
80
70
60
Unexpected Hardening.
50 Because Icr at Mu, is greater th
P (KN)

Caused by the increase in Leve

40 (shallowing of N.A).
30 Despite that, it is a virtual incr
inertia, actually at ultimate the
20 composure is low & the stifne
loose.
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Δ @ midspan (cm)

M- φ Chart for PSC Beam

800
700
600
500
M (Kn.m)

400
300
200
100
 500

M (Kn.m)
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
φ @ support (degree)
Ro tati o n a l S ti fn e s s (N /m m )

Elastic Transition Plastic

Stifness Comparison
1.00E+11
Load Increase Load Increase Load Increase resisted by
8.00E+10 resisted by resisted by N.A
N.A both N.A upmoves &
upwards N.A lockdepth Locks
& Strain Strain Increase.
shift. between My & Mcr. &
Increase.
6.00E+10 the increase in strain
yields the rebar. N.A depth s hi fts up
s i gni fica ntl y, re s ul ting i n a
4.00E+10 vi rtua l I cr (i ncre a s e ) ! & thus
vi rtua l ha rde ne i ng.

2.00E+10

0.00E+00
9.07E+10 1.58E+10 1.58E+10 1.89E+10

P- Δ Chart for PSC Beam

400
350
300
250
P (KN)

200
150
100
50
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60
 200

P (K
150
100
50
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60
Δ @ midspan (cm)

Notes:
1- My/Mu is very low, compared to experimental results.

2- Stifness between Mcr & My seems not right !

3- Induced softening for at Mu stifness = 0.05 K(My), see

impossible to deflect the beam 3.5 m !!! Thus this tweak
disregarded.

P- Δ Chart for R.C Beam (with actual ultimate Sti

400
350
300
250
P (KN)

200
150
100
50
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Δ @ midspan (cm)
 ‫‪100‬‬
‫‪50‬‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪0.0‬‬ ‫‪10.0‬‬ ‫‪20.0‬‬ ‫‪30.0‬‬ ‫‪40.0‬‬ ‫‪50.0‬‬
‫)‪Δ @ midspan (cm‬‬

‫‪PSC / RC‬‬

‫‪Mcr‬‬ ‫‪2.4‬‬ ‫‪∅cr‬‬ ‫‪2.43‬‬ ‫‪K1‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪My‬‬ ‫‪1.6‬‬ ‫‪∅y‬‬ ‫‪0.6‬‬ ‫‪K2‬‬ ‫‪0.3‬‬
‫‪Mu‬‬ ‫‪4.1‬‬ ‫‪∅ult‬‬ ‫‪1.73‬‬ ‫‪K3‬‬ ‫‪8.9‬‬

‫ي بالك الرسمة اللي فوق دي أنا مزود‬

‫ى كل مومنتات البريسترسد بيم ‪ ,‬قيمة‬
‫منت البريستر ‪ .‬عشان تصلح المقارنة مع‬
‫الكمرة العادية‪.‬‬

‫الحمل الخارجي محتاج يقاومه الول قبل‬

‫أي شيء‪.‬‬

‫كن برضو لو حابب ترسمه تحت بالسالب‬

‫وتوضح وساعتها هتكون برضو الكمرة‬
‫! البريسترس أفضل كباسيف بيم برضو‬

‫ملحظات‪:‬‬
 ‫ملحظات‪:‬‬

‫في الكمرة البريسترس صح‪ ,‬المفروض نكون‬

‫قدام شوية‪.‬‬

‫حد المرونة بتاع الكمرة البريسترسد !!‬

‫خرسانة أنا فارضه فمش متأكد من حد النهيار‬

‫شن للكمرة الخرسانة !!‬

‫الكمرة البريستسد ‪ 4.1‬مرات أقوى !!‬

‫نتلي إيلستيك ‪ ,‬كما واضح !! وكمان بتشرخ‬

‫متأخر ‪ 2.4‬مرة‬

‫نس بريدوامملتي إيلستيك والكمرة بتحقق‬

‫جدا قبل متنهار ‪ 60‬سم وده كتير !!‬
 ‫نس بريدوامملتي إيلستيك والكمرة بتحقق‬
‫جدا قبل متنهار ‪ 60‬سم وده كتير !!‬

‫ن في سكند اوردر أنالسيي !!!‬

‫اج تضور في اللترتشر على حد عامل‬

‫‪ My, fi yield‬يجيب بيه ال‬

‫صح !!! بتاع كل مرحلة لن من الواضح إن ال‬

‫عين قيمة الستفنس الصح‪analatical formulae‬‬
 R.C
am M- φ Chart for R.C Beam (with actual ultim
180
160
140
120
pected Hardening.
M (Kn.m)
Some hardeni
se Icr at Mu, is greater than at My. 100 however, the
d by the increase in Lever arm
owing of N.A). 80 of the section
te that, it is a virtual increase in inertia, 60 ultimate state
ly at ultimate the section's
osure is low & the stifness is very loose. 40
corresponding
2.6 times mor
20
0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.
e) φ @ support (degree)

Stifness Comparison 2
Plastic 1.2 1.4
1 1.2
n
0.8 1
0.8
d Increase resisted by 0.6
th N.A upmoves &
Strain Increase. 0.6
0.4
N.A de pth s hi fts up
0.4
s i gni fica ntl y, re s ul ting i n a
vi rtua l I cr (i ncre a s e ) ! & thus 0.2 0.2
vi rtua l ha rde ne i ng.

0 0
K1/K1 K2/K1 K3/K1 K4/K1 K1
0 1.89E+10
 0 1.89E+10

am P- Δ Chart for R.C Beam (with actual ultim

90
80
70
60 Some hardeni
pected Hardening.
use Icr at Mu, is greater than at My. 50 however, the
ed by the increase in Lever arm P (KN)
lowing of N.A). 40 the section at
ite that, it is a virtual increase in 30 ultimate state
tia, actually at ultimate the section's
20
the correspon
posure is low & the stifness is very
e. rotation 2.5 tim
10
0
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Δ @ midspan (cm)

P.S.C
am M- φ Chart for PSC Beam (with induced post
800
700
600
500
M (Kn.m)

400
300
200
100
 500

M (Kn.m)
400
300
200
100
0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
φ @ support (degree)

Stifness Comparison 2
Plastic 1.2 1.4
1 1.2
n
0.8 1
0.8
d Increase resisted by 0.6
th N.A upmoves &
Strain Increase. 0.6
0.4
N.A de pth s hi fts up
0.4
s i gni fica ntl y, re s ul ting i n a
i rtua l I cr (i ncrea s e ) ! & thus 0.2 0.2
vi rtua l ha rde ne i ng.

0 0
K1/K1 K2/K1 K3/K1 K4/K1 K1
0 1.89E+10

am P- Δ Chart for PSC Beam (with induced post

400
350
300
250
P (KN)

200
150
100
50
0
50.0 60.0 70.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
 200

P (K
150
100
50
0
50.0 60.0 70.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Δ @ midspan (cm)

mental results.

ight !

05 K(My), seems too soft and is physically

hus this tweak is wrong and should be

actual ultimate Stifness)

40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

an (cm)
 ‫‪40.0‬‬ ‫‪50.0‬‬ ‫‪60.0‬‬ ‫‪70.0‬‬
‫)‪an (cm‬‬

‫‪Aps/As‬‬ ‫‪39%‬‬
‫الخلصة‬
‫يا زميلي‬
‫خلي بالك ال‬
‫على كل موم‬
‫مومنت البريس‬

‫لن الحمل الخ‬

‫ممكن برضو لو‬

‫وتوضح وس‬
‫! البريسترس‬

‫ملحظا‬
 ‫ملحظا‬

‫‪ -1‬مش متأكد إن نقطة اليلد في الكمر‬

‫قدام شو‬

‫فمقدرش أحكم على حد المرونة‬

‫‪ - 2‬الستفنس الثالث للكمرة الخرسانة أن‬

‫كروتيشن للكمرة‬

‫‪ -3‬اللي متأكد منه إن الكمرة الب‬

‫والرسبونس بتاعها بريدومينانتلي إيلس‬

‫متأخر ‪2.4‬‬

‫‪- 4‬مدام أنا متأكد إن الرسبونس بريدوام‬

‫ديفلكشن عالي جدا قبل متن‬
‫‪- 4‬مدام أنا متأكد إن الرسبونس بريدوام‬
‫ديفلكشن عالي جدا قبل متن‬

‫إذتا محتاج يكون في سكن‬

‫‪ analytical model‬محتاج تضور في‬

‫بدقة !!‪My, fi yield‬‬

‫يظبط!! ال ستيفنس صح !!! بتاع‬ ‫ظاهر إن طريقة يلد مونت للكمان‬

‫بريسترسد صح‬
‫مشكلة جامدة في تعين قيمة‬ ‫!! فيها‬
‫كبرت الحجيج وخليته متعادل في الكمرتين بثا‬
‫يلد مومنت اكبر‪.‬‬

‫حظ إني هنا كبرت ال حديد لكن ال بريسترسنج‬

‫فورس زي ما هيا‪.‬‬

‫فوق أنا كنت حاطط حديد بس على قد الديون‬

‫المطلوب اللي هيستحمل شدة الكبل فقط !!‬

‫!! وده طالع‪ 40 %‬من حديد الكمرة العادية‬

‫‪This brings up smthng else . Hardening is a big dea‬‬
‫‪PSC section , !! this 0.0 K2 for EE simulations is wro‬‬
 R.C
(with actual ultimate Stifness) M- φ Chart fo
180
160
140
Some hardening exists, 120
however, the softness

M (Kn.m)
100
of the section at the 80
ultimate state, made the 60
corresponding rotation
40
2.6 times more.
20
0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
upport (degree) φ @ suppor
Comparing actual and

Stifness Comparison 3
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
K1/K1 K2/K1 K3/K2 K4/K3
 (with actual ultimate Stifness) P- Δ Chart fo
90
80
70
Some hardening exists, 60
however, the softnes of 50

P (KN)
the section at the 40
ultimate state, made 30
the corresponding
20
rotation 2.5 times more.
10
0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 2
midspan (cm) Δ @ mids
Comparing actual and

S.C
with induced post yield softening) M- φ Chart fo
800
700
600
500
M (Kn.m)

400
300
200
100
 500

M (Kn.m)
400
300
200
100
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5
pport (degree) φ @ support
Comparing actual and

Stifness Comparison 3
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
K1/K1 K2/K1 K3/K2 K4/K3

ith induced post yield softening) P- Δ Chart for

400
350
300
250
P (KN)

200
150
100
50
0
00 250 300 350 400 450 0 50 100 150 200
 200

P (K
150
100
50
0
00 250 300 350 400 450 0 50 100 150 200
midspan (cm) Δ @ midsp
Comparing actual and
 ‫الظاهر إن طريقة‬

‫لما كبرت الحجيج و‬

‫لحظ إني هنا كبرت‬

‫فوق أنا كنت ح‬

‫المطلوب اللي‬

‫!! وده طالع‬

‫‪ening is a big deal in the‬‬
‫‪imulations is wrong‬‬
 M- φ Chart for R.C Beam

It should be noted that this vis

produced by the significant N.A
It has nothing to do with inhere
analyses assumptions-use fyiel

Very smart !

It can be noted also, that for g

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 the hardening is a result of the
tension of the steel (dissipater
φ @ support (degree) open-gap close).
aring actual and virtul ult. stifness effect
 P- Δ Chart for R.C Beam

It should be noted that this vis

produced by the significant N.A

It has nothing to do with inhere

analyses assumptions-use fyiel
Very smart !

It can be noted also, that for g

.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 the hardening is a result of the
tension of the steel (dissipater
Δ @ midspan (cm) open-gap close).
aring actual and virtul ult. stifness effect

M- φ Chart for PSC Beam

 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
φ @ support (degree)
ring actual and virtul ult. stifness effect

P- Δ Chart for PSC Beam

150 200 250 300 350 400 450

 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Δ @ midspan (cm)
ring actual and virtul ult. stifness effect
noted that this visible hardening in both cases is the result of the fact that Mult > My;
the significant N.A upwards lift (Couple lever arm significant increase).
g to do with inherent steel hardening (fult = (15% ~ 20%), as we in the ult. state
umptions-use fyield and not fu. :D

ed also, that for gap opening -gap cclosing frames; it is the other way around:
g is a result of the steel's hardening, as the rotation is controlled by the uniaxial
e steel (dissipater), where the N.A is nearly fixed ,for both +ve & -ve rotations (gap
se).
noted that this visible hardening in both cases is the result of the fact that Mult > My;
the significant N.A upwards lift (Couple lever arm significant increase).

g to do with inherent steel hardening (fult = (15% ~ 20%), as we in the ult. state
umptions-use fyield and not fu. :D

ed also, that for gap opening -gap cclosing frames; it is the other way around:

g is a result of the steel's hardening, as the rotation is controlled by the uniaxial

e steel (dissipater), where the N.A is nearly fixed ,for both +ve & -ve rotations (gap
se).
t > My;

:
xial
s (gap
t > My;

xial
s (gap
 Idealised Steel M
800

600

400

200
fy*1.15 strain stress
0
-0.1 -593.4 -0.1 -516 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05
-0.002 -517.5 -2.00E-03 -450 -200
0 0 0 0
-400
0.002 517.5 2.00E-03 450
0.1 593.4 0.1 516 -600

-800

fc' *1.5
strain stress strain stress fc'=50 (Crude Para
-3.00E-03 -75 -3.00E-03 -50
-2.88E-03 -75 -2.88E-03 -50
-2.52E-03 -73.08 -2.52E-03 -48.72
-1.92E-03 -65.28 -1.92E-03 -43.52 -3.50E-03 -3.00E-03 -2.50E-03 -2.00E-03 -1.50E-03
-1.08E-03 -44.28 -1.08E-03 -29.52
-3.00E-04 -14.25 -3.00E-04 -9.5
0 0 0 0
1.31E-04 7.5 1.31E-04 5
 Idealised Steel Model fo Sap2000
800

600

400

200

0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-200

-400

-600

-800

fc'=50 (Crude Parabola Model)

20
10
0
3.00E-03 -2.50E-03 -2.00E-03 -1.50E-03 -1.00E-03 -5.00E-04 0.00E+00 5.00E-04
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
 Sap 2000 Results
Curvature Moment
0 0
3.30E-03 120.7362 Deeriving th slope eqn. !
8.26E-03 144.116
180
0.0149 146.1204
160
0.0231 148.2581
0.033 149.8738 140
0.0446 151.7552 120
0.0578 153.8628 100
0.0726 17.765
80
0.0892 6.3434
60
0.1073 3.8477
0.1271 2.8601 40

0.1486 2.1101 20
0.1717 1.4701 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.1965 0.8874
0.2229 0.7472
0.251 0.6814
0.2807 0.4648
Fi*4 vs. 1st derivative of the slope e
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
 Thus for our case:

(1/r) = (4/L)*Fi

Deeriving th slope eqn. !

∅o (rad) 0 Mo 0
∅cr (rad) 9.92E-04 Mcr (KN.m) 90.0
∅y (rad) 5.30E-03 My (KN.m) 158.3
∅ult(rad) actual 1.47E-02 Mult (Kn.m) 165.8

(1/r)o 0 Mo 0
(1/r)cr 3.97E-03 Mcr (KN.m) 90
(1/r)y 2.12E-02 My (KN.m) 158.2951
(1/r)u 5.89E-02 Mult (Kn.m) 165.7579

0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

(1/r)o 0 Mo 0
(1/r)cr 0.00E+00 Mcr (KN.m) 90
(1/r)y 3.56E-03 My (KN.m) 158.2951
(1/r)u 1.29E-02 Mult (Kn.m) 165.7579
st derivative of the slope eqn.
Seems that sap 2000 produces very close results ,yet a bit lower moments
because of the partial strenght factors .

I dont know here how to estimate the curvature accurately !!

so these are some guesses !!!

0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

 ∅∗4

∅−𝑀/𝐸�

lts ,yet a bit lower moments

ure accurately !!