Geometrical Nonlinearity and Length of External Tendons

Marco A. Pisani, M.ASCE1

Abstract: External prestressing is achieving widespread success. However, some practical rules are not yet well established. An impor-
tant question deals with the maximum distance between anchorages and deviators. Due to the absence of contact between the tendons and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the concrete beam 共other than at the anchorages and deviators兲, the change in the deformed shape of the concrete beam involves changes
in the position of the tendons with respect to the center of gravity of the concrete beam 共second-order effects兲, so that their influence on
the equilibrium conditions of the beam near collapse can be significant. This paper suggests a simple equation that determines the
maximum clear length of the tendons small enough not to take into account the second-order effects in common practice. A parametric
analysis 共made by means of a numerical method previously verified by comparisons with experimental test results兲 verifies the reliability
of the simple equation suggested.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2005兲10:3共302兲
CE Database subject headings: Prestressing; Tendons; Nonlinear analysis; Geometric nonlinearity.

Introduction In this case, the external tendons can be replaced by external

Although the first posttensioned bridge ever built 共designed by
Dischinger and constructed in 1936-37 at Aue, Saxony兲 adopted
external prestressing, this prestressing technique has achieved
widespread success both in rehabilitation 共or strengthening兲 and
in the design of new structures only in recent years. The main
reason for this delay lies in the decrease of the load carrying
capacity of a structure with unbonded tendons compared to a
similar structure whose tendons are bonded to concrete. When
dealing with bonded tendons, a local increase of the applied bend-
ing moment implies a local increase of the tensile stress in the
tendons 共especially when the beam is cracked兲, whereas when
adopting external tendons their tensile stress increase depends on
the overall length increase of the tendons which is a function of
the bent shape of the concrete beam and of the position of an-
chorages and deviators. If no deviator is placed between the ends
of a simply supported beam, the concrete beam will probably
bend to collapse without an appreciable increase of the tensile
stress in the external tendons. Even when dealing with unbonded
internal prestressing, the tensile stress of the tendons at ultimate is
often lower than yield 共see, for instance, Mattock et al. 1971;
Cooke et al. 1981; Harajjli 1993兲. Therefore, the European code
共CEN 1992a兲 allows both a refined nonlinear structural analysis
共that takes into account the stress increase in the tendons due to
the displacement of anchorages and deviators兲 and a linear analy-
sis that keeps the stress in the external tendons constant.
The adoption of the approximate method disregarding any
stress increase in the tendons markedly simplifies the analysis
in practice, and it is also conservative 共Pisani and Nicoli 1996兲.
1
Associate Professor, Politecnico di Milano, Dept. of Structural
Engineering, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on February 11, 2003; approved on June 7, 2004. This
paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, May
1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2005/3-302–311/$25.00.
constant forces that give rise to an internal axial force and a
bending moment opposite to that due to dead load. The position
of anchorages and deviators determines the shape of this opposing
bending moment 共and shear too兲.
The previous statements apply only when stability consider-
ations 共second-order effects兲 are irrelevant. The changes in the
shape of the concrete beam during loading phases involve
changes in the relative position of the tendons 共see Fig. 1兲, which
can be significant in the equilibrium condition of the deformed
beam. The American codes suggest adopting at ultimate a stress
increase in the external tendons based on empirical rules deduced
from experimental tests. The European code 共CEN 1992a兲 states
that “measures shall be taken to maintain a constant relative po-
sition of the tendon within the concrete section in a sufficient
number of sections in order to avoid harmful second-order ef-
fects.” However, the code does not suggest how to achieve this
requirement. Therefore, a design rule that establishes a maximum
clear length of the tendons, small enough not to take into account
the second-order effects in common practice, is needed.
The objective of this work is to propose a design rule of this
kind and to verify its reliability by means of a parametric analy-
sis. The parametric analysis will be performed by means of a
numerical algorithm previously tested 共Pisani 1996兲. The numeri-
cal model is essential when dealing with an analysis that has to
take into account safety factors.
It is important to note that the adoption of the design rule
suggested in this study does not mean that second-order effects
are always negligible in a beam prestressed with external tendons.
A nonlinear structural analysis must be performed when these
effects cannot be ignored.
Determination of the Maximum Clear Length
of the External Tendons
With an externally posttensioned beam, the concrete beam is sub-
jected to second-order effects, due to of the loss of eccentricity of
the axial force 共introduced by the external tendons兲 with an
increase of the load. The first problem to solve is determining a

302 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:302-311.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Second-order effects in the bent beam 共a box girder兲.
limit for these effects below which they can be ignored. When
dealing with reinforced concrete columns, it is generally agreed
that second-order effects may be ignored if they increase the
corresponding first-order bending moment by less than 10%
共CEB/FIP 1991; CEN 1992b兲, that is:
M II ⬍ 0.1M I
where M I = factored moment for strength limit states 共referred to
as first-order design bending moment by Eurocode 2兲; and M II
= increase of bending moment due to second-order effects.
In practice, the codes usually suggest ignoring second-order
effects if slenderness is below a certain value. However, this
value refers to structural elements that have a symmetric, compact
cross section 共square, circular, rectangular兲 and symmetric rein-
forcement. This is not the case for the beams in this study.
The piece-wise polygonal shape of the external tendons is usu-
ally approximately similar to the shape of the diagram of the
bending moment due to dead and live loads. A direct consequence
is that the external tendons are usually parallel to the beam lon-
gitudinal axis in the area around the maximum bending moment
near midspan. This is the case shown in Fig. 1, but this is also the
most unfavorable condition 共with respect to second-order effects兲
when dealing with beams that have a small number of deviators
共that is to say that no deviator is placed near the section where the
maximum bending moment is encountered兲.
From a general point of view, a beam prestressed with external
tendons may be considered as composed of two subsystems: The
concrete beam and the external tendons. The interaction between
the two subsystems is restricted to the points where anchorages
and deviators are placed. Therefore, the isolated portion of the
concrete beam between the deviators around midspan is a struc-
tural member loaded by the dead and live loads, plus the eccentric
axial force caused by the external tendons 共see Fig. 1兲. At the
ultimate limit state, if collapse does not occur because of buck-
ling, then
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:302-311.
M R = M I + M II 共2兲
where M R = design strength of the cross section of the concrete
beam at midspan, computed under an axial force equal to the
resultant tendon force at ultimate N pu.
Obviously N pu is unknown because it depends on the bent
共1兲 shape of the concrete beam. It is well established that the varia-
tion of the resultant tendon force throughout loading might be
large, as in the case of beams with a small span-to-depth ratio
共measured between the deviators兲, or small, as in the case of
beams having large span-to-depth ratio 共Alkhairi and Naaman
1993; Aparicio and Ramos 1996; Tan and Ng 1997兲. Usually N pu
does not exceed 30% of the strength of the cross section of the
concrete beam under pure axial force. Since the presence of an
axial compression of this level in general increases the design
strength of the concrete cross section, the computation of M R can
be simplified by adopting the resultant tendon force under dead
load N p instead of N pu 共which is unknown兲. As already stated, this
simplification is conservative. Substituting Eq. 共2兲 into Eq. 共1兲
gives
M R ⬎ 11 · M II 共3兲
When dealing with second-order effects in concrete structures,
the problem is nonlinear both because of geometrical nonlinearity
and the nonlinear behavior of the materials, at least when collapse
is approached. To overcome this problem, the so-called “model
column method” is adopted 共CEB/FIP 1978兲. The assumptions of
this approximate method are:
1. The compression member is pinned at the ends;
2. The cross section is constant along the member 共that is shape
and bonded reinforcement do not vary兲;
3. The axial force is constant along the member;
4. The maximum bending moment occurs at midspan; and
5. The deformed shape of the member can be approximated by
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 303
 means of a sine curve that depends on the curvature at mid-
span.
The last assumption is the distinguishing point of this well-
established approximate method, which has been verified since
the 70’s and has been adopted in Eurocode 2.
Let wm be the relative girder displacement at midspan with
respect to that of the deviators and let L be the distance between
the deviators 共see Fig. 1兲. If the deflection curve of the isolated
portion of the concrete beam between the deviators 共around mid-
span兲 is sinusoidal, then
␲x
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
w = wm · sin
L
and the curvature at midspan is
d2w ␲2wm 10wm
␹m = 兩␹兩x=L/2 = − 2 = ⯝ 共5兲
dx L2 L2
This gives
wm = 0.1 · L2 · ␹m
According to Eqs. 共4兲 and 共6兲, the deflected shape of the isolated
portion of the concrete beam between the deviators is propor-
tional to the curvature at midspan. In other words “to simplify the
solution, the equilibrium condition and the moment-curvature re-
lation are matched at only the midlength of the beam, in the spirit
of the collocation method” 共Bazant and Cedolin 1991兲. Assump-
tion 共5兲 could look crude, but it is not if assumptions 共1兲–共4兲 are
satisfied, because “from a different point of view, Eq. 共4兲 can in
any case be considered as the first term of a Fourier’s series
expansion for the actual deflection shape. This means that in sev-
eral practical cases it represents the deflection with a good ap-
proximation” 共CEB-FIP 1978兲.
The model column method links the curvature at ultimate of
the beam drawn in Fig. 1 with the second-order bending moment:
M II = 0.1L2␹mN pu
Substituting Eq. 共7兲 into Eq. 共3兲, one obtains
冑
MR
L⬍
1.1 · ␹mN pu
As already stated, the external tendons often do not yield when
the beam collapses. Dealing with the most common case of a
seven-wire strand 共nominal diameter—15.2 mm, that is 0.6 in.兲
Grade 270 according to ASTM 共1999兲, the yielding stress is equal
to 1860· 0.9/ 1.15= 1456 N / mm2, where the factor 1 / 1.15 repre-
sents the material resistance factor according to Eurocode 2. The
stress in these tendons under dead load is usually between
1,000 N / mm2 and 1,350 N / mm2 and, therefore
1,456 1,456
· N p = 1.079 · N p 艋 N pu 艋 1.456 · N p = · Np
1,350 1,000
Curvature ␹m increases as loading progresses toward the ulti-
mate limit state. Since Eq. 共1兲 has to be satisfied at any loading
stage, the value of ␹m that has to be considered in Eq. 共6兲 is the
curvature at ultimate ␹u. When dealing with buckling, CEB
共CEB-FIP 1978兲 suggests adopting ␹u = 0.005/ d, where d is the
distance measured from the extreme compression fiber to the cen-
troid of the tension 共bonded兲 reinforcement, that is the effective
depth of the section. This recommendation follows from the ob-
servation that buckling of reinforced concrete columns usually
occurs at yielding of the tension reinforcement 共that is when
304 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:302-311.
strain in the bonded reinforcement is about 0.002兲, before the
crushing of the concrete 共that is with maximum compression
strains not greater than 0.003兲. In the case discussed herein, col-
lapse has to occur without significant second-order effects 关ac-
cording to Eq. 共1兲兴, and therefore the foregoing value underesti-
mates ␹u. The maximum value allowed by Eurocode 2 is ␹u
= 0.0135/ d. This value refers to the case where collapse occurs
with simultaneous concrete crushing and reinforcing bars ruptur-
ing. Therefore, Eq. 共8兲 can be written as
冑
d · MR
L⬍ 共10兲
␤ · Np
共4兲
where
1.1 · 0.005 · 1.079 = 0.0059 艋 ␤ 艋 0.0216 = 1.1 · 0.0135 · 1.456
共11兲
The value herein suggested is ␤ = 0.01. This value is a conserva-
tive compromise between the limits of Eq. 共11兲 and, when re-
placed in Eq. 共10兲, finally gives:
共6兲
L ⬍ Lmax = 10 冑 d · MR
Np
共12兲
In precast segmental beams, cast with dry joints and prestressed
with external tendons, a conservative rule is needed to guarantee
transfer of shear stresses through the joints, due to the lack of
longitudinal bonded reinforcement in these sections. According
to the European code, the ultimate limit state is reached when
the compression area covers less than two-thirds of the depth h
of the cross section. In this case, curvature ␹u = ␧cu / 共2h / 3兲 共␧cu
= concrete strain at ultimate兲 is close to the minimum value ␹u
= 0.005/ d and, therefore, once more the suggested value of ␤ is a
conservative approximation for the derivation of Eq. 共12兲. How-
ever, structures without bonded reinforcement in a discrete num-
ber of cross sections can collapse because of the opening of one
single joint 共depending on the length of each precast segment
共7兲
with respect to L兲, and as a consequence, the hypothesis that the
deformed shape of the concrete substructure between the devia-
tors is approximately sinusoidal does not apply. Therefore, the
design rule suggested in Eq. 共12兲 applies only when dealing with
共8兲
beams that have at least the minimum amount of longitudinal
tension reinforcement 共embedded in concrete兲 imposed by the
codes.
Refined Numerical Method
The evaluation of the design load carrying capacity of a beam is
an operation which is quite different from the simulation of an
experimental test. It is a prediction of the reliability of the struc-
ture, and therefore the possibility of local defects or imperfections
共9兲 has to be taken into account. Section forces can be determined
based on overage material properties, because local strength de-
ficiencies of the materials will not affect their distribution signifi-
cantly. However, for design of individual cross sections reduced
material properties must be taken into account.
These remarks led to the suggestion of a general method that,
in Eurocode 2, consists of two stages at each step of loading. The
first stage is the evaluation of the deflected shape of the beam and
the computation of the internal actions for the concrete beam and
for the tendons 共nonlinear analysis兲. The second stage checks if
these internal actions exceed the design strength of the cross sec-
tion of the two subsystems 共the concrete beam and the external
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Constitutive laws adopted

tendons兲. Eurocode 2 adopts two distinct constitutive laws and
two distinct compressive strengths for concrete: The first one
共shown as a continuous line in Fig. 2兲 must be used for structural
analysis, and the second one 共thick dashed line in Fig. 2兲 refers to
the evaluation of the cross section design strength and is affected
by the partial safety factors for material properties. At the same
time, Eurocode 2 does not make a distinction between these two
stages when dealing with the constitutive laws of both mild steel
reinforcing bars and prestressed steel, that is, tensile strength will
always be computed by taking into account the safety factor for
material properties 共dashed thick lines in Fig. 2兲.
The verification of Eq. 共12兲 has then to be performed by
adopting a refined numerical method that takes into account the
safety criteria already described. Among the methods suggested in
the scientific literature 共see for instance Rao and Mathew 1996;
Harajli et al. 1999兲, the method here adopted 共Pisani 1996兲 evalu-
ates the displacements of every point of the concrete substruc-
ture and then the response of the tendons. To avoid approxi-
mations related to the changes of the relative position of the ex-
ternal tendons with respect to the concrete section, the algorithm
includes second-order effects, large displacements, and the
change in beam length due to compression. When simulating the

Fig. 3. Load at ultimate. Difference between the experimental tests and the numerical simulations.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 305

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:302-311.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Applied load versus midspan deflection diagrams 关tests by Jerret et al. 共1996兲兴

behavior of the beam up to ultimate, a step-by-step approach is
adopted.
The analysis of the concrete beam requires knowledge of the
external forces acting on it, including the forces transferred by the
deviators and the anchorages, which depend on the bent shape of
the beam itself. This requirement, together with the assumption of
geometrically nonlinear behavior of the structure, large displace-
ments, and mechanically nonlinear response of the materials, im-
plies an iterative process at each step of loading. The method is
based on three assumptions.
1. Cracking is spread over a segment of finite length in the
concrete structure. Consequently, precast segmental beams
cast with dry joints, or other joints that do not have an
amount of continuous longitudinal reinforcement sufficient
to satisfy this assumption, are excluded from this analysis.
2. Tensile strength of concrete is neglected. This assumption is
expected to have no significant effect on the load carrying
capacity of the beam, since the contribution of concrete in
the tensile zone becomes negligible at high loading levels.
3. Shear deformation is neglected both before and after crack-
ing. This assumption implies that collapse occurs due to
bending, that is, the beam has sufficient shear reinforcement
and longitudinal reinforcement necessary to resist shear at all
loading stages.
The effects related to time-dependent behavior of concrete due
to creep and shrinkage are not computed by the numerical algo-
rithm. These effects are usually simulated separately and then
included in the analysis by means of the stress in the tendons
under dead load.
The most convincing way to verify the reliability of this nu-
merical method is to compare analytical predictions with experi-
mental test results. Obviously, in this case, only the constitutive
laws drawn with continuous thick lines in Fig. 2 are adopted. 70
experimental tests, carried out by 13 different research teams

Fig. 5. Applied load versus midspan deflection diagrams 关tests by De Cillia 共1997兲兴

306 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:302-311.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Beams adopted in the parametric analysis

were reproduced to verify the reliability of the numerical algo-
rithm 共Billet and Appleton 1954; Mattok et al. 1971; Cooke et al.
1981; Du and Tao 1985; Taerwe et al. 1992; Harajli 1993;
Chakrabarti et al. 1994; Sen et al. 1994; Jerrett et al. 1996; De
Cillia 1997; Niitani et al. 1997; Taerwe and Mattys 1997;
Yonekura et al. 1997兲. These tests include fully prestressed con-
crete, partially prestressed concrete 共bonded prestressing, un-
bonded prestressing, external prestressing兲, and reinforced con-
crete beams, cast with normal or high strength concrete and
reinforced or prestressed with steel, carbon fiber reinforced plastic
and glass fiber reinforced plastic. Fig. 3 shows the percent of
deviation of the numerical prediction of the load carrying capacity
of the specimens from the experimental test results. The differ-
ence is plotted against the parameter ␭ = A p f pu / 共A p f pu + As f su兲,
where index p stands for the prestressing cables and index s refers
to the mild steel reinforcement. The mean value is −1.3% with a
standard deviation equal to 5.2%. The simulation of the 70 tests
proves to be in accordance with the experimental results at every
stage of loading and gives confidence in the computational pro-
cedure. Fig. 4 shows the comparisons of the simulations with the
load-displacement curves obtained by Jerret et al. 共1996兲, who
used prestressed beams strengthened by means of external carbon
tendons. Fig. 5 shows comparisons for test results obtained by De
Cillia 共1997兲. These tests were performed to verify the shear
strength of reinforced concrete beams made with high strength
concrete 共equal to 136 MPa兲 without stirrups. Beam T12-1.5
collapsed due to shear failure. The comparisons shown in Fig. 5
suggest that if collapse occurs due to flexure at a load much lower
than the shear strength of the beam, the aggregate interlock acting
in the inclined cracks markedly reduces shear deformation.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 307

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:302-311.

 Table 1. Data Describing the Tests Conducted.
Test A sa A p,Ext.b ␴ញ pc A pd MR Lmax L
number Concrete 共mm2兲 共mm2兲 共MPa兲 共mm2兲 ␧ញ pe 共kN m兲 共mm兲 共mm兲
1 C20 1,808 556 −1,300 — — 954.9 11,229 11,000
2 C20 1,808 556 −1,100 — — 921.9 11,999 12,000
3 C50 1,808 556 −1,300 — — 978.9 11,369 11,000
4 C50 1,808 556 −1,100 — — 942.9 12,135 12,000
5 C20 1,808 2,224 −1,300 — — 1,503.5 7,045 7,000
6 C20 1,808 2,224 −1,100 — — 1,415.6 7,434 7,000
7 C50 1,808 2,224 −1,300 — — 1,643.5 7,366 7,000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8 C50 1,808 2,224 −1,100 — — 1,490.6 7,629 7,500

9 C20 8,136 556 −1.300 — — 3,135.9 19,810 18,000
10 C20 8,136 556 −1,100 — — 3,112.9 21,464 18,000
11 C50 8,136 556 −1,300 — — 3,300.9 2,0324 18,000
12 C50 8,136 556 −1,100 — — 3,267.9 21,992 18,000
13 C20 8,136 3,336 −1,300 — — 2,356.5 7,011 7,000
14 C20 8,136 3,336 −1,100 — — 2,664.3 8,107 8,000
15 C50 8,136 3,336 −1,300 — — 4,262.5 9,429 9,000
16 C50 8,136 3,336 −1,100 — — 4,095.3 10,051 10,000
17 C20 1,808 1,112 −1,300 1,112 −0.00667 2,430.1 12,669 12,500
18 C20 1,808 1,112 −1,100 1,112 −0.00564 2,391.8 13,666 13,500
19 C50 1,808 1,112 −1,300 1,112 −0.00667 2,527.1 12,919 12,500
20 C50 1,808 1,112 −1,100 1,112 −0.00564 2,488.8 13,941 13,500
21 C20 8,136 1,668 −1,300 1,668 −0.00667 3,584.1 12,229 12,000
22 C20 8,136 1,668 −1,100 1,668 −0.00564 3,720.0 13,549 13,500
23 C50 8,136 1,668 −1,300 1,668 −0.00667 5,575.1 15,252 15,000
24 C50 8,136 1,668 −1,100 1,668 −0.00564 5,525.0 16,512 16,500
25 C30 5,310 834 −1,300 — — 378.4 4,259 4,250
26 C30 5,310 834 −1,100 — — 406.5 4,801 4,750
27 C30 5,310 1,668 −1,300 — — 181.9 2,088 2,000
28 C30 5,310 1,668 −1,100 — — 243.8 2,629 2,500
29 C50 5,310 1,668 −1,300 — — 539.3 3,596 3,500
30 C50 5,310 1,668 −1,100 — — 590.8 4,093 4,000
a
Total area of the longitudinal reinforcement.
b
Total area of the external tendons.
c
Tensile stress in the external tendons under dead load.
d
Total area of the bonded tendons.
e
Noncompatible strain 共prestrain兲 in the bonded tendons.

Therefore, assumption 共3兲 of the numerical algorithm is satisfied.
This effect should be further enhanced when dealing with pre-
stressed beams. Moreover, the piece-wise polygonal shape of the
external tendons gives rise to a shear diagram that decreases the
one caused by the external loads, and in any case shear collapse is
brittle. In this case, second-order effects and hence Eq. 共12兲
become meaningless.
Parametric Analysis
As already stated, the only way to verify the reliability of Eq. 共12兲
consists of adopting its extreme value Lmax to design some ex-
ample beams, and then to compute the value of M II / M I at ulti-
mate by means of a refined nonlinear numerical analysis that
takes into account the safety concepts of the European code.
The planning of these tests requires selection of the following
parameters:
• Shape of the beam,
• Type of load,
• Strength of the concrete,
• Area of mild reinforcement in tension,
• Area of the external tendons,
• Material of the tendons, and
• Value of the prestressing force.
The beam should be ductile in order to sustain large enough
deformations, so that second-order effects become significant.
This means that the bonded tension reinforcement in the cross
section should yield markedly before ultimate. The cross section
adopted is a double-tee with a wide compression flange, similar to
that of a bridge beam suggested by the Florida Department of
Transportation 共Florida DOT 1998兲. The span of the beam is
18 m. The beam is shown in Fig. 6. The same figure shows the
longitudinal reinforcement, comprising 24 mm diameter 共area
= 452 mm2兲 steel reinforcement 关type Fe500 according to CEN
共1995兲, f su = 550 N / mm2, f y = 500 N / mm2, Es = 200,000 N / mm2兴.
Two cases are considered. In the first one, two longitudinal
reinforcing bars per stem are provided. This reinforcement is ap-
proximately the minimum typically allowed by codes. In the sec-
ond case, nine reinforcing bars are placed in each stem. The rea-
son for the consideration of the latter case with a large amount of
mild reinforcement is that external prestressing is increasingly

308 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:302-311.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Evaluation of Eq. 共1兲 at ultimate according to Eurocode 2
adopted in the rehabilitation or strengthening of old reinforced
concrete structures. Such structures usually contain a significant
amount of mild reinforcement. The same consideration led to the
adoption of a higher strength concrete 共referred to as C50, f ⬘c
= 50 N / mm2, ␧cu = 0.0028兲 and a concrete of inferior quality 共C20,
f ⬘c = 20 N / mm2, ␧cu = 0.0034兲, although the codes prohibit the
lower concrete strength for new prestressed structures.
The external steel tendons are composed of seven wire strands
共nominal diameter 15.2 mm兲 Grade 270 共strength= 1,860 MPa兲
according to ASTM 1999 共Y1860S7 according to CEN 1998兲.
Four external tendons, one on each side of each stem, are used.
Each tendon can be composed of a single strand 共area of each
tendon= 139 mm2兲, four strands 共area= 556 mm2兲, or six strands
共area of each tendon= 834 mm2兲. The shape of the external ten-
dons is shown in Fig. 6, where distance L betwen deviators is less
than the span of the beam. For Lmax ⬎ 18 m, the external tendons
are straight, and the axis of the anchorages is located 90 mm from
the lower edge of the concrete beam. Two levels of tensile stress
in the tendons under dead load are considered: The lower
共1,100 N / mm2兲 takes into account the stress decrease due to
creep and shrinkage of concrete. The higher stress level
共1,300 N / mm2兲 represents the approximate tensile stress immedi-
ately after stressing. It should be noted that friction in external
tendons is usually very small, and also that the stress decrease due
to creep of concrete is much smaller than the one occurring in
bonded posttensioning.
The live load adopted is a constant distributed load. The dead
load needs to be sufficiently high not to cause concrete crushing
at the bottom fiber of the beam at stressing. Therefore, the dead
load was selected to be equal to the self-weight of the beam when
dealing with the lowest prestressing force. It was doubled when
analyzing the four-strand arrangement with tendons and qua-
drupled when analyzing the beams using six-strand tendons. The
aim of these tests is to verify the reliability of Eq. 共12兲 in the most
unfavorable conditions, although these conditions are unusual in
common practice.
A brittle section is also needed to verify if the limit set by Eq.
共12兲 becomes too restrictive for beams of this kind. Some tests
共Tests 25 to 30兲 that deal with the 9 m long beam with rectangular
cross section described in Fig. 6 were therefore considered. In this
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 309
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:302-311.
case, the concrete of inferior quality 共C20兲 is replaced by the
concrete whose strength is the minimum allowed by Eurocode 2
for new prestressed structures 共C30, f c⬘ = 30 N / mm2, ␧cu = 0.0032兲.
Table 1 describes the tests carried out. Tests 17 to 24 refer to
the case of a double-tee concrete beam prestressed by internally
bonded strands in addition to the external posttensioning. The
maximum clear length Lmax 共listed in Table 1兲 is computed as per
Eq. 共12兲. The results of the numerical analysis are summarized in
Fig. 7. This figure shows that if L 艋 Lmax, the second-order bend-
ing moment is never more than 5.50% of the corresponding first-
order bending moment at ultimate at midspan, that is to say that it
is negligible in common practice.
Fiber Reinforced Composite Strands
The possibility of adopting fiber reinforced composite strands is
interesting because of the good durability of some of these mate-
rials under severe environmental conditions 共i.e., marine environ-
ment, very low temperatures兲. Therefore, the adoption of these
materials would markedly simplify the prestressing phases be-
cause these tendons do not need to be protected against the envi-
ronment 共they should however be protected against impact and
fire兲. A consequence is that each tendon can be easily controlled
共to verify its condition兲, repeatedly stressed, or replaced at any
time during the life of the structure. A lot of work has yet to be
done before these tendons can be adopted on a large scale. Nev-
ertheless, it is interesting to verify if Eq. 共12兲 still applies when
adopting these tendons whose elastic modulus is lower than that
of steel tendons.
Analyses from 1 to 16 were repeated after replacing the steel
tendons with carbon fiber reinforced plastic tendons 共CFRP兲 or
glass fiber reinforced plastic tendons 共GFRP兲, although at present
GFRP is no longer considered reliable for prestressing. This
choice follows from the observation that these two products hold
the extreme values of the elastic modulus among all the products
of this kind available on the market. Note that in every test, col-
lapse occurs when the stress in the composite external tendons is
far from ultimate and therefore the only data really useful in the
analysis are the elastic moduli of these materials 共that is
 147,000 N / mm2 for CFRP and 50,000 N / mm2 for GFRP兲. The
output of these analyses is summarized in Fig. 7. The figure
shows that Eq. 共12兲 applies to composite tendons, too.
Conclusions
Eurocode 2 states that “measures shall be taken to maintain
a constant relative position of the tendon within the concrete sec-
tion in a sufficient number of sections in order to avoid harmful
second-order effects.” However, it does not stipulate how to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
achieve this target.
A design rule that specifies a maximum clear length of exter-
nal tendons between deviators small enough not to take into
account the second-order effects has been herein suggested for the
adoption in the European code. This design rule:
• is simple, because only the resultant tendon force under dead
load N p and M R, that is the design strength of the cross section
of the concrete beam 共computed with an axial force equal to
N p兲 is needed and this is the first element that the designer
fixes;
• is reliable, because the tests performed show that the second-
order bending moment is never more than 5.5% of the
corresponding first-order bending moment, in other words it is
negligible in common practice;
• will typically not control the design, because usually the need
to give a convenient shape to the negative bending moment
due to the external tendons implies a lower clear length; and
• is applicable both to conventional prestressing steel and to
fiber reinforced plastic tendons.
Eq. 共12兲 was derived for the segment of the beam where the
external tendons are parallel to the axis of the concrete structure.
However, it also applies to those segments where this is not the
case, provided that the value of M R of the cross section in these
segments is adopted to determine the maximum clear length.
This design rule does not apply to precast segmental beams
cast with dry joints and prestressed with external tendons. Prob-
ably it could be conservative but an indepth study is needed.
When dealing with dynamic loads 共traffic loads, etc.兲, a more
indepth analysis is needed to suggest another design rule that
should be added to the one already suggested to guarantee that
also the dynamic behavior of the tendons does not markedly
affect the design strength of the structure.
Notation
The following symbols are used in the paper:
A ⫽ area;
d ⫽ distance measured from extreme compression fiber to
centroid of the tension 共bonded兲 reinforcement 共effective
depth of section兲;
e ⫽ eccentricity of N p with respect to the centre of gravity
of the cross section of the concrete beam;
h ⫽ depth h of the cross section;
L ⫽ distance between the deviators;
M R ⫽ design strength of the cross section of the concrete
beam at midspan 共computed under an axial force
equal to N p兲;
M I ⫽ factored moment for strength limit states ⬵M I* + N pe;
M II ⫽ increase of bending moment due to second-order
effects;
N p ⫽ tensile stress resultant in the tendons under dead load;
310 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:302-311.
N pu ⫽ tensile stress resultant in the tendons at ultimate;
wm ⫽ increase of displacement at midspan with respect to
that of the deviators;
␧cu ⫽ maximum usable strain at extreme concrete compression
fiber;
␹m ⫽ curvature at midspan; and
␹u ⫽ curvature at midspan at ultimate.
References
Alkhairi, F. M., and Naaman, A. E. 共1993兲. “Analysis of beams pre-
stressed with unbonded internal or external tendons.” J. Struct. Eng.,
119共9兲, 2680–2700.
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM. 共1999兲. “Standard
specification for steel strand, uncoated seven-wire for prestressed con-
crete.” ASTM A416/A416M-99, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Aparicio, A. C., and Ramos, G. 共1966兲. “Flexural strength of externally
prestressed concrete beams.” ACI Struct. J., 93共5兲, 512–523.
Bazant, Z. P., and Cedolin, L. 共1991兲. Stability of structures, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Billet, D. F., and Appleton, J. H. 共1954兲. “Flexural strength of prestressed
concrete beams.” ACI J., 25共10兲, 837–854.
CEB-FIP. 共1978兲. “CEB Bulletin d’Information No. 123.” CEB-FIP
manual of buckling and instability, Construction Press Ltd., Lancaster,
England.
Comité Euro-International du Béton/International Federation for Struc-
tural Concrete 共CEB/FIB. 共1991兲. “CEB Bulletin d’Information No.
203–204–205.” CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, CEB, Lausanne, Swit-
zerland.
Comité Européen de Normalisation 共CEN兲. 共1992a兲. “Eurocode 2: Design
of concrete structures. Part 1-5: Structures with unbonded and exter-
nal prestressing tendons.” ENV 1992-1-5, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
Comité Européen de Normalisation 共CEN兲. 共1992b兲. “Eurocode 2: De-
sign of concrete structures. Part 1: General rules and rules for build-
ings.” ENV 1992-1-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brus-
sels, Belgium.
Comité Européen de Normalisation 共CEN兲. 共1995兲. “Steel for the rein-
forcement of concrete. Weldable ribbed reinforcing steel B500. Tech-
nical delivery conditions for bars, coils and welded fabric.” ENV
10080, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
Comité Européen de Normalisation 共CEN兲. 共1998兲. “Prestressing steels—
Part 3: Strand.” Draft prEN 10138-3, European Committee for Stan-
dardization, Brussels, Belgium.
Cooke, N., Park, R., and Young, P. 共1981兲. “Flexural strength of pre-
stressed concrete beams with unbonded tendons.” PCI J., 26共6兲, 52–
80.
De Cillia, F. 共1997兲. “Comportamento a flessione-taglio di travi in ce-
mento armato ad alta resistenza.” MS thesis, Univ. of Udine, Udine,
Italy 共in Italian兲.
Du, G., and Tao, X. 共1985兲. “Ultimate stress of unbonded tendons in
partially prestressed concrete beams,” PCI J., 30共6兲, 72–90.
Florida Department of Transportation 共Florida DOT. 共1998兲. “Florida
double-tee general instructions.” Drawing Index I-120, Structure De-
sign Center, Tallahassee, Fla.
Harajli, M. H. 共1993兲. “Strengthening of concrete beams by external pre-
stressing,” PCI J., 38共6兲, 76–88.
Harajli, M. H., Khairallah, N., and Nassif, H. 共1999兲. “Externally pre-
stressed members: Evaluation of second-order effects.” J. Struct.
Eng., 125共10兲, 1151–1161.
Jerret, C. V., Ahmad, S., and Scotti, G. 共1996兲. “Behavior of prestressed
concrete beams strengthened by external FRP post-tensioned ten-
dons.” Proc., of the ACMBS Conference 1996 (Advanced Composite
Materials in Bridges and Structures), M. El Badry, ed.,
Mattock, A. H., Yamazaki, J., and Kattula, B. T. 共1971兲. “Comparative
study of prestressed concrete beams with and without bond.” ACI J.,
 68, 116–125.
Niitani, K., Tezuka, M., and Tamura, T. 共1997兲. “Flexural behavior of
prestressed concrete beams using AFRP pre-tensioning tendons.”
Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on Nonmetallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Con-
crete Structures (FRPRCS-3), Vol. 2, 663–670.
Pisani, M. A. 共1996兲. “A numerical model for externally prestressed
beams.” Struct. Eng. Mech., 4共2兲, 177–190.
Pisani, M. A., and Nicoli, E. 共1996兲. “Beams prestressed with unbonded
tendons at ultimate.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 23共6兲, 1220–1230.
Rao, P. S., and Mathew, G. 共1996兲. “Behavior of externally prestressed
concrete with multiple deviators.” ACI Struct. J., 93共4兲, 387–396.
Sen, R., Issa, M., Sun, Z., and Shahawy, M. 共1994兲. “Static response of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fiberglass pretensioned beams.” J. Struct. Eng., 120共1兲, 252–268.
Taerwe, L., Lambotte, H., and Miesseler, H. J. 共1992兲. “Loading tests of
concrete beams prestressed with glass fiber tendons,” PCI J., 37共4兲,
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 311
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:302-311.
84–97.
Taerwe, L., and Mattys, S. 共1997兲. “Comparison of concrete slabs preten-
sioned with composite bars and steel wires.” Magnel Laboratory of
Concrete Research, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Tan, K. H., and Ng, C. K. 共1997兲. “Effects of deviators and tendon con-
figuration on behavior of externally prestressed beams,” ACI Struct.
J., 94共1兲, 13–22.
Yonekura, A., Tazawa, E., and Zhou, P. 共1997兲. “Flexural characteristics
of prestressed concrete beams using FRP pipes or FRP rods.” Proc.,
3rd Int. Symp. on Nonmetallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures (FRPRCS-3), Vol. 2, 751–758.
Chakrabarti, P. R., Whang, T. P., Brown, W., Arsad, K. M., and Amezeua,
E. 共1994兲. “Unbonded post-tensioning tendons and partially pre-
stressed beams.” ACI Struct. J., 91共5兲, 616–625.