CHAPTER TWO

Design of Flexural Member at Serviceability Limit

State
Design of Prestressed Force

@RBI 2018
 TOPIC OUTCOMES:

1. Definite the limit state

2. Conduct the analysis of section
3. Discuss the application of the serviceability
limit state design for prestressed concrete
4. Able to determine the minimum section
5. Able to calculate the prestressed force

2
@RBI 2018
 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE DESIGN (SLS) PRINCIPLE
FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE (PSC)

3
@RBI 2018
 The design of PSC member is based on:

• Maintaining concrete stresses within specified limits at all stages in

the life of the member.
• Design based on SLS with the concrete stress limits based on the
acceptable degree of flexural cracking.
• It is a necessity as well to prevent excessive creep and the need to
ensure that excessive compression does NOT result in longitudinal
and micro cracking

4
@RBI 2018
5
@RBI 2018
At Initial Transfer of PSC;

• Prestressed force considered higher than ‘long term’ value due to elastic
shortening, creep and shrinkage of the concrete.

• Concrete at this stage is relatively immature and not at full strength.

• Compressive stress at transfer should be limited to 0.6fck ;(fck concrete strength

at transfer)

• Tensile stress should be limited to 1N/mm2 for section designed not to be in

tension in service

6
@RBI 2018
Compressive Stress in Bending

Allowable maximum concrete compressive stress in bending (Section 5.10.2.2,

BS EN 1992):

At final :

fmax < 0.6 fck under action of characteristic loads (Eqn. 5.42, BS EN 1992)

< 0.45 fck under action of quasi-permanent loads **

At transfer: Quasi-Permanent Loads=

Permanent (Gk) + Prestressing load (Pm,t ) +
f ’max < 0.75 (0.6 fck) proportion () of variable action (Qk)

< 0.45 fck** fck - strength of concrete at transfer

 - 0.3 for dwelling, 0.6 for parking areas, 0 for snow
7 and wind loading
@RBI 2018
 For quasi-permanent loads

Quasi-Permanent
= Almost
permanent action
are those that may
sustain over a long
period but not
necessary
permanent like self
weight of structure.
Eg: snow

8
@RBI 2018
Tensile Stress

Allowable tensile concrete stress (minimum):

At Final:

Minimum stress is limited to fctm given in Table 3.1-BSEN 1992 (or Table 6.11,

Mosley et al., 2007).

Example: for Concrete Grade 40, fck = 40 MPa, fctm = 3.5 MPa

i.e. fmin > fctm

At Transfer:

9 f ’min > - 1.0 MPa (-ve shows tensile)

@RBI 2018
 Assumption: uncracked section when resisting bending, if tensile stress limits
accordance to Table 3.1 . Gross concrete section is resisting the bending.
Table 3.1 Strength and Deformation Characteristics for Concrete

Assumption: cracked section, depends on appropriate exposure class generally 0.2

mm.
• Need to consider the prestress loss.
• Frequent loading combination= Gk + Pm,t + proportion () of variable action (Qk)
10
@RBI 2018
a) For beam with a cantilever span or a continuous beam:
~ necessary to consider the loading pattern of the live loads at service in order to
determine the minimum and maximum moments.

b) For a single-span, simply supported beam:

~ consider minimum moment at transfer and the maximum moment at
service that will govern as shown in figure below.

Prestressing
Force

11
@RBI 2018
 Transfer Service
Parameter
Symbol Limit Value Symbol Limit Value
′
Compressive Stress 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 0.6𝑓𝑐𝑘 (𝑡) 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 0.6𝑓𝑐𝑘
′
Tensile Stress 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 -1.0 MPa 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 0
Force Prestressed Force (Po) Prestressed Force Losses

Min. & Max. Characteristic Loading or

Loading Often only Self-weight (SW)
Quasi-Permanent Loading

DESIGN IS MAINLY BASED ON 4 BASIC INEQUALITIES

At transfer : At service :
Po Poe M min KPo KPoe M max
   f ' t  f ' min 1    ft  f max 3
A zt zt A zt zt
KPo KPoe M max
Po Poe M min
   f ' b  f ' max 2    fb  f min 4
A zb zb A zb zb

12
**K=Loss Factor that accounts for the prestress losses; eg: K=0.8 for 20% losses
@RBI 2018
 MINIMUM SECTION SELECTION

The two pairs of expression can be combined

TOP

( M max  KM min)  ( f max  Kf ' min) zt

BOTTOM

( M max  K M min)  ( Kf ' max  f min ) zb

Derive these Equations!!

@RBI 2018
Section Moduli, z; Mv Mv
zt  zb 
( f max  Kf ' min) ( Kf ' max  f min )

Preliminary sizing can be assumed from 𝑧𝑡 and 𝑧𝑏 .

𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 = Characteristic Load and Permanent Load (Self-Weight)
𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑛 = Self-Weight only

General Guide; Span ≤ 36 m, h = (span/25) + 0.1 m

Span > 36 m, h = (span/20) m

For short span members, it is possible to use a guideline of span-depth

ratio, but it will resulting in high prestress force
14
@RBI 2018
 Example 3 (Eg 11.2, Mosley et al., 2007)
Select a rectangular section for a post-tensioned beam to carry, in addition to its
self-weight, a uniformly distributed load of 3 kN/m over a simply supported span of
10 m. The member is to be designed with a concrete strength class of C40/50 and
is restrained against torsion at the ends and at mid-span. Assume 20% loss of
prestress (K=0.8)

15
@RBI 2018
 Example 3 (Eg 11.2, Mosley et al., 2007)
From equations;
Mv Mv
zt  zb 
( f max  Kf ' min) ( Kf ' max  f min )

16
@RBI 2018
To prevent lateral buckling; EC2 specifies a maximum span/breadth
ratio requirement.

@RBI 2018
18
@RBI 2018
 DESIGN OF PRESTRESSED FORCE
The inequalities of equations may be arranged to give expression for the minimum
required prestress force for a given eccentricity:
𝑧𝑡 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑃𝑜 ≤ 𝑧 5
𝐾 𝑡ൗ𝐴 − 𝑒

𝑧𝑡 𝑓′𝑚𝑖𝑛 − 𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑃𝑜 ≥ 𝑧𝑡 6
ൗ𝐴 − 𝑒

For Eq. 5 and Eq. 6, it is possible that the

𝑧𝑏 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 denominator term (zt/A-e), might be –ve if
𝑃𝑜 ≥ 𝑧
7
𝐾 𝑏ൗ𝐴 + 𝑒 e>zt/A . In this case, the sense of the
inequality would have to change.

𝑧𝑏 𝑓′𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑛 8
𝑃𝑜 ≤ 𝑧𝑏
ൗ𝐴 + 𝑒

19
@RBI 2018
• Range of values of permissible prestress force can be found, but eccentricity must lie within
the beam.
• Necessary to consider effect of limiting the eccentricity to a maximum practical value for the
section under consideration.
• Limitation is most severe when considering maximum moments acting on the section, (the
inequalities of equations).
• If the limiting value for maximum eccentricity emax depends on cover requirements;

 zt 
M max  f max zt  KPo  e max  9 From Eq. 3
A 
 zb 
M max  KPo  e max   f min zb 10 From Eq. 4
A 
 zb   zt  f zt  f min zb
Po 
max
KPo   e max   f min zb  f max zt  KPo   e max   zb  zt  11
A  A  K 
20
 A  20
@RBI 2018
 Mmax 9
10
Max economic value beyond which any
increase in prestress force would be
matched by a diminishing rate of increase
in moment carrying capacity

 zb   zt 
KPo   e max   f min zb  f max zt  KPo   e max 
A  A 

Max. Moment inequalities

f zt  f min zb
Y’ = Po 
max
satisfied in this zone 11
 zb  zt 
K 
 A 

Y’ Po

21
@RBI 2018
 Example 4 (Eg 11.3, Mosley et al., 2007)
The 10 m span beam in earlier example was determined to have a breadth
of 200mm and a depth of 350mm (zb = zt = 4.08106 mm2). Determine the
minimum initial prestress force required for an assumed maximum
eccentricity of 75 mm.

22
@RBI 2018
@RBI 2018
 STRESSES UNDER THE QUASI-PERMANENT LOADING

• Previous calculation based on characteristic loads

• Compressive stress at the top of the section under the quasi-
permanent loads must be calculated after prestress force (between
min and upper limit value) is determined.
• Quasi-permanent load lesser than allowable value of 𝟎. 𝟒𝟓𝒇𝒄𝒌 .
• If failed, the section is required to be redesigned taking quasi-
permanent load as more critical than the characteristic load condition

24
@RBI 2018
 Example 5 (Eg 11.4, Mosley et al., 2007)

From the previous example, using minimum prestress force of 557 kN, check the
stress condition under the quasi-permanent loading condition. Assume that the
3kN/m imposed load consists of a permanent load of 2 kN/m as finishes and 10 kN/m
variable load. Take 30% of the variable load contributing to the quasi-permanent load.

@RBI 2018
 Stress at the top of section is given by:
𝐾𝑃𝑜 𝐾𝑃𝑜 𝑒 𝑀
𝑓𝑡 = − +
𝐴 𝑧𝑡 𝑧𝑡

26
@RBI 2018
 REFERENCES

1. Lecture Slide, Dr Goh Lyn Dee, UiTM Pulau Pinang

2. Lecture Slide, Ir Afiffudin, UiTM Pulau Pinang
3. Lecture Slide, PM Dr Afidah Abu Bakar, UiTM Shah Alam
4. 6th Edition, RC Design to Eurocode 2, (Mosley et al.,2007)

27
@RBI 2018
 Thanks!

Any questions?

28
@RBI 2018