Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DX007
DX007
OF PRESTRESSEDAND
CONVENTIONALLY REINFORCED
CONCRETE BEAMS
By J. R. Janney, E. Hognestad
and D. Mcl-lenry
Authorized
Reprint from Copyrighted
Journal of the American Concrete Institute
January
1956, Proceedings Vol. 52, p. 601
Bulletins
Published
Development
Research
by the
Department
and Development
Division
of the
Portland
D1 $frnfluence
Of
Cement
soil
Engineering, by E. J.
~&p&@d
Association
??ELT.
frwm Twmt@izth
717 (1954).
from Journal
5%
D2ADiscussion
\
Reprinted
=. .
oeding8,
fmm Journal of
50, 73e-1 (1054).
JACK R. JANNEY.
Part
2, 1954):
Pro-
\
D3 -< ~nvestigaticm of the Moisture-Volume
Stability of Concrete
Maqnry
Units, by JOSIIPII J. SHIDELER, March, 1955.
D4 A Method for Determining the Moisture Condition of Hardened
Concrete in Terms of Relative Humidity, by CARLA. MENZEL.
Reprinted
from Pro.eedinpa,
Awrican
80&tu
For !l%diw
kfa&iafa,
55 (1955).
from
Mix-
1955);
Design,
Proceedinae,
from
Conoretd Institute
(JfummY.1956):Pfwediwau
Title No.
Ultimate
Flexural
Conventionally
By JACK
R. JANNEY,
Strength
of
Reinforced
E!VIND
Prestressed
Concrete
HOGNESTAD,
S2-37
and
Beams
and DOUGLAS
McHENRY~
SYNOPSIS
Based on experimental and analytical studies of flexural behavior and
ultimate strength of beams, the relative performances of various types of
prestressed and conventional reinforcement are compared.
Test results of 19 rectangular beams are given, involving ( 1) three pretensioned, (2) three post-tensioned grouted, (3) five post-tensioned unbended,
(4) three post-tensioned unbended with deformed bars added, and (5) five with
conventional deformed bar reinforcement. For three reinforcement percentages, the characteristics of these five types of reinforcement are compared
in terms of moment-deflection relationships, deflection recovery, and ultimate
strength of beams failing in flexure.
Structural
concrete in buildings
and bridges usually requires some kind
Intermediate-grade
deformed
of tension reinforcement
to resist flexural loads.
bars constitute a major percentage of the reinforcing steel used in the TJnited
States, although an increasing amount of high-strength
steel (usually wire
or strancl) is being used in conjunction
with various applications
of prestressed
concrete.
Interaction
of steel reinforcement
i> one of three ways:
and concrete
is generally
brought
about
602
JOURNAL
OF THE
AMERICAN
CONCRETE
INSTITUTE
February 7956
invtsstigati~n
This investigation
was conducted
at the Research
and DeveIoprnent
Laboratories
of the Portland
Cement Assn. in 1953-54.
The primary objective of the study was to provide a direct and quantitative
comparison
of
the flexural behavior and strength of beams with five types of straight tension
reinforcement:
(1) pre-tensioned
reinforcement,
(2) post-tensioned
grouted
reinforcement,
(3) post-tensioned
unbended reinforcement,
(4) post-tensioned
unbended
reinforcement
with deformed
bars added, and (.5) conventional
deformed bar reinforcement.
Particular
emphasis was given to ultimate beam strength, deflection recovery at various percentages of the ultimate loadj and load-deflection
relationThe opportunity
was also at hand to obtain
ships from zero load to failure.
some additional
performance
of ~-in.
strand.
Scope of tests
This report is based on 19 beam tests, the principal results of which are
given in Table 1. All beams were 6 x 12 in. in cross section and were loac[ed
Concrete strength was held near 5500 psi,
at the third-points
of a $&ft span.
and the prestressed tendon used was a %i-in. seven-wire
strand with an
The only variable aside from the five
effective prestress of about 120 ksi.
types of tension reinforcement
was the steel ratio, which varied from 1.20
to 4.75 percent in the conventionally
reinforced beams and from 0.322 to
0.965 percent in the prestressed beams.
The ultimate
loads, mode of failure, load-deflection
characteristics,
and
In addition,
concrete and steel strains
recovery properties were observed.
were recordecl
throughout
the tests.
ULTIMATE
FLEXURA1.
STRENGTH
OF BEAMS
603
Notation
Committee
f.
fse
f 8.
f?/
. defined by Fig. 5 S O
effective depth == 8.3 in. in t,e~t~;
defined by Eq. (la)
moment
as
tensile
strain
in reinforcement
at
ul-
timate moment
. ultimate compressive strain in concrete (Fig. 5)
SPECIMENS
Specimens
AND
k,,
323,
compressive
Prestressed
strength
of
Reirl-
lZ-in.
cylinders
= effective prestress in reinforcement,
= stress in reinforcement at ultimate
moment
= yield poiut of intermediate-grade
deformed bars; yield strength at
1.0 percent offset strain for stranck
Ac
c -
==
.
~ c/d (Fig. 5)
flu
at
TEST PROCEDURE
.
The 19 beams comprising the test series were 6 x 12 in. in cross section with
an effective depth of 8.3 in. (Fig. 1). The beams were 10 ft long and were
tested with third-point
loading over a 9-f t span.
As shown in Table 1, the
test program was divided into five groups representing
the five types of
tension reinforcement
which constitute the principal variable of this investigation.
Within groups 1 to 3 of the prestressed beams, the amount of tension
reinforcement
varied from two to six Yg-in. strands or 0.322 to 0.965 percent.
The 1.0 percent offset yield strength f. of the strand, which was near the
ultimate strength, was about five times the yield point of the conventional
deformed bar reinforcement
used in groups 4 and 5. Therefore, and because
ultimate flexuml strength was of primary importance
in this investigation,
the amounts of conventional
reinforcement
were so chosen that qy = pfu/f<,
covered a similar range of values in all groups of tests (about 0.1 to 0.4),
The concrete beams were cast using a 5-bag mix of a blend of Type I cements
and 1~-in.
maximum
size aggregate.
Seven days of moist curing were
followed by three weeks of storage in the air of the laboratory
until testin,g
took place at 28 days.
Concrete strengths at the time of testing are reported
604
CONCRETE
TABLE
Rcinforcernent
W?.m
GrouDq,
,Stecl
f.,
wi
Percent
INSTITUTE
Measl;red
e~ectlve
prestress
strain, 680
February 1956
1PROPERTIES
13ffectiye
preatrem
f,e, kei
2 strands
0.322
1-0.250
4 strands
0.644
1-0.420
6 strands
Cal. ula.td
COrlcn?tc
pr?str,ss,
mi
Yield
.strengtk
f,,, ksi
Pre-tensioned
lo.141
OF
5350
0.00485
113
0.00450
113
2:]5
+74
117
23,5
+117
1677
.
0.00475
0.96,5
10/30
1
Po@tensitmed
20, 151
2 strands
0.322
5000
0.00529
126
235
+41
601
2O ,306
4 strands
0,044
4950
0.00475
118
2s5
+?8
ll ZB
2L) ,398
68 brands
0.965
5700
0.00470
117
235
+117
1677
Post-tensioned
30.128
2 strands
0.322
5900
0.00440
110
235
+36
526
3-0.144
2 strands
0.322
5250
0.00500
122
2:45
+40
5 s.!
3-0.307
4 strands
0.644
4930
0.00542
130
235
+86
1 MO
3-0.428
slhnds
0.965
5300
0.00490
120
235
+116
1721
strands
0,965
5300
0.00560
133
235
+132!
180S
3-0,428
Post-tensionedunbended beams
,
;;#4n~rs
4o. 131
0.80
0.161
5750
0,00490
120
4O .285
2- #4 bars
3 strands
0.80
0.482
5:300
0,00512
126
40 .455
2 # 4 bars
5 strands
0.80
0,803
4930
0.00500
122
I
I
+20
-286
46 5
235
1
47.0
235
44.3
236
I
1
+63
89EI
+101
14517
Conventianmlly
50 .096
5-0.172
5-0.190
5-0..304
5-0.492
,,
3 # 4 bans
3- Y5 bars
3- # 6 bars
3-17 bars
3 x 8 bars
1.20
1 87
2.65
3.61
5400
5250
6200
5:300
4,75
5420
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43.0
48.3
44.5
44.6
56.1
Equal
~_
loads
0
0
0
0
0
were
ULTIMATE
BEAMS
AND
M camred
... met
FLEXURAL
STRENGTH
OF BEAMS
605
TEST RESULTS*
Cracking
rnommt,
in.-klp
LT~8:te
Moment
lW,.[C,
in.-kir>
IWeasu
red
Wt
1,,,
0.01557
0.14:3
0 00324
198
0.00765
0.221
().00278
270
0.00364
0 ?,17
o 00225
324
0.00870
0.140
o 00176
17:3
:300
0. 0077!5
0 272
(). 00378
290
485
463
0,0048:3
0,:314
0. 002$)4
MO
640
631
bonded
greu9ed
in.-kip
l!!te.c*
Mc<m
beams
.-
beams
.
unbended
1 05
1.01
beams
0. 00%43
0.0!)3
0. 0004)
204
203
1.00
0.00345
0.10!4
o 00052
222
209
J 06
0.00!218
0.217
0.00077
40s
3!75
1.03
0. 00!200
0.283
0.00103
502
:530
(1. w
0.00193
0.278
0. 000!27
522
560
093
I
0.00258
-0,219
0,:333
0.00210
70
208
249
1,08
0.00092
107
408
42(I
1.10
0.00141
270
582
5.52
1.05
reinforced
beams
o 00(;
:46
0.172
0.190
0.:304
0 4!42
:14
m
%
I
224
3s0
4:32
571
791
I
203
:340
4:3!2
561
82(J
1.10
1.08
0.98
1.02
0.96
1.03;
standard
deviation
= 0.058.
The stress-strain
and 2 were rusted to obtain a good bond to the concrete.
.kt the
curve shown in Fig. 2 is given only to a strain of about 2 percent.
lhe
corresponding
load the strand broke in the grips used in tension tests
strand was not stress relieved, and an unusually
early departure from a
linear stress-strain relationship therefore took place.
The conventional
reinforcement used was intermediate-grade
deformed bars meeting ASTM specifications A 305-50T and A 15-52T.
A typical stress-strain curve is shown in
606
JC)URNAL
OF THE
P/2
-!
AMERICAN
CONCRETE
INSTITUTE
Fig.
P/z
-+--1~--~--
sol~~
February 1956
lTest
ading
bec~ms
sand
arrangement
=-=
x.-=
x...=
x
x__
-46-
20
;y,, x
-Strain
!!
El
Io+1oq
gages
on
reinforcement
L
k614
Fig. 2, and yield points are reported for the deformed bars used in individual
beams in Table 1.
Pre-tension was released about 7 days after casting at a concrete strength
of about 4000 psi; post-tensioning
took place after about 16 days.
The
effective prestress at the time of testing is reported for each beam in Table 1.
For the post-tensioned
unbended
beams, each strand was surrounded
by
an individual cardboard tube with an internal diameter of ~ in. ~hereb y
the position of the strands in the beam cross section changed only a negligible
amount as the beams were deflected by test loading.
Test procedure
Beam
Fig. 3.
300
specimens
were
tested
to
failure
in
clamp-on
a testing
machhle
as
shown
in
in the outer
*a
ii 20
x
.-c
~ ~Strain of individual
--
Strain
of ~d-in.
w<res(SR4
strand
(8-in.
gage)
extensomete
al
5)
100
/
0.005
Unit
Fig. 2Stress-strain
0.015
0.010
Strain
0.02!0
607
3-Testing
ment
thirds of the beam spans. For the unbonded beams in group 3 stirrups were
not needed. All beams were unloaded and immediately reloaded a t approximately 25, 50, 75, and in some cases 85 percent of the ultimate load to
observe deflection recovery properties.
Measurements were made of deflections and of strains on the concrete
surface as well as in the reinforcement. Strains were measured by electric
wire resistance gages; commonly used methods were satisfactory except for
the strand reinforcement.
Since the strands consist of six wires each forming an individual helix
around a central seventh wire, the strain along an individual helix wire a t
any load will be smaller than the strain of the strand as a whole along its
axis. The action of the strand as reinforcement depends essentially on its
stress-strain properties as a unit. I n tension tests, therefore, strains along
individual wires were measured by electric gages and strains in the strand
unit were measured simultaneously by an 8-in. mechanical extensometer.
I n both cases stress was expressed as strand load divided by nominal strand
area (0.080 sq in.). The difference between the two curves (Fig. 2) may decrease when the strand is embedded in concrete. As far as beam performance
is concerned, however, it should be on the safe side to assume that the stressstrain curves of the strand before and after embedment in concrete are the
same. I n the beam tests, strains were measured by attaching electric gages
to individual wires. The stress corresponding to strains measured in this
manner, and in turn the strand strain corresponding to the same stress, were
obtained with the aid of Fig. 2. All strand strains' reported here, therefore,
refer to the stress-strain curve of the strand as a unit.
TEST RESULTS
General behavior and mode of failure
All beams in the investigation failed in flexure. Differences in the overall comparative performance of the five types of reinforcement were observed in terms of ultimate load-carrying capacity, crack pattern, loaddeflection characteristics, and deflection recovery properties. The variations
608
'
February 1956
Post-tensionedgrouted 2- 306
ULTIMA1E
bonded prestressed
unbended
beams.
Load-deflection
beams
FLEXURAL
failed
characteristics
STRENGTH
at
higher
and recovery
OF BEAMS
loads
than
properties
609
the
corresponding
by the stress-strain
prest,ressed concrete
Fig.
.=(;
=f,,,L.4s
(d-k,c)
=k,k,,.fcbc. . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. .. .. . ... . .. . ..
5Conditions
at ultimate ma)ment
in Fig. 5.
. ...(1)
. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. ..
.(2)
610
JOURNAL
Eliminating
C)F THE
the depth
lfi3
S=(
in which
~=P~-
AMERICAN
CONCRETE
to the neutral
,f..
Februmv 1956
axis, c, we obtain
g,,
. . . . .
)
reinforcement
index
the tension
INSTITUTE
. .
. .,,,,,,,.,..,,,.,..(3)
f.
..(4)
If there are several layers of steel with different values of ultimate stress
j,,,, steel area A., and effective depth dn, Eq. (1) to (4) become:
r,
1
=Z(f,UAS) =C=k,k,f=bC
......
.
.
.
.
. .
.(la)
jtfult=
M,,,
x[,f.wA.(dn
--k2C)]
My,.
in which
Zq,, =Z
=(,XJ,L)
. . . . . . . . . .
l+,.
()
44.,
f,,
M f.
. .
)
amid=
. .
. .
x
,?,fsdjL
~(A,f8,,),
.(2a)
. .............(%)
)
...,....,
.(4a)
Throughout
this investigation,
the steel was so arranged in the test beams
that d was always close to 8.3 in. All values of tension reinforcement
percentage and index reported herein are therefore based on d = 8.3 in.
For design purposes, the steel stress at failure, ~,u, must be determined
for various types of reinforcement
from strain conditions.
However,
the
relationship
expressed by Eq. (3) and (3a) may be studied
in terms of
measured ultimate moments and measured steel stresses at failure as indicated in Fig. 6. Though five types of reinforcement
are represented, only a
By least squares, a value of l~,jklh,
reasonable scatter is found in the figure.
equal to 0.52 was determined.
This value of 0.52 is in close agreement with
earlier findings in investigations
of conventionally
reinforced concrete.
In
assumed
their studies of bonded prestressed
beams, Billet and Appletons
kz = 0.42 and an empirical relationship between klk, and cylinder strength
~: was established,
which for the average concrete strength of the beams
=
(). s1.
In the
f = 5400 psi, gives klk~ = 0.83 and k2/klk3
reported here ~.
studies of ultimate strength
are used throughout.
given in Table
Conventiorwlly
reinforced
beamsFor
the beams in group 5 which were
conventionally
reinforced with intermediate-grade
steel, the steel stress at
Ultimate moments can therefore be
failure was at the yield point, ~.. = j..
calculated from Eq. (3) without the aid of strain compatibility
equations.
The average value of M,~s,/ilZ~alc for group 5 is 1.03, which confirms the applicability of I@ (3) as shown also by numerous previous tests of conventionally
reinforced beams.
Compatibility
of slrainsA
more complete understanding
of the action of
various types of prestressed reinforcement
and the magnitude of the ultimate
steel stress may be reached through a study of compatibility
of strains in the
Attempts
to develop rigorous analyses of strain
steel and the concrete.
conditions in cracked members have not been particularly fruitful.
The tests
reported here confirm others in suggesting that certain idealized concepts
ULTIMATE
and empirical
greater utility
OF BEAMS
611
utilityperhaps
of even
STRENGTH
relationships
may be of considerable
than a precise analysis.
A large number
to the longitudinal
nearly plane after
some irregularities
tests reported here
~cu=
FLEXURAL
of conmete
strains is sketched
L)
k.
.(5)
of the effective
moment
is the sum
Few :
.f,,L=&+Fe,u . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Substituting
Eq.
,,, .,
..((3)
(6)
,.,=6,.
+F+6 !........
..
(7)
v.
The prestress strains in the concrete before loading are small compared to
the strains e. and c.u at failure, and their influence on the position of the
neutral axis, AC) may be neglected.
In Fig. 5 we then have c = k,,d, a,nd Eq.
(la) and (7) give
()
ku=~~zqu=~z
pf;
F,
=
c,,, +
c..
Fqi
..
.....
...,.
(8)
Solving
k,k,
--zqw
.({))
The effective prestress steel strain e,, and change in steel strain due 10 loading to failure c,U e,,, were measured as indicated in Table 1. With the aid
Bonded
was developed
in a MS thesis by A. Feldman:
Department,
?Jniveraity
of
m Flexure, Ciyil Engineering
*A similar app~oac:h
crete
Beams
Frubng
and Unbended
Illinois, 19.54
Prestressed
Con-
JOURNAL
OF THE
AMERICAN
CONCRETE
INSTITUTE
Februory 1956
+
1
/___
lo
* ---~2qu
Mu I+,
[
(1-0.52
Eq
qu)
47.
(3)
4
/-
+--
f-
mes+w.sed
--unbended
i~~
__.l__~
0.1
q
~fsu
0.2
0.3
( ~u=measured
0. I
0.5
0.4
qy
0.3
0.2
= ~,
0.4
(fy = steel
0.5
gield
stress)
Fig.
of
(9)
o Group
i,
Pretensioned
A Group
2,
Posttensioned
grouted
o Group
3,
Pos+tensioned
unbended
6
(left) Relation
between
measured Af.zt and measured q.
Group
with
Group
4,
Posttensioned
deformed
5,
bars
unbended
added,
Conventionally
was computed
the stress-strain
curve
in Fig. 2, F.. at failure
for all prestressed beams assuming }Clh, = 0.83.
The results
in Table
reinforced
from
Eq.
are given
1.
Ere-twusioned beamsFor
the three pre-tensionecf
beams, the average of
the calculated values of FE. given in Table 1 is 0.0028, while the measured
maximum concrete strains on the top surface of the beam c. were 0.0025 to
The corresponding
value of F, 1.1 tu 0.7, may indicate that the
0.0040.
bond between strand and concrete failed locally in some beams.
other hand, the average changes in steel stress e,u t.. as measured
(X the
by two
the predicted
ultimate
in Eq.
moments
1,
approxi-
ULTIMATE
FLEXURAL
STRENGTH
the
average
strands
were
beams---The
grouted
for
well
the
grouted
beams
1 \vere
computed,
beams,
and
tensioned
beams
so that
in
13q. (3).
average
pre-tensioned
ar,d pre-tensiorred
Table
from
should
calculated
be similar.
an average
The
in
value
and
the
of M,,.
613
The
(0.0028).
the strength
therefore,
OF BEAMS
resulting
value
This
of
calculated
same
equal
{;hat
the
of the grouted
ultimate
manner
JfW..Z.
Feu equals
indicates
performance
average
as for
moments
the
pre-
It is important
to note that Eq. (10)
tests of beams loaded at third-points
of
beam depth.
For greater span-to-depth
at midspan, smaller values of F must be
The calculated ultimate moments given in Table 1 were obtained by calculating ~.u from the last equality in Eq. (11) and the stress-strain curve by
successive
approximations,
substituting
the final ~,u into Eq. (3) to find
M,.?,.
The average value of M~..,J/lf,~~. is 0.99.
barsThe ratio FEJIL,of both
Post-tensioned unbended beams with deformed
beams in this group for which strain measurements
were made was 0.0035.
(The strain measuring equipment
did not function properly during the test
of beam 4O. 131. ) Since the average FeJku for group 3 was 0.0033 it appears
that the presence of the deformed bars in group 4 did not appreciably
increase
the F value of the urlbonded strands, in spite of the fact that the crack pattern
of the beams was changed.
TABLE
2STUD%
OF F<.
,.
Be&rn
Groupq.
30 12s
Measured
M.
3o .144
30 .307
3-0.428
:3:.,4;;
0.093
0.109
0.217
0.286
0.278
4O .285
4o .455
0,219
0,33:3
Zqu
m
I
.
graph
gives
a new value
(Eq.
9)
F6u
of c.., etc.
0.112
0.131
0,262
0.341
0,335
0.00043
0.00052
0.00077
0,00103
0,00097
0.264
0.401
0 00092
0.00141
may
be computed,
which
k.
o 0038
0,0040
0.0029
0.0030
0. 00!29
f..
F,.
when
c1.0035
cl.0035
introduced
into
the
614
JOURNAL
Ultimate
stress-strain
C>F THE
AMERICAN
CONCRETE
INSTITUTE
Februmy 1956
Comparison
of ultimate strengthsThe
effect of reinforcement
t;ype on
ultimate moment is studied in Iig. 7, in which measured ultimate moments
divided by f.bdz are plotted versus g, for all beams tested.
Curves representing the applicable
ultimate strength equations
are also entered in the
figure for an average prestress ~.. = 121 ksi.
All conventional
reinforcement
yielded before the ultimate moment was
reached.
The strength of the beams in group 5 is therefore represented by
Eq. (3) with & = f,.
Yielding of the prestressed reinforcement
is expressed by the 1.0 percent
to a total strain of
offset yield strength, fv = 235 ksi, which corresponds
almost 2 percent.
Only in the lightly reinforced pretensioned
beam 1-0,141,
therefore, was the yield strength of the strands developed
at failure.
The
remaining bonded beams failed by crushing of the concrete compressicm zone
at strand stresses below the yield strength (Fig. 7).
All unbended prestressed beams failed by concrete crushing at lower strand
stresses than the corresponding
bonded beams.
This is clearly evident from
Fig. 8 in which observed changes in strand stress due to flexural 1oading
from zero load to failure are plotted versus qU. Theoretical curves representTO
indicate
effects
of
ing Eq. (8) and (11) are plotted for j$. = 121 ksi.
variations in Eq. (10), a curve corresponding
shown in the figure.
to Icw =
UL 1IMATE
FLEXURAL
STRENGTH
OF BEAMS
615
I25
Ioc
75
50
25
0
o
--%.
__.. -
_zr-T--r-l
0.5
q~: pfy/f~~
Fig. 8Effect
of b~nd
on change
(fg
= ~eel
yi~;
0.6
stress)
to failure
crack pattern of unbended beams was improved, Fig. 8 shows that replacing
one strand did not significantly
increase the stress at beam failure of the
It is felt, however,
that these observations
with 0.8
remaining
strands.
percent deformed bar reinforcement
did not entirely rule out the possibility
that a higher percentage of deformed bars may increase the change in unbended strand stress due to loading.
Midspan
deflections
Performance
of the five types of reinforcement
are compared in terms of
moment-deflection
diagrams in Fig. 9. The applied moments are divided
by the potential ultimate
moment
corresponding
to yielding
of all reinforcement.
This potential strength was, of course, not developed for high
percentages of prestressed reinforcement.
The moment-deflection
characteristics
of the pre-tensioned
beams
of
group 1, post-tensioned
grouted beams of group 2, and the prestressed beams
with deformed bars added of group 4, are similar except that the leracking
moments of group 4 beams are lower.
This may be expected because the
beams of group 4 had a smaller prestressing force retiulting from replacing
one strand by conventional
deformed bars.
Over the entire range of steel percentages
the general moment-deflection
The prestressed beams derelationships
may be characterized
as follows.
flected less in response to load than the conventionally
reinforced members
in the working load range, that is, after cracking of the conventionally
rein-
616
.
F?
i
JOURNAL
OF THE
AMERICAN
CONCRETE
INSTITUTE
February 1956
>5:172
1.0
/<
~
$J
%
L.3-. [44
0.5
g
a)
Ave. qg
-g
-h
275
II
n
0.60
1.20
1
1
1.[
2.40
=0.148
-37
?-a
--1-.250
-u
n
w
5-.304
.4
1-3-.307
N
m
-o
cl.)
.
E-
2
0.5
-=20
0.40
Midspan
Fig. 9Midspan
deflection
O.&l
0.60
in
inches
1.00
ULTIMATE
FLEXURAL
STRENGTH
OF BEAMS
617
three
portions
of Fig.
9 are
plotted
to
different
horizontal
scales.)
Deflection recovery
recovery
at all load
releases and for all values of qv. Unbondecf beams 1;-0.307 and 30.428, as
well as beam <LO.455 of the group with deformed bars added, also reeovered
about 90 percent at all load releases.
Beams 3-0.144, 4--0.131 and 1-0.28.5
showed about 90 percent recovery at 25 percent of the ultimate load but the
recovery percentage decreased with i]lcreasing load.
The conventionally
reinforced
beams of group 5 showed recovery
of a
smaller percentage at the lower loads than at the higher loads.
This is possibly
because some slip took place near tension crack= in the concrete at th: lower
loads before the bar deformations
were seated firmly.
The recovery i~t high
loads of all conventionally
reinforced beams was about 80 percent.
~50%, 1
r l-cAed+o~25%,
~75%,
~85% O+ Ul,irna+e
qy :
.13[
.172
.250
.3Q6 .?07
Fig. 10Deflection
.265
.304
recovery
.420
23A
.396
.420
.455 .49Z
618
JOURNAL
OF THE
AMERICAN
CONCRETE
INSTITUTE
February 1956
Bond
Some strain data were obtained from the three pre-tensioned beams of group
1 which indicate the prestress transfer length of the ~-in.
rusted strands.
Gages attached to the strands about 12 in. from the beam ends showed strains
after transfer of 101, 97, and 97 percent of the average strain at the remaining
gage points (Fig. 1). It ~PPears, therefore, that the prestress transfer length
was less than 12 in. for ~-in. rusted strands released into a 4000-psi concrete.
Little can be said of the flexural bond stresses developed in the pre-tensioned
and the post-tensioned
bonded beams by way of comparison with information
obtained from earlier bond studies. II The beams in this series were loaded
at the third-points.
As a result there was no control of the position of flexura,l
cracks, and the strain gages were not usually at or near the cracks, as they
must be to derive the maximum values of flexural bond stress.
However, a
general comparison
between the bond behavior of pre-tensidned
and posttensioned grouted beams may be made from the following observations,
The
distribution
of strand strains at gage points along the length of the strands
was similar for each corresponding
pair of pre-tensioned
and grouted beams.
More important,
a similarity in flexural bond performance
of the two types
of bonded beams is indicated by the ultimate moments (Fig. 7), changes in
strand stress due to bending (Fig. 8), and midspan deflections
(Fig. 9).
If
the grouted beams fell short of the pre-tensioned beams from a bond standpoint,
these properties would have approached
those of the unbcmded beams.
CONCLUDING
REMARKS
The investigation
reported here was conducted with the primary objective
of providing a comparison with respect to behavior at high loads and ultimate
strength of structural
concrete beams in which the type of reinforcement
The principal test variables were three reinforcement
percentages
varied.
and five type~ of straight tension reinforcement:
(1) pre-tensioned,
(2) posttensioned grouted, (3) post-tensioned
unbended,
(4) post-tensioned
unbended
with deformecl bars added, and (5) conventional
deformed bar reinforcement.
Flexural
strength
ULTIMATE
(high
percentage,
percentage,
high
FLEXURAL
STRENGTH
OF BEAMS
619
prestress,
low prestress,
short beams)
to over 100 percent (low
long beams, loads near midspan) seem possible.
Unbended
beams tested & which one strand was replaced by embedded
deformed bars gave ultimate strengths close to those of corresponding
bonded
prestressed beams.
Deflections
Midspan deflections were, of course, smaller for prestressed than for conventionally
reinforced beams in the working load range.
At loads near ultimate, however,
the reverse was true.
The unbended
prestressed
beams
deflected more than the other prestressed beams when the cracking moment
was exceeded.
The deflection at failure of all beams decreased as the amount
of reinforcement
was increased.
Detlecfion
recovery
of loads.
cent
load
for
reinforced
about
The
releases
beams
80 percent
recovery
up to
recovered
at high
the prestressed
beams
of the
85 percent
about
with
beams
prestressed
of the
70 percent
respect
beams
ultimate
in the
to
was
load.
working
recovery
about
after
$)0 per-
Conventionally
load
range
and
loads.
Bond
developed
when pre-tensioned
s~-in. rusted
concrete was not greater than 12 in. Simithe pre-tensioned
and post-tensioned
grouted
between grout and steel was as satisfactory
and concrete.
REFERENCES
1.
Stiissi, F., Ueber die Sicherheit des einf ach bewehrten Eisenbentou-Rechteclcbalens,
Assn. for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, V. 1, Apr.
1932, f)p. 487-495.
Publications, International
Con-
6$20
JOURNAL
OF THE
AMERICAN
CONCRETE
INSTITUTE
Febnmry 1956
8. Itevesz, S., Factors Governing the Ultimate Bending Moment of Normal Reinforced
and Prestrcssed Concrete Beams, with Reference to a Proposed Plastic Theory, Magazine
of Concrete Research (London), No. 13, Aug. 1953, pp. 11-26.
9. Gifford, F. W., Tests on End-Anchored Unbrrnded Prestressed Concrete Beams Having Parabolic Steel Eccentricity,
Subject to Uniformly Distributed Loading, Ma~azzne
of
(London), No. 13, Aug. 1953, pp. 27-36.
Conc~ete
Research
10. Gifford, F. W., The Design of Simply Supported Prestressed Coucrete Beams for
Ultimate Loads, Proce~dings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Louclon, V. 3, Part 111, Apr.
1954, pp. 125-143.
11. Janney, J. R., [Nature of Bond in Ih-e-Tensioned Prestrcssed Concrete, ACI JOURNAL,
May
1954, P~oc. V. 50, pp. 717-736 (POrtkmd Cement ASSII.,
DeVelOpmcnt Department,
Bulletin No. D2).
For such discussion of this paper as may
V.
December 1956 JOI.IRNAL. In Proceedings
follows the June 1956 JOURNALpages.