Effects of Deviators and Tendon Configuration On Behavior of Externally Prestressed Beams
Effects of Deviators and Tendon Configuration On Behavior of Externally Prestressed Beams
Effects of Deviators and Tendon Configuration On Behavior of Externally Prestressed Beams
Six identical reinforced concrete T-beams were strengthened in that of beams with internal, unbonded tendons.3,4 Trinh5
flexure using external prestressing tendons (strands). Of these, further observed that cracks were concentrated at several
three beams had identical straight external strands with a different locations in externally prestressed beams without significant
number of deviators along each of their spans. The other three internal reinforcing steel, whereas they were well distributed
beams each had a deviator at midspan, and their tendon configu-
in beams in which a minimum steel percentage of 0.55
rations were varied by either increasing tendon eccentricity,
increasing the tendon area (and correspondingly decreasing the percent was provided. He reported that the ultimate ductility
prestressing force), or draping the strands. The beams were loaded of externally prestressed beams decreased with an increase
to failure under third-point loading. Test results indicated that the in the amount of external tendons relative to the amount of
provision of a deviator at the section of maximum deflection led to internal tendons. In an experimental study on the strength-
satisfactory service load behavior (deflection, cracking, and steel ening of cyclically loaded beams, Harajli6 noted that
stress) and a higher load-carrying capacity compared to the case external tendons using a draped profile were relatively more
where no deviators were provided. An increase in eccentricity of effective in increasing the flexural strength than tendons
straight tendons with a correspondingly smaller prestressing force with a straight profile. However, this was partly attributed to
led to larger internal steel stresses, crack widths, and service load the larger eccentricity of the draped tendons and partly due
deflections but higher ductility, while draped tendons resulted in
to the second-order effects mentioned earlier.
reduced stiffness, greater tendon stress increase, and more ductile
behavior near failure. The use of a larger tendon area gave similar The study reported herein was carried out to further inves-
service load behavior but a higher ultimate strength and lower tigate the effects of deviators and tendon configuration
ductility. Theoretical calculations based on the concept of bond (tendon area, force, and eccentricity) on the behavior of rein-
reduction coefficients and accounting for second-order effects forced concrete beams strengthened in flexure by external
were found to agree with the test results. prestressing, with a view to eventually establishing a rational
and efficient approach.
Keywords: beams (supports); cracking (fracturing); deflection; prestress-
ing; prestressing steels; strength. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The study provides information on the second-order
External prestressing is a post-tensioning method that is effects due to the displacement of external tendons under
becoming popular not only in new bridge construction but load and the effect of tendon configuration (tendon area,
also as a strengthening method for existing concrete struc- force, and eccentricity) on the behavior of externally
tures.1,2 The addition of external tendons, however, leads to prestressed beams. Tests carried out on simply supported
a different structural system of which there has been little beams indicated that second-order effects can be effectively
documentation.3 In an externally prestressed structure, the minimized using deviators. The provision of a deviator at the
tendons are placed on the outside of concrete sections to section of maximum deflection resulted in satisfactory
which they are in contact only at deviators and anchorages. service load behavior and enhanced flexural strength. The
Prestressing force is introduced to the concrete section use of smaller effective prestressing force led to larger
through end anchorages and the tendons assume a rectilinear internal steel stress, crack widths, and service load deflec-
profile in between the anchorages. Under load, the tendons tions, but more ductile behavior near failure. A beam with
are free to move relative to the concrete section in between draped tendons exhibited reduced stiffness, greater tendon
the anchorages and/or deviators, and the resulting change in stress increase, and more ductile behavior. Use of larger
tendon eccentricity leads to what is known as second-order tendon area gave similar service load behavior but a higher
effects. Several investigators4-6 have reported that the ultimate strength and lower ductility. A simple method that
second-order effects led to a reduction in flexural resistance accounts for second-order effects is presented for the calcu-
of the beam. Mutsuyoshi et al.4 observed from test results of
beams with two deviators provided at different spacings that
the reduction could be as high as 16 percent. ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, January-February 1997.
Received August 29, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
Provided that the second-order effects due to changing right © 1997, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies
tendon eccentricity are small or can be neglected, the flex- unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-December 1997 ACI Struc-
ural behavior of externally prestressed beams is similar to tural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 1997.
d ps ⎞ e = e0 – Δ (5)
f ps = f pe + Ω u E ps ε cu ⎛ ------
-–1 (3)
⎝ c ⎠
dps = dps0 – Δ d ps = d ps0 – Δ (6)
in which Ω, Ωc, and Ωu are bond-reduction coefficients, 7-9
defined as the ratio of the strain increase in the unbonded, where e0, dps0 = initial eccentricity and effective depth of
external tendons to the strain increase in the equivalent external prestressing tendon, respectively.
bonded tendons at the respective stage of loading. For the For an under-reinforced concrete section, the load-deflection
case of a simply supported beam [see Fig. 1(b)], these bond curve is relatively linear for an applied load up to the instant
reduction coefficients are given as when the steel reinforcement begins to yield. Thus,
neglecting the tensile strength of concrete and assuming an
elastic cracked behavior after decompression of concrete, the
⎧ 2
--- (for straight tendon) value of Δ can be estimated as a first approximation and,
⎪ 3
⎪ conservatively, from the midspan moment using elastic
Ω = ⎨ 23 theory, as
⎪ -----
54
- (for draped tendon with zero
⎪
⎩ eccentricity at supports) 2
f ps A ps eL
2
Δ = k 1 ML - (for 0 ≤ M ≤ M y )
----------- – k 2 ---------------------- (7)
⎧ I cr 1 ⎛ Ec I e Ec Ie
I cr⎞
⎪ Ω ------ + --- ⎝ 1 – -----
- (for straight tendon) (4)
⎪ I tr 3 I tr ⎠
Ωc = ⎨ where My is the yield moment and Ie is the effective moment
⎪ I cr 5 ⎛ I cr⎞ of inertia based on the midspan section, given by10
⎪ Ω -----
I
- + --- 1 – -----
8 ⎝
- (for draped tendon)
I tr ⎠
⎩ tr
M cr⎞ 3 M cr⎞ 3
5.4 I e = ⎛ --------
- I tr + 1 – ⎛ --------
- I ≤I (8)
Ω u = ------------ ⎝ M⎠ ⎝ M ⎠ cr tr
⎛ ------
L-⎞
⎝ d ps⎠
At the ultimate flexural strength limit state, however, the
value of Δ would be more accurately assessed from
where
Mcr, Mecl, Mu = cracking moment, moment at elastic cracked 2
2 f ps A ps eL
limit, and moment at ultimate limit state of Δ = k 1 φ u L – k 2 ----------------------
- (for M = M u ) (9)
the section, respectively Ec Ie
Aps, dps, e = area, effective depth, and eccentricity of
external prestressing tendon, respectively where φu is the ultimate curvature of the critical midspan
Icr, Itr = moment of inertia of midspan section section. The values of k1 and k2 in Eq. (7) and (9) depend on
(excluding the external tendons) based on the number and location of deviators along the span of the
cracked transformed section and uncracked beam. For a simply supported beam with straight tendons
transformed section, respectively, and taken under third-point loading, the values are as given in Table 1.
about the neutral axis The load-deflection curve of the beam accounting for
Ec, Eps = modulus of elasticity of concrete and second-order effect is shown schematically in Fig. 1(a), and
external prestressing tendon, respectively the midspan deflection δ can be calculated as
r = radius of gyration = √(Itr/Atr) in which Atr is
the transformed area of beam cross section 2 2
23M L f ps A ps eL
fct = stress in top concrete fiber δ = ------------------- – k 3 ----------------------
- (for 0 ≤ M ≤ M y ) (10)
fpe, εpe = effective stress and strain in external 216E c I e Ec Ie
prestressing tendon, respectively
εce = strain in concrete at level of prestressing and
tendon due to effective prestress
εcu = strain in top concrete fiber at ultimate 2
23 2 f ps A ps eL
c = neutral axis depth δ = --------- φ u L – k 3 ----------------------
- (for M = M u ) (11)
L = effective span of beam 216 Ec Ie
The value of Ω for the nonlinear cracked regime has not
been explicitly determined. However, as a first approxima- where k3 equals 1/8 for the case of a straight tendon and 1/12
tion, it may be taken as equal to Ωc.7 for a draped tendon with zero eccentricities at the supports.
0, T-1, and T-2. For these beams, the ratio of span to effective
depth of prestressing tendons was 15.0. Fig. 4 compares the
change in the effective depth of the external tendons at the
midspan, as each beam was loaded to failure. There was no
change in the effective depth for Beam T-1 in which a devi-
ator was provided at the midspan. The other two beams
registered a slight increase in effective depth under the sole
effect of prestress, but the effective depth was observed to
decrease as the load was increased. The reduction in effec-
tive depth became more dramatic after cracking has occurred
and more so after the yielding of the internal reinforcement,
in particular in the case of Beam T-0, in which no deviators
were provided. Theoretical predictions of the variation in
effective depth using Eq. (6), (7), and (9) were found to agree
well with the test results.
Load-deflection response—Figures 5(a) and (b) show the
moment-versus-curvature curves for a constant moment Fig. 5—Effect of deviators on moment-curvature and load-
section and the load-versus-midspan deflection curves of the deflection curves (1 ft-kip = 1.356 kNm; 1 in. = 25.4 mm).
beams, respectively. All the beams exhibited similar
behavior. Initially, the section curvature (or beam deflection) As the load was increased, flexural shear cracks also
increased linearly with the applied moment (or load). On appeared in the shear span of the beam. The maximum crack
appearance of flexural cracks at about 30 percent of the ulti- widths, measured at the level of internal reinforcement in the
mate load, the beam stiffness was reduced. After the occur- pure moment zone using both transducers (placed 300 mm
rence of cracks had stabilized, the curvature (or deflection) [11.8 in.] from the midspan in Beams T-0 and T-1 and adja-
once again increased linearly with the applied moment (or cent to a deviator in Beam T-2) and a manually operated
load). This continued until the internal, nonprestressed rein- microscope, are shown in Fig. 6. The measured maximum
forcement started to yield. After a section had become suffi- crack widths (taken as the larger of the values measured by
ciently plasticized, the deflection increased substantially the transducers and microscope) at the assumed service load
with little increase in load. The beams showed significant as defined earlier were 0.15, 0.17, and 0.18 mm (0.0059,
ductility at ultimate. 0.0067, and 0.0071 in.) for Beams T-0, T-1, and T-2, respec-
Comparing the beams, it is seen that the moment-curvature or tively, well below the allowable maximum crack width of
load-deflection characteristics were largely similar up to the 0.20 mm (0.0079 in.) specified by ACI 31810 and BS 811011
cracking moment or load. Beyond that, Beam T-1 registered for exterior exposure conditions.
smaller deflections at any particular level of load than the The transducers generally registered larger crack widths
other two beams, thus demonstrating the beneficial effect of than the microscope as the measurements included inelastic
a deviator at the section of maximum deflection. The deformations in the uncracked concrete adjacent to the
midspan deflection under a service load taken as the experi- crack. Considering only the manual measurements using a
mental ultimate load divided by a factor of 1.7 were 5.8, 6.1, microscope, it is seen that Beam T-2 exhibited wider cracks
and 7.4 mm (0.23, 0.24, and 0.29 in.) for Beams T-0, T-1, especially at higher level of loading, probably due to the
and T-2, respectively. These values are within the allowable lesser number of cracks developed. The difference in
maximum immediate deflection due to live load, specified maximum crack widths between Beams T-0 and T-1 was not
by ACI 31810 and BS 811011 as span/360 (or 8.3 mm [0.33 significant except at very high loads.
in.]) and span/350 (or 8.6 mm [0.34 in.]), respectively, for a Steel stresses—Figure 7 shows the variation in stresses in
simply supported beam. the reinforcement at the midspan sections of the beams.
Cracking pattern and crack widths—Flexural cracks were Before cracking occurred, the internal nonprestressed rein-
first observed in the pure moment zone. The cracking forcement registered faster increase in strains and hence
patterns were similar except that Beam T-2 had lesser cracks. stresses than the external tendons, although the difference in
and T-1D were designed for the same ultimate strength as T-1
while T-1B had the same effective prestressing force as T-1.
Load-deformation characteristics—The moment-curvature
and load-deflection responses of Beams T-1 and T-1B in Fig. 9
were very similar up to the yield load, indicating that the area
of external tendons has no effect as long as the effective
prestressing force is the same. Beam T-1B, however, regis-
tered a higher ultimate strength due to a larger tendon area
and exhibited less ductility compared to T-1.
The effect of increasing tendon eccentricity and reducing
prestressing force were a lower cracking load and larger
deformations as observed in Beam T-1A. Draping of tendons
as in Beam T-1D led to further deduction in beam stiffness.
Both Beams T-1A and T-1D showed substantial increases in
load-carrying capacity beyond the yield load due to the small
prestressing force and correspondingly a larger reserve
strength capacity in the tendons.
Cracking pattern and crack widths—The cracking patterns
of Beams T-1A, T-1D, and T-1B were similar to T-1.
However, in Beam T-1D the extent of flexural shear Fig. 9—Effect of tendon configuration on moment-curvature
cracking spread to areas adjacent to the end zones due to the and load-deflection curves (1 ft-kip = 1.356 kNm; 1 in. =
smaller eccentricity of tendons near the supports. Beam T- 25.4 mm).
1B, on the other hand, had more cracks over the middle two-
thirds of the beam, compared to cracks over the middle three-
quarters of the span in Beams T-1 and T-1A.
Figure 10 compares the maximum crack widths observed
manually in the pure moment zone of these beams. The crack
widths measured at a section 300 mm (11.8 in.) distant from
the midspan using transducers are also presented. Generally,
these values were larger than the manually observed ones as
they were measured over an induced crack and included the
deformation of the uncracked concrete over the gage length
of the transducers.
It is observed that increasing the effective depth and reducing
the effective prestress of the tendons as in T-1A and T-1D
resulted in wider cracks. The effect of draping the tendons was
unclear as the manual measurements contradict those of the
transducers. On the other hand, increasing the tendon area as in
T-1B led to smaller crack widths at all loads.
Fig. 10—Effect of tendon configuration on maximum crack
Steel stresses—Fig. 11 compares the load-versus-steel
widths (1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm).
stress curves of Beams T-1, T-1A, T-1D, and T-1B. The
stress variation in the internal, nonprestressed reinforcement
appeared to depend on the effective prestressing force of the tered in Beams T-1A and T-1D, compared to an increase of
external tendons only. A lower prestressing force in T-1A 450 MPa (65 ksi) in T-1 and 409 MPa (59 ksi) in T-1B (see
and T-1D resulted in higher internal steel stresses at cracking Table 3). The characteristic yield strengths of the tendons
and service loads, a greater stress change between the were not reached in Beams T-1A, T-1D, and T-1B.
cracking and service loads (see Table 3), and a lower yield Failure mode and ultimate strength—All the beams failed
load of the beam. Due to increased tendon eccentricity, a in bending, with concrete crushing at the top of the beam at
greater stress increase in the external tendons at ultimate of a section near a loading point. The beams exhibited signifi-
811 and 955 MPa (118 and 139 ksi), respectively, was regis- cant ductility, as is evident from the load-deflection curves
CONCLUSION
From the study carried out on simply supported externally
prestressed beams, the following conclusions may be drawn:
1. Second-order effects due to changing tendon eccentricity
lead to a lower load-carrying capacity and can be effectively
minimized by the provision of deviators along the span of the
beam. Tests carried out on beams with straight tendons and a
span-depth ratio of 15 indicated that the provision of a single
deviator at the section of maximum deflection resulted in satis-
Fig. 11—Effect of tendon configuration on stress increase in factory service and ultimate load behavior.
reinforcement: (a) internal (nonprestressed) reinforcement; 2. The use of a smaller effective prestressing force led to
(b) external tendons (1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa). larger stress in both the internal reinforcement and external
tendons, larger crack widths, and service load deflections,
but more ductile behavior at ultimate.
3. The beam with draped tendons registered reduced stiffness,
wider spread of cracks, greater tendon stress increase, and
ductility at failure compared with that with straight tendons.
4. While providing the same prestressing force, the use of
larger tendon area gave similar service load behavior but a
higher ultimate strength and less ductile behavior near failure.
5. Theoretical calculations based on the concept of bond
reduction coefficients were found to be in very good agree-
ment with the experimental results on the ultimate strength
Fig. 12—Effect of tendon configuration on failure pattern. as well as the deflections and stress increase in both the
internal reinforcement and external tendons.
and Pavements, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, No. 508/V-26, Feb. 1995, 8. Naaman, A. E., “New Methodology for the Analysis of Beams
pp. 67-76. (in Japanese) Prestressed with External or Unbonded Tendons,” External Prestressing in
5. Trinh, J. L., “Structural Strengthening by External Prestressing,” Bridges, SP-120, A. Namaan and J. Breen, eds., American Concrete Insti-
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1990, pp. 339-354.
Proceedings, U.S.-European Workshop on Bridge Evaluation, Repair, and
9. Naaman, A. E., and Alkhairi, F. M., “Stress at Ultimate in Unbonded
Rehabilitation, A. S. Nowak and E. Absi, eds., Maryland, Apr. 30-May 2,
Post-Tensioning Tendons—Part 2: Proposed Methodology,” ACI Structural
1990, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 513-523.
Journal, V. 88, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1991, pp. 683-692.
6. Harajli, M. H., “Strengthening of Concrete Beams by External 10. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Prestressing,” PCI Journal, V. 38, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1993, pp. 76-88. Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary (318R-89),” American Concrete
7. Naaman, A. E., “Partial Prestressing in the Rehabilitation of Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1989, 353 pp.
Bridges,” US-European Workshop on Bridge Evaluation, Repair and Reha- 11. “Structural Use of Concrete—Part 1, 2, and 3,” BS 8110, British
bilitation, Saint Rémy-lès Chevreuse, June 1987, pp. 391-406. Standard Institution, U.K., 1985.