Laurent Labonte M.Eng.

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CON~INMENT ANCHORAGE ZONES

 AN INVESTIGATION OF
ANCHORAGE ZONE BEHAVIOR IN
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CONTAINMENTS

by

Laurent R.S. Labonté

A thesis submitted ta the Faculty of

Graduate Studies and Research in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering

and Applied Mechanics,
McGill University
Montreal, P.Q.
Canada. December 1971

1972
 ABSTRACT

An Investigation' of Anchorage Zone Behavior in

Prestressed Concre.te Containments
by
Laurent R.S. Labonté, B.Eng.

Department of Civil Engineering

and Applied Mechanics, M. Eng. Thesis
McGill University. December 1971

This report presents the results of a study of the contri-

bution of the lateral reinforcing steel to the bearing capacity of the

tendon anchorage zone in prestressed con crete post-tensioned circular

containment structures.

Experiments were performed on laboratory specimens of two

types: (1) eleven prismatic bloOks containing a single concentrically-

placed bearing plate which were tested to destruction under incremental

loadingi and (2) a model incorporating two anchorage buttresses with a

total of sixteen anchorage zones, in which the tendons were loaded up

to twice the specified design prestressing force. Various anchorage

zone reinforcement details were investigated covering a fairly wide

range of steel percentages.

Models of scale 1/6 and 3/8 compared favorably with the

prototypes, and exhibited a good structural similitude of modes of

failure, ultimate bearing strengths, and strains measured on the

lateral reinforcing bars.

The low level of rein forcing bar strains and the absence of

structural damage observed in the experimental buttresses, indicated

that stress conditions were less severe than could be inferred from
Ir
design methods applicable to beam end blocks.
 RESUME
Une étude du comportement du béton sous les plaques
d'appui dans les cuves de réacteur en béton précontraint
par
Laurent R.S. Labonté

Département de génie civil et

de mécanique appliquée Thèse de Maîtrise
Université McGill Décembr.e 1971

Ce ~apport présente les résultats d'une étude de la cont~ibution

de l'armature latérale à la résistance du béton sous les plé:lques dt appui,

dans les cuves de réacteur en béton précontraint.

Des essais en laboratoire on été faits sur les modèles suivants:

(1) onze blocs prismatiques, chacun muni d'une seule plaque d'appui dis-

posée en son centre, et chargé progressivement jusqu'à destruction, et

(2) un modèle comportant deux contreforts, et dont les seize tendons

furent soumis à des efforts allant jusqu'à doubler l'effort de précontrainte

requis en pratique. Plusieurs configurations d'armature latérale furent

étudiées, représentant un champ assez large de pourcentages d'acier.

L'étude de modèles réduits d'échelle 1/6 et 3/8 s'est avérée

rentable, une bonne similarité de comportement ayant été observée entre

ces modèles et des prototypes de pleine grandeur, quant aux modes de

rupture, aux capacités ultimes" et aux déformations unitaires enregistrées

sur les barres d'armature.

L'observation d'un bas niveau de déformations unitaires et

d'une absence de dommage dans les contreforts ~is à l'essai, a permis

de conclure que les contraintes dans un contrefort sont moins élevées

que ne le laissent prévoir les méthodes de calcul applicables aux zones

d'extrémité des poutres précontraintes.

TO MY PARENTS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his thanks to the following

individuals and organizations, whose help led to the successful

realisation of this research program:

Dr. M.S. Mirza, Associate Professor, Department of Civil

Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGi11 University, for his useful

suggestions and constant encouragement throughout the author's

period of study;

Dr. G.M. Sabnis, Senior Engineer, Bechtel Corporation,

for suggesting the research topic and devoting considerable attention

to its progress;

Professor J.O. McCutcheon, Chairman, Department of civil

Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGi11 University, for his

guidance and support of the structural concrete research group;

Mr. A.J. Bingaman, Chief Civil Engineer, Bechtel Corporation,

for his effort dedicated to the project, and Bechtel Corporation, for

the major financial support of the project;

Mr •. Claudio Zanolin, Director of Planning and Control,

Francon Limited, through whom the Company contributed supplies for

the projecti

Mr. T. Brown, Manager of Nuclear Structures System, Inland-

Ryersons Corporation, who was instrumental in obtaining the post-

tensioning system through their associates BBR Canada; and to Messrs.

H. van Bodegom, G. Earl, and L. Limperis of BBR Canada, for their helpi
 Mr. B. Maiorano, Mr. B. Cockayne and the laboratory

staff, for their technical assistance and moral support;

Miss L. Robinson and Miss Joyce Richards for typing the

preliminary and final manuscripts, respectively.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

LIST OF FIGURES v

LIST OF TABLES vii

NOTATION viii

UNITS OF ME~SUREMENT x

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 SURVEY OF PREVIOUS WORK 9

2.1 NATURE OF ANCHORAGE ZONE STRESSES 9

2.2 THEORETICAL INVESTIGATIONS 13

2.2.1 Morsch's solution 13

2.2.2 Magne1's solution 15
2.2.3 Bortsch's solution 17
2.2.4 Guyon's solution 17
2.2.5 Sievers' solution 19
2.2.6 Iyengar's solution' 19
2.2.7 Som and Ghosh's solution 21
2.2.8 Ramaswamy and Goel's solution 23
2.2.9 Gergely and Sozen's solution 23
2.2.10 Lensdhow and Sozen's solution 24
2.2.11 Yettram and Robbins' solution 24

2.3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 26

2.4 DESIGN OF BEAM ANCHORAGE ZONES 32

2.5 DESIGN OF BUTTRESS ANCHORAGE ZONES 34

i
CHAPTER Page

3 DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF TEST SPECIMENS 36

3.1 BUTTRESS DESIGN 36

3.1.1 Design loads 36

3.1.2 Bearing stresses 37

3.1.3 Anchorage zone reinforcement 41

3.2 BLOCK MODEL DESIGN 49

3.2.1 Madel detai1s 49

3.2.2 Choice of sca1es 52
3.2.3 Specimen designations 54

3.3 BUTTRESS MODEL DESIGN 56

3.3.1 General features 56

3.3.2 Reinforcement 58
3.3.3 Post-tensioning system 64

3.4 MODEL FABRICATION 67

3.4.1 Mate ri aIs 67

3.4.2 Instrumentation 72

3.4.3 B10ck mode1 fabrication 73

3.4.4 Buttress mode1 fabrication 75

4 BLOCK MODEL TESTS 76

4.1 TEST PROCEDURE 76

4.2 EXPERIMENTAL DATA 76

4.3 GENERAL BEHAVIOR 85

4.4 DISCUSSION OF ULTIMATE LOADS 88

4.4.1 U1timate loads of unreinforced b10cks 88

4.4.2 U1timate loads of reinforced b10cks 89

ii
CHAPTER Page

4 (continued)

4.5 DISCUSSION OF STRAIN DATA 92

4.5.1 General observations on steel strain data 92

4.5.2 Strains under maximum initial prestressing 93
force
4.5.3 Attainment of maximum a11owab1e stress or 95
yie1d point in one bar
4.5.4 Total force in transverse rein forcement 100

4.6 DISCUSSION OF' END B~OCK DESIGN 113

4.7 DISCUSSION OF SIMILITUDE 115

5 BUTTRESS MODEL TEST 117

5.1 TEST PROCEDURE, INSTRUMENTATION AND TEST DATA 117

5.2 GENERAL BEHAVIOR 122

5.3 DISCUSSION OF STRAIN DATA 124

5.3.1 General observations 1~4

5.3.2 Effect of middle plane tendons 124

5.3.3 Effect of sustained loading and thermal 126
gradient
• 5.3.4 Effect of direct loading on anchorage 127
zone
5.3.5 Effect of loading on adjacent anchorage 131
zones
5.3.6 Effect of loading on opposite side of 133
buttress

5.4 CORRELATION BETWEEN BLOCK MODEL AND BUTTRESS 135

MODEL TESTS

5.5 STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN BUTTRESS 136

5.6 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 138

5.6.1 Study of vertical anchorage rein forcement 138

5.6.2 Further study of horizontal anchorage 141
re in forcement
5.6.3 Study of unreinforced anchorage zones 142
5.6.4 Finite e1ement ana1ysi~ 143

iii
CHAPTER Page

6 CONCLUSIONS 146

LIST OF REFEREijCES 149

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page

1.1 Prestressed concrete containment 2

,,
1.2 Buttress 3 i,
1

i
1.3 Experimental specimens 7

2.1 Stresses under concentrated bearing'load 10

2.2 Factors influencing the stress distribution 12

under bearing load

2.3 Morsch's solution 14

2.4 Magnel's solution 16

2.5 Bortsch's solution 18

2.6 Guyon's solution 18

2.7 Sievers' solution 20

2.8 Som and Ghosh's solution 22

2.9 Lenschow and Sozen's solution 25

2.10 Tensile stress distribution and'total tensile force 33

3.1 Buttress design details 38

3.2 Anchorage zone details 42,43

3.3 Block specimen details 50

3.4 Block models - comparative dimensions 55

3.5 Buttress model - isometric view 57

3.6 Buttress model - thermal system 59

3.7 Buttress model - plan 60

3.8 Buttress model - elevation 61

3.9 Post-tensioning system 65,66

3.10 Micro-concrete load-deformation characteristics 70

3.11 Reinforcement load-deformation characteristics 71

v
'FIGURE Page

4.1 B10ck mode1 fai1ure mechanism 86

4.2 U1timate strength graph 91

4.3 Strain distribution 98,99 '

(a) Wide face , (b) Narrow face

4.4 Total force in transverse steel 101-106

B10cks 1-160, I-160N, 11-160,
1-375, I-375N, 11-375

4.5 Fai1ure mechanism 109

4.6 Total force in transverse steel, a11 mode1s 111,112

(a) Wide face (b) Narrow face

5.1 Strain gage locations in buttress mode1 119

5.2 Superficia1 damage in buttress mode1 123

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

3.1 Bearing stress calculations 40

3.2 Amount of reinforcing steel per tendon 45

anchorage zone for various end details

3.3 End details in order of increasing tensile capacity 47

3.4 End details in order of increasing steel weight 47

3.5 Required lateral reinforcement capacity 48

3.6 Buttress model dimensions and rein forcement 62

3.7 Micro-concrete properties 68

4.1 Block model ultimate strengths 78

4.2 Transverse'steel strains 79-84

Blocks 1-160, I-160N, 1I-160~
1-375, 1-375N, 11-375, 1-1, 11-1

4.3 Estimated ultimate bearing capacities of end blocks 91

4.4 Transverse steel strains at maximum initial 94

prestressing force

4.5 AttaiIlment of critical strain level in any bar 97

4.6 Total force in transverse steel 101-106

B10cks 1-160, I-160N, 11-160,
1-375, 1-375N, 11-375

4.7 Total tensi1e force, theoretica1 predictions 109

5.1 Strain readings, buttress mode1

(a) Gages in anchorage zones lB and le 120
(b) Gages in anchorage zones 2A and 2e 121

5.2 Effect of midd1e plane tendons, sustained loading, 125

and thermal gradient

5.3 Effect of prestressing force app1ied direct1y 128

on anchorage zone

5.4 Effect of prestressing force on adjacent 128

anchorage zones

5.5 Effect of prestressing forces on opposite side 134

of buttress
vii
 NOTATION

Symbols used in this report were chosen to conform as

closely as possible'to the proposed ACI standard: "Preparation of

Notation for concrete~(46) Stresses'were dasignated f or f

c s
according to whether they occurred in concrete or steel, and

assigned subscripts x or z to indicate coordinate directions, x

being in the direction of the prestressing force and z in a trans-

verse orthogonal direction. The total splitting force on a trans-

verse plane was denoted Z, and that component ascribed to steel was

subscripted s. The total force on the bearing plate was expressed

as P by analogy with prestress-ing force. Use of the subscript p

for the bearing plate was found unambiguous and in agreement with

its intended sense of indicating prestressing in general.

A = area of con crete under uniform compressive stress

c
A = net area of the portion of the concrete anchorage zone that
cp
is geometrically similar to and concentric with the area of
the anchorage plate

A = net area of anchorage plate

p
b = transverse width of con crete anchorage zone and bearing plate

b = width of concrete anchorage zone

c
b = width of con crete anchorage zone associated with area A
cp cp
b = width of anchorage plate
p

viii
)
f.
C1
= compressive strength of concrete at time of initial prestress (*)

f = P/b b = mean bearing pressure on net area of concrete

cm c
anchorage zone

f = PIA = allowable bearing pressure on net area of

cp . P bearing·plate

= splitting tensile strength of concrete (*)

f = specified compressive strength of concrete (*)

cu
or strength of concrete at time of testing

f = shear stress in a~chorage zone con crete

cv
f = compressive stress in concrete along prestressing force direction
cx
f = . transverse stress in anchorage zone concrete
cz
f = calculated stress in prestressing steel at design load (*)
sp
f = ultimate strength of prestressing steel (*)
su
f = stress in lateral reinforcing bars .
sz
f. = yield strength of non-prestressed reinforcement (*)
y
h = length of anchorage zone

P - load on anchorage plate

= prestressing force at design working stress f . = 0.6 f

sp su
= prestressing force in initial jacking operations
(stress 0.8 f assumed)
su
P ultimate capacity of prestressing steel = A f
su sp su
P = ultimate capacity of anchorage zone
u
x = coordinate along prestressing force

z = coordinate paraI leI to face of anchorage plate

z = total splitting force

zs = total force in lateral rein forcement

(*) Denotes symbols and definitions extracted from Ref. (46).

ix
 UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

In keeping with the present trend for standardization

of units of measure through the use of the modernized metric system,

all important -dimensional quantities were expressed in terms of the

International System of units (SI, Système Inte~ational), as well

as the customary British units currently in use in the United States

and Canada.

The system and its usage are well documented in the ASTM

publication: "Metric Practice Guide (A Guide to the Use of the

International System of units)~(4~) The basic quantities length,

mass and time are assigned the units metre (m), kilogram (kg) and

second (s), respectively. Angles are expressed in radians (rad),

while tempe ratures may be written either in Celsius (C) units,

identical to the current "centigrade degrees", or Kelvin (K) units

for thermodynamic measurements. All other quantities are expressed

in terms of units derived from the above. The unit of force is the

newton (N), defined through Newton's law as the force required to

2
give the unit mass a unit acceleration, viz.: 1.0 N = 1.0 kg.m/s •

The unit of pressure or stress is the pascal (pa), equal to the unit
2
force per unit area, 1.0 Pa = 1.0 N/m • Other units ?sed herein
3
are self-explanatory, e.g. kg/m, unit of density.

Multiples and submultiples of units are formed by pre-

fixing one of the following letters onto the symbol (only those used

hereafter are listed):

x
 giga (G) (10)9

mega (M) (10)6

kilo (k) (10) 3

centi (c) (10)-2

mi11i (m) (10) -3

micro (11) (10)-6

Thus, MN represents a meganewton, or one million newtons, and mm

is the fami1iar mi11imeter. Conversion constants to 3 significant

digits for the principal Imperial units used in the foregoing are as

fo11ows:

1 inch = 25.4 mm = 2.54 cm, 1ength

1 foot = 0.305 m, 1ength

. 2 2 2
1 1n = 645 mm = 6.45 cm , area

1 pound = 0.454 kg, mass

1 pound = 4.45 N, force

1 kip = 1000 pounds = 4.45 kN, force

1000 kips = 4.45 MN, force

2
1 psi =1 pound/in = 0.690 kPa, stress or pressure
2
1 ksi = 1 kip/in = 1000 psi = 0.690 MPa, stress

1000 ksi = 0.690 GPa, s~ress or e1astic modu1us

1 degree F = 0.555 C = 0.555 K, temperature difference

32 F =0 C = 273.15 K, standard freezing point tempereture

of water

1 degree = 0.01745 rad., pl anar angle

1 circumference = 360 degrees = 2 1T rad, p1anar angle

xi
 AlI measurements and calculations were perforrned in the

British system, and conversion to SI units was done subsequently.

In tables or calculations, SI conversions are not included when re-

sults are of an intermediate nature. Conversions were conducted

as suggested by ASTM, preserving the original degree of precision

of the original measurement. Thus dimensions precise to the

nearest 1/16-inch were converted to the nearest integer mm, while

those to the nearest kip were converted to the closest multiple of

5 kN. Non-dimensional ratios were used wherever possible.

Strains were expressed as pure numbers accompanied by the symbol ~,

a non-dimensional unit introduced to replace the (10)-6 representation.

AlI dimensions on structural drawings are in inches,

except where explicitly stated otherwise, ànd are not converted to

SI units to avoid conflicts in the precisio~ of duplicate measurements.

xii
 CHAPTER 1

. INTRODUCTION

The containment structure of a nuclear réactor is the

last barrier that shields the environment from radioactive matter.

Unlike the reactor itself, where the nuclear reactions take place,

the containment is, under normal conditions, subjected to only small

intensities of radiation. Exceptional accident conditions may,

however, arise, for example through the rupture of a pipe in the

power generatin~ system, where the stru~ture might be partially

flooded or filled with high-temperature steam. Under such circum-

stances a crack-free containment structure would be most desirable.

In con crete construction, a viable means of preventing

tensile cracking 1s the introduction of prestressing forces. A

circular vessel must be prestressed in the longitudinal and circum-

fe~ential directions; its domed roof might be prestressed in the

pattern illustrated in Figure 1.1. The prestressing force is ob-

tained by post-tensioning large cables with effective working

strengths of the order of 1000 kips (4.45 MN) or larger. These

cables, once tensioned, are anchored against bearing plates resting

on, or embedded into, the ring beam and the protruding buttresses

shaped in the slip-forming operation. (Fig. 1.2).

In the region behind a bearing plate, locally concentrated

pressures diffuse, according to Saint-Venant's principle, into a more

uniform distribution of pressures. The transition from a discon-

tinuous stress distribution to a more uniform one induces shearing

1
 2

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CONTAINlVlENT

4
2

----_.......... --
....
..
\...... --3 -- ... _- ------
......... ...........
,A
,'" ,
...... ------ ... _--- ...-"
-----_ ............--
___ ----... ---.... ,..tII
...... -... -.....
------

Figùre 1.1

1 RING GIRDER
2 BUTTRESS
3 HOOP TE'NDONS
4· LONGlïUDINAL TENDONS
5 DOME TENDONS
 1
1
1
1
1

3 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
 4

and transverse tensile stresses in the transition region, known as

the lead-in zone or the anchorage zone •

. The determination of the behaviour of anchorage zone

concrete, and the requirements for satisfactory detailing of lateral

reinforcement to resist the tendency for cracking and spalling, are

subjects whicn are often left to engineering intuition and judgment.

The Building Codes of the Prestressed Concrete Institute(l) and the

American Concrete Institute (Proposed ACI 318-71 (45) and the current

ACI 318-63(2» recommend the rein forcing of anchorage zones to re-

sist bursting and spalling forces under the maximum jacking force,

but offer no rules for detailing the amount and the location of the

steel. As of 1960, according to Zielinski and Rowe(3), some codes

, in Europe either made no mention of anchorage zone design, or followed

a line similar to that of the ACI; others, such as the German code,

were based on old experimental data or formulae of questionable

relevance. The Canadian Standards Association Code CSA A135-l962(8)

specifies the following methods to determine the required reinforcement:

"3.8.3 Reinforcement of Anchorage Zones.

3.8.3.1 Anchorage zones shall be reinforced to resist
tensile bursting and spalling forces introduced by the
concentrated loads due to the action of prestressing.
3.8.3.2 The rein forcement of anchorage zones shall be
determined by either of the following methods:
(a) Computation based on recognized elastic or ultimate
theories, in which case the working load shall be 'the total
effective prestressing force, and the ultimate design load
shall be twice this value; or (b) Testing, in which case
the anchorage zone shall be capable of resisting the total
ultimate strength of the tendons."
 5

While recognizing the val~e of the experimental method, the Code

states no precise standard of performance in the way of service-

ability or load factor to qualify the phrase "capable of resisting

the total ultimate strength of the tendons".

Theoretical analyses of the anchorage problem, whether

tiley be closed-form classical solutions of elasticity equations, or

numerical solutions of these equations by finite difference or finite

element methods, have the disadvantage of using a mathematical model

based on a linearly elastic, homogeneous, isotropie material forming

a two-dimensional body. AlI of these assumptions pose serious

limitations on an analysis of the bearing problem in plain concrete

alone. Although some iterative methods can bypass the inelasticity

problem, and the material may be taken to be homogeneous and isotropie

until the beginning of crack formation" the lack of information on

the load-deformation response and failure criteria for concrete under

triaxial stresses reduces the accuracy and makes it difficult to

recognize failure conditions when they arise; furthermore, the three-

d~mensional nature of the problem cannot be ignored. With the

presence of rein forcement and anchoring devices, the transfer of force

between concrete and steel through bond and dowel action introduces a

degree of complication in the problem which rules out aIl exact methods

of solution, save the finite element method, still pending the avail-

ability of data on the triaxial behaviour of concrete and steel-concrete

interfacial effects.

Indirect modeling techniques attempt to improve the

accuracy of solution by removing one or more of the constraints inherent

 6

\
in the mathematical analysis. Photoelasticity has been used in

the context of anchorage zone stress distributions, usually as a

verification of a proposed theoretical solution. Through the use

of frozen-stress techniques, it was possible to obtain a three-

dimensional analysis of the anchorage zone stresses, although this

method also suffers from several of the limitations of the classical

theory of elasticity.

Direct modeling of the actual structure or of the relevant

compone nt reproduces all material properties and loading conditions

and therefore gives a satisfactory assessment of behavior from

which the engineer can evaluate the safety and economy of a chosen

design. The prohibitive cost of the method can be considerably re-

duced by using small-scale models constructed from materials whièh

faithfully simulate the properties of the materials used in the

prototype structure.

The purpose of this investigation was to examine a parti-

cular anchorage zone detail in a prestressed concrete containment

structure. Two lateral steel designs, evolved from engineering

judgrnent, were analyzed according to available formulae, and subse-

quently tested in the laboratory in simple small-scale models

(Fig. 1.3a), referred to as "block models". Ultimate and cracking

loads, and strains in the steel and concrete at incremental load

levels, were recorded.

In order to appraise the similitude of the models, tests

were performed on models of approximately one-third and one-sixth

scales, and compared with the data available for concrete blocks

comprising full-size anchorage hardware.

 7

(a) Block model

(b) Buttr ess model

1.3 Exp er1mental

. specimens
 · 8

A more complex.one-sixth scale model was also fabricated

incorporating two buttresses and sixteen prestressing tendons,

(Fig. 1. 3b), referred to as the "buttress model". Many features

of the full-size structure were reproduced in this model, either

inherently from its form, or intentionally through special design,

viz.: continuity of concrete mass; presence of re-entrant corners;

self-weight of structure; continuous and distinct bearing plates;

tensioning sequence; thermal gradient from cernent hydration or from

accident conditions. The buttress model could thus give an indica-

tion of the correlation between the behavior observed in a simple

block test and that in the actual structure.

From the results, observations were made on the proposed

reinforcement details, on available design rules and sources of data,

on the similitude between models of different scales, and on the

effect of simplification of the model, in the design and analysis of

anchorage zones for post-tensioned cylindrical containment construction.

 CHAPTER 2

SURVEY OF PREVIOUS WORK

2.1 NATURE OF ANCHORAGE ZONE STRESSES

Compressive stress trajectories in the region under a

locally concentrated bearing pressure follow curved paths, approach-

ing a uniforrn distribution at sorne distance from the bearing surface

(Fig. 2.la). The curvature of these trajectories results in a tri-

axial stress state wherein a principal tensile component of stress

acts orthogonally to the paths of principal compression.

Working stress design xequires sufficient reinforcing

steel to develop the full tensile force in the concrete. The arnount

and arrangement of the steel is dependent on the distribution of the

tensile stresses and the magnitude of the resultant tensile force.

The distribution of tensile stresses, as deterrnined from theoretical

and photoelastic investigations to be detailed later, is shown in

Figs. 2.lb to 2.ld. Surface measurements of transverse strains,

on a prismatic test specimen under concentric loading, corroborate

these distributions (Fig. 2.le).

As the magnitude of the tensile stresses increases with

the curvature of the compression trajectories, a reduction of the

ratio of the bearing plate width to the underlying con crete width,

results in a steeper gradient of compressive stresses, and hence in

higher tensile stresses. Inclination or eccentricity of the line

of action of the bearing force, the presence of simultaneously applied

9
 10

(a) ApproximatC' compression trajectories

and associatcd transverse forces
(27)' -
[From Leonhardt .. J

(b) Principal stress trajectories

from photoelastic investigation

[From Guyon (~8) after Tesar (22) J

(c) Lines of equal tranverse stress

(isobars); compression zone cross-hatched
[From Leonhardt(27) after Tesar(22)
and Guyon (18) J

(d) Transverse stress distributiol

along central axis
[From Leonhard(27) J

(e) Transverse strains in prismnti

beam end-blocks

[From Zielinski &Rowe(3) 1

Figure 2.1

Stresses under conccntratcd

bearing load.
 11

adjacent bearing forces, or a reduction of the area over which

compressive stresses can distribute can have a beneficial effect

on the reduction of transverse tensile stresses (Fig. 2.2).

Thé early studies of anchorage zone problems were devoted

to establishing the stress distribution in concrete. Basic equations

of statics were used to obtain a first approximation. Simplifying

assumptions were made to account for the general form of the stress

distribution. The mathematical theory of elasticity was also

employed to derive the stress field. Experiments using indirect

photoelastic models, were conducted to confirm and supplement the

theoretical background.

Due to the simplifying assumptions introduced in both the

statics and the elasticity approaches, discrepancies were noted

among the several solutions in their respective predictions of the

location and magnitude of principal tensile stresses. However, the

resultant tensile force values calculated using different theories

tended to agree. From these consideratione, the practical rule of

ignoring the tensile strength of concrete, and reinforcing for the

total lateral tensile force, was found to be appropriate and not

excessively conservative.

The recent investigations of anchorage zone behaviour have

been aimed at evaluating experimentally the overall behavior and

bearing capacity of the end zones of post-tensioned prestressed con-

crete beams. These tests emphasized practical design considerations,

such as the detailing of the lateral reinforcing steel.

 12

....
~

~
•
=·,n".fH
.
a
'"
cS

~
cl =/,',.,/., c:I

. (a) Effect of bearing plate width [From Leonhardt(27)]

(b) Effect of adjacent bearing forces [From Leonhardt(27)]

(c), Effect of inclination

, (27)
[From Leonhardt after
Sargious (23) ]

Figl\re 2.2 Factors influcncing the stress distribution under bearing load
 13

The design of buttress detai1s in prestressed concrete

nuc1ear containments has,up to the present, been conducted fo11owing

the same lines as the design of beam end zone detai1s. On1y a

1imited amount of research has been done to assess the re1evance of

the availab1e design methods for containment structures.

A brief review of the principal inves'tigations of the

anchorage problem in post-tensioned construction is undertaken in the

fo11owing sections. A survey of the literature on anchorage zone

stresses published between 1923 and 1964 is available from the

Prestressed Concrete Institute(lO). A summary of theoretical re-

search prior to 1960 can be found in the papers by Zie1inski and

(3) (9)
Rowe and Iyengar • A review of papers in foreign languages is

contained in the bibliography on prestressed nuclear vessels pub-

li shed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory(ll) •

2.2 THEORETICAL INVESTIGATIONS

2.2.1 Marsch's solution(12) (1924) (Fig. 2.3)

Compressive stress trajectories were assumed to follow a

parabolic law, based on measurements of tensi1e strains at three

positions on a test block. Assuming a uniform pressure distribution

over the bearing plate, and assuming furthermore that,in accordance

with Saint-Venant's princip1e, the pressure was uniform over the plane

at a distance h = bc beyond the loaded face, equilibrium between the

 14

t:l
0
'r!
01..1
:s
r-I
0
li)

li)

N ,d
• tJ
li)
J.I
:~

ct')

N
 15

resultant tensile force Z and the bearing force was expressed in

the equation:

Z. (h/2) = (P/2) (b - b )/4

P c

The ratio of lateral force to bearing load was found to be:

Z/P = 0.25(1-b
.
/b )
p c

and the maximum tensile stress in a rectangular prism of width b was

given by f = 1.5 Z/b b.

cz c

2.2.2 Magnel's solution(13,14) (1949) (Fig.2.'Ù

The tensile stress distribution due to the bending action

of the prestressing force on planes parallel to the central axis, was

assumed to be a cubic function,

f
cz

in which the coefficients were derived from boundary conditions.

Tensile stresses and shear stresses were then expressed, respectively,

as

f
cz
= K z M/b c 2b and f
cv
= Kv V/b cb

where M and V are the bending moment and shear force on the plane

considered, and the parameters K and K are third and fourth degree
z v
functions of x. Principal stresses could be calculated knowing f
cz
and f , assuming that the normal stress f disperses at an angle of
cv cx
45 degrees (TI/4 radians). Points of zero and maximum tensile stresses

occurred at x = 0.25 b
p
and x = 0.5 b
p
respectively.
 16

A -------------

(a) ·Eccentric prestressing force on beam end-zone

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
fil
Il~
X 811. Il

(b) Stress distribution on transverse section

...
X a
h
2'
g
o
i
(c) Stress and shear coefficients: f cz = KzM/b c2 b

Figure 2.4 Magnel's solution

 17

A modified form of the theory uti1ized a second degree

expansion for f , and rep1aced the previous assumption on the

cz
distribution of f by a fourth degree polynomial in x.
cx

. (15 16)
2.2.3 Bortsch's solut~on ' (1935) (Fig. 2.5)

C1assica1 e1asticity equations were solved for the case

of a cosine distribution of bearing pressure on ~ semi-infinite sur-

face. Infinite series expansions were derived to express the

longitudinal, transverse and shearing stresses. Because of the

semi-infinite boundary condition, resu1ts are applicable on1y in the

range b lb
P c
=0 to 0.2.

Maximum tensi1e stresses varied from 0.45 f to 0.38 f

cm cm
in the range b lb
p c
= 0.1 to 0.2, and occurred at x 0.2 b to 0.3 b
P P
(f
cm
Pib c b, mean bearing pressure in end block).

2.2.4 Guyon's solution(17,18) (1951) (Fig. 2.6)

Guyon's approach was simi1ar to that of Bor.tsch, and made

use of Fourier series to eva1uate fcx' fcz' fcv due to knife-edge

loading on a semi-infinite strip. The stresses were tabu1ated(18)

for various locations of interest (nine y coordinates from -b to +b ,

P P
eight x coordinates from 0 to 2b) and severa1 different points of
p
load application.

For groups of forces or eccentric forces, a simple approxi-

mate solution known as the "symmetric prisms method" was suggested.

For a single eccentric prestressing force, or a group of forces pro-

ducing a linear distribution of stresses, (Fig. 2.6b), subdivision

 18

---.1~-_._. __ .__ ._.-._._.-.-

Figure 2.5 Eortsch's solution - Figure 2.6(a) Guyon's solution -

Cosine distribution on Knife-edgeloading on
semi-infinite plate semi-infinite strip

1
1
1
1
1
1
----T--.J
1
1
1--------..,1
1 1
__ ,-J1 1 1
1
f
1 1
1

Figure 2. 6(b) Guyon's solution - Method of symmetric prisms for

several loads or one eccentric
load producing a linear
prestress distribution

---~---,--------._-~
l
l,, 1'
1 1 1
••• ..1 .. - - .
1
1
..
Figure 2.6(c) . Guyon's solution -
1
- - - - ____ 11
1
1,
Method of successive
resultants for non-
:-----..
1

1
linear prestress
1 distribution
,
1
,,1
,1

Figures 2.5 and 2.6

 19

of the anchorage zone into symmetric bearing areas is emp10yed,

and tensile stresses are eva1uated at the line of action of each

force. When the forces do not result in a uniform distribution of

stresses, the unbalancedforces create additional tensile stresses.

Bursting stresses must then also be eva1uated along the line of

action of the resultants of the various pairs of forces (Fig. 2.6c).

2.2.5 Sievers' solution (19,20) (1952) (Fig. 2.7)

Sievers app1ied Bleich's ana1ysis of deep bearns(21) to the

prob1em of symmetrically placed bearing loads on a finite rectangular

anchorage zone. stresses were first expressed as infinite series

to allow the use of an Airy stress function in the solution of the

biharrnonic elasticity equation, and were later written as approximate

expressions in which f and f were exponentially decaying functions

cz cv
of x.

2.2.6 Iyèngar's solution(9) (1960)

The general equations for a serni-infinite strip were

formulated for the four cases of normal and tangential loading, sym-

metrical and antisymmetrical about the central axis of the bearing

block. By superposition of any number of the four basic cases,

solutions for eccentric and inclined tendons could be generated.

The approach to the problem and the general form of results were

similar to those of Guyon.

In comparing his results to those of the previous theories,

Iyengar discarded the methods of Morsch and Magnel as being too

 20

, l-,

Figure 2.7 Sievers' solution -

Use of deep beam analysis
in anchorage zone problem
 21

approximate and not satisfying e1asticity. Guyon's theory agreed

c10sely with that of Iyengar in its evaluation of tensile stresses,

wh ~'l e B le~c
' h' s so l ' (21)
ut~on 'ably
apprec~ ' d th ese
overest~mate '1 e
tens~

stresses. Saint-Venant's principle was found to be satisfactory in

estimating the distance over which significant stress gradients occur.

2.2.7 Som and Ghosh's solution(36) (1964) (Fig. 2.8)

The anchorage zone prob1em was treated as a two-dimensiona1

boundary value problem. Known stress conditions at the bearing sur-

face and at the terminal section of the anchorage zone were represented by

Fourier series and imposed as boundary conditions in the solution of

the biharmonic equations. The three loading conditions shown in

Fig. 2.8 were investigated.

The length of the anchorage zone was determined analytically

(Fig. 2.8b). In the case of axial symmetric prestressing by multiple

cables (case II), the length of the anchorage zone was found equal to

the width of the block.

The maximum tensile transverse stress in aIl three cases

was observed te be lower than that predicted by Guyon. In case 1

(single concentric prestressing force) the difference was small, whereas

in cases II and III, considerable discrepancies were noted. Magnel's

solution fell between Guyon's and Som and Ghosh's in cases II and III,

but differed largely in case 1.

(36)
In a discussion of the paper, Iyengar and Chandrashekhara

questioned the validity of certain boundary conditions, assumed or

implied, in the method of Som and Ghosh. It was also pointed out
 22

.----._--

'I TI ID

(a) Loading conditions

.----_.----.----.----.----.---;--

(b) Analytical determination of anchorage zone length

Figure 2.8 Som and Ghosh's solution

1 }
 23

that an approximate, conservative solution, rather than Gllyon's

original solution, had been used in the comparisons which showed

Guyon's method to overestimate the lateral stress.

Do~ge's discussion(36) focussed on the application of

statics to study the variation of the anchorage zone length with.

the position of the load, to determine the transverse stresses, and

to verify the validity of a stress distribution .obtained by any

method.

2.2.8 Ramaswamy and Goel's solution(28) (1957)

Ramaswamy and Goel made use of McHenry's "lattice analogy"

method(29) to obtain a numerica1 solution of the stress distribution

in a beam end b10ck of fini te proportions under the action of a

centra11y applied 1ine load. A comparison with Guyon's resu1ts

indicated that the bursting zone was 1arger in extent than predicted

by Guyon, and the tensile stresses in the spal1ing zone were sma11er.

A1so, the maximum tensi1e stress in the bursting zone was found to

have a value 0.60 f compared with the value of 0.50 f in Guyon's

cm cm
analysis (f
cm
= P/b cb, mean pressure in end b1ock) • Use of the

method was suggested for design practice.

2.2.9 Gergely and Sozen's solution(38) (1967)

Because of the many uncertainties invo1ved in the prediction

of crack initiation and propagation, an approach aimed at finding the

effect of lateral rein forcement on the limitation of cracking was pre-

ferred to the e1asticity approach, which had been attempted numerical1y

 24

by the finite difference method in an earlier investigation by

Gergely, Sozen and Siess(39) •

A simple design procedure for lateral steel was derived

on the basis of an equilibrium analysis of a cracked anchorage zone.

Experimental results confirmed the prediction of the

crack location and of the force in .the reinforcement, and were used

in the derivation of a force-slip re1ationship from which design

considerations to limit crack widths resulted.

2.2.10 Lenschow and Sozen's solution(37) (1965) (Fig. 2.9)

A physical analog was conceived in which the anchorage zone

had a fictitious discontinuity along the plane of potentia1 cracking,

which was bridged by e1astic elements representing the tensile restraint

of the uncracked concrete. Predicted stress distributions across

the boundary compared favorably with those of the classica1 solutions.

A1ternatively, by considering the 1ateral restraint to be

provided by reinforcement, a similar analog was used to determine the

effect of latera1 rein forcement on crack widths. Results were con-

firmed experimental1y.

Formulas were derived from consideration of the ana1og, and

their practical design was demonstrated in two numerica1 examples.

2.2.11 Yettram and Robbins' solution(54,55,56) (1969-1971)

Anchorage zone stresses were determined by using a finite

e1ement procedure for the e1astic analysis of three-dimensional solids.

. 1 1y
Ax~a
.
post-tens~one
d me mb ers of .f
un~ orm rectangu1ar .
cross-sect~on
(54) ,
 25

(a) Bearn end-zone

(b) Fictitious discontinuity along

planes of potential crackin~

CRACK
j .__ .__I._L_EN_~~H_ _ ' _ i -
CRACK
WIDTH

FORCE IN
REINFORCEHENT
(c) Modified ana log accounting for
contribution of reinforcement
to crack restraint

Figure 2.9 Lenschow and Sozen 1 s solution

 26

uniform rectangular and I-type sections with eccentric and multiple

anchorages(55), and l sections with end blocks(56) , were investigated.

The three-dimensional analysis of uniform sections under

concentric loading revealed significant transverse variations in the

stress distribution and showed a marked difference between centroidal

and surface stresses. The two-dimensional solutions of Iyengar and

Guyon gave good agreement with the values of the average stresses,

although they did not recognize the transverse variation, and could

occasionally be misleading.

For groups of anchorages, Guyon's equivalent-prism method

was found to be satisfactory. For flanged sections, Leonhardt's

evaluation of flange bursting stresses proved grossly conservative,

while the spalling stresses were considerably reduced due to the

presence of the flanges; end blocks for these sections were given

detailed consideration.

2.3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

Morsch supported his analytical findings with tests carried

out mainly on stone blocks. In the few tests on plain and reinforced

concrete specimens, transverse reinforcement was found to have no

visible influence on the cracking and ultimate load of the blocks. The

use of higher concrete strength was considered preferable to lateral

reinforcement.

Hagnel's two block tests showed that his method under-

estimated both the magnitude of tensile stresses and the distance from
 27

the face of the plate to the point of maximum stress.

Guyon's theory agreed ~ith the results of a photoelastic

study by Tesar(22) for the case b lb = 0.1. Points of maximum

P c
and zero tensile stress were correctly located, and the experimental

maximum f
cz
= 0.45 f
cm
was noted to be close to Guyon's value of

0.42 f •
cm
Photoelastic test results were used by Bortsch and Sievers

to qualitatively verify their respective solutions.

sargious(23) applied the photoelastic method for the

determination of stresses and tensile forces in the anchorage zone of

prestressed beams, under the action of an eccentric inclined pre-

stressing force, in the vicinity of the support reaction.

Christodoulides(24,25) made use of two-dimensional photo-

elasticity, three-dimensional frozen-stress techniques, and fullscale

concrete blocks with embedded strain gauges, to model a beam end-zone

subjected to two symmetrical prestressing forces. The photoelastic

stress measurements were confirmed by the internaI strain measurements.

Results agreed fairly closely with Iyengar's theoretical solutions,

but differed markedly from those of previous investigations. The

theories of Magnel and Guyon considerably underestimated both the

tensile stresses and the resultant tensile force. The critical stress

values were as follows:

maximum shear stress, f

cv
= 2 f •
cm'
maximum principal compressive stress, fcx =4 fcmi

maximum principal tensile stress, f = 0.6 f •

cz cm
 28

Spieth(30) deterrnined the pressure distribution in con-

crete subject to high local pressure, from which a formula for

allowable bearing stress was derived.

Dowrick(3l) presented a method for rein forcing prestressed

concrete anchorage zones, 'based on experimental work. Design curves

were included to simplify design procedures. The effects of

variations in concrete strength and anchorage size were discussed.

Okada et al. (32) analyzed the stress concentration in a

notched anchorage zone, using photoelastic methods, concrete model

tests, and measurements on a prototype.

Gardner (33) experimented with concrete cylinders pre-

stressed with high-strength steel spirals, subjected to concentric

and eccentric loadings. By varying the percentage of spiral re-

inforcement, the initial spiral prestress and its eccentticity, it

was shown that the initial prestress altered the initial stiffness

of the cylinder, but had no significant effect on the ultimate load

capacity, and that the change in lateral restraint produced by chang-

ing the percent age of spiral reinforcement allowed the concrete to

develop its strength to different degrees in a gradual type of com-

pression or tension failure. Modifications of the AC! ultimate load

formulas were proposed to include the contribution of the spiral rein-

forcement.
.
E~mer et al. (34) per f ormed '
exper~ments . d'~rect mo d e 1 s
on ~n

to determine stress distributions in reinforced anchorage zones under

concentric and eccentric loads. Photoelastic models were used,and

the influence of the reinforcement on the state of stress was investi-

gated by reinforcing the models with brass rods.

 29

.~

Ri'd zews k'~ and Wh'th

~ read(35) proposed an ana1yt~cal
'

method for evaluating the tensile stresses in I-beam anchorage

zones, and a simplified design procedure based on the results.

Tests on mortar models of scale 1/12 and three-dimensional photo-

elastic models confirmed their analysis.

. (53) stud'~e d t h e stress d'~str~' b
Huang '
ut~on ' t h e end-
~n

blocks of a prototype I-beam, using internal and external strain

gages. A numerical two-dimensional investigation of the problem

was also performed. The paper emphasized stress concentration at

the junction of the end-block with the beam section. Within the

end-block, it was found that Magnel's method considerably under-

estimated the principal tensile stress, while vertical tensile

stresses obtained by Guyont's method were higher than observed values.

Ban et al. (26) studied the distribution of anchorage zone

tensile stresses and cracking and ultimate loads in a specifie post-

tensioning system. The influence of the following factors was

investigated:

(1) Ratio of bearing plate to bearing block dimensions, b lb ;

p c
(2) Bearing plate thickness;

(3) Anchorage nut dimensions;

(4) Concrete strength;

(5) Percentage ana location of lateral reinforcement •.

Test results agreed with sievers' solution, but deviated considerably

from those of Guyon's and Magnel's analyses. The cracking load

remained approximately constant regardless of the bearing plate area,

but varied with the bearing plate thickness and the size of the
 30

anchorage nut. Cracking and ultimate loads exhibited linear

relationship to the concrete strength and tothe anchorage plate

thickness, and were greatly influenced by the amount of lateral re-

inforcement.

Zielinski and Rowe(3 to 7) conducted an extensive study

of all types of anchorages used in British post-tensioned concrete

practice in 1960. In the first part of the experimental program,

the test blocks had a square cross-section and were loaded symmetri-

cally. The parameters investigated were as follows:

(1) Post-tensioning system, including the transfer of force through

cones or plates, both external and embedded, and resting on

circular or square bearing plates;

(2) Ratio of bearing plate to bearing block dimensions, b

p
lb c ;
(3) Tendon duct form;

(4) Amount, position and form of reinforcement, including the

mat and helix forms.

The principal conclusions reached were as follows:

(1) "The distribution of transverse stress and the ultimate load

of an end block are not significantly affected by the anchorage

being embedded or internal, by the material of the anchorage,

or by the method of anchoring the wires".

(2) The b
p
lb c ratio was the dominant factor in the distribution of

transverse stress and ultimate load, but it had little effect

on the position of the points of maximum and zero transverse

stress.
 31

(3) All existing theories underestimated the tensile stresses and

the total tensile force. The experimental results of

Christodoulides and the analytical results of Sievers gave the

closest agreement, while the solutions of Magnel and Guyon

underestimated these quantities by a factor of 2 or more.

(4) The following tensile forces, maximum tensile stresses, and

ratios ~f uniform compressive stress at cracking to concrete

strength were observed:

at b lb = 0.30: f = 0.73 f Z/p = 0.36;

p c cz cm' ( f )
cm max
= 0.16 f
cu'

at b lb = 0.70: f = 0.40 f (f) = 0.28 f Z/p = 0.20.

p c cz cm' cm max cu'

(5) For ratios of contact stress to concrete strength, f

cp
If cu ,
up to 1.9, the amount of reinforcementohad a significant effect.

Beyond this point, no increase in beari~g capacity could be

achieved by increasing the reinforcement.

(6) The important stress gradients occurred in a region extending

from 0.2 b to b behind the bearing plate.

c c
(7) Helical reinforcement proved more effective than mat rein-

forcement.

(8) A practical design procedure was formulated.

The second phase of the experimental work(4) investigated

the behaviour of groups of anchorages, and resulted in the fOllowing

conclusions:

(1) The validity of Guyon's symmetric prism method was confirmed;

(2) Tensile zones owere observed between the applied prestressing

forces and near the loaded face of the end block; these zones

differed from those suggested by Guyon;

 32

(3) The analysis and design methods recommended by Zielinski

( 3)
and Rowe were suggested for application to the conceptual

symmetric prisms;

(4) An increased strain capacity prior to cracking resulted from

the complex stress state; an increase of the tensile strength

over the splitting tensile strength was recommended.

2.4 DESIGN OF BEAM ANCHORAGE ZONES

The current design practice is to provide sufficient

lateral reinforcement to resist the total calculated lateral tensile

force in the anchorage zone. The steel must be distributed in

accordance with the tensile stress distribution.

Curves representing the transverse stress distribution,

the coordinates of maximum and zero tensile stress, and the total

splitting force, for various plate width ratios, are shown in Fig. 2.10.

The Z/p vs bplbc curve determined by Iyengar falls above that obtained

by Guyon. Leon'h ard t (27) ,on t h e strength of data b y .

Sarg~ous wh'~ch

falls somewhat above that of Iyengar, at b lb

p c
= 0.2, suggested the,

conservative linear envèlope

Z/P = 0.3(l-bp lb c ).

Morsch's simple analysis, evolved from statics under reasonable

assumptions, agrees remarkably weIl with the more refined analytical

solutions; for b lb ratios between 0.2 and 1.0, the formula

p c

Z/P = 0.25(l-b lb )
p c
 33

ru

a~

5 Q3 ,
0.5
Point
.....
,,
'4-1
av x/bc
N
4-1
0 O.Z , 0.3 for
o.z o.z max fcz
al ~l'
0.1 0.1
0
f'cz = 0
D 0 o.s f.o

(a) 7ensile stress distribution (left) ; ·position of ~ximum

and zero tensile stress, and total tensile force (right).
[From Leonhardt(27) after Iyengar]

5'0" r--r--r-,---y---y-.----r-----r-"T--.
'1-1
.....~ ·o·'t---'t---il--i-..:::....t:~~--+--...f
.. . (b) Magnitude of maximum
'1-1
0·4t--+-+-i~~r.-.pa.~~~::--.t-~-=~ tensile stress (top),

m0'2 t--'i--I---I---+-~~
total tensile force (bottom):
comparison of several
theoretical solutions with
0~.....~~0.~2-~~0~.4~-L-~OL·,--~--0~·-.--1-~,.0 Zielinski & Rowe's
bp/b c experimental results.
(3)
[From Zielinski and Rowe '. ]
. . - - ---H.c ne'
........: •••• - H.end (modifie<!)
• D'eith
e - - -GuJon
----E.;>erlmenll•
•- - - •• - DI.'th·Sleoen
e_ • - • _ Honth

P = bearing forc~
O"I--I--+---+--:~o--I--+--lH-~ •
Z = total tensile force
'1l4 . 0·21--f--I--4r:--+:::......::-+-~-=+-+-+---l in concrete
..... f
cz = tensile stress in
N
cancre te
o 0'2 0'11 1'0 f ~ P/bcb
cm
= mean pressure in
.-.-: - - - H.c ne ' concrete block
_ ........... H.cne' (modlfied)
• D'elth
- - --' Gu1on
• hperlmenll'
bp = bearing plate width
_ . - . - DlcI,h·~lcven b c = concrete block width
. - . - . - HOII,h
b = transverse width of
plate and block

Figure 2.10 Tensile stress distribution and total tensile force

 34

is a close approximation to the results of Iyengar and Guyon.

Standard details for the anchorage rein forcement of beam

end zones can also be obtained from prestressed concrete design

handbooks, such as the handbook of the Canadian Prestressed Concrete

Institute(59) which provides standard designs based on conservative

application of Guyon's solution.

2.5 DESIGN OF'BUTTRESS ANCHORAGE ZONES

A finite element analysis of the anchorage zone in a

prestressed concrete containment vessel was reported by Kulka and

(51) . (62)
Wahl, and Wahl and KosJ.ba • A cylindrical quadrant wi th one

buttress at its center was analyzed under a plane strain condition

which approximates the three-dimensional nature of the problem. The

most significant result of the investigation was that very little

tensile stress is created in the buttress area, as a relatively uni-

form compressive stress arises in the buttress except immediately

under the anchorage bearing plate. The provision of rein forcement

to resist these tensile stresses is not discussed in either paper,

although the buttress detail drawing in the paper by Wahl and Kosiba

shows rein forcing bars bent to run along the side of the buttress and

along the bearing plate (c.f. bar A in detail l, Fig. 3.2, p. 42 of

this thesis).

The most current design method consists of obtaining a two-

dimensional stress distribution in the con crete under the bearing

plate, using either a finite element analysis such as the above, or

 35

the generally more conservative solutions of Leonhardt or Guyon,

and providing sufficient lateral rein forcing steel to resist the

total tensile force over the section. This steel is then dis-

tributed over the region where tensile stresses in the concrete

exceed t h e a l lowabl e '1 e stresses

tens~ ' f '~e
spec~ d'~n th e AC! co des. (2,45)
 CHAPTER 3

DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF TEST SPECIMENS

3.1 BUTTRESS DESIGN

3.1.1 Design Loads

The containment structure whose buttress is being examined

in the present investigation, requires an effective circumferential

prestressing force, at design working loads, of 730 kips per foot

of height (10.65 MN/m). Such a force can be provided through the

use of tendons at 2-foot (61-cm) intervals over the height of the

wall, consisting of 163-7 mm. wires with a specified ultimate tensile

2
strength (f ) of 250 ksi (172 MN/m ) , stressed to 0.6 of this ulti-
su
mate capaci ty •.

The bearing plate and anchorage zone must be designed to

resist an additional increment in the prestressing force required

to counter the effects of shrinkage, creep and elastic deformation

in concrete, relaxation in prestressing steel, and friction and

anchorage losses. Such temporary overstress in the course of the

post-tensioning operation may lead to stresses in the proximity of

0.8 f which are permissible under temporary overloads. For the

su
tendons under consideration, which have a cross-sectional area of
2 2
9.75 in {62.8 cm ) , and thus a specified ultimate tensile capacity

of 2430 kips (10.81 MN), the anchorage design load works out to be

1945 kips (B.67 MN).

36
 37

3.1. 2 Bearing stresses

Figure 3.1 shows the buttress design which was chosen for

the present studYi it has a length of 12 feet (3.66 m) and a width

of 32 inches (813 mm). The tendons run in straight lines over the

length of the buttressi the vertical spacing between centerlines

of opposite tendons is 1 foot (305 mm) at their point of crossing.

The bearing ~lates are not centered on the face of the buttress, as

can be seen from Fig. 3.1.

Two bearing plate sizes are proposed, the plate width in

each case being twice the diameter of the central hole required for

the circular conduit, through which the tendon wires go from the

compact sheathing duct to the wider external anchor.

Both plates satisfy the compressive stress requirements of

the ACI Building Code 318-63 at working loads(2). The Code pro-

vision dealing specifically with bearing takes into consideration

the confining effect of the surrounding concrete, and limits allow-

able bearing stresses to

3
f = 0.6 f . (A lA) 11 •
cp c~ cp p

The symbol A denotes the net bearing plate areai A is the net
p cp
area of the underlying concrete surface which is geometrically similar

to the plate and concentric with it, i.e., in both present cases, a

square whose width is twice dimension marked b 12

cp
= 17.9 inches (455 mm)

in Fig. 3.1. The second restriction imposed by the Code is to limit

the compression stresses at working loads to a value of 0.45 f •

cu
 38
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
----. ------------ll(-r j
j

'-- j
j
j

j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j

~e 3.1
j

~ u~
b"tt.. d . , j
j
"
-,' .ess OSign dOtail
j
s j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
 39

The affected area is the ~ase of the pyramid obtained on the assump-

tion that compression trajectories spread at an angle of 30 degrees

(~/6 radians) from outer edges of the bearing plate. This assump-

tion appears conservative when compared with the trajectories ob-

tained by sargious(23) and reported by Leonhardt(27) for an eccentric

prestressing force. A summary of bearing stress calculations is

given in Table 3.1. The smaller bearing plate is noted to be just

adequate for the design prestressing force, while the larger plate

is quite conservative in this respect.

The principal advantage of a 24-inch square bearing surface

is that it occupies the full distance between the tendons. Thus

fabrication costs can be reduced by making the bearing plates con-

·tinuous in the vertical direction. The l2-inch diameter ho le is

designed to accommodate an alternate type of tendon consisting of

l86-6mm wires. If used in conjunction with the proposed l63-7mm

wire tendon, the 24-inch bearing plate with an Il-inch diameter ho le

becomes excessively conservative in bearing, and the use of individual

22-inch plates may be more economical. In addition, the increased

concrete cover beyond the edge of the 22-inch plate can be significant

in providing spalling resistance. For these reasons, the smaller

plate was considered in the design and experimental study of ahchorage

zone rein forcement. The continuous bearing plate was used only in

the complete buttress model, where the effect of its continuity could

be appraised.

)
 40

TABLE 3.1 nfARJ~G STRESS CA(CULATIONS

INOÎVIOUAL CONTJNUOUS
PLATES PLATES

PLATE SIZE bp IN 22 24
HM 560 6io
HOlE DIAMETER dh IN 11 12

AREAS;, BEARJf-IG PLATE~ GROSS b2P Hl2 4B4 .. 576

CENTRAL HOLE d~ IN2
Ah :"4Tl
h 95 1Î3
BEARHlG Pt"ATE; NET Ap = b~ - Ah
INz
, 389 463

CONF.NI~G CDNCRETE; WIDTH bep IN 35.8 35.8

GROSS AREA b~p IN~ ï282 1Z82

'1.' IN~
NET ÀRI::A A cp ::' bcp - Ah i187 1169

BEARING CAPI\C ITV COEFFICIENT 0(. c ~ Acp / Ap 1.ft5 1".36

ALLOWABLE BEM~ Wc. PRr;SSURE +cp 0= 0.6 ex rci KS l , 4.35 4~O8
MPA 3.00 2.81
ALLOWABLE BEARING FO~CE KIP ï6'90 1690
MN 7.51 8'.40

R~GION OF UNIFORH COMPRESSrON~

DISTANCE h = ~(bc·-bp)cot.30· .... i, (bc-ocp)cotlô,go IN 23.4. ,

2i.s
BASE OF CONCRl:TE PVRf\MIO . bc 51.0 48.6
GROSS AREf\ lt 2601 238ï
NET AltE:A Ac .. b~ - Ah 2506 2268
ALLDWf\BLE C[JI·lpr·:r:SSIvE FORCE p ... 0,45 +cu.Ac. KIP 56/.0 5ioo
~IN 25.0 22.7

CURVATURE OF BUTiR~SS wALL NOT CONSlnEREOJ

CO~PRESSJON TRAJfC10RIFS ASSUMED
TO srREAD AT 30 ~EGRFES TO
PRESTRESStNG FORCE prRECTIDN;
ÇCi .. fc.u. ~ 5 Ksi ... 3.45 MPa
 41

3.1.3 Anchorage zone rein forcement

The seven different anchorage zone details illustrated

in Fig. 3.2 provide various amounts of lateral reinforcement, while

being based on a common arrangement of the reinforcing steel, shown

in section a~d elevation in detail IV of Fig. 3.2.

AlI of these details make use of horizontal and vertical

rein forcement parallel to the bearing plate. Other means of confining

the concrete under the bearing plate are available: spiral reinforce-

ment wound around the axis of the tendon, for example, is often used.

However, the chosen arrangement of lateral steel is believed to

utilize the reinforcement most efficiently in its multiple functions

ofconfining concrete in compression, sharing tensile forces with the

concrete, and maintaining the structural integrity of the wall in case

of cracking, due to the action of prestressing force under the bearing

plate, moment and shear at the junction of the wall and the buttress,

and ther~al, shrinkage, creep and other effects in the containment as

a whole.

Consider, as an illustration, bar A in detail IV: along the

side of the buttress, it acts as thermal reinforcement; in the bend,

it aids in resisting spalling; along the face of the bearing plate,

it serves as transverse tensile reinforcement, while beyond the wall-

buttress joint, it reinforces against cracks initiating'at the re-

entrant corner due to shear and flexure. Bars marked A, F, Gare

elements of an orthogonal grid which provides No. 10 bars horizontally

and vertically at 1 foot (305 mm) on centers over the entire height
 .42

BA
, !

1 1
A iNo8 A 1No8
BI NoB.4
C No8
B 1 t-lo8a3
C No8
il
i i

B BA
A

1 1
Al No10 A 1 No10
BI No8'a4 la B 1 No8a3
C No11
rra
C No11

i i
i 1

i i
1 1

Figure 3.2 Anchorage zone' details

 43

L-~~~~--------B w""'+~~~----8 A
~~~~~---------A

====rl
.... ---- -A
-----8
~

A
63
l lie
B

No 10at12 hor
8 No 8 at~
C No 11
~~~~~-------B D No8
~4-~~~--------A E No 8 \VIth "hairpin" tles
F No 10 at 12 hor
G No 10 at 12 vert

A Bars E,F,G, Elevation view and

B
C
IDa Dimensions indicated in plan, are
common to ail designs.
(Dimensions & spaclngs in inches )

Fi~ure 3.2 (continued) Anchorage zone details

 44

and circumference of the containment structure, and is intended

mainly as rein forcement against thermal and inelastic effects prior

to prestress application. Bars F, like bars A, extend beyond the

re-entrant corner and resist diagonal tension cracking at that point.

Spalling te~dencies at the corner of the buttress are counteracted

by bar E, anchored at lB-inch (457 mm) intervals along its length by

"hairpin" bars (shown only in detail IV, but pre.sent in all others).

Ties marked B are provided throughout the buttress as creep

and thermal reinforcement, and are concentrated in varying numbers

in the anchorage region. Their extension into the wall serves the

dual purpose of embedment and diagonal tension reinforcement, as was

the case with bars E and F. Vertical bars C and D are continuous

over the height of the buttress, and perform the same role as the

ties, in the perpendicular direction.

Details la, lIa, III, IlIa, IV are practical examples of

considerably varying amounts of lateral anchorage zone reinforcement.

Cases I and II are simplified designs for laboratory investigation,

in which all bars are of the same size; they do not differ markedly

from cases la and lIa in terms of the total steel area provided.

Table 3.2 summarizes the amount of rein forcing steel, in

terms of areas and weights, for one tendon, according to each of the

seven designs. For the purpose of this compilation, ~nly bars which

ran parallel to the bearing plate were considered to be placed speci-

fically as anchorage reinforcement. Thus in cases l, la, III, IlIa,

the first inclined bar was considered as thermal reinforcement, al-

though it may still be in the region of varying stress gradients, being

 T!:.E.L:: 3,2 A!.OLNT CF REINFDReING STEEL P~R TENDON ANCHORAGE ZON~ FOR VARIOUS END DETAILS

1 1
1 at.;;.s AREA CSQ. IN.> AREA WEIGHT CPOUN!)S) ZS CKIPSi
i 1
(SQ. CM)
!Hû?'I LJ~;T ~l. 3~~S A MA?K A MARK B TOTAL TOTAL MARK A :-1ARK 3 TOTAL
:~~Ri( /-lM!': B
J
l~ëïAtL l 2 ~::. a 6 NO. 6 l,58 4.74 6.32 41.8 32 96 128 126 152
1

1 lA 2 N::.10 6 NO. 5 2.34 4.74 7.2B 47,0 52 96 14B 146 li5 1

1
; !l ? t,~. a 14 NG. 3 1.5B 11.0b 12,64 61.7 32 224 256 253 304
1 1 lA 2 N~'olO 14 NfJ. 8 2.54 11.06 13.60 67.9 52 224 276 272 ~27
III 1 2 N:JolO 2 N[1. 4 2.54 0.40 2.94 19,0 52 fi 60 59 71
IlIA 1 2 ND.I0 2 NO. 8 2.54 1.:;8 4012 26.6 52 32 84 82 99
1 IV . 1 2 1\:1.10 10 ~lD. 6 2.54 7.90 10,44 67.4 52 160 212 209 251 ~
1 ln
!
1
('dH:)
1
U.l (ë)
- - - .. (e) (0 ) - (F) CG)
i
,
l'iE~TIe.lL dARS H:.RK e :~.\RK 0 MAj{K C ~lARK 0 TOTAL TOTAL NARK C 11ARK 0 TOTAL
a
--- ---
I;:>!:TAIL l 1 Il :"/:;. 6.32 6.32 41.8 43 43 126 152

--..
"
lIA 1 2 N::1.11 3,02 3,02 19,5 21 21 60 72
12.64 12,64 81,1 86 86 253 ~~4
1 II
q'
il î
116 NJ. a
,a :~:.ll 12,48 -- 12.48 80.5 a5 - 85 250 Z'?9
.11
1
1
1
IliA
IV
J-l
. 2 N·.Jo 8
NO'. ,
2 NL!.l1
-
"

6 NO, a
1.38
1.58
3,02
-
4.74
J.,58
1.58
7.76
10.3-
10,3
50,1
11
11
21
--
32
,Il
11
53
32
32
155,
33
.33
1do
1
1 -
(i.iJTE)
----------
- .. - - ~

--
.. (E) (E) - CF) CG)

~DTES:
Cl) Ci:e BAR JN rc
A~D ~~E "AR ON snTTOH OF TENDON,
(5) ~AC~ rIE MA~K n B P~DV!DES O~E 6AR ON TQP AND ONE BAR ON BDTTOM OF'TENDON.
~~LY Trl~SE Ti 5 WHICH RUN PA~ALLEL TD THE SEARING PLATE FACE WERE CONSIDERED TD BELON~ TD THE ANCHORAGE ZONE DETAIL.
(e) A LENGTH OF 6 F~El (TOP & BOrTOK) PARALLEL TD THE BEARING PLATE WAS CONSIDERED TO BELONG To THE ANCHORAGE Z~NE DETAIL.
(0) W~IGriT P5R ;~o, ~ TIE SASEO ON T~TAL TIE WEIGHT OF APPROXIMATEL~ 32 POUNDS.
(~) VE~7!eAL BAAS srA~ 2 FEET Ir! ANY TENOON ANCHORAGE ZONE.
CF) ~s = TOTAL LATEiAL FGRCE IN AI1CHORAGE ZJNE REINFORCEHENT ASSUMING ALL BARS ATTAIN SPECJFIED WORKING STRESS 20 KsI (13.S~ HP!).
(G) ZS = T~TAL LATERAL FORCE IN ANCIIORAGE ZONE REINFORCEMENT ASSUMING ALL SARS ATTAIN SPECIFIED WORKING STRESS 24 KSI C16.5~ ~PA).
 46

at a distance just greater than the plate width.

The lateral force in the anchorage zone reinforcement,

assuming aIl bars to have attained a uniform stress equal to the

allowable working stress in intermediate or hard grade steel, is

also included in Table 3.2. The results are tabulated in order of

increasing lateral force in Table 3.3, for each of the details in

both grades of steel.

providing less vertical than horizontal rein forcement

would seem appropriate considering that the structural weight tends

to counteract the vertical splitting forces. However, the concrete

surface under the bearing plate is continuous in the vertical direction,

and hence the stress gradients and resulting tensile stresses may be

higher than those in the horizontal direction and cannot be ignored.

It was, therefore, decided to use equal steel areas in both directions

for designs l and II, and only slightly less vertical than horizontal

rein forcement in the other details.

Working stress design considerations require that the total

force in the reinforcement, Zr at working stress, be equal to the re-

sultant of the integrated tensile stresses over the anchorage zone

cross-section. In current design practice, the required lateral

force is calculated from a formula Z =P (l-b lb )a, where the constant

p c
a is 0.3 in Leonhardt's method, and 0.25 in Mërsch's method. The

most adverse ratio of plate width to anchorage zone width (b lb ) must

. p c
be used. Calculations for various assumed concrete areas are summa-

rized in Table 3.5.

 47

TABLE 3.3 END DtTAleS IN URnER OF INCREASING TENSILE CAPACITV

OeTA IL FS ZS ZS/PD ZS/PI

(KSI; (KIPSI
---_...
HORIZUNTAL Rf,RS III 20 .59 0.040 0.030
III 24 71 '0.049 0.037
II lA 20 82 0.0.56 0.042
IlIA 24 99 0.068 0.051
1 20 126 0.086 0.065
lA 20 146 0.100 0.075
1 24 152 0.104 0.078
lA 24 175 0.120 0.090
Iv 20 209 0.143 0.108
IV 24 251 0.172 0.129
Il 20 253, 0.173 (1.130
liA 20 272 0.186 0.140
II 24 304 0.20B 0.156
liA 24 327 0.224 0.168
VERTICAL BARS 1j 1 20 32 0.022 0.016
JI lA 20 !12 0.0?2 0.016
III 24 3B 0.026 0.020
IUA 24 38 0.026 0.020
lA 20 60 0.041 0.031
lA 24 72 0.0'.9 0.037
1 20 126 0.006 0.065
1 24 152 0.104 0.078
IV 20 155 0.106 0,0110
Iv 24 166 0.127 0.096
lIA 20 250 0.171 0.128
JI 20 253 0.173 0.130
liA 24 299 0.205 0.154
1i 2'. 304 0.208 0.156
FS :: HllRKING STRr;ss IN LATERAL REWFflRcErlEtJT
ZS:: T[JTAL LATER/d, FORCE HI flNCHORIIG!; ZO~IE REINFORCEMENT;
ASSUHING AL( nARS ATTAIN AL(OWABLE WORKING STRESS
PD = 1460 KIrs c 6.50 HN I DESIGN PRESTRESSING rORCE AT FSP :: 0.6 FSU
Pl = 1945 KIPS 1:1 6'.65 ~INï INITIAL PRF.STRESSING FORCE AT r-sp = 0,0 FSIJ

TABlF. 3.4 END DETAl~S IN OROER UF INCREASING STEEL WEIGHT

DETAIL STEEL ("EJGHT PER ANCI/ORAGE FRACTION OF LARGr:sT VALU!:

(POUNDS)
HOR'. VE:RT, TOTAL HOR. VERT. TOTAL
!II 60 11 71
1)5
0".21'7 0.1;>8 0,197
IlIA 84 il 0'.304 0,128 0.263
Il 128 43 171 0.464 0.500 0.474
Il A 148 "21 169 0.535 0.2't't 0.,,69
IV 212 53 265 0.7fl8 0.616 0.735
Il 256 66 342 0.926 1.000 0.947
UA 276 85 361 l~OOO 0.989 1.000
--_._--"- - --
 48

TABll: 3.5 REQUI)ED LATERAL REINFORCEMENT CAPACITY

tA5E .. Be/r; SP/BC REQUIRëD ZS/P

LEONHARDT MORseH
VëRTlC:\L PL~N'.:
(l) 1 S!JLtlTEü Tn·l)l.1i~ 00 0.000 0.3:>0 N.A.
, 2) EVERY 4 Tri T~NDf)~1 rF.IJS IO'!ED 3.00 O.~O5 0.20B 0.174
( 3) HERY 3RO Tr.:"IDQ:.; TENSIO'JED 2.00 0.456 0.163 0.135
(4 ) EVERY ZN') i'rr~DDI-,j TEtlSJQI':ED 1.50 0.610 0.097 (J.1l7
HUR 1ZO:JT AL p L AI~L=
(5) USINe. aep (FIG. 3.1) 1.49 0.615 0.115 0.096
(6) USING Be (FIG. 3.1) 2.1i! 0.432 0.170 0.142
(7) USING \HOTIi or r.uTTRESS FACE 1.33 0.686 0.094 0.078
-
3 4
---= -.....:

6 I~1
1
7
1 . 1
1 1 / 1
1 . 1
1 ! /
1 / 1
1
 49

According to present design methods, none of the chosen

rein forcing details is conservative. The aim of the present

investigation will be to de termine whether the transfer of force

to the reinforcing steel at working stresses does occur to the

extent stipulated. Moreover, the load factors at first yield of

steel and at crushing of concrete will be sought, and the feasibility

of relying to sorne degree on the tensile capacity of concrete will

be examined.

The economic significance of making optimum use of the load-

bearing capacities of anchorage zone steel and concrete can be de-

duced from Table 3.4. The lightest reinforcement pattern requires

one-fifth the weight of steel of the heaviest one; the corresponding

saving of 290 pounds (131.5 kg) of steel per anchorage in a structure

that can incorporate up to a thousand tendon end zones cannot be

neglected.

3.2 'BLOCK MODEL DESIGN

3.2.1 Model details

The prismatic rectangular specimen with a concentric cyl in-

drical cavity, termed "block model", is illustrated in Fig. 3.3. The

block model constitutes a simple laboratory specimen from which a pre-

liminary estimate of the behavior of an isolated anchorage zone can

be obtained. Scale models of this specimen are simple and relatively

inexpensive to fabricate. A test to destruction which reproduces the

 1 -----, 50
\r--Yt~---~
1 --.-------,
\ rr---f'~ \
\ \ 1 i 1 \
\ \
\\
1
1
Il 1 ___
\
\
\ \
\ \
1 1 1
1· 1
\
\
\\ ~ \\ \
\\ \ i LI
~
AtU A \
A4J _ ,
Sr\-;:
.JA
---lB
\
\
BqD - ·· 1! ft
··
·· 8
1
\\
\ , ··
0
1 :'
\
\\ ··
\
·· ----------
0

\ ", 0 i .• ,_______ ___ \

\\
L[~l.~_
\.
, \. ____ \
\\ l

\,
1 \

l
9-2
\
\
\
\
~~.1_ \ . (1 \
i \ \ \\ JI \\
." !
"~H' ,1 \ L ________ ~
\ \L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..1. \

-!3El· ~l~
,1..)
1"f ! 11
i ,-1
.
E lev at ion

1
16 i 16
!
1

C 1 nl~
-+-. -Ejj- -- - ~ ~
1 --
~I----J
Section 8-B

14 i 14
1

ie
a 11-0D Duct
l b éX3 Crack Initiator
bd\
---.~ . -r c 1 x1 Crack Initiator

i Section A-A
'1
Figure 3.3. Block specimen details
 51

action of the prestressing tendon and anchorage devices can easily

be performedusing a universal hydraulic testing machine, without

the need for post-tensioning jacks or other hardware.

The shorter dimension of the prototype was 32 inches

(813 mm), which is the width of the buttress bearing face. The

duct and plate were placed concentrically within this width, for

simplicity apd to avoid the arbitrary selection of dimensions for

the zone of influence of the mass of concrete in the wall. The

approximations introduced by truncating the anchorage zone would

expectedly be conservative from the point of view of the ultimate

capacity, as the confining effect of the thick cover and of the

wall mass are reduced; the stress distribution, on the other hand,

would be less severe, as the narrow anchorage zone results in smaller

gradients.

The longer dimension of the block face was 4 feet (1.22 ml,

which corresponds to the distance between the centerlines of tendons

above and below the anchorage under study. This wide dimension

allows for the more pronounced stress gradient and the resulting ten-

sile stresses which occur in the vertical direction when a single

isolated tendon is prestressed.

Two patterns of anchorage zone rein forcement were selected

for investigation, viz. details l and II explained and illustrated

in the previous section. The same number, type and spacing of bars

are provided in the horizontal and vertical directions. Detail l

gives 8 - No. 8 bars within a distance of 0.81 times the width of the

plate b from the face of the plate, while Detail II distributes twice
p
 52

this amount of steel in a depth of 1.15 b •

P
Bar embedment was accomplished through standard right-

angle hooks. Supplementary reinforcement, such as the lateral

gr id and corner bars, could not be introduceQ, although their con-

tribution to spalling resistance would be beneficial in the buttress

structure. 'Closed stirrups were placed in the lower half of the

block models, to guard against sudden failure, but were not expected

to contribute to the bearing resistance.

Crack initiators were molded at the center of the faces,

and along the surface of the duct (Fig. 3.3) so as to impose the

greatest proportion of transverse force on the lateral rein forcement.

The efficiency of performance of the reinforcement was

evaluated from strain measurements on the rein forcing bars.

3.2.2 Choice of scales

The choice of appropriate dimensional scale factors hinged

simultaneously on the availability of mOdeling materials and on the

requirements of the concurrent buttress model investigation.

For the latter project, a scale factor less than 1/5 (0.2)

was recommended to avoid overtaxing available material supplies, usable

space, weight handling facilities and loading devices. On the other

hand, a scale less than 1/8 (0.125) would have resulted,in complications

in sorne areas of fabrication, strain gage instrumentation, reinforcing

cage fabrication and uniformity of concrete compaction, while demand-

ing excessively precise dimensional tolerances. From overall

similitude considerations, a scale of exactly 1/6 (0.1667) was selected

 53

ta give the smallest workable specimen for the buttress model.

A similar length scale factor of 1/6 would, therefore, have

been appropriate for the block models. However, since the rein-

forcing bar diarneter was the only dimension of the blocks which could

not be accornrnodated to any chosen scale by a simple adjustrnent of

2
formwork, it was preferred to choose a scale factor whereby the 0.79-in
2
(5.10 cm ) area of the No. 8 reinforcing bars was scaled exactly.

The closest available size of deforrned model rein forcing bar being of
2 2
type D2, with nominal area 0.0200 in (0.129 cm ) , a scale factor

equal to , 0.02/0.79 = 0.1600 was therefore used for aIl dimensions

of the block model.

In order to justify the confidence placed in any given model

study, a comparison of results obtained on models of different sizes

is worthwhile. The present investigation consequently included

models to a scale 0.375, which is approximately the median between

the small scale"and prototype sizes (viz.0.375/0.l6 = 2.35,

1/0.375 = 2.67). The sarne consideration which had led to the choice

of the scale 0.16 for the small models governed the selection of the

length scale factor of 0.375. The steel could best be modeled

using the standard No. 3 reinforcing bars to simulate the prototype

No. 8 bars, whence the use of the ratio of their nominal diameters,

0.375/1.00, as the dimensional scale factor.

The model test results were also compared with sorne data

available from independently conducted tests on two full-scale proto-

type block specimens, similar in aIl respects to those described in

the previous section.

 54

The relative dimensions of models in 'the three scales

are shown in Fig. 3.4.

3.2.3 Specimen designations

Block models with reinforcement patterns l and II, detailed

in accordance with Fig. 3.3, were cast in both scales 0.16 and 0.375,

and were labelled I-160, II-160, 1-375 and 1I-375. The two proto-

type blocks were identified as I-l and II-l.

The presence of crack initiators was intended to stimulate

the building up of force in the transverse reinforcement from the

earliest loading stages. Their effect on ultimate behaviour was,

on the other hand, uncertain. From test results it was seen that

failure of the specimens, for the given bearing plate and end block

configuration, was accompanied by the opening of cracks not occurring

at the center of the block faces. It therefore became interesting

to observe the mode of crack development in the absence of artifi-

cially induced stress concentration at preformed cracks, and for this

reason two specimens designated I-160N and 1-375N were cast without

crack initiators.

Unreinforced specimens were also fabricated to complement

the series by verifying the load factor implicit in the allowable

bearing stress, for the given geometrical arrangement.

Models were designated 0-160, 0-375, 0-160H, 0-375H, 0-160L

where the letters H and L refer to high and low concrete strengths

respectively.
55

v9i
 56

3.3 BUTTRESS MODEL DESIGN

3.3.1 General features

The sixth-scale buttress model (Fig. 3.5) was constructed

to simulate as closely as'possible the features of the prototype

buttress schematically represented in Fig. 3.1. The model consisted

of two full buttresses jointed at the inner face of the containment

wall. The. curvature of the wall and buttress was not reproduced,

outer surfaces being cast parallel to the central plane of the model,

but the angle between opposite sets of tendons and the inclination

of the bearing surfaces were maintained.

Four tendons were anchored at each of the bearing surfaces,

three of them bearing on a continuous plate, while the topmost tendon

rested on an individual bearing plate, both plates conforming to the

two designs shown in Fig. 3.1. In the forthcoming sections, tendons

and their associated anchorage zones are designated by a digit- and

letter code (eg: 3A), where the bearing surface is identified by one

of the numbers l 'to 4,'and the tendon is labelled A, B, C, or D

(Fig. 3.5).

Four additional tendons, sloping at a tangent of 0.1 to

the horizontal, were provided along the central plane of the specimen

to reproduce the self-weight of the containment, structure. The

designations DA through OD are assigned to these tendons.

Crack initiators of the same design as those used in the

block models were formed on one of the outer surfaces of the buttress,

at locations opposite tendon centerlines and midway between these.

57

/+7+7+7+/
..
 58

Corner crack propagators were also included to induce separation

of the buttress from the wall.

Recognizing that thermal gradients would arise in the

buttress, firstly during mass-concrete hydration, and secondly in

the advent of accidental release of steam into the containment

structure, provision was made for the creation of a thermal gradient

from approximately the temperature of boiling water at the model

center-plane, i.e. at the inner face of the containing wall, to the

ambient temperature on the outer faces. Two pipe coils running in

planes parallel to the center plane of the buttress were placed as

shown in Fig. 3.6 to carry boiling water through the interior of the

wall.

3.3.2 Reinforcement

The two buttresses constituting the model were d~tailed and

reinforced identically, the only distinguishing feature between them

being the presence or absence of crack initiators. Reinforcement

for the specimen is detailed in the plan and elevation views. (Figs.

3.7 and 3.8). For clarity,dimensions and bar designations are ex-

pressed on the basis of prototype dimensions; conversion of di-

mensions to sixth scale, along with equivalent model reinforcing bars

and their properties are listed in Table 3.6.

Anchorage zone details were of three types, identified as la,

III and IlIa in Fig. 3.2 Detail la was used under aIl anchors of

buttress bearing surfaces 1 and 3. Anchorages under the continuous

59
 Trim bar grids
NO.10 at 12 "'.\ End Anchors
NO.11 vert. &
NO.8 at 4 1 hor.
2

.•. .-.. .. .. .... ..... ...

. . . . ..-.---.------.- .-
~ - . . .... ....... .
-- - - - - ------.--.-.----.--.-.
1601 96 ........... ........... - .................... .
., 1 0\
o

360

Figure 3.7 Buttress model - plan

 Anchorage Anchorage
surface surface Inclined
1 2 middle
plane
1
Detail 111 (No 4 bars) at anchorage LA Detail 1 (No .8 bars) tendons
Detail llla(No 8 bars) at anchorages IB,lC,lD at ail anchorages OA to OD

OA 1:11-i-t11 : " . ===-1-+1- -=-:-- :. -:-.:

w--. ----.--IIij::-,llloA
::1- -1--1- -I-HII-HÎ 2A :~ ~ _ :
....0\

H'l illlOB
---~- -J-H- -= ~ .. ----~-ll--I--J--I-tl!I-I,IT~B
"
1 •1
OB IIH--+JII ". 1

OC liiHHt
----"
-.--- _._·=+l~·:"":-":'·_·_:----4---I--I--l--IfI~II·112C
li~Il'0C
.... 1
1
.. ~IIOD
OD IIIPlll===: ~' .. ~-~-fUel!"d2D
1 ~ tt~
- - -~~~~--~ " ! - HU •.

Figure 3.8 Buttress model - elevation

 ~ ------~ -----------_......
.. _._--_ .... - ,

62

TABLE 3.6 P.UTTRF.SS HODEL DIHENS;ONS AND REINFORCEHENT

CA) DHIENSIONS PROTOTYPE MODEl

IN. S.I. IN. S.J.

BUTTRESS MaDEL, CVERALL LENGTH 360 9.14 M 60.0 ' 1.52 M

WIDTH 160 4.06 H .26.7 0.68 H
HEIGHT 128 3.25 M 21.4 0.54 M
BUTTRESS PROPER, LHIGTH
.
lA4 3.66 H 24.0 610 MM
THICKNESS 32 812 MM 5.33 135 HM
BEARJNG PLATE THicKN~SS 3 76.1 HM 0.50 12.7 MM
CONTINUOUS PLATE; WloTH 24 610 MM 4'.00 101.5 MM
~IOLE DIAHETER i2 305 MM 2.00 50.8 HM
INDIVIDUAl PLATE; WloTH 22 560 MM 3.67 93.3 HM
HO LE OiAMETER ïl 280 HM 1.83 46.6 MM
BAR. SPAC ING, NO. 10 TRIM BARS ï2 305 MM 2.00 50.B HM
NO. li INNER GRJDS 6 152 HM 1.00 25.4 HM

(B) REJNFORCING B~RS

PROTOTYPE BARS,
DESIGNATIOI~ NO. 4· 6 B 10 11
DI AMETER IN 0.50 0.15 1.00 1'.27 1.41
MM 13 19 25 32 36
AREA iN'1 0.20 ·0.44 0.79 1~27 1.56
MM'1 129 284 510 820 1005
MaDEL BAR AREA REQID
FOR SIMILITUDE IN'- 0.0055 0.01?2 0.0219 0.~353 0.0434
MaDEL BARS,
DESIGNATIOt~ NO. on-LC 01.5 02 09.5 04.5
AREA HI2. 0.0055 0.0150 0.0200 0.0350 0.0450
foIM2. 3.5 9,7 12.9 22.6 29.0

'.
 63

bearing plate of surfaces,2 and 4 were of type IlIa, and those

under the individual top plates were of type III.

Investigation of the heavier reinforcement patterns, de-

tails lIa and IV, was considered redundant, as detail la was esti-

mated, from previously acquired data, to provide adequate resistance,

with a large margin of safety for normal working loads. The lighter

reinforcement, détail IlIa, was exarnined for the efficiency of the

sirnplest anchorage zone detail.

The upper tendon anchorage was'to be loaded until failure

by progressive increase of the bearing load. Taking account of

the 'capacity of the available post-tensioning system, it was assumed

that only the lightest reinforcing pattern that could suitably be

modeled, viz. detail III, would allow destruction of the anchorage

zone concrete. This light detail was therefore used under bearing

plates lA and 3A.

End anchorages at wall extrernities were detailed conserva-

tively. Square orthogonal grids were placed on outside faces of

the wall and the buttress, and on opposite sides of the central ten-

dons, to simulate the presence in the containment structure of the

reinforcement required for loading conditions prior to prestressing.

Suitably anchored vertical bars were provided at every corner to re-

sist spalling of concrete.

 64

3.3.3 Post-tensioning system

The post-tensioning tendons of the model, like those of

the prototype structure under investigation, were fabricated from

7-mm wires with a specifi~d ultimate tensile strength of 250 ski

(172.5 MPa) '. Exact dimensional scaling of the prestressing steel

area would require an area equal to 4.53 times that of the single

wire, to simulate the 163 wires of the prototype tendon. Since it

was possible, within the dimensional restrictions of the anchors,

bearing plates and ducts, to utilize a tendon consisting of seven

wires, its use made available the application of prestressing forces

in excess of the prototype design bearing load.

Details of the post-tensioning system are shown in the

photographs and the schematic diagrams in Fig. 3.9. The BBRV

system was employed, whereby the individual wires are slipped through

holes in an anchor bolt, and held there by button heads formed through

a patented process. Threads on the anchor boIt allow the attachment

of a tie-rod through which tension is applied to the tendons, and

provide for exact shimming achieved by positioning the anchor nut

against the bearing plate under full tension. Load levels were

ascertained from a load cell containing eight electric resistance

strain gages. Tendon elongations and hydraulic jack pressures

were measured as tension was applied, but not used for exact load

measurements.

Anchorage at the passive ends was provided by fIat, un-

threaded anchor bolts resting on distinct 4-inch (102 mm) square

bearing plates. Plates at the buttress surfaces had the dimensions

specified in Table 3.6.

 65

(a) Construction phase

(h) Anchors (c) Tensioning system

Figure 3.9 Post-tensioning system

 66

\ \ (d) Passive end anchorage

\ \
\,
\.
\
\ \
\
- -" "-" ------\ ,

\.
\
(e) Active end anchorage
"\
\
\
'\
\'
1 ELECTRICAl lOAD CELL
2 JACK
3 SEAT
4 SUTTONHEADED WIRE
5 ANCHOR 'SOlT
6 AN:HOR NUT
7 SEARING PLATE COVERING RING

'.
Post-tensioning system
 67

3.4 MODEL FABRICATION

3.4.1 Materials

Model mate rials for reinforced concrete simulation have

been under study for several years at McGill. (61) The work of

syamal(47) on the similitude analysis of different scale models of

concrete members in combined loading investigations is especially

worthy of mention. The bond between the small-sized reinforcing

bars and concrete was studied by Hsu. (48) The test results from

these and other experimental programs tend to confirm the feasibility

of modeling reinforced concrete structures with the scaled concrete

and reinforcing steel described hereafter.

A mix termed "micro-concrete" containing graded small-size

aggregate in a distribution analogous to that of aggregates in proto-

type batch concrete, was used in the fabrication of models of both

scales. Recommended proportions, from a report by Tsui and Mirza(49) ,

are shown in Table 3.7, along with partial data from a forthcoming

repor t b y Labonte~ and Ml.'rza(50) on compac t'l.on, Sl.ze

, e ff ec t s, an d

splitting tensile strength. The mix employed throughout this

project made use of high-early-strength cement and crushed dry silica

sand in a water:cement:aggregate proportion of 0.55:1:2.75 by weight.

Under various curing conditions, it could attain compressive strengths

at 7 days of 3.3 to 5.2 ksi (2.28 to 3.59 MPa) and splitting tensile

qo- (where f cu is
strengths fct of approximately 0.1 f cu or 6.45 ~LCU

expressed in psi) . InternaI compaction applied to the cylinders by

means of an internaI vibrator increased the strength by an average

factor of 1.158. A size effect was noticeable, viz. strengths

TABLE 3.7 H!CRO-CO~CRETE PRnPERTIES

lAI PROPORTIO~S ~Y WEICHT ICI SIlE EFFECT lOI 5PLITTING TENSILÈ STRENGTH (El COHPACTION EFFECT
P.ATlO~
SPECIFIEO RATIOS ~,,& ~t RATlf1 ~ATlr'
f,u csi
1 feu +ct
~u F~\
PSI HPA W/C A/C CYL. OIA/1.
psi psi
.h çc.t
A5TH
1. V.
!Ç 1. V. AST"
1

3 I~ çc.u i

2500 1.72 n.1l3 4.00 3 IN, 6 l'l 'bï\ 4722 426 0'.0907
3000 2.07 'l.72 3.75 6.23 3300 3670 ï .11\
4000 2.76 0.60 3.25 51B3 5164 i .001 4191 437 0.1041 6.75 3490 4320 ' i.239
5000 3.45 0.55 2.75 4739 4527 i.C>45 5164 487 0'.0944 6.79 4530 5160 1.141
6000 4.14 1).50 2.50 5471 4445 i.Z30 5163 433 0'.0835 6.01 4740 5160 1.092
7000 4.S3 0.45 2.25 3919 4191 0.936 4527 414 0~0915 6.15 4190 4120 1.127
1

3774 3714 1.015 4739 436 0:0920 6.34 3050 3760 ï.240
4325 3669 L1S0 4191 384 0.0916 5.94
3494 3298 i.06C\ 3919 345 0:0880 5.51 iolE AN ï.i58
3894 3448 i.129 3669 376 0:1025 6.20
(BI ACCREGATE OIS~RIAUTION 4166 3918 1.062 4325 507 0'.1170 7.70
4188 3767 i 0111 3298 388 0.1177 6.75
AS TH PROPr,RTIr.N 550 539 1.020 ,
3494 416 0'.1195 7.07'
SIEVE 433 487 0.B9(1
NO. RETAlt/EO CU~ULhTIVE 436 414 1.051 MEAN 0:1000 6.45 0\
345 3B4 0.n99 1
00
10 0.20 0.20 412 352 ï.170 1

16 ,0.20 0.40 507 376 i.350

24 0.25 0.65 418 388 1.079
40 0.25 ' 0.90
70 0.10 1.00 MEAN ;'.072
--- -- --------

NOTES
(lI EACH STRE~GTH VA(UE IS THE hVERAGE OF 4 CYLINDER TESTS
(21 SPECIFIEO STPENGTHS IN CAl ARE AT 7 OAYS UNOER FOG ROOH CURING
(31 STRENGTHS IN Irl; lOI, CFI WFR~ nSTATNED FROM ONE HIX
(W/CcO.S5, A/C-2.751 THRnUGH VARIOllS TESTING AGES AND CURING CONDITIONS
(41 ABBREVIATIONS:
~/C • WATER/cEMENT RATIO, SY WEIGHT;
A/C " AGCR./CE~ENT RATIO, BV WEICHT;
ASTH • STANDhRO TAMPING PROCEDURE FOR COHPACTION OF TEST CYLINDERS;
I.V, • INTERNAC VIBRATION APPLIED wITH AN ELECTRIC VtSRATOR,
151 RATIO Pc.~/.JÇ = 6.45 IS FOR PSI UNlTS ONLY
 69

determined in the testing of 3-inch (76-mm) diameter cylinders were

7.2 percent higher than those obtained from 6-inch (152-mm) diameter

cylinders, therefore the diameter of the coupons used for strength

evaluation \'las selected to correspond ta the significant dimension

of the parent specimen. Sample stress-strain curves obtained from

measurements with strain gages on 6-inch diameter cylinders, are

shown in Fig. 3.10; gage type, strain rate, concrete compaction

and curing, were the same for these cylinders as for the block speci-

mens. The average value of Poisson's ratio was noted to be 0.175,

and the initial tangent elastic modulus could correctly be predicted

by Pauw's equation:

E 33 .; w3 f (Units: psi, Ib/ft 3 )

c cu

taking the unit weight w as 140 Ib/ft 3 (2240 kg/m 3 ).

Steel for model rein forcement consisted of either Grade 50

No. 3 standard reinforcing bars or cold-drawn deformed D2 rein forcing

bars (area 0.02 in 2 = 0.129 cm2 ) , neither of which perfectly simulates

the behavior of the Grade 60 steel used in the full-scale block models.

Experimental stress-strain curves for the D2 and No. 3 bars (Fig. 3.11)
(52)
and the characteristics of Grade 60 steel according to Hanson ,

show the Grade 50 steel ta have a more sharply defined yield point and

greater ductility than the prototype Grade 60 material, while the con-

verse is true of the cold-worked bars. Nevertheless, use of these

materials \'las dictated by their availability, and so they were

employed to model the reinforcement. In order to increase the

ductility of the reinforcement for the buttress model, aIl the

 4 1400~
Ultimate 3900 psi 2.59 MPa
Stress Stress Lateral
(ksi) (MPa) strain

3 300~
2

-..J
o

2 200~

o ~ateral strain vs Longitudinal strain

l
v = 0.178

l o Stress vs strain 10011

Experimental E
c
= 3560 ksi = 2.46 GPa
Theoretical E = 3420 ksi = 2.35 GPa
c
(using E 33~ = 33/140x3900)
c cu

o 1000~ 2000~ 3-000~

L,ongitudinal strain

Figure 3.10 Micro-concrete load-deformation characteristics

 90
60
Stress
(psi)
80 1 Stress
(MPa)

70
1
50

60

1
50~
40

30 "'-l
1-'
40

30

--0- D2 bar, co1d-worked (as fabricated)

20
-0-- D2 bar, annea1ed (925C)
--Q-- No.3 bar, Grade 50
la
No.8 bar, Grade 60 (assumed characteristics)

a
lOOOIl 2000ll 3000ll 4000ll . 50001l
Strain

Figure 3.11 Reinforcernent load-deforrnation characteristics

 72

rein forcing steel used in its fabrication was annealed at 925C

for a period of 30 minutes; the resultant lowering of the yield

point and the ultimate strength are evident in Fig. 3.11. The

three exper:i.mental stress-strain curves were obtained using strain

gages of the type used in the instrumentation of the models. The

elastic modulus for aIl coupons had the same value of 29.4 x (10)6

psi (20.3 G.Pa) •

Anchorage plates for both block and buttress models were

machined from high-strength steel specified to conform to the norms

for post-tensioned construction. The prestressing tendons con-

sisted of six 7-mm wires, specified to have a yield point of 250 ksi,

and thus capable of developing 100 kips (445 kN) at ultimate. Since

tendon loads were to be measured from a precise electrical load cell

rather than from deformation characteristics, no material tests were

deemed necessary in this instance. ,

I

3.4.2 Instrumentation

Instrumentation for aIl models consisted of electrical

resistance strain gages on the reinforcing bars. The gage type

and mode of application were uniform, as described in the following

specifications:

Manufacturer Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co. Ltd.

Brand TML

Type PL-ID-Il

Backing f.laterial Polyester

 73

Filament grid length 10 mm

Coefficient of thermal Il ll/C

expansion

Resistance 120 ± 0.3 ohms

Gage factor 2.07

Adhesive Micro-Measurement Eastman 910

Moisture coating Micro-Measurement Polyurethane M-Coat A

Abrasion coating silicone Rubber 3145 RTV

Con crete pre-coating TML Type PS

Application of the gages required removal of bar deforma-

tions over al-inch (25 mm) length; lead-wire connections, water-

proofing and other disturbances to bond action were confined to this

narrow region.

The readout instrument was a 3D-channel Budd Datran printing

strain recorder. Thermal effects in the lead-wires were compen-

sated by the use of a 3-wire circuit.

Gage locations in each model will be reported along with the

experimental results.

3.4.3 Block Model Fabrication

Reinforcing cages for the block models were assernbled by

tieing the individual bars to transverse bars of nominal size. The

cylindrical duct was formed from cardboard molds; stiff cardboard

strips were used as crack-initiators. The models were cast in ply-

wood forros, with the duct running horizontally as would be the case
 74

in the buttress construction. The models were cast in three

lifts, with the first just reaching the level of the bearing plate

and the second just covering the top of the plate.

InternaI vibration was applied during the pouring of rein-

forced models 0-375, 0-375H, 0-375L, 0-160H, and reinforced models

1-375 and 1-375N. The small bar spacing in blocks 1-160, I-160N,

11-160 did not permit the use of the internaI vibrator; compaction

was achieved through external forro vibration for these three models

and block 0-160, aIl four of which were cast simultaneously from

the same batch of concrete. It was anticipated that model 11-375,

if fabricated like the other specimens, would exceed the testing

machine capacity, hence no compaction other than the rod-tamping pro-

ce d ure 'f'~e d b y th e ASTM f or cy l'~n d er f'ab'

spec~ , (41) ;
r~cat~on model

0-375L was also cast in this manner to give,a measure of the strength

of an unreinforced anchorage compacted without recourse to internaI

vibration.

Forms were stripped after 24 hours, and the specimen then

left to cure in the dry air of the laboratory until test time. AlI

0.16-scale models and specimen 0-375H were tested 14 days after casting,

at which time the concrete compacted by internaI vibration would have

attained a strength of approximately 5 ksi (3.45 MPa). AlI other

models were tested at an age of 7 days, so that the concrete would

have a strength of 3.5 to 4.5 ksi (2.41 to 3.10 MPa) depending on

compaction.

Concrete coupons were sampled in the process of casting and

tested on the same day as the parent specimens. The compressive

 75

strength evaluation is based on the average of four cylinders of a

size comparable to that of the specimen and subjected to the same

compaction and curing conditions. For scale 0.375, 12 x 6 inch

(305 x 152 mm) cylinders were representative of the distance bet~een

faces exposed to moisture loss (outside surface to inner face of

circular duct) i 6 x 3 inch (152 x 76 mm) cylinders were appropriate

for thé small-scale specimens.

3.4.4 Buttress model fabrication

Reinforcement for the buttress models was assembled in two

steps: Grids were first formed by spot-welding the bars at aIl

intersections, following which the anchorage zone ties and vertical

bars were tied to the preformed cages. Final assembly of the rein-

forcing and prestressing steel took place within the formwork to

insure proper placement and tolerances. (Fig. 3.9a).

Sheathing for the prestressing tendons was made from slit

rubber tubing covered with watertight adhesive tape. The thin steel

cylindrical sleeve was welded to the back of the bearing plate, and

had a length of 6 inches (152 mm). Cardboard crack initiators were

placed in the forros where specified. (Fig. 3.5).

The buttress was cast in eight lifts, and internaI vibration

was applied throughout. Control cylinders were made ~ccording to

ASTM procedures. The specimen and the cylinders were cured under wet

burlap for seven days.

 CHAPTER 4

BLOCK MODEL TESTS

4.1 TEST PROCEDURE

The block models were loaded incrementally to des truc-

tion under a concentric bearing load applied through a steel ring

designed to simulate the anchorage nut of the post-tensioning

system.

Two hydraulic testing machines were used: small-scale

models were tested in a 300-kip (1.335 MN) capacity cylinder press,

while blocks of scale 0.375 were loaded in a 400-kip (1.78 MN)

univers al testing machine. The load indicators of both machines

h a d been ca l 1'b rate d'1n accord ance W1'th ASTM proce d ures (43) pr10r
, to

the tests.

Strain readings were recorded for each of the fifteen to

twenty approximately equal load increments until failure. Loading

between successive increments was applied at a continuous rate of 2

percent of the final load per minute. Application of load was

discontinued when damage to the blocks was such that the load-bearing

capacity was reduced to less than one-half the ultimate capacity.

4.2 EXPERIMENTAL DATA

The experimental data for the block models consists of

the ultimate loads for all specimens, and the transverse steel

76
 77

strains for aIl reinforced specimens.

Data for the prototype blocks is limited to strain gage

readings at five load levels between Pd and 2.05 Pd. No strength

or deformation characteristics are available for the materialsi

it is known, however, that Grade 60 steel was used as reinforcement,

~

and that the concrete had probably not attained its 28-day specified

strength of· 5 ksi (3.45 MPa) at the time of testing. The specimens

carried without failure a load of 2.05 Pd' which represented the

maximum capacity of the testing machine. No qualitative assessment

~f the extent of structural damage is available.

Ultimate loads P and con crete compressive strengths f

u cu
for the block models are reported in Table 4.1. The ratio P If A,
u cu P
which provides a non-dimensional parameter accounting for the strength

of concrete, is included for subsequent discussion.

Strain gage readings for aIl prototype and model block

specimens are reported in Table 4.2. AlI strain values are recorded
-6
in dimensionless ~ units, i.e. (10). Gage locations are indi-

cated in the accompanying sketches. In model II-375, gages were

placed at the center of every bar in the wide and the narrow direction,

and at points aligned with the outer edge of the bearing plate,

selected to reproduce homologous points in the prototype II-I. Gage

locations in model I-375 were identical to those in prototype I-li

four additional gages were placed at the center of bars on the second

wide face of the specimen to obtain a complete set of data involving

every reinforcing bar in the more critical direction. In model

 78

TABLE 4 el BLOCK MOOÉL ULTIMATE STRENGTHS

HOOEL REINF. MOOEL CRIICK

Pu fcu Pu
TVPE SCALE INIT • KIPS KN PSI MPA ÇUAp

0-160 NONE 0.160 YES 75.2 335 4940 3.41 1.530

Q-160H NONE 0.160 YES 72.8' 324 5183 3.58 1.410
0-375 NONE 0.375 YES 365.0 1625 4720 3.26 1.417
0-375H NONE 0.375 YES 396.0 1762 5164 3.57 1.400
0-375L NONE 0.375 YFS 282.0 1255 .4191 2.89 1.230
1-160 J 0.160 YES 88.0 392 4940 3.41 1.789
1-160N 1 00160 NO 80.0 356 4940 3.41 1.630
1-375 1 0.375 YES 360.5 1605 3669 2.53 1.800
I-375N J 0.375 NO 362.0 1610 3980 2.75 1.670
II-1bO Il 0.i60 YES 92.0 409 4940 3.41 1.1175
11-375 II 0.375 YES 400.0 1780 3714 2.56 1.970

MEAN VALUES OF P/fcuAp AT UL TI MATE LOIIO

REINF. CRACK SCALE SCALE GENERAL

TYPE INIT • 0.160 0.375 AVERAGE

NONE YES 1.470 i.369 1.397

J VES i.789 1.800 1.795
ND 1.630 1.670 1.650
JI VES 1.875 1.970 1.922
TABLE 4.2 TRA~SVERSE STEEL STRAtNS lAI BLOCK 1-160

P \i.:p) P/f~u.A,,1 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1

2.0 0.041
1
1 .. 06 005 005 -0', 000 -Ob 004 -04 000 -la -04 -05 1
-Cl
4.0
e.o
0.082, .. 04
0.1631 006
016
n30
009
047
1)10
047
014
05!)
016 014 008
044 039 034
010 010 on4 tll4 , .;-j____ ..J
1... ___
027 020 039 030 ;
12.0 0.2441 014 Cl6lo nno n90 079 060 ObO 054 050 050 OnB Cl78
=====~:::~:~::_~~~====
1

16.0 0.3261020 n94 134 l'iO 175 07n 079 084 079 oaR 118 135 1

-----~---~~-----------
20.0 O,lo08.046 116 179 220 174 090 098 109 144 154 216 23ft '
24.0 0,4901 080 14', 230 279 27.6 11<) 114 130 165 194 275 196
15R ua 1!l0
------~---'l~-----------
!

28.0 0.570, 14!l 1 ~', 270 34<) 290 234 240 335 360
32.0 0.6511 2111 22il 324 415 368 210 174 174 269 290 404 430
36.8 0.749 i 29/; 7.1l9 3'15 500 448 268 214 199 336 340 470 510 1

40.3
45.5
50.5
55.0
0,620 3(,4
0.927' 499
1.030 600
10119 744
336
44/,
534
f:5A
4 /,4
569
674
818
560
690
R04
950
506
!ll7
686
7b5
32'1 2!>4 225
1,20 319 300
490 370 354
59') 4;0 428
390
496
578
386
478
556
520
605
679
569
676
764
i
710 680 765 678
59.0 1.200 855 737 945 In92 846 655 469 484 814 788 837 968 1
63.0 1.262 1034 640 10118 1240 948 737 524 564 960 897 929 1120
67.0 1.3é311448 94:1 1174 1280 1032 816 595 650 10S8 992 960 1180 1·
71.0 1.444 !1728 In5f1 1238 1;50 1128 900 644 729 1170 1100 1054 1270
75.6
80.0
1.538 i2356
1. 6 26\3660
1320
2Ob4
1480
2000
1548
1960
12613
1660
1068 774 aa5
1470 996 1100
148B
1956
1360
1530
1348
1900
1570
1976
_u
84.0 1.710 4460 3070 2680 2500 2340 2150 1200 1228 2400 2720 2000 2280 '- ____ l ____ -.J
88.0 1.795 1 - - ; 3600 7160 3576 1520 1100 1034 3316 1200 1232 41

=====~===~::=
-.J
1.0
______ .=1 ______ _
'lI
-------ç-----
1
TA8LE 4.2 TRA~SVERSE STEEL STRAiNS (BI BLOCK 1-160N
i
P (t.;?) P/Ç,ut'\ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1
2.0 0.041 019 015 020 027 oïo 010 009 010 025 004 014
i
017
4.0 0.082 046 03<- 037 045 020 026 020 020 035 015 020 025
B.O 0.163 060 1157 059 064 029 044 035 034 047 ~
1

030 040 M7
12.0 0,244 086 ('\90 O'JO 104 048 069 059 045 058 050 064 059 ,
16.0 0,326 110
20.0 0.408 149
124
16f-
128
167
140
IB4
074
114
104
144
050 067 064 060
079
OR4
. 104
076 1
I...---ë i----..J
117 097 075 095 ,
24.0 0.490 196 224 214 218 154 177 167 139 066 109 135 114 ---------~Ï----------
26,0 0,570 255 ,et.; 267 '-66 205 2211 214 184 104 140 174 148 ----~----~J-----------
! ----------r---------
1

32.0 0.651 32b 3f:9 330 319 264 267 260 228 127 180 229 106

--------~l------------
36.0 0.732 420 47r) 430 ;64 330 320 304 295 : 170 247 300 264
1
40.3 0.8201 518 57~ 534 460 408 37n 340 364 240 346 436 390 1

44.0 0.896 659 726 6'19 bl0 510 439 3P,4 466 438 600 n8 ft65
48.0 0,978 790 A50 844 4<;5
i
754 620 40B 544 545 714 {l44 798
50.5 1.03e 924 954 937 1;55 700 536 440 620 630 799 944 867
55.0 1.119 1068 In51 1032 972 RI0 600 475 689 739 'lOO 1068 1000
59.0 1.200 1216 112P. 1120 1('\80 958 677 517 745 876 1032 1040 1114
113.0 1.262 138a 122q 1212 1236 1136 77R 569 fl14 10b8 115a 1096 lC96 1
67.0 1.363 1574 133~ 1348 1416 1320
71.0 1.444 '1840 14bH 1528 16601150a
916
1070
62B
729
928 1254
1066 144B
1280
1510
1168
1334
1170
1320 j.
75.6 1.53a j2180 1624 1856 201611734 1300 840 118011748 2016 1768 1708 :
GO.O 1.b30 u~T ~ 1
- __ 1
TABLE 4.2 TRANSvERSE STEEL STRA1NS (C) BLOCK 11-160

PC<.l!') P/LA p 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 la 11 12 13 14 15

2.0 0.041 020 OZ:l 024 n20 020 02'+ 014 010 005 006 017 -05 014 004 014 005
8.0 0.163 039 ::5'. 056 058 054 057 044 030 024 054 057 044 054 050 050 034
12.0 0.244 054 077 100 089 075 0"8 064 0't8 036 087 080 080 087 075 064 059
16.0 0.326 059 n99 100 119 100 100 OCB 067 047 124 ln 124 117 106 039 084
20.0 0.408 074 17.(; 128 147 125 12R 110 086 1 064 159 165 170 150 149 120 Ï14
24.0 0.4 9 0 0')4 \ 5'. 155 180 154 154 135 106 078 188 210 208 190 176 144 ;35
28.0 0.'510 125 1C):) 1 ')9 234 198 19B 168 145 109 210 228 244 217 204 164 157
32 .0 0.651 170 245 269 327 300 289 245 205 146 249 266 284 255 248 197 245
36.8 0.749 230 304 350 434 405 39f1 340 310 210 310 306 339 310 296 260 l38
40.3 0.820 267 347 374 470 455 447 384 364 256 357 349 376 344 334 289 766
45.5 0.926 329 39il 427 548 534 524 459 459 345 436 398 426 387 398 344 324
50.5 1.030 416 455 480 618 610 600 524 548 446 53/. 464 470 414 474 410 380
55.0 10119 528 520 540 697 687 669 578 630 569 640 534 534 449 520 456 438
59.0 1.200 637 57,-+ 604 766 748 734 618 689 680 734 600 580 489 580 509 480
63.0 1.282 729 645 664 830 806 789 650 748 789 824 659 620 520 640 564 514
67.0 1.363 878 74e; 790 940 904 877 6130 814 959 949 715 684 570 724 648 584
71.0 1.444 106$1 ë5f> RH6 11)80 1012 998 7(.4 880 1148 1120 7130 754 610 778 694 634
75.6 1.538 815 978 1292 859 825 656 816 CD
1250 1020 1020 1214 112B 1112 1336 727 677 o
80.0 1.628 1620 122~ 1276 1520 1318 1300 976 1180 1514 1510 952 908 688 830 734 714
84.0 1.710 2024 1~16 15RB 1956 1660 1608 1180 1468 1940 1768 10 BO 1108 748 857 7,+5 745
88.0 1.795 2308 1730 1874 2280 2000 1900 1348 1640 2944 1944 1256 1540 844 878 754 760
92.0 1.875 2616 1792 2388 3152 2240 2136 1600 1832 3628 2428 1104 2916 ï428 1010 840 840
------ - --
-

Q _.0_
L----i·----...J L---- '____ . J
---------~ ----------
----------- ----------
<
------~
t ------
======;~------­
q ------

----------~ ----------
=--===~=~l-=-~~~----~~-=-= ------~t----~:~~
=-:.=-.::-:.~4====:: ===~~~~------
-----
-----~~.
__.-------2 f----------
15· _____ _
------

1
i
TABLE 4.2 TRANSvERSE STEEL STRAtNS ( Dl BLDCK 1-375

P(\..d P/;CJAp! 0 1 2 3 10 Il 12 13 20 21 22 23 4 5 6 7 8 -9 14 15 16 17 18
1 19 1

Il 0.055 006 r.O:l ooa -14 006 010 ~16 ;'04 020 020 016 -15 004 -10 -09 :15 -06 Ooo·l':'iO 004 -14 -07 ':'09 006 1
,1 44 0.Z22 004 r.15 010 008 076 055 020 017 088 080 OilO OZl 006 -06 -10 :'15 -10 Ono. OM OIS -05 009 -07 ':'37 1
67 0.334 020 C'l4t) 037 0Z9 110 OflO 05', 046 144 13 l • 158 090 018 008 016 :'04 -07 000 ! 007 036 014 035 010 ':'50 !
89 0.443 058 074 078 060 14'1 115 080 068 366 440 '.79 480 047 029 030 010 010 000 016 068 060 084 024 ':'30 !
112 0,560 088 1ln 109 100 190 137 096 085 475 526 568 565 080 069 045 045 017 000 020 117 127 144 075 ':'30
134 0.668 214 275 264 25'. 320 156 104 094 614 635 685 670 164 060 070 080 040 000 040 206 186 218 135 ':'19
156 0.777 295 360 3'.7 340 314 170 120 100 754 739 809 774 210 084 104 i04 074 000 069 278 254 314 198 .. 10
178 0.887 396 474 454 449 384 195 170 120 899 R56 964 R86 268 117 160 ï34 118 000 087 357 338 405 250 018
Z05 1.021 494 576 548 538 484 225 230 159 1130 1008 1140 960 274 175 226 ï60 178 000 120 495 467 529 304 070
235 1.171 734 75" 674 590 650 364 559 287 1400 1228 1330 1154 300 460 487 i08 327 000 244 678 735 808 435 i67
264 1,315 900 1128 776 654 859 454 675 380 1696 1520 1568 1320 324 529 510 088 304 000 354 884 1003 1072 735 294
281 1.400 1090 Q14 916 732 1036 50R 719 lt36 1952 180B 1760 1476 338 560 488 ïoo 452 000 480 1076 1232 1338 960 435
306 1.527 1240 1080 1078 609 1272 57A 879 499 2340 2360 2016 1578 318 586 440 094 445 000 646 1256 1498 1650 i268 629
329 1.640 1354 1200 14i2 1148 1498 654 947 574 3072 2992 3864 1792 334 580 398 078 435 000 800 1420 1760 2040 ï656 788
351 1,750 1590 1652 1848 1518 2056 770 1270 704 5400 4200 4600 2136 344 551 008 :'27 408 000 1056 1780 2160 2976 2356 1200 Cl)
360 1.800 ULT - - - -_. --- - - _.- - - - -_. _. - -
1-'

o -c> <>
L. ____~----...J
. ,
~----r---~ ~----~---~
----:----~T---~~----- 1~~---~:1---:~- ---------;y~---------
-----~----~r_---g----- ---------;J----------
----~-----~---~6_-~- =:===~;è===~;:=
1:s----'lè----:~-
---------- ----------
------~-~-~lr-~--- -----~---!3T--------·---
.-
1

i 1
i
1
\-
ii 1
1-
 TABLE 4,2 TRANSVERSE STEEL STRAINS (E) BLOCK 1-37.5N

P(l--iF) P/\c.u,\ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 lÔ 111

1

11 0,050 ... 06 -04 014 008 . 004 -09 037 000 009 005 010 0061
45 0,207 117 030 056 044 056 016 055 014 024 034 037 040 1
b8 0.313 165 05'. 0116 074 180 037 065 028 044 060 064 074
90 0.445 215 f180 115 105 350 OSA 087 040 066 089 090 104
112 0.516 296 138 194 176 384 080 104 055 094 134 144 . 174
133 0.613 397 217 340 309 415 110 139 074 284 394 450 544
154 0,710 490 7.94 449 420 455 134 150 104 334 475 540 640
178 0.820 550 38:1 558 53'. 490 160 184 124 395 554 624 734
205 0.945 738 506 697 670 540 196 220 145 477 638 716 816
235 1.085 890 644 878 829 606 240 254 174 574 740 826 914
266 1.225 1070 RO~ 10n 1068 690 292 300 200 694 848 916 lC120
2Bl 1.295 1252 952 1318 1232 774 380 372 216 828 950 1000 110B
306 1.410 1250 1134 1608 1320 910 490 500 268 1030 1148 1168 1292
351 1.615 1740 1572 2600 1944 1036 820 800 476 2216 2152 1864 2216
CP
362 1.710 1956 2456 5090 8780 2080 1550 1240 1000 2970 2640 2270 9999 1\)
--

..!.J. D D
1... ___ ;;-j____ ...J
_~:::~4-----1 I...---
ëj----...J
----------~----------
=====--~~===~~~~
----------~----------
Ii.~
---------~~----------
==~~~=:===~~=~==~= • 1:>

---------~T-----------
.. ---'I=--= =========~JC=~~~~~==
.'. l
i 1
1

1 1
1
1· i 1·
TABLE 4.2 TRANSVERSE STéEL ~TRAiNS (F) BLaCK II''375

P (~:::) P/~::J.A? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 21 23 25 27
11 0.05'. ... 30 014 010 017 OOR 014 004 000 -29 -09 009 000 ':'24 -10
45 0.222 ..,27 n2'. 0?4 n17 016 O'tO 028 000 -40 019 014 014 -15 010 {:}
1 67 0,330 -06 C45 060 037 1)56 Ob4 057 000 -26 025 014 019 -16 0()4
0,438 .. 04 n6C'1 064 050 064 070 074 000 -27 024 010 027 010 024 '-____;____ J
1 89
-
1

112 0.552 104 18n 2t.9 230 254 274 000 005 055 036 068 015 040 .
0,600 310 24:) 364 34 384 088 ----B----~f---;------
t;~
314 f, 404 000 055 109 070 050 064
0.760 184 27n 419 300 384 454 490 000 078 134 105 114 090 084 -----~---~----e-----
1
0.876 234 :20 516
178
205 1.010 355 3Bo 614
467
550
450
530
534
61A
596
7ï7
000 110 190
1)00 150 254
170
229
158
208
134
220
114
114 ----------~T----------
235 1.156 405 444 710 640 619 714 830 "000 174 309 264 235 310 284 -----------Lf--~~-----
264
281
1,299 460 520 796
1.362 524 5713 870
706
81',
705
991)
796
858
940
1050
000 164 319
000 139 204
308
340
248
256
360
410
380
455
----;----: ---;;-----
306
329
1,506 624 669 968
1.619 868 904 1268
850
1120
944
i236
960
1248
1208
1698
000 104 245
000 069 270
370
414
264
316
467
519
524
674 =--~-=-~-=-~-=-~~==~===
351 1.728 970 102('1 1308 1220 1360 1348 1652 000 066 314 447 380 624 769 --~------2f---u~---- CD
3ï3 1.835 108S 1150 1534 1340 1480 1430 2000 000 044 355 449 440 709 820 w
396
400
1.950 1228 1276 1450
1,970 2336 3520 6900
1292
9999
1618
2544
1554
2624
-
2416
000 028 440
000 -210 -146
338
020
1,60
114
648
398
820
484

Q
P(i-.;;:) P/Çc\.\A, 10 1\ i2 13 14 15 i6 17 18 19 " 20 22 24 26
L---- "-----'
11
45
67
0,054
0,222
0.330
004
040
049
.. 04
039
07~
018 014 014
048 048 0'.0
0<)0 080 070
005
029
057
014
048
060
-10
014
030
000
014
014
004 .. 30 006 -3:4 000
018 015 004 010 026
005 014 020 007 036
-;----~
-~---~i t:----e-
---;0--
89 0,438 0<)7 099 100 070 024 024 027 020 039
076 096 076 027 018 -------\; -----e-
22
112
134
156
178
0,552
0,660
0,766
0,8Bb
129
175
228
310
149
18 t•
224
-;,97
155 139 118
lR8 166 145
27.6 180 180
274 214 204
110
130
149
170
094
124
146"
164
067
099
108
137
076
116
174
264
060 -16 050 040 058
118 036 089 080 066
164 066 124 114 095
230 090 196 170 119
a
-------
19 IS

-----~~----;--
24
-t>---~~ 1 ----~

205 l,DIO 384 351:' 37.0 247 268 216 198 164 357 289 134 254 245 178 1

------:!t----~
235 1.156 498 424 414 296 315 264 250 200 464 360 254 324 31'7 234
264 1.299 604 50'~ 500 364 427 285 326 290 566 480 345 418 394 304 !

281 1.382 698 524 529 ',00 497 314 396 300 620 564 380 504 440 360 1
306 1.506 871) "05 624 470 5'j8 397 4 /,0 320 714 640 504 580 510 429
329 1.619 1168 784 7 r}0 590 716 504 604 1,10 824 838 R08 819 694 626 i
351 1.728 1250 1140 840 640 8Q7 567 674 444 854 916 894 977 794 758
373 1,835 1398 916 916 705 856 610 730 489 908 978 9R4 1140 920 995
396 1,950 1626 115/] 10'.. 8 768 900 69Z 780 520 1048 994 1120 1918 i020 1148
400 1,970 ~040 2400 9999 9280 6000 3272
1556 98C 895 1976 1620
-------
809
-_ _--
1528
..
980
TABLE 4,2 TRA~SVERSE STEEL STRArNS (Gl BLOCK 1-1

P',~:;i P/.c,"A? 1 2 1 3 4 ~- 6 1 7 8 9 10 1
1 • 1 D
1460 0,939 215 12t' 1640
660 630 83511 195 215 245 ~ L____ 1. ____ .J
16::0 1,028 1240 135 705
720 bAO 890 210 235 270 - ~----~---~ ____ 2~~---!1..;_
20~0 1,265 39n 22~ ~~O 925 B95 1315 375 430 4bO .. ----;----~i--2~~-----
2500
3000
l,60S 615 56~ 1295 1470 1450 .. 665 925 B40
l,9_2_~ 15~ It'):~890 9:99 91~",---~15 1670 1465
~
-
. .,
-----5-----1----&-----
---------- T ----~-----
l~_EJ_-_...:l.s_-~!..s_
1" .:. te _
1 1

-----~~lr----&----- 1~::==2~r===ï~:=
11 12 1 13 14 15 16 17 lB 19 20 1

-..
1

1460 0,939 120 100 290 410 455 . IbO 215 220 045 1 1
1600 1,028 130 111 320 445 490 ft 180 230 240 050 , 1
2000
2500
3000
1,285
l,60S
1,927
185
265
390
165 430 bOO b40
285 5tO 820 9B5
660 1065 2385 2470
-.. 2AO
470
990
350 325
620 595
985 2325
OB51
205
675 1
! 1
- - i
CD
~

TABLE 4,2 T~ANSvERse STeEL STRAINS (Hl BLOCK ll-1

Ft',,;;» P/ÇcaA; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q D
1460 0,939 lbS ()ln 425 500 600 591' 175 305 260 .... ~----i----..J
'-____ 1 ____ ..J
16~0 1,028 180 010 470 545 650 635 190 350 280
..
.. ===l~~--~ï==ï~:==== ~;:~==-;.t~=:î:=
2000 1,285 260 MS 600 740 855 870 275 490 405
.. ---------~--;------
2500 l,b05 525 170 BaS loBS 1245 1370 460 B45 770
30:l0 1,927 1135
-
'300 1325 1755 2530
- ---
990 1535 1450 - ===_~~=1~:
------------r----&-----
-----~----; ---~------ ~-----;~~---;;-­
11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 -----e---- ---~----- -e----q,----_e_
------._-----
1460 0,939 085 140 130 160 315 465 105 150 130 170 ===--=--=--=--=--_-_Lt-=--=--1.-;:.::.::: Il 1 17
-----'?----o&-
1600 l,02e 090 15~ 145 175 330 500 115 160 145 180
2000
2500
1.285
1,600
150
2<;5
20:1
265
195
280
235
330 ....
4~5 595
950
155 235
260 460
210 255
370 535
1
1
3000 1.927 725 715 490 490 2410 410 1050 720 1485 i i

f 4 ksi 2.76 MPa (assumed)

cu
 85

1-375N, gages were placed at the center of bars only, on two

wide faces and one narrow face. Due to size restriction, strain

gages on bars in models of scale 0.16 were mounted only at the

center point. AlI the bars on the wide face and the narrow face

were instrumented in model 1I-160; both wide faces carried strain

gages in models I-16 and I-l60N.

Load increment values were set from similitude considera-

tions. In the prototype structure under investigation a design

prestressing force Pd = 1460 kips C6.50 MN) is obtained when the

tendons are stressed to 0.6 f • Load levels in the block models

su
were chosen to give approximately the same nominal pressure over

the plate area, and therefore the same P/Pd ratio, in the models

of various scales and the prototypes. For the purpose of taking

account of the variability of concrete strengths when reporting

the data, the ratio Pif A was introduced in the tabulations,

cu p
where f and A are the concrete compressive strength at the time
cu p
of testing and the net area of the bearing plate respectively.

4.3 GENERAL BEHAVIOR

The mode of failure of the block specimens is best

exemplified in the photographs of Fig. 4.1. Failure occurred

when diagonal cracks originating from the corners of the bearing

plate propagated down tlle faces of the specimens, which resulted in

spalling of the concrete cover. This failure mechanism was the

same for aIl specimens, whether reinforced or plain (Fig. 4.1d,

 fi
~i ,;. ,
,! <
;
..
,
~.
.
.__ . .~,( 1
1
f - -
! f
1
l
~
l

(a) Black 11-0.375, at ultimate laad (c) Black 1-0.16 co

(j\

-'
;/

1
1
1
/,
1
..i, '
,::~}:_!.
.--,!I..-.~-"*,,.,
'

(b) Black 11-0.375, past-failure (d) Black 1-0.16, 1-0.l6N, 0-0.16

Figure 4.1 Black madel failure mechanism

 87

unreinforced specimen 0-160 at right) . In unreinforced specimens,

spalling led to immediate failure, while in reinforced specimens

the appearance of the destructive cracks closely preceded attain-

ment of the ultimate load P , occurring near 0.85 P • The angle

u u
of the shedded wedge of con crete was between 15 and 30 degrees

(TI/12 to TI/6 radians), to the vertical.

Considerable ductility and plastic flow was displayed in

reinforced specimens as load application was maintained beyond the

ultimate capacity. (Fig. 4.1b shows 0.75-inch [19 mm] settle-

ment of bearing plate in specimen II-375). Spalling of the

outer layers left a pyramid-shaped core around the duct, held to-

gether at its top by the binding steel. In unreinforced speci-

mens, absence of the restraint of lateral rein forcing steel led

to rapid crushing of this underlying con cre te pyramide The

appearance of midside cracks at early stages in the loading, at

loads between 0.4 P and 0.5 P, was of no consequence in the final

u u
failure mechanism. Midside cracks appeared along the longer faces

independently of the presence of crack initiators. On the narrower

faces they occurred sporadlcally in models with crack initiators, and

did not occur in models without them.

 88

4.4 DISCUSSION OF ULTIMATE LOADS

4.4.1 Ultimate Loads of Unreinforced Blocks

The five values of P If A for unreinforced specimens

u cu p
have a mean value of 1.397 and coefficient of variation 0.0690.

Reformulating the ACI-3l8-63 bearing capacity equation, without

inclusion of the safety factor 0.6, yields

P
u
If cuAp = 31 A lA
cp P

In the present case, A is the net area of the 32 x 48 inch

cp
(813 x 1219 mm) face of the specimen, and A is the net area of the
p
22-inch (559 mm) square bearing plate, both having a concentric

Il-inch (280 mm) diameter hole. Introduction of these areas into

the above equation gives a value of 1.391, which is remarkably close

to the mean of the experimental results (error within less than

0.5 percent). The 7 percent coefficient of variation is no larger

than that generally found in the compressive strength of concrete

cylinders cast from a single batch of concrete, and is therefore

acceptable.

The safety factor of 0.6 used for design purposes in this

working stress equation is equivalent to the use of a load factor of

1.5 and an undercapacity factor of 0.9. This choice of load factor

is justified, since prestressing forces can only vary within a narrow

range, and can thus be taken as dead loads. The undercapacity

factor of 0.9 appears suitable because

(1) the experimental and theoretical background for the formula

. (18)
have shown it to be conservat1ve ,
 89

(2) erratic design assumptions (loads, areas, etc.) are unlikely, and

(3) failure of the anchorage zone during post-tensioning does not

entail structural collapse.

The ACI Code equation for the bearing capacity of plain con-

crete is therefore applicable.

4.4.2 Ultimate Loads of Reinforced Blocks

The mean values of the ratio P If A for the reinforced blocks

u cu P
are given in Table 4.1. Excellent agreement was obtained between the re-

sults for models of various scales, as individual tests gave values which

deviated from the mean by approximately ±l percent. The provision of anchorage

reinforcement, in addition to increasing the ultimate bearing capacity of the

end block, had the beneficial effect of decreasing the variability of the ob-

served strengths, because the increase in lateral restraint in the anchorage

rendered the overall strength less susceptib~e to local variations in the

concrete.

The absence of crack'initiators decreased the strength of blocks

in series l by a factor close to 10 percent. A possibie explanation is

that the absence of crack initiators precipitates the early formation of

spalling cracks, rather than midside splitting cracks. However, since the

mode of failure was the same in aIl models, irrespective of the presence or

absence of either crack initiators or reinforcement (Fig. 4.1), this expla-

nation is not thoroughly satisfactory, and further study on this matter

may be necessary.

Although a definite judgement cannot be based on the investigation

of only two steel arrangements, it seems that a limit of diminishing

efficiency is approached, with the use of the steel arrangement of details

l and II. The spacing of bars in detail II gives minimum practicable

distances for adequate placing and compaction.

 90

Increasing the number of bars at the remote end of the anchorage

would result in an inefficient force transfer to these bars.

Zielinski and Rowe(3) noted that the addition of reinforcement at

a ratio of local bearing pressure to cube strength of 1.9, (which

is the case here with detail II giving P If A = 1.922) did not

u cu p
result in an increased bearing capacity. Detail II therefore

seems to be an upper limit to the effective amount of lateral re-

inforcement that can be used in the anchorage zone.

An ultimate strength approach to the design of beam

anchorage zones can be conceived, wherein an experimentally deter-

mined factor could be introduced in the bearing capacity equation,

to account for the percentage of lateral reinforcement. Curves

such as that of Fig. 4.2 (drawn from the three available points and

suggested as an illustration only), could be obtained from test data,

for various bearing plate, end block and lateral steel configurations,

and subsequently used to calculate the anchorage zone steel area for

a given prestressing force.

Following the reasoning explained earlier, the ratio of

the design ultimate capacity P to the maximum initial bearing load

u

in post-tensioning operations P., should be attenuated by a load

1.

factor of 1.50 and an undercapacity factor of 0.9, which corresponds

to requiring P IP. = 1.66. In keeping with CPCI requirements for

u 1.

experimental determination of anchorage zone reinforcement adequacy,

the ultirnate load in a test to failure should double the effective

design prestressing force, i.e. Pu/Pd = 2.00.

 91

TABLE 4.3 E~TjHATED ULTIMATF BEARiNr.

CAPACITIES OF END BLOCKS

REINFORCEMENT NO/JE TYPE 1 TYPE II

KIPS i945 1945 1945

fcuAp * HN 8.B5 8.85 8.85
puJr,u.Ap !le * 1.397 1.795 1.935

Pu KIPS :n'~o 3490 3780

HN 12.0 15.5 1b.8

Pv./~ i.B6 2.39 2.59

Pu/ft i.39 1.79" 1.94

* ~iÇ
DESIGN
~u
DATAi
5 Ksi ~ 3.45 MPA
c
ÀpD 389 IN = 0.251 M
~ = 1945 KIPS • B.BS HNI AT
~ (1 1460 KlpS "' 6.50 MNI AT

** EXPERIMENTAL MEANS FOR END BLDCKS WITH

CRACK INITIAToRS

II
~P!
::1
u
lI-l
"-
III
'{j
tri 0
s::Q)
I-l
.jJ
Ul
Q)
.jJ
rd
1
S
'r-!
.jJ
r-!
::l'
r-!
rd
s::
0
'r-!
Ul
s::
Q)
S
'r-!
rel
1
s::0
z
0 1 2

Ratio of lateral steel area to area in Detail l

Figure 4.2 Ultimate strength graph

 92

As an illustration of the use of ultimate capacity data

in design, Table 4.3 shows the predicted ultimate bearing loads

of anchorage zones reinforced with Type II, Type l and unreinforced

details, assuming a specified concrete strength of 5 ksi (3.45 MPa).

Specimens with detail l are seen to satisfy the criteria Pu/Pd = 2

and P /P, 1.66, without being excessively conservative.

u ~

A design on the basis of ultimate strength alone may not

satisfy serviceability at working load levels, if excessive crack

widths or permanent deformation in the steel occur. The next

section investigates these working stress considerations from

strain data.

4.5 DISCUSSION OF STRAIN DATA

4.5.1 General observations on steel strain data

The transfer of lateral force to the transverse reinforcing

bars took place from the onset of loading. The graduaI rate of in-

crease in bar strains was related to the progressive splitting mode

of cracking which initiated in the regions of high tensile stress

and propagated towards the outside surfaces, where cracks were visible

at loads of approximately 0.5 P , where P is the ultimate load sus-

u u
tained by the specimen. Bars were not uniformly strained at low

loads, hence points of peak tensile stress were distinguishable.

As loading increased and cracking radiated from the point of maximum

tensile stress, the distribution of bar strains became more uniform.

 93

When the yield point of the reinforcement was attained, or when

inelastic steel deformations became predominant in the work-

hardened D2 bars, cracks associated with the spalling mode of

failure became visible on outer surfaces. Failure by spalling

occurred when plastic flow in the restraining steel allowed ex-

cessive lateral deformation of the anchorage zone concrete.

On reaching failure, aIl bars paraI leI to the wide faces

yielded, in details of both types l and II. In the narrow direc-

tion, yielding took place in the group of bars closest to the bearing

plate; this yielding occurred as a r~sult of failure by spalling in

the long direction.

4.5.2 Strains under maximum initial prestressing force

From the available strain data, inferences can be drawn

regarding the strains in lateral rein forcing bars of a prototype

anchorage block having the same characteristics as the models under

study. The product f A , for a plate area A

cu p p
and a concrete strength f = 5 ksi (3.45 MPa) has a value of 1945
cu
kips (8.65 MN) which is identical to the force applied by pre-
2 2
stressing strands with a cross-sectional area A = 9.75 in (62.9 cm )
sp
tensioned to 80 percent of their ultimate tensile strength

f = 250 ksi (172.5 MPa). Thus for the prototype structure at

su
maximum working load, P./f
~
A
cu P
= 0.8 f A /f A
su sp cu P
= 1945/1945 = 1.000.
AlI strain readings at the load level nearest P/f A
cu p
=l were, there-

fore, extracted from Table 4.2, and reproduced in Table 4.4.

 94

TABLE 4.4 TRANSvERSF. STF.EL ~TRAINS AT MAXIMUM INITIAL PRESTRESSiNG FORCE

SPECIMEN 0 1 2 3 ft 5 6 7 P/fcuAp
WIDE FACE bp/bc = 0.458
11-160 416 455 480 618 610 600 524 548 ï.030
. -
11-375
Il-l
1.. 160 SIOE i
355 3BO
635

600 5~4 674

..
614 550
650

804
-
536 618
545
-
717
470
1.010
1.028

i.030
2 578 556 679 764 1.030
1 .. 160N SIDE 1. 924 954 937 855 1.030
2 630 799 944 887 1.030
1.. 375 SlOE ï 494 576 548 538 1.025
2 1130 1008 1140 960 1.025
1-375N SIDE l 890 644 878 829 i.085
2 574 740. 826 914 1.085
1.. 1 890 680 720 705 1.028

NARROW FACE ~/bc JI 0.688

11-160 446 534 464 470 414 474 410 380 1.030
11-375
11-1 ..
384 350
500 ..
320 247
330
268
op
216
175 ..
198 164
145
1.010
1.028

1 .. 160 686 490 370 354 ~.O30

1-160N 700 536 440 620 1.030
1-375 484 225 230 159 1.07.5
J-375N
1-1 .
606 240
455
254
410
174
290
1.085
1.028

1
1 1 1
. L ___;.____ -'
L.---r-.----...J
---------~.----------
---------- ---------
---------~
----------
__________ 2 ----------
_________ _
----------
_____.____ .1 _______ ~- .

-----~--~~lr----------- -----------Jt----------

i -=~~~~~~ii=========:
~--------JI----------
1
j. . i
1 .1.
 95

Summary examination of the table reveals that detail l

is adequate for b lb
p c
= 0.688, and detail II is satisfactory for

b lb
P c
= 0.458. In the wide direction (b lb
p c
= 0.458), maximum

strains in the bars of detail II were close to 680 ~, while those

in detail l could be as much as 1140 ~ and generally ranged from

800 to 1000 ~. In the narrow direction (b lb 0.688), detail II

p c
is conservative, while maximum strains in detail l just attain the

permissible working stress level.

Peak strain in the wide-face rein forcement occurred near

the fifth bar in model II-160, near the seventh in 1I-375, and in

the vicinity of the third bar in models of type I. The maximum

bar strain in the narrow direction occurred in the bar nearest to

the bearing plate. These results will 'be given further considera-

tion in the next section.

4.5.3 Attainment of maximum allowable stress or yield point

in one bar

Working stress design requirements generally limit the

allowable stress in lateral rein forcing steel, such as ties and

stirrups, to a value of 20 ksi (13.8 MPa). It was pointed out

in Section 3.4.1 that aIl types of reinforcing steel used had an

elastic modulus E 29.4(10)6 psi (20.3 GPa). Thus the allowable

s
stress level, at any length scale, corresponds to a strain of 680 ~.

The yield point strain in the No. 3 (10 mm) bars had a sharply de-

fined value of 1840 ~ at 54 ksi (37.2 MPa) , while that in the D2 bars

was taken to be 2000 ~, the strain corresponding to the proportional

limit of the material.

 96

From the strain gage data, it is possible to determine

the non-dimensional load P If cuAp at which one of the bars reaches

either the 680 ~ threshold or the yield point. Table 4.5 lists

the load and the position of the bar at which the critical strain

level was attained, in each instrumented face of every specimen,

as found from interpolation between recorded strain values. Where

several bars were within 10 percent of the critical strain, aIl of

their positions were noted in the table, and the location of the

most heavily strained was marked with an asterisk.

From the location of the most critically strained bars, it

is observed that the highest transverse tensile stresses occur at a

distance from the bearing surface which differs somewhat from that

predicted by classical theories. Use of Iyengar's graph of

x{max f ) vs. b lb (Fig. 2.10a) gives, for the wide and narrow
z p c
directions respectively:

x{max f , b lb
z p c
0.458) = 0.42 b
c
= 0.42 b 10.458
P
0.917 b
P

x{max f , b lb
z P c
= 0.688) 0.47 b = 0.47 b 10.688 = 0.682 b
c P P

The distance 0.917 b falls near the sixth bar of detail II and
p
slightly beyond the fourth bar of detail Ii fair agreement is

therefore seen between the the ory and the experimental results in

the wide direction. In the narrow direction, 0.682 b coincides

c
with the third bar of detail l and the fourth bar of detail IIi it

was found experimentally that the first bar underwent significantly

higher strains than aIl others, in almost every specimen. The strain

distribution at Pifcu Ap = 1.0 (Fig. 4.3) shows to what extent the dis-

tribution of strains in the bars is different from that in the concrete.

 97

TABLE 4.5 ATTAINHF.NT OF CRITICAL STRAJN LEVEL IN ANV BAR

bp bp
CONDITION SPEC ItIEN WIOE FACE bc -OAsa NARROW FACE b=O.6BO
c.
CRITICAL L CRITICAL P
BARS fcuAp BARS Fc.uÀp

ALLOI/ABLE Il':'160 3.4·.5 1.14 0.1*,2 1.17

WORKING Il .. 375 2.5,6* 0.99 0 1.37
ST~ESS 1-160 2.3* 0.92 0 1.02
LEVEL 213* 0.93
IN A'IV 1-37, 0'1·.2.3 1.14 0 1.19
BAR CI, b2*,3 0.66
1-160N 0,1·.2.3 0.87 0 1.02
1.. 2*, 3 0.118
f 1-37!1N 0 •• 2,3 0.93 0 1.21
S 2,3* 0.75

VIELD POINT ;1':'160 0* .. 3 1.70 0 1.72

OR Il .. 375 6 1.72 0.3* 1.96
PROPORTIONAL 1-160 0 1.51 0*,1 1.67
LJHIT 0*.3 1.65
LEVEL 1-37' 2 1.75 0 1.72
IN ANV 0*,1 1.37
BAR l-l60N 0*,3 1.51 0 1.63
1 1.55
f i-~75N 2 1.50 0 1.69
Y 0.1,3* 1.55

.(} D
1
. L----l----..J L.----t----....J
---------~ ----------
~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------~
_____•_____'1. ---------
_______

-----~----3T-----------
..
~--

---------~f----------
---------- ----------
----------~t----------
~~-------2r----------
i
1
i i

MEAN VALUES OF P/~uAp AT CRITICAL STRAJN LEVELS

CRITICAL REINF. CRACK NIIRr.OW WIOE

CONDITION TVPe INIT. FACE FACE

1 VES l.io 0.91

f NO 1.11 0.86
s
JJ VES 1.27 1.07

1 VES 1.69 1.'7

f NO 1.66 1.53
Y
JI YES 1.84 1.71

ULTI~ATE 1 YES 1.80

NO 1.6"
Il YES 1.92
 98

c) - - 0 -_ _ 0

Wide face
b lb = 0.458
P c

Bar locations
1--
correspond to
x-coordinates
in the·graph
(Detail 1Πshown)

al
+'
al
J..I
U
1200~
s::0
.0 1-160 ID 1-160N ......
0 0
Reinforcing U Pl
0 1-375
bar strains • 1-375.N s::~
or! Pl
Ul
J..I 1000~
0
0
• 1-1 1.0 Ul4-l
Q II-160 .
III
III
CI
il ., al 0
.Q
t ., ID le II-375 Ul
Ul Ul
tri
s:: ., ID

"0 • 11-1 al
J..I 0
s::
-ri 800~ li! 0.8 +' or!
U ., 0 Ul+J
J..I • • oc U
0
4-l •
•G> fi
• concrete,
-Zielinski al III
r-f J..I
s:: t!I
c x Q v ~ stresses and Rowe 0.6 or! 4-l
or! 600~ Ul
al
J..I
61 0
8
Ox Q - - Leonhardt s:: Ul
al III
0 +J
s::
or!
v
Q
'Q
• 0.4 al
'tI
al
400~ x Ul Ul
Ul J..I Ul
s::
or!
" al
:> J..I
al
III Ul Pl
J..I
+J
Cl)
200~ ~-------
-- ~--
--- ---- 0.2
8
m ~
J..I ........

------:--
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Distance from bearing plate

Figure 4.3 Strain distribution (a) Wide face

 99

~}-_.-r-- . ...- - - - , - - - - _. r--'- ._ -.....-- , - - - - -_ .._ _ - - - _ . - ' 0._.-

.' Narrow face

b lb = 0.688
P c

Bar locations
correspond to
- ,x-coordinates
in the graph

QJ
.jJ
1200).1 QJ
!-I
I-160 D a I-160N u .......
Reinforcing o 1-375 1-375N § f'1;0!
1.0 uIII,
CI
III
!-I 1000).1 bar strains • I-l
m
..Q Q II-160
-~. 4-l
0
Cl. x 1I-375 III
s:: 800).1 0.8 QJ III
-.-1' III s::
U - II-l III 0
!-I QJ -.-1
0
4-l
El Con crete stresses Zielinski !-I .jJ
.jJ U
s:: 600).1 I!I and Rowe III m
'.-1
QJ " 0.6 QJ4-l
!-I
!-I 17 I!l
• 0
Leonhardt r-I
•.-1 III
0
S::. 17 • 17
il
17 Q III m
-.-1
III
400).1 )(
Q Q
0.4 .jJ@'tIQJ
s:: x 0
III
-.-1 QJ III
m •
x III QJ

_.1.._-
--- --
!-I !-I !-I
.jJ
U)
200).1 Il
le 0.2 :> ~QJ

A III QJ

,/
,..- ~
!-I
.....
8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Distance from bearing plate
(expressed as a fraction of b c)

Figure 4.3 Strain distribution (b) Narrow face

 100

4.5.4 Total force in transverse rein forcement

The variation of the total transverse tensile force in

the lateral rein forcement as the bearing load increases is of

interest, as it gives an indication of the extent to which the

anchorage zone steel and concrete interact in sharing the induced

transverse stresses. The total steel tensile force was calcul-

ated by summation of the contributions of the individual reinforcing

bars. Nominal bar areas and the experimental elastic modulus

values were used in evaluating the force in each bar from the strain

data. When bars on a single side of the specimen were instrumented,

the total force was obtained by doubling the force calculated from

the available data. In the absence of a reading due to an indicator

malfunction, the stress was estimated on the basis of available read-

ings. For strains above the elastic limit, the experimental stress-

strain curve was used to evaluate the stress in the work-hardened

cold-deformed 02 bars, while a constant stress equal to the yield

point was assumed for No. 3 bars. Table 4.6 lists the average force

Z in the lateral rein forcement along both the wide and narrow faces
s
of the specimen, expressed in force units, and non-dimensionally as

ratios of the product f A or of the applied bearing load P. These

cu p
results are presented graphically in Fig. 4.4.

The Zs/fcuAp curves show the variation of the total tensile

force in the reinforcement with increase in the applied loads. The

curves possess two distinct portions, the first one being a straight

li ne where the steel and the uncracked concrete share the tensile

forces proportionately, while the second part is a curve of increasing

 101

TA8Le 4.6 TOTAL FORCE IN TRANSVERSE STEEL (AI BLnCK r:'160

WIDE F'ACE bp/~:. 0.458 NARROW S::ACt: bp lit :. 0.6ée

p p
1<111 '
p tm Zs Z~ ,-k b ~ z, Z$ --h. :b.
klp ,"CA; p.. klp k.N ~Ap P J.I Idp kN ~ ... Ap P

2,0 9. 0~041 O. 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.0000 o. 0.00 0.0 0.0000 n.OOno
10,0 18. 0.0111 9. 0.04 0.2 0.0009 0.0106 13. 0.06 0.3 0.0012 0.0153
8,0 36. 0~163 32. 0.15 0.7 O.OG31 0.0188 42. 0.20 0.9 0.0040 0.0247
12,0 '3. 0:244 62. 0.:»9 1.3 0.0059 0.0243 63. 0.30 1.3 0.00'"'0 0.0247
16.0 71. 0.31'6 102. 0.48 2.i 0'.0098 0.0300 91. 0.43 1.9 0.008'1 0.02t>B
20.0 89. 0:407 164. 0.77 3.4 0.0157 0.0386 118. 0.56 2.5 0.0113 n.0278
2/.. 0 107. 0.4n8 210. 0.99 4.4 0.0201 0.0412 147. 0.69 3.1 0.0141 0.02:16
28.0 125. 0':570 265. 1.25 5,5 0.0254 0.044S 184. 0.87 3'.8 0.0176 0.03n9
'2.0 142. 0:651 337. 1.59 7. i 0.0323 0.0495 232. 1.09 4.9 0.0222 0.0341
36,8 164. 0'.749 392. 1.84 8.2 0.0375 0.0501 282. 1.33 5.9 0.0270 n.0360
40,3 ,179. 0.820 446. 2.10 9.3 0.0427 0.0'21 328. 1.510 6.9 0.0314 0.0363
45,5 202. 0:926 557. 2.62 11.7 0.0533 0.0576 414. 1.95 9.7 0.0396 0.0429
50.5 225. 1:027 658. 3.10 13.R 0.0630 0.0613 475. 2.23 9.9 0.0455 0.0442
55.0 245. 1'.119 776. 3.65 16.2 0~0743 0.0664 544. 2.56 11.4 0.0521 0.0465
59.0 262. 1.200 880. 4.14 18.4 0.0842 0'.0702 613. 2.88 12'.8 0.0587 n.04R9
63,0 260. 1~282 986. 4.64 20.6 0.0944 0.0736 693( 3.26 14'.5 0.06b3 o. OS 17
67.0 298. 1:363 1135. 5.34 23.7 0.1086 0.0797 774. 3.64 16.2 0.0741 0.05103
71,0 316. 1:444 1255. 5.90 26.3 0.1201 0.0831 850. 4.00 17.8 0.0813 0.0563
T5.6 ~36. 1.538 1555. 7.31 32.5 0'.1488 0.0968 1000. 4.70 20.9 0.0957 0.0622
80.0 356. 1:628 2025. 9.53 42.4 0'.1938 0.1191 1312. 6.17 27'.5 0.1256 0.0771
84,0 374. 1~709 2491. 11.72 52.i 0.2384 0.1395 1720. 8.09 36.0 0.1646 0.0963

FIGURE 4.4 TOTAL FORCE IN TRANSVERSF. STEEL (AI 8LOCK 1-160

!
i
1

bp/bc. .. 0.458 U.€88 , _I!

Il
Il,i 1 =tJ -...1 -
!
,,-
Zs/P --0- -0-

! Zs/fcuAI' --x-- --Q--

1
'-f!Il
l "
i---r-- 1

i 1
Il i-
r

rr
1

0.2
! )<j
I '1
--- , - ---1-.i .·-
1
--
1 1 / l'
? ! 1 1.__
/
1 J<
1
,
1 111 f 1

,"
.// J/ ~-
0.1 L )1' J
'7
L . "Il :

---t
.....
/ ~.
",,'" V ",1
!
, ..r/
~
l1?- ~ ~ /../-'
I!'-1-
-'r!i-- -LI----l- .
"
1 ~~~~> Q .... .Jl. :..-u-
r-
[
-r--~~kd: ,- ~r&
/. It'I'--D ;:,i.' 1:1'-
1 ........

t-- --

1
--~
g ,
,
.l",.~.t
:4--0(·
- -=-
Q_
---l
L.-_-='--,-,."-, _.L--
JI
1
o '·0 '·5 2·0
 102

TABLE 4.6 TOTAL FORCE IN TRAN5VERSE STEEL le) BLOCK Iw160N

WIOE FACE bp Ibc. = 0.456 NARROW I=ACt: b p lit ::. 0.6Se

p p p t.m Zs 7~ ,~ .7::;;. e".. Z, z. -k bp
kip \.N , fwAp po klp I<.N ~uAp P Idp kN ~u.Ap
'"
2.0 9. O~041 i7. 0.08 0.4 0'.0016 0.0400 10. 0.05 0.2 0.0010 (h0235
4.0 18. o.onl 32. 0.15 0.7 0.0031 0.0376 21. 0.10 0.4 0.0020 0.0247
8.0 36'. 0'.163 50. 0.24 1.0 0.0048' 0.0294 35. 0016 0.7 0.0033 0.07.06
12.0 53. 0'.244 75. 0.35 1.6 0.0072 0.0294 45. 0.21 0.9 0.0043 0.(\176
16.0 '71. 0~326 98. 0.46 2.1 0.0094 0.0288 81. 0.38 1.7 0.0078 0.0230
20.0 89. 0:40'7 128. 0.60 2.7 0~0122 0.0301 110. 0.56 2~5 0.0113 0.0278
24.0 107. 0:4A8 162. 0.76 3.4 0'.0155 0.0318 159. 0.75 3.3 0.0152 0.0312
28.0 125. 0~570 205. 0.1)6 4.3 0'.0196 0.0344 208. 0.98 4.4 0.0199 0.0349
32.0 142. 0.651 250. 1.18 5.7. 0.0239 0.0367 255. 1.20 5.3 0.0244 0.0375
'6.0 160. O~ 732 335. 1.58 7.0 0.0321 0.0438 312. 1.47 6'.5 0.0299 0.0408
40.3 179. 0.820 437. 2.06 9.1 0.0418 0.0510 370. 1.74 7.7 0.0354 0.0432
4".0 196. O~895 638. 3.00 13.3 0.0611 0.0662 450. 2.12 9.4 0.0431 n.04R1
48.0 214. 0.977 766. 3.61 16.\ 0.0735 0.0753 517. 2.43 10.8, 0.0495 0.0507
!l0.5 225. 1~027 865. 4.07 18.1 0.0828 0.0806 574. 2.70 12~0 0.0549 n.0535
55.0 245. 1'.119 976. 4.60 20.5 0.0936 0.0836 643. 3.02 13~5 0.0615 0.0550
59.0 262. L2C'0 1076. 5.06 22.5 0.1030 0.0858 724. • 3.41 15.1 0.0693 n.0577
63.0 280. 1~2!12 U1l5. 5.57 24.8 0.1134 0.0865 824. 3.68 17.2 0.0789 n.0615
67.0 298. 1:3~3 1320'. 6.21 27.6 0~1263 0.0927 948. 4.46 19.8 0.0907 0.0666
'71.0 316. L444 1514. 7.12 31.7 0'.1449 001003 1094. 5.15 22~9 0.1047 n.0725
".6 336. 1:538 1870. 8.80 39. i 0.1790 0'.1164 1262. 5.94 7.6~4 0.12e8 0.0785
80.0 356. 1:628 2300. 10.82 48.1 0'.2201 0.1352 1600. '7.53 33.5 0.1531 0.0941

FIGUP.E 4.4 TOTAL FORCE IN TRANSVERSE STEEL lB) BLoCK 1-160N

~:~~;Ap I---j---!--t--t---I--t---Ir--t--t---t--!--r--!--+--t--t---Ir--r--t-i-
1
W. .~.1
O'~~~I~I~~~'-~-l-_J--~-4--+--+-~~-4-+--+-~~-4--+--+-i-
b' lb c 0.458 O,Eë6 J
~, ~s/~ -0- -0- 1---l----I--
--~--I--+--I---I--I--+--t---t--r·I--

:=:I~~+-'_Z-,s/_f,_uA,p--.,-r-_y-_--r--_-Q-r-_t-I--_j~~:~::~:~::-~:~~:~::.~~-~-~t--__-lj-,_--I_f-_~--i-_'-'l~~

0.2 1-_+--'!i--!---+--I---I--1I---!---+--I--I---I---!--t--t---;/~I---l-+--t-ll=
,/ l -+--i--
1 J _jJ__,_
1---t--+---t---r-i--t--+---t---t-+---t--+--J---tf-'-l--f-l"-+--l-+--+--i J-
~~~~~1--~-1--+-+-+-4--,~~~'~/~!~~ 1

:=:==:==:=:==:=::=:==:==:~--+1~-Y'-'~~~,'~~-~_,+~'~~~v+~_/~~~ +-~ ~--1==

1

__ __
/''''-1-_!_-, i"," ...... !-o-:.JY' 1

I--+--'I_L---~~~~i<!?"'- r---! -1--1--1---

- "1>-0-- -'Dj~•• ~:~~_.-' I-~-+- - -- ---+--1-- - - - . '~i-- .- 1- -Tl'-j '---
"T--: --.- ~- -r 1 1 1
o 0,5 '·0 ',5 2·0
 103

TABLE 4.6 TnTAL FORCE IN TRANSV~R5E STEEL (cl BLOCK li-160

YIIOI! rACE bp Ibe. : O.4~:.e NARROW ~ACE bp lit :. O,6ne

p p p
lo.ip I.N
E. m Zs 7~ ,-1L k: c".. Zs Zs -k b.
fc.uAp !.I. klp \c.N 6 Ap P /4 \dp kN ~",Ap P

2.0 9. 0:.0 4 1 20. o. ï9 O.A 0'.0038 0.0941 8. 0.08 0.3 0.0015 0.0376
B.O 36. 0.163 49. 0.46 2.1 0.0094 0.0576 46. 0.43 1.9 0.0088 n.0541
12.0 53. 0~244 70. 0.66 2.9 0.0134 0.0549 71. 0.67 3.0 0.0136 0.0557
16.0 71. 0.326 92. 0.87 3.A 0'.017'(> 0.0541 102. 0.96 4.3 0.0195 0.0600
20.0 89. 0'.407 115. 1.0B 4.8 0.0220 0'.0541 136. 1.28 5.7 0.0260 0.0640
24,0 107. 0~4~B 141. 1.33 5.9 0.0270 0.0553 166. 1.56 6.9 0.031B 0.0651
28.0 125. 0'.5'10 102. 1. '11 7.6 0.0348 0.0612 192. 1.Bl 8.0 n.03h7 0.0645
IZ.O 142. 0~651 281~ 2.64 11.8 0'.0538 0.0026 236. 2.22 9'.9 0.04'52 0.0694
'6.8 164. D'. '749 348. 3.2'7 14.6 0.0666 0.0890 284. 2.67 11.9 0.0544 0.0726
40.3 179. 0.820 3A8. 3.65 16,2 0.0743 0.0906 321. 3.02 13.4 0.0614 0.0749
45.5 202. 0'.926 450. 4.23 18.8 0.0861 0.0930 382. 3.59 16.0 0.0731 0.0790
50.5 225. 1'.027 532. 5.01 22,3 0.1018 0.0991 449, 4.22 IB.8 0.0859 0.0836
55.0 245. 1'.119 606. 5.70 25.4 0.1160 0.103'1 517. 4.86 21'.6 0.0990 0.08S4
59.0 262. 1'.200 671. 6.:31 28.i 0~1284 0.1070 581. 5.47 24.3 0.1112 0.0926
63.0 280. 1'.282 733. 6.90 30.7 0'.1403 0.109!1 641. 6.03 26~8 0.1227 0.0957
67.0 29B. 1~363 829. 7.80 34,7 0.1587 0.1164 729. 6.86 30.5 0.1395 0.1024
Tl.O 316. 1:444 941. 8.85 39.4 0~1801 0.1247 815. 7.67 34.1 0.1560 0.1080
'5.6 336. 1~538 1067~ 10.04 44.7 0~2042 0.1328 A73. 8.21 36.5 0.1671 0.1086
BO.O 356. 1'.628 1290. 12.14 54.0 0:2469 0.1517 981. 9.23 41.1 0.1878 0.1154
84.0 374. 1'.709 1622. 15.26 67.9 0.3105 001817 1124. 10.57 47'.0 0.2151 0.i259
8B.O 391. 1~790 1878. 17.67 78.6 0~3595 0.2008 1365. 12.84 57.1 0.2613 0.1459
QZ.O 409. 1.872 21!.l6. 20.28 90.2 0.4127 0.2205 1847. 17.3B 77.3 0.3535 0.1889

FleURE 4.4 TOTAL FORCE IN TRANSVERSF. STEEL (CI BLOCK 11-160

,, J 1<

,, fi
1
~L_
~I '1 1
1

O,455-t:ES8
, ,1 : 1

1=
bp/be:, a

1 ,
Zf,/P
=1 /
--0- 1
1

Zs/fc.uAp --~- 1 1
r- 'f--
>1 1 1
: 1 1
1
1 1
1
..--

0,2
1
"
1

,
, tt
/f
, / t
1
,fi
, /'
li
"

, ,.<J /
",r /'
Q/
/ /1
,"
1 ,,;
~/
xl y'
/0
,cr
V 1
--
" ~
~~ L..2- ~
"",,,, 1
1 r'L
0,1 r--c
.0-- ~
1 0- ~ ",:'
-&
~ r--' 1
,i ~~P ,'"
)J'
1
'" 1;1'
Lr
'"
r -~.-
T
,. \2..'
~'Q ~
1
~- - -- -- ---
),,-.!ii
,,,- - .- ...
i
1--- 1 - -
1
-1 --1 - - -- - ,
o -' 0,5 1,0 1,5
1
2,0
 104

TABLE 4.6 TOTAL FORCE IN TRANsveRSE STEEL COI

WIDE FACE bp Ib<- =o.'me NARROW FACi: bp II::!,. ... O.68e

p p P Zs 7~ -k :b -k
~~
e". Z5 :1:..
kif' !.N , -ç.ç P. \c.ip I<.N ~Ap P ..
Ew.
Idp ~u.Ap P
11.0 49. 0:055 O. 0.00 0.0 0:0000 0.0000 o. 0.00 O~O 0.0000 0.0000
44.5 198. 0'.222 38. 0.98 4.4 0.0049 0.0221 42. 1.09 4.8 0.0054 0.0244
67.0 298. 0.334 1l2. 2.12 9.4 0.0106 0.0317 77. 1.99 13.9 0.0099 0.0297
89.0 396. 0~443 254. 6.57 29.7. 0.0327 0.0738 102. 2.64 11.7 0.0131 0.0297
111.5 496. 0~556 318. 8.23 36.6 0.0410 0.0738 127. 3.29 14:6 0.0164 0.OZ95
1:14.0, 596. 0:668 45Z. 11.69 52.0 . 0.0583 0.0873 168. 4.35 19.3 0.OZ17 0.0324
156.0 694. 0'.777 553. 14.31 63.h 0.0713 0.0917 178. 4.61 ZO.5 0.OZ29 0.02'15
l'7B.O 792. 0.687 672. 17.39 77.3 0.0866 0.0977 217. 5.61 Z5.0 O.OZAO 0.0315
205,0 912. 1.021 800. 20.70 92.1 0.1031 0.1010 275. 7.11 31.6 0.0355 0.0347
235.0 1045. 1: 171 982. 25.41 i13.0 0:1266 0.1081 465. 12.03 53.5 0.0599 0.0512
264.0 1174. 1 :315 1158. 29.96 133.3 0.1493 0.1135 592. 15.32 68.1 0.0763 0.0580
281.0 1250. 1:400 1306. 33.79 150.3 0.1664 0.1202 675. 17.46 77.7 0.0870 0.0621
306.0 1361. 1:525 1417: 36.66 i63.1 0.1827 001198 A07 .. 20.88 92.9 0.1040 0.0682
329.0 1463. 1'.639 1530. 39.56 i76.; 0:1972 0.IZ03 916. 23.75 105.6 0.1183 0.0722
351.0 1561. 1:749 1706. 44.19 196.t> 0:2202 0.1259 1106. 28.61 127.3 0.1426 0.0815
360.5 1604. 1:796 1780. 46.05 204.8 0.2295 0.1277 1780. 46.05 204.8 0.2295 0.1277

FIGURE 4.4 TDTAL FDRCE IN TRANSVERSE STEEL (DI 8LOCK 1-375

!
1 i +-1--- .-
bp/bc. .. 0.4=8 10.Gôe
1
1
1
.
=1
--0--
Zs/P
Zs/fcuAp --Q-- -

,. ,
J__._
,. ,
0.2 ....
,
,. ,
, " --
,,
1

- ,. ,, "
..!
1

,,
"
,,
," , ..0-
,
0-- ,\/ --
~ ,. ,.
~~ ~
1
Q
0.1 1..---' i-:?" ,. , ;0

~ l-P ;0 ~
,
,. 17
Ir 0
, ,.
,x'
,. ,.
p-
!.--- ~
kî'
,,;<'

1-
J ,~ --
;0

~ f..-- ---
IVI
A~
1,"
- --~
?-
_ n.
=sr..1--- -- .1--- ... --
--17-
1 ." _17-
--- .oP.-"r-9 --
o 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0
 105

TOTAL FORCE IN TRAN~VFRSE STEEL (El BLDCK 1':'375~1

"'IOE FACE bp lèt = 0.456 NARROW FACë bp lit '" ~,68e

p p P 7~
t", Zs .~ .b é.n Z$ Zs ~ b
"-ip I<N ~uAp po klp I<.N ~Ap P fA \(.Ip kN ~ ... Ap P
11.0 49. 0:051 5. 0.13 0.6 0:OÔ06 0.0118 8. 0.21 0~9 0.0010 n.nlfl8
45.0 200. 0:207 47'. 1.22 5.4 0.0056 0.0270 35. 0.91 4.0 0.1)042 n.02n1
68.0 302. 0:312 78. 2.02 9.n 0.0093 0.0297 78. 2.02 9~0 0.0093 n.n297
90.0 400. 0:413 108. 2.79 12.4 0.0128 0.0310 134. 3.47 15.4 0.0159 0.0365
112.0 49B. 0:'14 169. 4.37 19.4 0~0201 0.0390 156. 4.04 18.0 0.01S5 0.03l'10
193.0
154.0
'92.
6B5.
0~611
0:707
367.
455.
9.50
11.77
42.2
52.4
0.0436
0.0541
0.0714
0.0764
185.
iUl.
4.79
5.46
21.3
24.3
0.027.0
0.0251
0.0360
0.030;4
U8.0 792. 0'.818 542. 14.02 62.4 0.0644 0.0788 240. 6.21 27.6 0.02Q5 0.03',9
205.0 912~ 0'.942 657. 17.00 75.6 0'.0781 0.0829 275. 7.11 3l.6 0.0327 0.0347
235.0 1045. 1:079 787. 20.36 90." 0.0935 0.0866 31B. 8.23 36.6 0.0378 0.0350
266.0 IlB3. 1:222 ' 940. 24.32 10B.2 0.1117 0.0914 370. 9.57 4Z.6 0.0440 0.0360
281.0 1250. 1.Z91 10RO. 27.94 124.3 0.1283 0.0994 435. 11.25 50.1 0.0517 0.0401
306.0 1361. 1:406 1244. 32.1B 143.? 0.1478 0.1052 542. 14.02 62.4 0.0644 0.0458
3'1.0 1561. 1 :612 1794. 46.41 206.5 0.Z132 0.1322 783; 20.26 90'.1 0.0931 0.0577
~fl2.0 1610. 1'.663 1840. 47.60 211.7 0·.Z187 0.1315 140B. 36.43 16Z'.0 0.1673 0.1006

FIGURE 4.4 TOTAL FORCE IN TRANSVERSF STEEL ( El BLOCK 1-37!1N

---,
_. 1_.. ....J
1

~§
1
! l
bp/bc c 0.458 0.6B8
""'l
1 ..-J
-n- 1 1
Zs/P --<>--
1
-- .__ J
ZsF,uAp _ .. x-- --\7- -
l
·/11
1 -1--j ~-_J
'-'-j

j-
,
0,2
1
1
1

J - - -- _.1 T-I
J
-t
1
1 1
,.-
il
...., ,
~ .;
.; "
L 11. -1
--i1

,.- / :l i~
-
-lJ
0,1
v
~"
,.'"
p--
~ i?-c ,
.,' 1
1- --1
_. -1'
,.~

IP- ,.'
/1
.'
~ 0--'''-
~
) 1
,.~

' ,.,t
.,~
~
_.- - ---=- .or 1 - - - --·-1

o
-b-.::Vi
a...-.L----w---r--
1 1 'f"-;--
0.5
~
.;
1
-- ~---
Q--

'.0 '·5
1
r--!- -- ' -
J
.-

2.0
'-r-'- __J .... .1

PI fcu/'p
 106

TnTAL FORCE IN TRANSVERSE STEEL (F' BLOCK Il ~375

WICE FACE 'op 'kt. = 0.456 NARROW FACt: 'op lit = O,éë6
P P P r..n Zs 7!t ~ :b. ~ Zs Zs ~ b.
kip \(N ~\,\Ap po Idp It.N ~Ap P Idp 1<.\01 ~u..Ap P
'"'
11.0 49. 0:054 5'. 0.26 1.? 0'.0013 0.0235 7. 0~36 1.6 0.0018 n.03i!9
4,..5 198. 0.219 i7. 0.R8 3.9 0.00lt3 0.0198 44. 2.28 11).1 1).0112 n.0512
67.0 298. 0'.330 45. 2.33 10.4 0.0115 0.0348 64. 3.31 14.7 0,0163 0.0494
89.0 396. 0.438 54. 2.79 12,4 0.0138 0.0314 80. 4.14 lA.4 0.0204 0,0465
111.5 496. 0'.549 219. 11,33 50,4 0~0558 0.1016 120. 6.21 27.6 0,0306 n.0557
134.0 596. 0'.660 314. 16.25 72,3 O.OAOO 0.1213 151. 7.81 34.8 0.031\5 0.05A3
156.0 694. 0·.76A 369. 19.09 84,9 0.0940 0.1224 180. 9.31 41.4 0.04';8 0.05'l7
110.0 792, 0.876 445. 23.03 102,4 0'.1133 0.1294 221. 11.44 50.9 0.0563 0.0642
205.0 912, 1:009 539. 27,89 124,i 0.1373 0.1360 2b8. 13.87 61.7 0.0(1)3 0.0676
235.0 1045. 1'.157 623. 32.24 143,4 0.1587 0.1372 333. 17.23 76.6 0.0848 0.0733
264.0 1174. 1'.299 703. 36.38 161,8 0.1791 0.1378 413. 21.37 95.1 0.10~2 0.0809
281.0 1250. 1..3!13 811. 41.96 186.7 0.2066 0'.1493 457, 23.65 105.2 0.11"4 0.0842
306.0 1361. 1~5('16 892. 46.16 205,3 0~2272 0.1508 538. 27.84 123.8 0,1370 0.0910
329.0 1463. 1~619 1192. 61.68 ?74,3 0.3036 0.1875 696. 36.01 160.2 0.1773 0.1095
351.0 1561. 1.728 1309. 67.73 301, :3 0.3334 0.1930 758,' 39.22 174.5 0019'31 0.1117
373.0 1659. 1.836 1400. 72,44 322.2 0.3566 0,1942 828. 42.84 190.6 0.2109 0.1149
396.0 1761. 1~949 1457. 75,39 335,3 0~3711 0.1904 937. 48.48 215.7 0.2387 0.1224
400.0 1779. 1:969 i780. 92.10 409,7 0.4534 0.2303 1268. 65.61 291'. B 0.3230 0.1640

FIGURE 4.4 TOTAL FORCE IN TRANSVERSF. STEEL ( FI BLOCK 11-375

l'
,,'
Z,;Tw.Ap 1'/
q,1
Zs/P 1

- , !
0.3 .. III'
bp/br,
Zs/P
Zs/fc.uAp
0.458 1 o,eô8

=1=' 1
1
,,1
J
~
il
13
1- ---
/~
1

K 1
/
/

;1
/

1
1-
0.2 -1- 1
--
1 '"
1
p--;-- " Vol
" /;~ '1
'" "
-
Q

, ,,"" --2 v,' 1 ~

~

J'r'" --0"
~~ , ,,'" '" ~I 1.-
;", "'v ..u--
0.1
ri , "" ,
1,-.... r ~
1 ,
/''1.
'" .--a 1--'
V
, ,,"
.»"
-- 1

0/ rr:
/ --0- -;;:' ~

.sr''''
"Q
f-o-
1

-~ - ,
--1
j
...._--
~
_...... l '-

.- -0--
1,0'"
L - .--
' .. :'::. ---
];1--

"
Q
-"-'-
..'tI. .. /

1
0 0,5 ',0 1,5 2,0 PI fcuAp
 107

slope displaying the effect of progressive cracking and the graduaI

transfer of aIl tensile forces onto the rein forcement. The tran-

sition between the initial linear portion of the curve and the

portion of increasing slope took place at loads Pif A between 0.4

cu p
and 0.6. The curves representing the wide and narrow faces, which

had been nearly superimposed up to the transition point, became clearly

separated at this point. The transition is more evident in the

z s IP vs. P curves, in which a sharp discontinuity was often observed.

This occurrence was generally much more pronounced in the wide face,

where higher tensile stresses are created as a result of wider com-

pressive stress trajectories. It can be supposed that significant

internaI cracking took place at this load, although the presence of

externally visible cracks was not detected until the load reached

approximately half the ultimate load, i.e. Pif A between 0.8 and
cu p
0.9.

The Z IP curves reflect the graduaI progression of cracking

s
after the transition, which resulted in the small and nearly constant

positive slope of these curves over their major portion.

A second transition occurred when diagonal cracks associated

with the spalling mode of failure took form, at a load of approximately

0.85 P • These cracks were immediately apparent on outer surfaces,

u
and their progression down the face of the block was more rapid than

that of the midside cracks. In the Z IP curves, the second tran-

s
sition marks the passage from the straight line of small slope to a

curve of increasing slope; a step-type transition was observed

only in block 1I-375. The second transition occurred at loads

 108

pIf A between 1.3 and 1.5. Since the unreinforced blocks

cu p
failed as a consequence of spalling at a mean PIf A ratio of 1.397,
cu p
it seems that the provision of lateral reinforcements of types land

II had no influence on the onset of the failure mechanism. This

can be attributed to the position of the reinforcement, which was

placed as closely as possible to the tendon duct in order to be in

the region of highest tensile stresses. (It must be emphasized

that the block model tests were meant to simulate the anchorage

zone in a buttress, and that the rein forcement therefore did not

conform to practical design considerations for prestressed con crete

.beam end blocks.) The increase in ultimate capacity with the

presence of rein forcement was a consequence of the transfer of tensile

forces from the skewed plane of the concrete wedge, onto the re-

in forcing bars along faces perpendicular to those in which spalling

took place. (Fig. 4.5). Because the bearing plate was square in

shape, the wedges were of. similar form and spalling occurred on the

four faces simultaneouslYi the sudden increase of strain up to the

yield point in bars close to the bearing plate along both the long

and narrow faces at loads approacfling P is thus explained. The

u
discrepancy between the strain distribution observed on concrete

surfaces and that found in the reinforcing bars (Fig. 4.3) can be

attributed to the effect on the bars closest to the bearing plate of

the tensile stress~s which lead to spalling. The increase in

ultimate strength in going from detail l to detail II was a result

of the closer spacing of the bars, rather than the greater number of

barsi since the bar spacing was decreased from 4 to 3 inches

 109

TABLE 4.7 TnTAL TfNSJlE FORCE;

THEORETJCAL PREDICTIONS

Z/P

10 DE NARRml
FACE FACE

bp/bc 0.456 0.686

GUYO~ 0.127 0.072

MAGNEL 0.138 0.094
MORSCH 0.146 0.091
LEONHARDT 0.163 0.094
8LEJCH (; SEIVERS 0.196 0.099
ZIELINSKI & ROHE 0.276 0.176

-:
~.
~~'\.~ ~,,"J

--:L- 0'--
,7-
/

-~-
0
0
..L __ ~
--~-
::.-X-
~--~
/
/ 0 0
\

Figure 4.5 Failure mechanism

 110

(112 to 76 mm), the increase in strength was not proportional to

the doubling of the number of bars.

A comparison of the theoretical values of the ratio Z/P

according to the various mathematical and empirical solutions, and

the experimentally observed Z /P ratios, will allow a distinction

s
to be made between the conservative and non-conservative solutions.

(Z represents the resultant of tensile stresses. across the central

plane integrated over the area of the block, and Z is the resultant
s .
of forces in the reinforcing bars.) Table 4.7 summarizes the pre-

dicted Z/P values according to the various theories, after a table

(3)
by Zielinski and Rowe • In Fig. 4.6, these results were indi-

cated in the form of a scale, against which aIl experimental values

of Z /p from Fig. 4.4 are presented for the various block models at
s
aIl loading stages, along both the wide and narrow faces. A

linear envelope was drawn, and the loads Pif A equal to 1.0 and
cu p
1.5 were marked out, as they represent respectively the maximum

initial prestressing force and the load at the onset of spalling.

It must be pointed out that this envelope is not conservative, because

higher Z /P ratios could be obtained with the use of an anchorage zone

s
reinforcement providing more steel than detail II. (Note that

detail II provides bars to a distance of approximately b /2 from the

c
bearing plate, whereas most authors report significant.tensile stresses

to a distance b , therefore, as an increase in Z occurs when detail

c s
II is substituted for detail l, a further increase in Z would result
s
from the use of a still greater number of bars.) Keeping in mind

that the required steel force could thus be higher than the results
Zs

WI~E ~
p 1 1 __ 1 1 ;! 1 1 1 1 1 1 Til 1 1

~
1

1 j 1 1 1 1 1

~ ~=·t=j=t±t-1I-t-+-+=+l=tt±-~
3·0 ACE b,J",=0A58 1

D 1- 160 1 7.IELlNSl<1
_ 1-160N 2. ROWE.
• 1-375
01-375N

~
-~- -~ ~~
'- 1 • 11-160 'Il-ô75 1 1 -
l 1 l 1 1
_..1_

~~II ~~
1 1 •

2·0 ~ i - 1 • SlEICI-l Z.
SIEVERS
1-'
1-'
l ' 1 • < • 1-'

. Il! . i ' LEONHARl>i

.....o?SCI-I
,1
t-"l \--1-
_ : .\---I
i ! 1! _
1

~
1 MAC.NEL

.~
• • - >---=9
j
~.
GUYON
- • i
1 .
.·"

E';;-"-'--Io- · o--~'
1O • o'

1·0
• 0 ·i ""

.. _.. ____ 1--] . ' .-

0.0 • •

1-
~
,_

-v-"Q....Q--fl-
. 0

0 _
0 _
0 ,_'
la ilJ .,_
ID

0 '
ID ID

D
ID

U D
D

- ~r\-I-lr-'+-4--1-
-

T--- •

~.
ID "," ID T --

". " _ID " 11." ID --.-- - - •

--
1 J J J J J. I '. -
D
J -J--.J-_I _...11 ---J-_~_l
1J 1- 1
o 0.5 1.0 1·5 2·0 PJfcuAp

Figure 4.6 Total force in transverse steel, all models (a) Wide face
bp
! 1
1
1
i 1
3.0 --
NARROW l=ACE b/bc =0.688
1
'--
o I-160 o 1-375
13 I-1bON (;) 1-375 1
1
Q Il-160 x 11-375 1
! 1
1
1
.. 1
'2.0 1
1 L_._
i Q
1 i .....
.....
1
1
1
!! - 'EI.'~!)l<.I
ROWE toJ
x
1 1
--
1

I1 p
'1:

~ h-,
--
Q ~
X
-;;- ~ Q li:
! 1

- -- °t :J f:- -
1·0
f..-- l---:
Q G IJ L~ONH~R\)'t t- '"1\
1

~
.lEICIIl.
'EVE~

- Q X n
1.I~)./.1.
Ml5R~~

k-' ,~
f-- Q
Q
Q Q
x 1"-
~
G 0
0
0
1 I- GU'{ON

---
l 0
>C
~0
~xQ ~
1 1 x 1
1)(' G G 0 -
1 )( I!I [ 1 1
10 0
i- m .

~0
o
-
0
0
tJ
:i:l~
1
1
!'"
1- 0 aj
!:>

1
QJ
I!I ~'l:o ~o
0
Ild e e o ~ (;)

1
1 t---
1
!
1
i 1 1 1 1 1
o 0·5 1-0 1·5 2-0 P/fcuAp

Figure 4.6 Total force in transverse steel, all models (h) Narrow face
 113

fa11ing within the enve1ope, it is seen that on1y the solution of

zie1inski and Rowe gives a conservative estimate of the required

tensi1e capacity.

4.6 DISCUSSION OF END BLOCK DESIGN

The ana1ysis of b10ck mode1s loaded through a bearing

plate giving b lb (bearing plate size to b10ck width) ratios of

p c
0.458 and 0.688, has 1ed to the fo11owing observations:

(1) The fai1ure mechanism was one in which the spa11ing of

concrete wedges from the edge of the bearing plate outwards

1ed to fai1ure in aIl specimens, with or without reinforce-

ment and/or midside crack initiators.

(2) The load at which tensile stresses were sufficient to induce

spalling was apparently the same in reinforced and unreinforced

spe'cimens; this load could be predicted by the equation:

3
P f A .;'r--A-/""':"A-
cu p cp p

where f is the concrete compressive strength,

cu
A is the net area of the face of the end block,
cp
A is the net area of the bearing plate.
p

In the present case, this formula leads to a predicted

capacity of 1.391 f A ; tests of unreinforced blocks gave a mean

cu p
load of 1.397 f A , while reinforced blocks disp1ayed spalling cracks
cu p
and a significant increase in tensile stresses at loads between 1.3

and 1.5 f A .
cu P
 114

(3) The provision of reinforcement of Type l (Fig. 3.3)

increased the ultimate capacity to 1.795 f A , while the use

cu p
of Type II, which doubles the area of reinforcement, increased

it to 1.935; the increase in strength is not proportional

tothe increase in steel area, due to the predominance of the

spalling mode of failure over tensile rupture along the mid-

side lines. The presence of rein forcement decreased the

variability of test results, and increased the ductility at

failure.

(4) The absence of crack initiators caused a decrease in the

strength of models of Type l to 1.650 f A ; this effect may

cu p
be due to the earlier propagation of spalling cracks when

points of stress relief are not provided.

(5) The total tensile force in the concrete at maximum initial pre-

stressing forces could only be predicted conservatively from

the experimental data of Zielinski and Rowe(3) , all other

theories having given underestimates or insufficiently conser-

vative estimates of the total tensile force in the reinforcing

bars at loads which did not cause the onset of spalling.

(6) An ultimate strength design of end blocks is feasible, which

would require a smaller amount of lateral reinforcement than

design techniques based on the total tensile force concept;

for bp/bc ratios in the range 0.46 to 0.69, detail l is seen

to provide sufficient lateral restraint to satisfy a load

factor of 1.5 and an undercapacity factor of 0.9 on the ulti-

mate strength of the anchorage. However, if the presence

 Ils

and width of cracks is a significant concern for

serviceability, the design procedure of Zielinski and Rowe(3)

is recommended, since both designs l and II (which are non-

conservative by this standard) led to visible cracking and

sorne reinforcing bar stresses in excess of the allowable

stress in lateral ties, at the maxim~ initial prestressing

force.

(7) The distribution of reinforcing bars in the anchorage zone

should have a concentration of bars near the plate, where

spalling tendencies affect both the strength and service-

ability of the anchorage, rather than near the theoretical

point of peak tensile stresses, where generally lower bar

stresses were recorded.

4.7 DISCUSSION OF SIMILITUDE

Good similitude was obtained in aIl aspects of behavior,

including the mode of failure, the ultimate strength, and the strains

and forces in the rein forcement.

The non-dimensional ultimate strengths of block models

(Table 4.1) show remarkable agreement between the models of scales

1.60 and 3.75; ultimate strength data was not available for the

prototypes. The mode of failure of blocks of both scales is illus-

trated in Fig. 4.1.

 116

The randomness of the strain data and of the total tensile

force data (Figs. 4.3 and 4.6) was noticed among models of the same

scale as weIl as those of different scales, and can therefore not be

attributed to a size effect. The three-dimensional distribution

of compression trajectories and of paths of crack propagation seems

to be the cause of this randomness. Comparing, for example, data

points for models 11-375 and 11-160 in Fig. 4.6· (a and b), it is

seen that bars along the wide face are more heavily strained for

model 11-375 than for 11-160, while the converse is true along the

narrow face; such behavior is clearly the result of the randomness

of cracking, and not of the similitude of the models. Similar

observations could be made regarding specimens reinforced with detail 1.

It can, therefore, be assumed with confidence that an

investigation of anchorage zone problems conducted at a scale 1/6,

making use of the scaling procedure and mate ri aIs employed in the

~~ model test, would reproduce exactly the mode of failure and

ultimate strength of the prototype structure, and would give a satis-

factory assessment of strains and total tensile forces. The use of

structural modeling in the foregoing investigation of the behavior·of

the anchorage zones in buttresses is seen to be feasible and reliable.

 CHAPTER 5

BUTTRESS MODEL TEST

5.1 TEST PROCEDURE, INSTRUMENTATION AND TEST DATA

Anchorages in the buttress model were subjected to bearing

pressures due to tendon loads equal to and greater than the design"

prestressing force in the prototype structure. The simultaneous

application of vertical pressure and of a temperature gradient was

also imposed upon the specimen. Strain readings were taken at

24 points on lateral reinforcing bars.

The effeètive prototype prestressing force was taken as

1460 kips (6.50 MN), and represented by Pd. AlI tendons in the

model were first loaded to 1.14 Pd; the uppermost four tendons

were later taken incrementally to loads up to 2.00 Pd.

Tendons in each of the five groups were taken to this load

in a uniform sequence C, A, B, D, as shown in Fig. 3.5. Strain gages

were read initially, and after each cable had been shirnrned. Midplane

tendons were stressed first, fol1owed by groups 1 and 2. Uppermost

tendon lA was then drawn incrementally to loads up to twice the maxi-

mum design anchorage force. At each load increment, the strain

gages were read and the exposed concrete surfaces were scrutinized

for the appearance of cracks. Tendon 2A was then loaded in an

identical manner, after lA had been locked off at twice its design

load. Tensioning on the face without crack initiators proceeded

similarly in the order: Group 4, Group 3, Tendon 3A, Tendon 4A.

117
 118

The buttress was left under full load for seven days,

at the end of which strain readings were taken, and the thermal

loading was initiated. Boiling water at 2l0F to 2l2F (99C to

100C) was pumped through the embedded piping at a rate of approxi-

mately 15 pounds per hour (6.80 kg/hr) for a period of twelve hours,

after which the dis charge attained a fairly constant tempe rature of

95F (35C). Straih readings were taken throughout the warming-up

period; those reported herein were taken three hours after the

steady state had been attained. For safety reasons the boiler

was shut down for a period of eight hours at night. On resumption

of the test the following morning, the effluent temperature had de-

creased to 88F (31C). Steady state was re-established in four

hours, at an effluent temperature of approximately 90F (33C), the

lowering being due to a reduced ambient laboratory temperaturei

final strain readings were taken after six hours of application of

this gradient.

Strain gages were mounted on lateral rein forcing bars in

the anchorage zones lB, lC, 2A, 2C. The strain readings are re-

ported in Table 5.1 for the loading conditions of interest. The

strain gage locations are indicated in the sketches which accompany

the tables. (Fig. 5.1)

The concrete had attained a compressive strength f

cu
= 4~50 ksi

(3.10 MPa), and a tensile strength fct = 380 psi (262 kPa) at the

beginning of testing. Both of these strengtl1 evaluations are the

average of test results from seven 6 x 12 inch (152 x 305 mm)

cylinders.
 x
{. ~
~ \ ! !
® 9 ra ® 0 o ®
51 o 0 0
c~

~ - -1 -- t"'
- ®\ \ ® 7 8 ® •
® ..
1
.• ® 4 "
a
0
1
0

..
1

J
\
1
1
t
\
\
\ ® ~
®
â®® • • ®3
a®2
o ®
" . 0
0

..
0

"'0 1
1
0 \ \ ® 1
0 i2 o 0
0

i o 0 1 l "
a
0
a ..
0
\ 1 :.:~.;. :::":: ..:.;:::.:. •.....;.;.:::.:
..:
1
::":':.':'~::'.'.:
1
1
::.':.:

x- 2 1A
1

\ Ia \ 2B
Section
2C
x-x
2D

1-'
1-'
1.0

I~"
o 1 10 o 1 10
'O5®1 1

~~ ~
o 1 1 0 ~ o 1 la
3
o ,
®
~Ç( ~ "0
o 1 1"
1
a ..
..:.:~.;. : :.', ~ .

Section X-X

Figure 5.1 Strain gage locations in buttress model

TABle 5,1 STRAIN REAOINGS~ BUTTRESS MOOEl CA) GAGES IN ANCHORAGE ZONES lB AND lC

LOAOlNG CONOITImlS 102 183 184 lBS 1B6 lC 1 1 C7- lC3 1e4 UNE

INITIAI. READINGS 004 019 -14 -14 -14 000 010 004 -14- 01
MIOPLANE TENSION" TENDON OC -04 016 -17 -10 .. 19 -06 on'. 000 020 02
OA,e -06 014 -17 000 -10 -04 005 005 004 03
OA~B~C -04 020 004 014 017 014 -09 028 -20 04
Oh,B~C.rO 000 019 000 004 007 015 -10 020 -30 05
SURFACE 2 TENSION~ TENDON 2C -25 -24 004 004 004 015 -16 03 /, 006 06
2A,C 000 - 017 -15 -04 -08 -09 -24 029 004 07
2A, [b C -49 010 -10 -004 005 -20 -47 030 004 OB
1 2A,B~C,O -64 010 -10 004 006 -35 -Sb 034 005 09
SURFACE 1 TENSIDN~ TENDON lC 039 034 070 019 038 160 134 168 O'JB 10
lA,C 058 060 079 049 039 166 109 160 074 11
1A,B~e 177 116 144 087 078 240 120 19~ 105 12
lA,B~C~D _ 179 125 154 089 090 254 2:)5 205 167 13 ~
I\J
o
TENDON 2AI INCREHENTAl TENSION, 1,25P 188 124 164 094 095 264 237 218 135 1'+
2,00P ~84 129 154 092 098 260 234 227 136 15
TENDON lAI INCREMENTAl TENSION, 1.14P 188 108 15a 094 100 264 230 214 139 1~
1.25P IS8 114 167 096 .095 264 231 215 1'39 17
1.38P 189 116 160 098 099 264 NO 218 1'.5 la
1.S0P 190 118 164 100 104 265 2',0 230 000 19
l.sap 190 118 154 100 104 259 -220 215 107 20
1.75p 190 110 155 107 100 260 226 205 114 21
1.85p 190 128 157 115 COO 260 228 214 118 22
2.00P i 192 177 167 125 107 267 238 217 108 23
LOADING ON OPPOSITE ~UTTRESS,
1 SURFACE 4 TE~SIUN, TENDONS 4A~B~CID 214 187 177 125 106 287 237 230 115 24
SURFACE 3 TENSIDN~ TENQUNS 3A,B,C~D 248 190 180 124 104 326 274 240 124 25
1 TENDON 3A, INCREMENTAL TENSION, 1.25P 2'IQ 184 178 120 104 314 260 230 124 26
2.00P 245 185 174 118 094 -324 3(,4 234 106 27
TENDON 4A, INC~EMENTAl TENSIDNI 1.25P 244 184 180 117 096 324 270 234 124 28
2.00P 250 190 176 119 096 330 274 239 114 29
7TH DAY UNDER SUSTAI~ED FUll TENSION 275 195 248 149 119 430 3'.0 317 179 30
FULL TENSIC'N & THERIJ,Al GRADIENT 289 190 268 135 115 447 349 330 l'JO 31
8TH DAY THER~AL GRADIENT REST ART 294 190 290 144 116 460 347 354 190 32
THERMAL GRADIENT STEADY 300 200 290 139 120 484 368 374 198 33
TABLE '.1 STRAIN ReADINGS, BUTTRESS MaDEL (B l GAGES IN ANCHORAGE ZONES 2A AND 2C

~OAOiNG CONDITIO~S 2A1 2A2 2A3 2M 2A5 2A6 2A7 2AB 2A9 2eI 2e2 2e3 2C4 2es UNE

INITIAL REAOI:'1GS 000 -14 -06 014 006 -15 -07 -06 -15 -15 -05 035 -06 -07 51
MIDPLANE TENSION, TENDON OC 000 -10 -07 014 005 -15 000 000 -14 ... 17 000 035 1)04 -04 52
OA,C -0-' 000 -10 004 004 -20 000 005 -10 -26 -04 010 006 004 .53
Oll" B, C -10 004 -oa 019 010 -07 024 020 008 -20 005 000 014 'no 54
OA, B, C, 0 -07 -04 -10 010 010 -OB 007 020 0'.9 000 -06 000 C07 030 55
SURFACE 2 TENSION, TENDON 2C
2A .. C
-14
110
010
125
-09
110
028
139
000
086
005
Q94
020
074
030
119
0 34
0'.0
1114
110
117
128
095
115
100
100
c90
094
56
57
2A .. B,C 118 167 119 230 110 169 095 184 065 17 /• 208 165 181 144 !i8
2A,B,C,D ua i70 120 224 108 174 094 190 059 179 216 195 178 160 59
SURFACE 1 TENSION, TENDON 1C 120 179 120 248 108 178 104 197 105 1"0 214 1~5 194 170 60
1h .. C 095 159 105 230 097 160 108 184 144 }64 189 154 194 1b9 nl
1A .. B,C 084 150 099 228 0'J4 158 105 190 114 156 194 125 210 169 "2
1A,B,C,D 090 140 094 229 097 156 097 184 134 140 188 110 214 )70 . 63
1-'
TENDON 2A .. INCREMENTAL TENSION .. 1.14P 120 080 046 180 0(,6 150 080 174 110 ]40 190 000 214 164 64 /IJ
1.25P 158 06'. 055 195 077 159 064 190 17.4 150 190 0(10 218 174 1 65 1-'
1.3SP 200 084 074 204 084 16'. 094 194 130 1313 190 000 214 t7f! 66
1.50P 266 080 100 204 085 170 090 200 134 160 188 000 27.4 1110 67
l.sap 274 069 104 214 090 156 096 194 134 14:1 190 000 214 178 68
! 1.75P 3':10 060 110 195 090 15'. 100 1 S'. 130 145 190 OCO 7.30 IRa 69
- 1.85p . 32'. 050 124 180 100 154 104 194 148 138 190 000 216 1 S'. 70
2.00P 479 369 310 34Q 178 214 174 250 174 141 190 000 222 185 71
TENDON lA, INCREI:ENTAL TENSION, 1.25P 479 . 367 315 350 170 214 174 246 190 138 190 000 230 1 RI•. 77.
2.00P 4Q5 370 329 341 167 215 176 245 199 137 180 000 2',6 204 73
LOADING ON OPPOSITE r-UTTRESS,
SURfACE 4 TENSIJN, TE~DONS 4A,B,C,D 4S4 390 334 355 166 219 178 257 190 150 204 000 234 Z04 74
SURFACE 3 TE~StONJ TE~DONS 3A,S,C,O 489 407 360 376 174 226 184 264 11)0 164 216 noo 239 215 . 75
TENDON 3A, lNCREHENTAL TENSIONJ 1.25P 464 379 330 166
2.00P 464
360 218 180 246 l'JO ]64 205 oeo 214 205 76
390 340 356 160 214 179 256 190 184 209 Z18 208 17
INC'EME~T'l TENSION.
000
1 TEN"ON 4', 1.25P 460 390 339 350 160 214 174 255 188 168 7.07 000 226 7.09 78
2.00P 464 385 334 354 160 214 184 254 190 164 214 000 217 224 79
17TH OAY UNDER MAINTAINED FULL TENSION 428 394 358 380 164 216 190 327 3B9 210 240 000 COO 110
1 FULL TEr~SI[lN f.. THER~II\L GRADIENT 234
405 38S 364 390 16S 218 180 336 430 ?l8 258 000 220 000 131
(TH DAY THERI~AL GRüOIENT RESTART 404 374 350 389 157 220 194 36 f t 534 21B 237 000 234 000 82
THERMAL GRADIENT STEADY 389 387 360 386 168 205 196 344 559 220 237 000. 220 oon 113
 122

5.2 GENERAL BEHAVIOR

The formation of cracks on exposed concrete surfaces would

be, in the present structure, the prime cause and indication of loss

of serviceability of the proposed anchorage zone details. It is,

therefore, quite significant that none of the tendon anchorage zones

showed any externally observable cracking at loads ranging from 1.14

to 2.00 times the maximum design working load irrespective of the

bearing plate form, of the amount and distribution of end zone steel,

and of the presence of crack initiators.

One portion of the buttress surface did suffer sorne

accidentaI damage (Fig. 5.2) when the jack seat was inadvertently

misaligned, and bore on the outer concrete cover. This occurred

after aIl tendons of groups 1 and 2 had been drawn, and tendon lA was

being reloaded incrementally. Spalling began suddenly at a load

just over Pd' and was confined to a layer of about 3/8 inch (1 cm)

thickness; none of the rein forcing bars were exposed due to the

loss of this cover. On noticing the damage, loading was stopped

immediately, the system was realigned, and incremental loading was

resumed as scheduled to a final force valve of 2 Pd. Despite the

partial loss of cover, no cracking or other signs of further distress

were noticeable; Fig. 5.2, which was taken after the top tendon had

been locked off at double load, shows no visible crack~ng.

The top anchorage zones could not be taken to the onset of

failure, as had been originally planned, due to the unforseen reserve

of strength in the buttress. From considerations of dimensions

and scaling, the largest usable tendon consisted of seven 7-mm wires,
 123

Figure 5.2 Superficia1 damage in buttress mode1

 124

and could develop a specified ultimate force of 100 kips (445 kN).

By stressing the tendons to 0.81 of their capacity, a bearing load

of 2 Pd could be generated, which was hoped to be sufficient to bring

about sorne structural damage. Although the desired cracking and

ultimate loads could not be established experimentally it was decided

not to load the tendon beyond 0.8 f , on the grounds that high
su
elongations beyond yield and excessive stresses would cause difficul-

ties in jacking and possibly jeopardize the safety of the test.

5.3 DISCUSSION OF STRAIN DATA

5.3.1 General observations

All but one of the instrumented lateral rein forcing bars

attained a stress of 20 ksi (13.8 MPa) under any loading condition

as can be irrferred from the strain values all being well within the

equivalent strain limit of 680 ~.

In the following sections, individual loading conditions

will be deduced from the combined cases by taking differences between

pairs of lines in Table 5.1.

5.3.2 Effect of middle plane tendons

The middle plane tendons were loaded to the same tensile

force as the tendons in the anchorage zones under study. In addition

to simulating the effect of the continuous circumferential tendons by-

passing the buttress under consideration, they provided a vertical

component of force by virtue of their inclination, which amounted to a

total of 664 kips (2.95 MN) in a prototype structure.

TABLE 5.2 EFFECT OF MIDDLE PLANE TENDONS, SUSTAINED LOADING, AND THERMAL.GRADIENT

LOADING FROM TENDON FULL THERHAL GRADIENT

ANCHORAGE BAR TENSION
ZONE ~FJ • OC OA,C OA,8"C OA/û,C/D DAY 7 DAY l DAY 2 STEADV

lB 162 -OB ~10 -08 000 025 014 Dl'> 025

153 -03 -05 001 000 005 -05 -OS 005
154 -03 -03 028 024 on 020 042 042
135 004 000 OZ8 008 030 -14 -os -10
1B6 -05 OO't 031 C21 023 _\)f, -03 001
1-'
l\J
le lC 1 -06 -04 014 015 100 017 030 054 V1
lC2 -06 -05 -19 -20 06b 009 001 028
1e3 -04 001 024 016 082 013 037 057
1C4 034 028 -06 -16 065
i

011 011 019 !

TABLE 5.1 LFlES 02GOl 03&Ol 04&Ol 05&01 30&29 31&30 32&30 33&30

IZA 2Al 000 -07 -10' -07 -36 -23 -24 -39
2A2 00'1 014 01B 010 009 -06 -20 -07
7.A3 -01 -04 -02 -04 024 006 -oa 002
2A4 000 -la 005 -04 026 010 009 006
ZA5 -01 -02 004 004 004 004 -07 004
2Ab 000 -05 008 007 002 fl02 004 -11
2A? 007 007 031 014 006 -10 004 006
ZAS 006 ou 026 026 067 009 037 017
2A9 001 005 023 064 189 041 145 170

2e 2e1 -02 -11 -05 015 046 018 OOS 010

2C2 005 001 010 -01 -2b 018 -03 -03
1 2C3
2C4
ClOO
Ole
-7.5
012
-35
020
-35
013
-
017
-
-l"
-
000
-
-14
2e5 00) 011 037 037 373 143 253 302
1
ITABLE ~.1 Lt~ES 52&51 53(.51 54&51 55&51 80&79 81&80 82&ôO B3&80
- - - - . - -_._------ ---- ---
 126

The effect of middle plane loading on the lateral re-

infor~ing bars was small as shown in Table 5.2. Bars farthest

from the bearing plate, i.e. bars placed in the body of the buttress

as thermal and shrinkage reinforcement, underwent the greatest strain-

ing, viz. 64 p in gage 2A9, 37 p in gage 2C5. Other bars experienced

smaller strains, of the order of ± 30 p, the sign and magnitude depend-

ing on the position of the bar relative to that of the tendon being

loaded.

5.3.3 Effect of sustained loading and thermal gradient

Table 5.2 lists the increases in strain after seven days of

sustained loading (including the top-most tendons being maintained at

a load of 2 Pd)' and at three stages in the application of the thermal

gradient.

At anchorage surface 1, where details of types III and IIIa

were used, increases in strain not exceeding 100 p and 60 p were in-

duced by the sustained loading and the thermal loading, respectively.

Bars lB2, lB4, ICI, lC3, which act in the space between tendons lB

and lC (c.f. Fig. 5.1 and Table 5.1), were most heavily strained,

while bars between ID and lC underwent comparable, although slightly

smaller s trains. The similarity of readings between gages ICI and

lC3, and between gages lC2 and lC4, can be noted. L?teral bars be-

tween tendons lA and lB, instrumented with gages lB3 and lBS, were

almost unaffected by the sustained and thermal loads, despite the in-

tentional overloading of tendon lA; thus the individual bearing

plate may have a beneficial effect in creep and thermal considerations.

 127

At anchorage surface 2, the range of strains was somewhat

less than at surface l, due to the use of the larger steel percentage

of detail 1. With the exception of gages 2A9 and 2C5, most strain

readings were less than ± 40 ~, and in many cases were negligible.

Considerable increases in gages 2A9 and 2C5, which stand farthest

from the bearing surface, may point to stress redistributions in the

massive buttress under differential creep or thermal dilation.

These results emphasize the necessity of reinforcing for inelastic

and thermal effects, and may warrant further study. The hypothesis

of creep in the gages seems improbable, in view of (i) the previous

readings, (ii) the coincident locations of the gages, (iii) the

slowing of the rate of increase with the attainment of a steady state

thermal gradient (later readings did not differ from those reported

in the last lines of Tables 5.la & b), and (i v) the fact that com-

parable increases took place in the 7-day creep period and in the

2-day heat application periode

5.3.4. Effect of direct loading on anchorage zone

Strain measurements taken in each instrumented zone, while

the tendon bearing thereon was loaded, are reported in Table 5.3.

By virtue of the arrangement of gage locations, the effects of con-

tinuous and distinct bearing plates, light and heavy lateral rein force-

ments, and the sequence of load application can be studied.

Comparison of results for tendons IC and 2C shows the

difference in the efficiency of details IlIa and l, respectively, at

working loads. Both designs are strained considerably below the

 TABLE 5.3 EFFECT OF· PRESTRESSING FORCE EFFECT OF PRESTRESSING ~ORCE
TABLE 5.4
APPLIED DIRECTLV ON ANC~ORAGE ZONE ON AryJACr-NT ANCHORAGE ZONES

STRAINS IN ANCHO~AGE ZONE lB UNDER TENSIONING OF TENDON lB ANCHORAGE aAR LOADING APPLIED AT ANCHORAGE
(iAôLE 5,1 LI~ES 12&11) ZONE NO. 1

IB2 133 lB'. 185 lB6

119 056 065 038 039 lB lA le ID
1 133 026 024 009
l!~5 030 015 002
ISTRAINS IN ANCHQPAGE ZONE le UNDER TENSIONING OF TENDON lC 1'12 01C) 103 OOZ
.(TA3LE 5.l LI~ES 10&09) Id4 O')') OêO 010
1
1 le 1
186 001 032 012 !
1
lCZ lC3 1e4 1
1-'
t\)
195 200 134 093 lC 1 lA lB Hl ())
lC 1 OOb 074 014
1 lC3 -OB 031 ooa 1
ISTRAINS IN ANCHORAGE ZONE 2C UNDER TENSIO~ING OF TENDON 2C lC2
1C4
-25
-24
011
031
085
062
(TA3lE 5.1 LINES ~5&55) 1

2e 1 2C2 2.C3 2C4 2C5 2A 2n 2C 2D

114 123 095 093 0(:0 2A1 OOR. -07 000
2A3 009 oot 001
2A5 024 -10 -02
,STRAiNS IN ANCHORAGE ZONE 2A UNOER TENSIONING OF TENDON 2A 2A7 021 013 . -01
2A9 025 -15 -06
1LO.dOS UNES 2 A1 2A? 2A3 2A'. 2A5 2A6 2A7 2AB 2A9 2A2 042 Ol't 003
2A4 09l OIS -06
1,1.14?
57&56 124 115 119 111 086 089 054 089 006 2A6 075 013 005
!l.l4P 64&63 03n -60 -48 -49 -31 -06 -17. -10 -24 2A8 065 010 -C6
1.25P 65&!J4 038 004 009 015 011 009 004 016 014
t 1 .;S?· 66&64 080 004 028 024 018 014 014 020 020 2C 2:\ 2B 20 .
I l 50
• 1'
1.58!'
67&64
68&64
14"
15 ,
ono
-11
054
058
024
03',
019
07.4
020
006
010 026
016 020
024
024
2Cl
2e2
004
011
064
080
005
ooa
!.ï!>P 69&64 180' -20 064 OlS 024 004 020 010 020 2C3 020 050 030
Il.B5P 70&64 204 -30 078 01)8 034 004 024 020 038 2C4 000 081 -03
2.0QP 71&64 359 7.49 2~4 240 088 064 094 076 064 2CS 004 050 016 1
~~-_ .. _~--
1
 129

a110wable working strain 1eve1 of 680 ~, being of the order of 120 ~

for detail land 200 ~ for detail IlIa. In either case, the

tranverse bars nearest the bearing plate show the 1argest strain, and

since both details employ the large No. 10 (32 mm) trim bar as addi-

tional lateral reinforcement, its contribution to splitting resistance

can be assumed to be quite significant. Thus the reduction of the

number of the bars from detail l to detail III increases the efficiency

of force transfer to these bars. Since bar stresses at working load

are still less than one-third of the allowable value, it seems that

a further reduction in steel percentage, such as the use of No. 4

(13 mm) bars in detail III in the sarne location as the No. 8 (25 mm)

bars in detail IlIa, may be perrnissible.

Because tendon lB was loaded after adjacent tendons lA and

lC had been tensioned, a reduction occurred in the magnitude of ten-

sile stresses and in the extent of the zone of stress gradients in

anchorage zone lB. It is important to notice that the stressing

of tendons above and below the anchorage zone not only lowers the

tranverse stresses in the vertical direction by lirniting the width of

the spreading compression trajectories, but also reduces the horizon-

tal tranverse stresses as a consequence of the triaxial nature of the

stress distribution. ~le maximum strain in the first tranverse bar

of anchorage lB was 120 ~ or approximately 60 percent of that which

occurred when identical anchorage lC was loaded in isolation.

The first application of loading to tendon 2A gave strains

closely similar to those obtained in the tensioning of tendon 2C.

Since the anchorage zones 2A and 2C were detailed identically,it appears

 130

that the width of the bearing plate and its continuity have no

significant effect on the generation of tensile forces in the

anchorage zone reinforcement.

When load was first applied to tendon 2A, only anchorage

2C had been previously loaded, and its location was sufficiently re-

mote for anchorage 2A to be considered in isolation. In the second

loading to 1.14 Pd' aIl adjacent anchorages were under working bearing

pressures as tendon 2A was unloaded and reloaded. The same reduction

in lateral stresses which was observed in the case of anchorage lB

occurred here; the second entry in Table 5.3 gives the reduction

quantitatively, as calculated from the difference between the new strain

values at 1.14 Pd and the immediate preceding loading condition.

IncrementaI prestressing of tendon 2A did not have a signi--

ficant effect on gages other than 2Al and 2A3, until the load level

1.85 Pd was attained. In the increment from 1.85 Pd to 2.00 Pd'

strains in the first and the second tie each increased by more than

200 ~ to values ranging between 240 and 359 ~, while strain in the

more distant bars increased proportionately, but remained below 100 ~.

The confining effect of adjacent pressure zones was again present,

as the higher strains recorded in the odd-numbered top-side gages

indicate. Despite this sudden increase in steel strains, which

probably resulted from accelerated internaI cracking not visible on

outside surfaces or at the root of crack propagators, the anchorages

were far from failure at a load of 2 Pd. Moreover, the stress in the

lateral rein forcement at this load did not exceed Il ksi (7.59 MPa),

approximately, which is weIl within allowable working stresses.

 131

5.3.5 Effect of loading on adjacent an ch orage zones

Table 5.4 shows the strains which result in the four

instrumented anchorage zones, when each of the adjacent anchorage

zones undergoes loading. Results were obtained from differences

between the appropriate pairs of lines ranging between 9 and 13,

and between 55 and 59, in Table 5.1.

It can be readily observed that the distance between ten-

don centerlines defines the width of the zone over which rein forcing

bars are significantly influenced by the bearing load. Bars

situated beyond this zone show sorne strains, but of a negligible

magnitude (less than 20 ~). For example, bars between tendons lB

and lC are not appreciably strained by loads on tendons lA and 10.

Similarly, odd-numbered bars 2Al and 2A9, which lie further away

from tendon lB than even-numbered 2A2 to 2A8, show strains not greater

than 24 ~ under load at lB, while the latter undergo strains up to

91 ~ in the same condition; the effect of loading in anchorage 2C

on these same bars is less than 18 ~, and that of anchorage 20 is less

than 6 ~. Numerous other examples could be drawn from this table.

As observed in the previous section, the sequence of

tensioning has an effect on the strains in the horizontal ties. It

must be noted that tendon lC is loaded in isolation, while lB and 10

are tensioned after their neighbours lA and lC. It is seen that

strains in IB2, IB4, IB6 under loading of lC are higher than those

in ICI and lC3 due to loading of lB, or those in lC2 and lC4 due to

loading of 10. Therefore, the reduction of lateral splitting

stresses in the horizontal direction, which accompanies the narrowing

 132

of the spread of compression trajectories in the vertical direction,

is again noticeable.

The continuity of the bearing plate did not appear to be

of importance. Under the action of tendon 2B, gages 2Cl to 2C5

generally reacted in the same way as even-numbered gages 2A2 to 2AB.

The most important observation to be drawn from these re-

sults'is that aIl bars in the immediate vicinity of a tendon undergo

straining due to the stress distribution in bearing. The contri-

bution of bars in the anchorage zones of adjacent tendons can be

significant. Strain readings in the vicinity of tendon lC, for

example, are: 195, 200, 134, 93 ~ for bars ICI to lC4, and 103, BO,

32 ~ for bars lB2, lB4, lB6, respectively. Thus strains in the

neighbouring bars are of the order of half those measured in the

anchorage zone. To illustrate the case of incremental loading

beyond the design load, strains in bars lB3 and lBS increased by 26

and 30 ~, respectively, when tendon lA was loaded to 1.14 Pd' and

exhibited a further increase of 69 and 31 ~, respectively, and the

tendon load was increased to 2 Pd.

It could be argued that this effect is inconsequential,

since superposition of the lateral forces from the several tendons

will eventually produce the same strain in aIl reinforcing bars.

This, however, is a conservative reasoning, because the reduction of

the anchorage zone width in any tensioning sequence will always reduce

the lateral strains induced by subsequent tensioning.

 133

5.3.6 Effect of loading on opposite side of buttress

The application of load to an anchorage zone induces stresses

throughout the buttress. This stress distribution has an effect on

reinforcing bars located on the bearing surface opposite to the point

of application of the load. Table 5.5 shows that this effect

is srnall, but not insignificant. BeneficiaI reductions in strains

of the order of 50 ~ were generally observed, although sorne bars

underwent strain increases of a comparable magnitude. The largest

strain differences in either case were +85 ~ in gage 2A9, and -85 ~

in gage 2C3. The only apparent significant trend in the overall

behavior is that bars located closest to the bearing plate undergo

strain reductions, while bars farther away from it display both in-

creases and decreases in strains. It seems, therefore, that load-

ing applied to the opposite side of the buttress is not detrimental

in the horizontal bars which are most heavily stressed under direct

bearing loads.

Also in Table 5.5, the effect of the individual tendons

was deduced from superposition. The results show no conclusive

trends in behavior. However, a reduction in the magnitude of

strains with the distance between the loaded anchorage zone and that

being examined, is observeable in the strains recorded at lB under

the action of 2D, and those at 2A under the action of ID.

The loading of cables on the opposite buttress, that of

bearing surfaces 3 and 4, had a limited effect on anchorage zones in

the instrumented buttress (c.f. lines 24 to 29, and 74 to 79, in

Table 5.1). This will not be discussed here, as it did not signi-

ficantly alter the recorded strain readings, and is of no relevance

in practical design and analysis.

TABLE 5.5 eFFEeT OF PRESTReSSING FORCES ON OPPOSITE SIOE OF BUTTRESS

3TRAtNS.AT ANCHORAGE SURFACE l UNDER PRESTRESSING AT SURFACE 2

LOADING FROM TENDON EFFEtT CF INDIVIOUAL TENDONS
ANCHORAGE BAR
I
ZONE Na. 2C ZA,C 2A"B"C ZA/B"CJD 2A"Z.00P 'ZA ZB 2C 20

lB 182
133
-25
-43
-
-02 .
-49
-09
-64
-09
005
004
lB2
lB3
-
041
-
-07
-z5
-43
-15
000
184 004 -15 -10 -10 000 1B4 -19 005 004 000
165 000 -08 000 000 003 lB~ -OB 008 ono 000
106 -03 -15 -02 -01 008 1B6 -IZ 013 -03 .. 01

lC le 1 000 -24 -35 -50 006 . lC 1 -Z4 -11 000 -15

1CZ -06 -14 -37 -56 029 lC2 -IZ -23 -nô -19
le3 014 009 010 014 OZ2 1C3 -05 001 n14 004
1C4 036 034 034 035 -31 lC4 -02 000 '03f: ~10 1 1-'
w
~
TABLE 5.1 LIl~ES 06&05 07&05 08&05 On05 15&13 TBI,. 07 08 e() 09
5.1 &06 &07 &05 r.OS

STRAINS AT ANCHUPAGE SURFACE Z UNDER PRESTRESSING AT SURFACE 1

-
LOADING FROM TENDON EFFECT CF INDIVI~UAL TENDONS
ANCHrJRAGE BAR
ZONE IlO. le lA,C lA" B.. C .1AJB,'/D lA,Z.OOP lA lB le 10
2A 2A1 ooz -Z3 -45 -Z8 -74 ZA1 -25 -11 ooZ
009
COb
2A2 009 -11 -20 -30 001 ZA2 -Zo -09 -10
2A3 000 -15 -21 -26 019 ZA3 -15 -06 000 -05
ZA4 024 006 004 005 001 214 -18 -02 024 001
2A5 000 -11 -14 -11 -11 2A5 -11 -03 orO 003
2A6 00'+ -14 -16 -18 001 2A6 -18 -oz 004 -oz
2A7 010 014 OU 003 002 ZA7 -04 -03 010 -06
2AS 007 -06 000 -06 -05 2A8 -13 006 GO-' -o~
2A9 046 085 055 075 025 2A9 039 -30 0 /,6 020

2e 2el 001 ~15 -23 -39 -04 2el -lb -Da 001 -16
2e2 . -02 -27 -22 -28 -10 2ez -25 005 -n2 -Ob
2C3
2C4 .
-30
016
-41
·016
-70
032
-85
036
-
024
2C3
2C4
-11
000
-29
016
-30
016
-15
004
2C5 010 009 OOB 010 019 ZC5 -Dl -01 010 002

TABLE 5.1 Lif,jES 60&59 61&59 62&59 63&59 73&71 T8L 61 62 (,0 63
5.1 &60 &61 C.!l9 1:62
------_..
 135

5.4 CORRELATION BETWEEN BLOCK MODEL AND

BUTTRESS MODEL TESTS

The block models were investigated for the following

purposes: (1) to determine the behavior of unreinforced and re-

inforced beam end-blocks and compare it with theoretical predictions;

(ii) to contrast the behavior of the continuous buttress with that

of thé finite prismatic end-block; (iii) to assess the similitude in

small-scale models in this type of investigation.

The behavior was described in Chapter 4, in terms of the

mode of failure, the ultimate capacity, and the force in the lateral

rein forcement at every load level. Strains in the lateral bars of

the buttress model at working loads were similar to strains at very

early load stages prior to cracking in the block model tests.

Good similitude was observed between the block models of

various scales, especially in the ultimate loads and the mode of

failure. The scatter which was observed in measurements of lateral

strain and force in rein forcement was also noticed among models of

the same scale, and can be attributed to the randomness of cracking

mechanisms', rather than to a size effect.

The block models provided a very conservative estimate of

the behavior of a buttress anchorage zone. Although the finite

limited dimensions wou Id appear, in a two-dimensional analysis, to

induce smaller tensile stresses than would occur in the buttress,

this effect is greatly compensated by the fact that the limitation

of the area over which stresses may distribute increases the stresses

themselves more significantlYi the net result is a conservative

 136

simulation. The central position of the bearing plate on the

block model, and the outer facesbeing parallel to the line of

action of the prestressing force, are two more features which

render the block model more conservative.

In the block models reinforced with the light detail of

type l, the highest bar strains were in the range 500 to 700 ~ along

the narrow face, and 800 to 1100 ~ along the wide face (Table 4.4),

at a load level Pif A = 1.0, i.e. one at which the mean pressure
~p

over the bearing plate PIA equals the concrete compressive strength
p
f. In a similarly reinforced buttress anchorage zone, strains
cu
were of the order of 50 to 120 ~ at a corresponding load P = 1.14 Pd

(Table 5.3). These strains did not increase by more than 359 ~

when the prestressing force was increased to P = 2.0 Pd. Theb~~

models therefore gave a very conservative estimate of the strains in

the reinforcing steel. They likewise were very conservative in the

estimation of general behavior which could be inferred from them, as

visible cracking and ultimate crushing occurred at load levels of

pif A equal to approximately 0.8 and 1.7, respectively, whereas the

cu p
buttress model showed no detectable cracking under even higher load

levels.

5.5 STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN BUTTRESS

The buttress test specimen demonstrated that conventional

methods for evaluating tensile forces in the end anchorages of beams,

and the common design rules for detailing the lateral rein forcement
 137

against sp1itting, are excessive1y conservative in the context of

anchorage zone design for the buttresses of circu1ar structures.

Design and ana1ysis procedures for beam end zones were

evo1ved from two-dimensiona1 studies, in which the width of the

plate and the end-b1ock were assumed equa1 in the normal direction.

When this condition is not imposed, tensi1e stresses are reduced

because the, compression trajectories radiate in a three-dimensiona1

distribution which is 1ess pronounced than that encountered in the

p1anar stress trajectories. This fact was recognized by Leonhardt(27)

and Guyon (18) , but was not given practica1 consideration, because

the design method which they advocated required the provision of re-

in forcement to carry the total tensi1e force, which wou1d be near1y

the same regard1ess of the stress distribution, as a resu1t of the

integration of sma11er stresses over a 1arger area. Moreover, the

effect in beams end-zones was of far 1ess significance than it cou1d

be in a structure of continuous structural integrity such as a buttress.

The experimenta1 resu1ts confirmed the extensive reduction

of tensi1e stresses in the continuous structure. Despite the use

of structural detai1s providing as 1itt1e as one-quarter of the steel

area required from usua1 design considerations, no structural damage

cou1d be detected under normal loads of 1.14 Pd' and incrementa1

loadings up to 2 Pd' where Pd is the effective design prestressing·

force. The absence of externa11y visible cracking on faces with

and without crack propagators, and the low level of strains in the

horizontal 1ateral steel, suggest that internaI cracking did not arise

under any of the loading conditions to which the buttress was subjected.
 138

Reliance on the tensile strength of. concrete to resist

lateral stresses seems realistic and feasible in view of the

experimental results. The provision of lateral rein forcement

could be kept to the minimum steel percentage required to maintain

tolerances on crack widths in such occurrences as cold joints or

unavoidable initial cracking, and to ensure an adequate load factor

on ultimate capacity in compliance with the structural reliability

philosophy incorporated in current ultimate strength design concepts.

Suggested future research endeavours into these and other aspects of

buttress anchorage zone design will be dealt with in a following

section.

5.6 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

5.6.1 Study of vertical anchorage rein forcement

The present investigation was devoted to finding the stress

distribution in the horizontal lateral reinforcement. It was found

that the tensioning sequence had an influence on the distribution of

the horizontal transverse stresses, even though the cables were situa-

ted in a common vertical plane, and the change in shape of the com-

pression trajectories would expectedly be predominant in the vertical

direction. The effect of the tensioning sequence on vertical

stresses therefore needs to be investigated, in order that the design

of the vertical anchorage zone steel be optimized with respect to a

predetermined pattern of prestressing force application.

 139

The presence or absence of crack propagators in this

case might be quite significant, since the cracking induced by

their presence might be beneficial to the strength of the individual

anchorage zones, by transforming the conceptual symmetrical prisms

of the numerical analogs into physical pris ms bounded by cracked

planes, and offering a much narrower path of travel to the compression

trajectories, than an uncracked integral mass •.

The functional efficiency of the steel could then be

evaluated not only by measuring the strains in the reinforcing bars,

but also, by observing crack widths on external surfaces. The design

method of Gergely and sozen(38), wherein crack widths at working loads

form the principal design criterion, could be given a thorough con-

sideration.

Various steel arrangements could be investigated, to find

an optimum reinforcing detail consistent with chosen design criteria,

based on tolerable crack widths, capacity and behavior at working load

and ultimate strength, or sorne combination of these.

The effect of the structural weight and of the longitudinal

prestressing forces would play an essential role in resisting or r~­

tarding the progress of cracks, and hence their contribution should be

evaluated and taken into account. Thermal gradients would also have

a pronounced effect in the longitudinal direction. Construction

procedures should be given consideration so that factors contributing

to the anchorage capacity could be mobilized to their fullest extent.

The use of continuous or distinct bearing plates, like the

provision of crack initiators, might have a greater effect on the

 140

stress distribution in the vertical steel than it had in the

horizontal bars. The flexural characteristics of continuous

bearing plates would be an important factor.

An adequate determination of the strain distribution in

vertical rein forcing bars would require the placing of strain gages

at the level of each tendon centerline, and midway between these

locations. A scale model investigation is feasible, provided that

the proportion between the length of the strain gages and the spacing

between them is sufficient to avoid a detrimental effect on the bond.

As shown in the models of scale 0.375, interference of the strain

gages with the embedment bond is not critical at that scale and with

gages of the type used. A model of a scale close to 1/3 would

therefore be appropriate for such a study. On the other hand, in

the sixth-scale model investigated in the present program, complete

instrumentation of any vertical transverse bars was out of the question.

The strain gages along with their protective coatings would have dis-

turbed the bond over ~ much larger proportion of the area and hence

the stress distribution would not be representative. The investi-

gation therefore concentrated on the study of lateral reinforcement,

and the vertical rein forcement performed a perfunctory role in the

design of anchorage zone details.

A test specimen of the same nature as the buttress model is

suit able for the investigation of strains in the vertical reinforce-

ment. The four bearing surfaces would provide for the inclusion of

continuous and distinct bearing plates, with and without induced

crack initiation. Three tendons at each of the bearing surfaces

 141

would suffice to assess the effect of the tensioning sequence.

The thermal system should be maintained, but the middle plane in-

clined tendons should be replaced by vertical (longitudinal) tendons

placed as they would be in the containment structure.

AlI anchorage zone reinforcement details in the above

model should be of the same design, in order to achieve a clear dis-

tinction between the significant parameters influencing the stress

gradients in the anchorages. Subsequent models could optionally

be fabricated to investigate various anchorage plate designs.

Once the significant parameters have been quantitatively

assessed, optimization of the vertical steel could be attempted on

block models, and finally verified on another buttress specimen

where a single instrumented anchorage zone'would confirm the adequacy.

5.6.2 Further study of horizontal anchorage reinforcement

Lighter steel reinforcements could be investigated, with

the aim of optimizing the lateral reinforcement with respect to the

list of criteria formulated earlier for the vertical reinforcements.

The effect of bearing plate continuity, tensioning sequence, circum-

fer~ntial and longitudinal prestressing, and thermal effects being

already known, a "two-dimensional" treatment would be sufficient,

wherein a single "slice" of the buttress containing one plane of

tendons would constitute the test specimen.

Gergely and Sozen's method cou Id be used to determine the

efficiency of crack arresting reinforcement, by measurement of crack

widths and/or relative rotations at the centerline of the tendon,

and at the corner where the buttress joins the containment wall.
 142

5.6.3 Study of unreinforced anchorage zones

The continuity of the buttress in the vertical direction

and its integrity with the structural wall result in a three-

dimensional distribution of longitudinal and lateral stresses of

such a conservative nature that the resistance of plain concrete

may be taken into account in design considerations.

Tests to destruction of specimens rep~oducing the essential

features of the buttress geometry should be conducted to determine

the ultimate strength and the mode of failure of the unreinforced

anchorage zone. The resistance to crushing, splitting and spalling

at working loads could be investigated with regard to bearing plate

continuity, presence of crack initiators, thermal and inelastic

effects, vertical and horizontal prestressing, and other parameters

of influence.

The purpose of research into unreinforced anchorage zone

behavior does not come into conflict with that of optimizing the

lateral rein forcement , since tl1e lateral steel is provided to arrest

any unforeseen cracks, and as such it is indispensable. Knowledge

of the resistance to cracking and failure of the unreinforced con-

crete would be use fuI towards establishing the degree of structural

reliability (the load factor) inherent in the calculations of the

bearing and the splitting capacities. The possibili~y of erecting

and maintaining a truly crack-free structure is also of significant

concern, particularly when environmental safety is at stake, as is

the case with the construction of nuclear reactor containments.

 143

5.6.4 Finite element analyses

The finite element method has already proven its value

as a tool of numerical analysis in structural and continuum mechanics.

The study of the anchorage zone problem as outlined herein has been

successfully attempted by design offices, using a two-dimensional

treatment in the horizontal and vertical planes. (51) . Stress distri-

butions in the con crete were obtained and used in the same way as the

results of classical mathematical or photoelastic analyses of anchorage

zones: reinforcement was provided to resist any tensile forces.

Even in such a simplified form, the analysis"is of considerable value,

as it is not time consuming and is unlimited in its treatment of un-

usual geometrical shapes. It is often simpler to use than other

numerical methods (due to the availability of numerous reliable

packaged programs), and considerably cheaper and faster than experi-

mental investigations.
. (54)
The three-dimensional treatment of Yettram and Robb~ns,

which has already yielded significant new data on anchorage zone

stress distributions for structural units having eccentric and

muitiple ~chorages(55) and abrupt changes in geometry, (56) has

particular potential for the solution of the buttress anchorage zone

problem.

This method would be used most advantageously in conjunction

with failure criteria for plain concrete under combined triaxial

stresses in tension and compression. Failure envelopes for concrete

under biaxial compression and tension combinations, in the presence of

a prestressing force applied in the third coordinate direction through

 144

a bearing plate or an internal anchorage, were determined by Taylor~58)

in the process of the study of anchorage bearing stresses in pre-

stressed concrete pressure vessels. The criteria for the onset

of rapid crack propagation under tensile stresses, in addition to

those for failure by crushing, would warrant further study, in view

,
o f th e 0b servat 10n ' l '1ns k'1 an d Rowe (4) an d Tay1 or (58) 0 f h'19h er
b y Z1e

tensile strengths for concrete confined in a compressive stress field.

Thus this method could be used not only to predict stress conditions

with great accuracy, but also to recognize structural damage and

failure, and determine serviceable load levels as well.

Since the introduction of reinforcing elements into the

fini te element formulation can be achieved, this method is also

. (37)
compatible with the approach of Lenschow and Sozen. By setting

limits on the tolerable widths of cracks (pre-existing discontinuities

imposed in the geometry), the optimum reinforcing detail could be

designed to insure the structural integrity, safety and appearance,

at unavoidable or unpredictable cold joints or other such discontin-

uities in the concrete mass.

The finite element method can also deal with the presence

of crack initiators, the continuity, flexural stiffness, form and

position of the bearing plates, the sequence of tensioning, the im-

position of strains due to creep, shrinkage, self-weight and thermal

gradients, and any other particularities which can be expressed in

the geometrical, physical or loading data.

By successive trials and improvements in the design of the

buttress and of the anchorage devices and reinforcement~ a structural

 145

detail making optimum use of the strengths of the concrete and

rein forcing steel could be achieved. A thorough finite element

analysis constitutes a feasible alternative to the experimental

design and analysis procedure outlined earlier. Direct model

investigations of a much narrower scope could then serve as a veri-

fication of this numerical solution.

Studies are presently under way at McGill and elsewhere

to develop a finite element method capable of simulating all be-

havioral aspects of reinforced concrete. Wh en , in the near

future, such characteristics as material non-linearity, steel-

concrete interfacial force transfer, failure criteria, constitutive

relationships, crack propagation and the three-dimensional nature

of the problem are fully integrated into the formulation, a complete

analysis and design method capable of reproducing the anchorage zone

behavior up to and including failure, will be available.

 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

Good similitude of behavior was observed in tests to

failure of micro-concrete models of scales 1/6 and 3/8 of rectangular

prismatic blocks simulating the anchorage zone of one tendon. Each

specimen consisted of a square bearing plate and a tendon duct of a

diameter equal to half the plate width, embedded in a concrete block

whose rentangular face gave ratios of plate width to block width of

0.458 and 0.688, and having a length equal to the wider dimension.

The mechanisms of crack propagation and failure were identical in

models of both scales, and excellent similitude was obtained for

the ultimate strengths. The strains in the individual reinforcing

bars and the total force in the rein forcement showed adequate simili-

tude; sorne scatter of data was observed, which could be attributed

to the mode of crack propagation rather than to a size effect.

Spalling was the cause of failure in aIl reinforced and

unreinforced blocks. The load at which spalling cracks developed

could be accurately predicted by the equation:

where f is the concrete strength, and A and A are the net areas
~ p ~

of the bearing plate and of the face of the end block, respectively.

Unreinforced blocks failed at this load, whereas the presence of re-

inforcement increased the ultimate bearing capacity by an amount

146
 147

which depended on the area of steel provided in the region directly

behind the bearing plate. An ultimate strength design of end blocks,

based on the provision of sufficient reinforcement to provide a

suitable factor of safety on the bearing capacity of the anchorage,

would require a smaller steel area than that required by the classical

theories which underlie current design methods. However, if cracking

is a signif~cant criterion of serviceability, the design method of

Zielinski and Rowe(3} , which req~ires the use of more rein forcement

than the classical solutions, would be more appropriate, and not un-

duly conservative.

Load testing of a 1/6-scale micro-concrete model of two

buttresses, reproducing the geometrical configuration of the buttress

and anchorage devices, and containing sixteen tendons bearing on con-

tinuous and individual bearing plates, showed that stress conditions

in the anchorage zones were less severe than could be inferred from

design methods applicable to bearn end blocks. No cracking occurred

at any point, irrespective of the presence or absence of crack initiators,

in spite of anchorage zones being reinforced with considerably less

steel(than theoretically required, and being subjected to tendon loads

up te twice the maximum initial design prestressing force, applied

simultaneously with thermal gradients and additional longitudinal and

vertical prestressing. AIso, the strains measured on lateral re-

inforcing bars were aIl below the allowable working stress level.

since the instrumented bars were in the region where spalling tensile

stresses predorninate, and because the buttress is less vulnerable to

spalling than the block specimen due to the angle of the bearing force
 148

and the presence of additional rein forcement placed for this

purpose, it can be conservatively assumed that factors of safety

on the onset of cracking and failure are at least 2 and 3, respectively.

Strains were not measured in the vertical reinforcing bars because·

such instrumentation was not feasible at this scalei however, the

absence of cracks on faces with and without crack initiators at bearing

loads equal to twice the design prestressing force allows for the

generalisation of this last conclusion to cracking in both the horizontal

and vertical planes.

Suggestions for future research include the study of the

tensile stress distribution in the vertical bars y the optimization of

the rein forcement in light of the low stresses observed, and the appli-

cation of three-dimensional finite element techniques accounting for

failure criteria and constitutive relationships under combined triaxial

stress states.
 149

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abbreviations:

ACI American Concrete Ins'i::.itute

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

AS CE American Society of Civil Engineers

C&CA Cernent and Concrete Association, London

CE & PWR Civil Engineering and Public Works Review

CPCI Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institute

CSA Canadian Standards Association

IABSE International Association for Bridge and

Structural Engineering

ICE (CPCPV) Institution of Civil Engineers, London

(Conference on Prestressed Concrete
Pressure Vessels, 1968)

JPCEA Japanese Prestressed Concrete Engineering

Association

MCR Magazine of Concrete Research

PCI Prestressed Con crete Institute

SCS Structural Con crete Series,

Departrnent of Civil Engineering and
Applied Mechanics
McGill University

WCPC World Conference on Prestressed Concrete,·

San Francisco, 1957
 150

1. PCI Prestressed Concrete

Building Code Requirements

2. ACI Building Code Requirements ACI Standard

Committee 318 for Reinforced Con crete 318-63

3. Zie1inski, J. An Investigation on the Stress C&CA Research

Rowe, R.E. Distribution in the Anchorage Report 9, London,
Zones of Post-Tensioned Con crete Sept. 1960
Members

4. Zielinski, J. The Stress Distribution Associated C&CA Research

Rowe, R.E. with Groups of Anchorages in Post- Report 13, London,
Tensioned Concrete Members Oct. 1962

5. Zielinski, J. Design of Anchorage Zones of Post- Archiwum

Rowe, R.E. Tensioned Prestressed Concrete Inzynierii
Elements in the Light of Experi- Ladowej
mental Investigations 9(1) 1963

6. Rowe, R.E. End B10ck Stresses in Post- Structural Engineer

Tensioned Concrete Beams 41(2) Feb. 1963
(54-68)
Discussion: 41(12)
Dec. 1963 (411-415)

7. Rowe, R. E. Local and Bearing Stress~s Prestressed Concrete

Deve10pment Group,
London, 1965

8. CSA Prestressed Con crete CSA Standard

A-135-1962

9. Iyengar, Two-Dimensiona1 Theories of ACI Journal 59(10)

K.T.S.R. Anchorage Zone Stresses in Post- Oct. 1962 (1443-1466)
Tensioned Prestressed Beams

10. PCI List of Se1ected References on PCI publication,

Anchorage Zone Stresses Aug. 1964

11. Bib1iography on Prestressed Oak Ridge National

Nuc1ear Vesse1s Laboratory

12. Morsch, E. Uber die Berechnung der Beton und Eisen

Ge1enkquader (No.12) 1924 (156-161)

13. Magne1, G. Design of the Ends of Pre- Concrete & Const. Eng.
stressed Concrete Beams 44(5) May 1949
(141-148)
 151

14. Magne 1 , G. "Prestressed Concrete" Concrete Pub1. Ltd.

(Second Ed.) London, 1950

15. Bortsch, R. Die Spannungen in Beton und Eisen

Wa1zge1enkquadern 35(4) Feb. 1935
(61-66)

16. Bortsch, R. Wa1zge1enke und Ste1zen1ager Beton und Eisen

aus Eisembeton 37(19) Oct. 1938
(315-318); 37(20)
Oct. 1938 (328-332)

17. Guyon, Y. Contraintes dans les pièces lASSE (Vol. Il) 1951
soumises à des forces appliqUées (165-226)
sur leurs bases, au voisinage de
ces bases

18. Guyon, Y. "Prestressed Concrete" Contractors Record

(First Ed.) and Municipal Engin-
eering, London, 1953

19. Sievers, H. Die Berechnung von Auf1ager- Der Bauingenieur

banken und Auf1agerquadern von 27(6) June 1952
Brückenpfei1ern (209-213)

20. Sievers, H. Über den Spannungszustand im Der Bauingenieur

Bereich der Ankerp1atten von 31(4) Apr. 1956
Spanngliedern vorgespannter (134-135)
Stah1betonkonstruktionen

21. B1eich, F. Der gerade stab mit Der Bauingenieur

Rechteckquerschnitt aIs ebenes (No.9) 1923 (255-259);
prob1em (No.10) 1923 (304-307)

22. Tesar, M. Détermination expérimentale des lASSE (Vol. 1) 1932

tensions dans les extrémités (497-526)
des pièces prismatiques munies
d'une semi-articulation

23. Sargious, M. Beitrag zur Ermitt1ung der Dr.Eng. Thesis,

Hauptzugspannungen arn Endauf- u. of Stuttgart
1ager vorgespannter Betonba1ken 1960

24. Christodou1ides, A Two-Dimensiona1 Investigation Structural Engineer

,S.P. of the End Anchorages of Post- 33(4) Apr. 1955
Tensioned Concrete Members (120-133)

25. Christodou1ides, Three-Dimensiona1 Investiga- Structural Engineer

S.P. tion of the Stresses in the End 35(9) Sept. 1957
Anchorage B10cks of a Prestressed (349-356)
Con crete Gantry Bearn.
 152

26. Ban, S. Anchorage Zone Stress Distri- Proc. WCPC,

Nuguruma, H. butions in Post-Tensioned San Francisco, 1957
Ogaki, Z. Concrete Members (16.1-16.14)

27. Leonhardt, F. "Prestressed Concrete" W. Ernst & Sohn

Design and Construction Berlin, 1964
(Second Ed.)

28. Ramaswamy, Stresses in End Blocks of Pre- Proc. WCPC

G.S. stressed Beams by Lattice (23.1-23.4)
Goel, H. Analogy

29. McHenry, D. Lattice Analogy in Concrete ACI Journal (Vol. 20)

Design 1948 (129-138)

30. Spieth, H.P. The Behaviour of Concrete under Beton und Stahlbetonbau
High Local Pressure (Vol. 56) Nov. 1961
(257-263)

31. Dowrick, D.J. Anchorage Zone Reinforcement CE & PWR 59(698)

for Post-Tensioned Concrete Sept. 1964 (p.ll0l)

32. Okada, K. Sorne Considerations on Stress JPCEA Journal 6(6)

Fujii, M. Concentration in the Notched Dec. 1964 (32-39)
et al. Anchorage Zone of Post-
Tensioned Con crete Members

33. Gardner, A.T. Strength and Behaviour of Spiral M.Sc. Thesis,

Prestressed Con cre te Cylinders U. Colorado, 1965
Under Eccentric Loading

34. Eimer, C. Anchorage Zone in Prestressed Archiwum

Doroskiewicz, Concrete Elements in the Light Inzynierii
R. of Photoelastic Investigations Ladowej
Michalski, B. on Reinforced Models (Vol. 12) 1966 (p.149)
Szule, J.

35. Rydzewski,J.R. Short End Blocks for Pre- Structural Engineer

Whitbread,F.J. stressed Beams 41(2) Feb. 1963 (41-53)
Discussion:
41(12) Dec. 1963
(411-415)

36 . Som, P. K. Anchor Zone Stresses in Pre- ASCE Proceedings

Ghosh, K. stressed Con crete Beams 90(ST4) Aug. 1964 (p.49)
Discussion:
91(ST2) Apr. 1965
(171-186)
91(ST5) Oct. 1965
(351-353)
 153

37. Lenschow,R.J. Practical Analysis of the ACI Journal 62(11)

Sozen, M.A. Anchorage Zone problem in Pre- Nov. 1965 (1421-1439)
stressed Beams

38. Gergely, P. Design of Anchorage Zone PCI Journal 12(2)

Sozen, M.A. Reinforcement in Prestressed Apr. 1967 (63-75)
Concrete Beams

39. Gergely, P. The Effect of Reinforcement on Structural Res. Series,

Sozen, M.A. Anchorage Zone Cracks in Pre- No. 271, 1963
Siess, C.P. stressea Con crete Members U. Illinois (Urbana)

40. ASTM Method of Test for Compressive ASTM Specification

Strength of Molded Concrete C39-66
Cylinders

41. ASTM Concrete Test Specimens, Making ASTM Specification

and Curing in the Laboratory C192-69

42. ASTM Method of Test for Splitting ASTM Specification

Tensile Strength of Cylindrical C496-69
Con crete Specimens

43. ASTM Method of Test for Verification ASTM Specification

of Testing Machines ' E4-64

44. ASTM Metric practice Guide ASTM Specification

E380-70

45. ACI Proposed Revision of ACI-318-63 ACI Journal 67(2)

Committee 318 Building'Code Requirements for Feb. 1970 (77-186)
Reinforced Con crete

46. ACI Proposed Standard: Preparation ACI Journal 67(8)

Committee 104 of Notation for Con crete Aug. 1970 (573-581)

47. Syamal, P.K. Direct Models in Combined M.Eng. Thesis,

Stress Investigations SCS No. 17,
McGill U., 1969

48. Hsu, C-T. Investigation of Bond in M.Eng. Thesis,

Reinforced Concrete Models SCS No. 14,
McGill U., 1969

49. Tsui, H. Model Microconcrete Mixes SCS No. 23,

Mirza, M.S. McGill U., 1969

50. Labonté, L.R.S.Size Effects in Microconcrete SCS (in prep.)

Mirza, S. Cylinders McGill U., 1971
 154

51. Ku1ka, F. American Practices in the PCI Journal 13(3)

Wahl, H.W. Design of Prestressed Concrete June 1968 (40-61)
Containment Structures

52. Hanson, N.W. Sei smic Resistance of Con crete ASCE proceedings
Frames Witl1 Grade 60 Reinforce- 97(ST6) June 1971
ment (1685-1700)

53. Huang, T. stresses in End B10cks of a ACI Journal 61(5)

Post-Tensioned Prestressed Bearn May 1964 (589-602)

54. Yettram, A.L. Anchorage Zone Stresses in MCR 21(67) June 1969
Rabbins, K. Axia11y Post-Tensioned Membe~s (103-112)
of Uniform Rectangu1ar Section

55. Yettram, A.L. Anchorage Zone stresses in Post- MCR 22 (73) Dec. 1970
Robbins, K. Tensioned Uniform Members, with (209-218)
Eccentric and Multiple Anchorages

56. Yettram, A.L. Anchorage stresses in Post- MCR 23(74) March 1971
Robbins, K. Tensioned I-Section Members with (37-42)
End B10cks

57. Ho11and, J.A. Dynamic Relaxation Applied to ICE (CPCPV) Group H,

Local Effects Paper 51 (587-595)

58. Taylor, S.J. Anchorage Bearing Stresses ICE (CPCPV) Group H,

Paper 49 (563-576)

59. Caza1y, L. "CPCI Handbook" CPCI 1964

Huggins, M.W.

60. Labontê,L.R.S. Similitude Ana1ysis of Bearing SCS No. 71-7

Mirza, M.S. Effect in Post-Tensioned Concrete McGi1l U., Oct. 1971
Sabnis, G.M. Construction

61. Mirza, M.S. Direct Models in McGil1 Structural SCS No. 25,
Con crete Investigations (1964 to McGill U., Nov. 1969
date)

62. Wahl, H.W. Design and Construction Aspects ACI Journal 66 (5)
Kosiba, R.J. of Large Prestressed Con cre te May 1969 (400-412)
(PWR) Containment Structures