IABSE Conference – Structural Engineering: Providing Solutions to Global Challenges

September 23-25 2015, Geneva, Switzerland

Flexural Strength Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Members with

High Strength Strands
Eu-Jeong CHOI, Ho PARK, and Jae-Yeol CHO
Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Contact: snuph@snu.ac.kr

Abstract
In recent years, Korean strand manufacturers succeeded in developing 2,160 MPa and 2,400 MPa
high-strength strands. The current design codes provide an approximate equation for strand stress
at flexural strength. It is because the accurate evaluation of the strand stress requires a
complicated nonlinear analysis based on the actual stress-strain relationships. In this study, a
material model for high-strength strands was proposed. Using the model, the strand stress and the
flexural strength of prestressed concrete members were calculated. And then, they were
compared with the predictions by the current approximation equation. The analytical results
indicated that the approximate equation can cause an error in predicting the strand stress.
However, the approximate equation gave the flexural strengths close to those obtained from the
nonlinear analysis. It resulted from the assumption of equivalent rectangular stress block in the
design code.
Keywords: prestressed concrete; high-strength strand; material model; flexural strength; strand
stress at nominal flexural strength.

design code [3] allows strands to be used for

1 Introduction
In recent years, there has been increasing interest
in high strength structural materials. To meet the
need, Korean strand manufacturers were
successful in developing 2,160 MPa and 2,400
MPa high-strength strands in 2008 and 2011,
respectively. Compared with the 1,860 MPa
strands that have been used for the past three
decades, improvements in strength have been
achieved 16% and 29%, respectively.
To practically use the newly-developed strands,
the revised Korean industrial standard [1] included
the two types of high-strength strands specified as
SWPC7CL and SWPC7DL. In addition, standard test
method for anchorage and coupler of prestressing
tendon [2] has been developed. Since the Korean
prestressed concrete based on the KS D 7002
standard, high-strength strand is permitted for use
in design of prestressed concrete members.
However, sufficient investigation on high-strength
strands still lacks and the current design code
requires a further verification for prestressed
concrete members with high-strength strands.
Since stress in prestressing strand keeps
increasing even after yielding, the current Korean
and American design code [4] provide a simple
equation to approximate the stress in strand at
nominal flexural strength. This equation was
developed by Mattock [5] based upon data of
prestressed concrete members with rectangular
section and 1,860 MPa strands over 30 years ago.
Since 1,860 MPa strands and high-strength
strands have different material properties such as

1
IABSE Conference – Structural Engineering: Providing Solutions to Global Challenges
September 23-25 2015, Geneva, Switzerland
tensile strength and increasing slope of stress
after yielding, it is necessary to review the current
design code for high-strength strands.
The purpose of this study is to propose a reliable
material model of high-strength strands based on
actual stress-strain curves and to theoretically
investigate the flexural behavior of PSC members.
This study also sought to determine the influence
of high-strength strands on the current design
code, which relates to approximate stress in
prestressing strands at nominal flexural strength.
To achieve these objectives, this study took the
form of a parametric study on stress in
prestressing strands at nominal flexural strength,
considering the proposed material model and the
strain-compatibility condition. The results were
compared with those from the approximate
equation based on the current design code, in
order to determine the adequacy of the current
design code for high-strength strands.
2 Material Modelling
Totally, 14 stress-strain curves of 2,160 MPa
strand and 22 curves of 2,400 MPa strand were
used to propose the material model. The stress-
strain curves used in this study were obtained
from the uniaxial tests performed by the strand
manufacturer.
2.1 Modified Ramberg-Osgood model
An accurate stress-strain relationship of high-
strength strands can be illustrated by using a
modified Ramberg-Osgood model, which is widely
used to capture the characteristics of high-
strength steels. Figure 1 shows that the modified
Ramberg-Osgood model contains straight lines
connected by a transient curve between them.
The function is given below:
strain, and  is a parameter related to the
curvature of the transient curve.
2500
Ep(1-A)/B
AEp
1875 1
Stress, MPa
1250
625
Ep 1/B
1
0
0 0.015 0.03 0.045 0.06
Strain
Figure 1.Modified Ramberg-Osgood Model
2.2 Procedure of material modelling
In this study, the 95% lower bounds of the actual
stress-strain curves were used as a baseline for
curve fitting in order to propose a conservative
material model. Therefore, the four constants of
the material model, , , , and  were evaluated
by fitting the model to the 95% lower bounds. [6]
A histogram and a Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot
were generated to determine the distribution of
data before the selection of the proper statistical
method. Figure 2 (a) and (b) indicates a typical
histogram and a Q-Q plot of strand stress at a
specific strain, respectively. It can be noticed in
Figure 2 that the distribution of stress at a specific
strain can be reasonably assumed as a normal
distribution.
Since stress at a specific strain could be assumed
to have a normal distribution, it is possible to
apply the method of moment to evaluate the 95%
lower bound of the stress-strain curves. The



 =   +  ≤

method of moment calculates model parameters
 /
(1)
  
from data parameters. Therefore, the estimator
mean should be the sample mean, and the
where
 is stress in prestressing strand,  is estimator variance is the sample variance. [7]
modulus of elasticity,
 is tensile strength of
From the method of moment, the 95% lower
strand, is a parameter related to the gradient
bounds of high-strength strands were determined
after yield point,  is a parameter related to yield
at every point of strain. Figure 3(a) and (b)
simultaneously shows the experimental data and
the 95% lower bounds of high-strength strands.

2
IABSE Conference – Structural Engineering: Providing Solutions to Global Challenges
September 23-25 2015, Geneva, Switzerland

6 with the modulus of elasticity of 200 GPa was

SWPC7CL
ε p = 0.0030 used to evaluate the flexural strength of PSC
µ = 600 MPa
σ = 11 MPa
members in this study.
4 2500
Frequency

2000

Stress, MPa
1500

1000
0
-4σ -2σ 0 +2σ +4σ
Stress difference from mean value 500
Experiment
(a) 95% lower bound
0
910 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
fpu=2,160 MPa
SWPC7CL Strain, mm/mm
ε t=0.004
875 (a)
2500
Stress, MPa

840
2000
Stress, MPa

805 1500

Normal distribution
Experiment 1000
770
-2 -1 0 1 2
Z-value 500
Experiment
(b) 95% lower bound
0
Figure 2.Typical histogram and Q-Q plot of stress 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
in 2,160 MPa strand at a specific strain: (a) Strain, mm/mm
histogram; and (b) Q-Q plot
(b)
2.3 Results of material modelling and Figure 3.95% lower bounds of stress-strain
discussion relationships of high-strength strands: (a) 2,160
strands; and (b) 2,400 strands
The constants of the modified Ramberg-Osgood
model were determined to best fit the 95% lower Table 1.Constants of the proposed model

 !
bounds of high-strength strands. The modulus of
E
elasticity was considered as a variable or a fixed A B C
(MPa) (GPa)
value of 200 GPa because most of the design
codes allow to use a presumed value for the 1,860 200 0.025 118 10
modulus of elasticity of prestressing strand.
2,160 193 0.018 94 11
The values of the constants for both cases are
summarized in Table 1 and the resulted stress- 2,160 200 0.017 97 8
strain curves are plotted in Figure 4. Although 2,400 198 0.020 87 15
there is a slight difference between the two cases,
both of them show good agreement with the 95% 2,400 200 0.020 88 13
lower bound of stress-strain curves. The model

3
IABSE Conference – Structural Engineering: Providing Solutions to Global Challenges
September 23-25 2015, Geneva, Switzerland
2500
2000
Stress, MPa
1500
1000
500
Model
Model (200 GPa)
0
0 0.02 0.04
Strain, mm/mm
Figure 4.Proposed material model for high-
strength strands
3 Flexural strength analysis
To evaluate stress in prestressing strands at
nominal flexural strength, the current Korean and
American design code allows two methods,
nonlinear sectional analysis and using the
approximate equation. Nonlinear sectional
analysis considers strain-compatibility and force
equilibrium condition across a section. The
accurate strand stress at nominal flexural strength
can be obtained by using the actual stress-strain
relationships of strands and concrete. In this study,
the appropriateness of the current approximate
equation for high-strength strands was evaluated
by comparing the predictions by the approximate
equation with the results obtained from the
nonlinear sectional analysis. In the nonlinear
sectional analysis, the proposed stress-strain
relationship was used for high-strength strands,
along with Popovics model [8] for concrete, to
simulate the actual behaviors of the materials.
3.1 Strand stress at nominal flexural
strength
Accurate strand stress at nominal flexural strength
can be evaluated from nonlinear sectional
analysis. Nevertheless, nonlinear sectional analysis
is rarely used in practice because the calculations
are complicated and require an iterative
procedure. As an alternative to sectional analysis,
the approximate equation is provided by ACI and
KCI under the condition of
" > 0.5
 . This
approximate equation involves the simple
calculation that requires only a few design
parameters. In this approximate equation,
 , the
strand stress at nominal flexural strength, is given
by
* 

 =
 '1 − + , - 0 (2)
 ./
where 1 is a factor relating the depth of an
equivalent rectangular compressive stress block to
neutral axis depth, , is the ratio of prestressed
reinforcement, and 2 is a factor for type of strand
0.06 that is 0.40 when
3 ⁄
 not less than 0.85 and
0.28 when
3 ⁄
 not less than 0.90.
Equation (2) was derived from analytical
approximation of stress in 1,860 MPa strand
embedded in rectangular concrete section. [5]
Therefore, the application of approximate
equation to I-type sections with high-strength
strands may be questioned.
In this study, the strand stress at nominal flexural
strength was evaluated for rectangular section
and I-type section. In both sections, investigations
were made for concrete strength of 40 MPa and
effective prestress of 0.5
 and 0.6
 .
Figure 5 through 7 compares the strand stresses
from nonlinear sectional analysis and equation (2)
with respect to ,
 ⁄
67 . The horizontal axis is
divided into three regions: tension-controlled
section, transition section, andcompression-
controlled section. The regions are categorized by
net tensile strain in the extreme tension steel at
nominal strength. Tension-controlled section has
the net tensile strain greater than 0.005 and is
expected to exhibit ductile behavior at ultimate.
Otherwise, compression-controlled section has
the net tensile strain less than 0.002 and thus is
likely to exhibit brittle behavior.
3.1.1 1,860 MPa strand
It can be noticed in Figure 5 that, for rectangular
section, the equation(2) gives a reasonable linear
approximation. However, for I-type section, the
discrepancy increases for high ,
 ⁄
67 and
lower effective prestress
" . Figure 5 shows that,
in case of I-type section and
" = 0.5
 ,
 is
overestimated by more than 8% at compression-
controlled section.
4
IABSE Conference – Structural Engineering: Providing Solutions to Global Challenges
September 23-25 2015, Geneva, Switzerland

1 1
fpu=1,860 MPa fpu=2,400 MPa
SWPC7BL SWPC7DL

Transition Compression
0.95 section controlled 0.95
section

fps/fpu
fps/fpu

0.9 0.9
Tension Tesntion
controlled controlled
section section
Eq.(18-1) Eq.(18-1)
0.85 0.85
SA(0.5fpu,rectangular) SA(0.5fpu, rectangular)
SA(0.6fpu, I-type) SA(0.6fpu, I-type) Compression
Transition controlled
SA(0.5fpu, I-type) SA(0.5fpu, I-type) section section
0.8 0.8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
ρ pfpu/fck ρ pfpu/fck

Figure 5.Comparison of stress in 1,860 MPa strand Figure 7.Comparison of stress in 2,400 MPa strand
at nominal flexural strength from nonlinear at nominal flexural strength from nonlinear
sectional analysis and the approximate equation sectional analysis and the approximate equation

3.1.2 High-strength strand 3.2 Nominal flexural strength

It can be noticed in Figures 6 and 7 that, for According to the above analysis, it is necessary to
rectangular sections, the equation (2) further investigate that the approximate equation
underestimates the strand stress over all range of
,
 ⁄
67 . However, for I-type sections, the
guarantees conservative flexural strength for I-
type sections. Figures 8 and 9 compares the
discrepancy increases for high ,
 ⁄
67 and low nominal flexural strengths calculated using the
effective prestress
" . Figures 6 and 7 also shows nonlinear sectional analysis and the approximate
that, in case of I-type section and
" = 0.5
 , equation. Within the tension-controlled sections,

 is overestimated by more than 10% at the approximate equation underestimates
compression-controlled section, which is fairly nominal flexural strength. However, the
unconservative. discrepancy increases gradually after the
transition section. In addition, effective stress of
0.5
 consistently gives the results smaller than
1
fpu=2,160 MPa

effective stress of 0.6
 . For effective stress of

SWPC7CL

0.95 0.5
 , the nominal flexural strength is

overestimated more than 4% below the
compression-controlled section. This difference
fps/fpu

0.9 could be considered negligible.

Tension
controlled
section
The discrepancy in nominal flexural strength
Eq.(18-1)
0.85 SA(0.5fpu, rectangular) becomes smaller than that in strand stress. This
SA(0.6fpu, I-type) Transition Compression
controlled
reduction is caused by the calculation procedure
section
SA(0.5fpu, I-type) section of the current code. In the compression-controlled
0.8
section, the approximate equation gives an
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
ρ pfpu/fck
overestimated value for strand stress, and
consequently the tensile force in the strand is
Figure 6.Comparison of stress in 2,160 MPa strand overestimated. The overestimated tensile force
at nominal flexural strength from nonlinear requires a larger compression force to satisfy the
sectional analysis and the approximate equation force equilibrium, which increases the depth of
the neutral axis and reduces the moment arm
because the depth of the neutral axis is the only

5
IABSE Conference – Structural Engineering: Providing Solutions to Global Challenges
September 23-25 2015, Geneva, Switzerland

factor to determine the area of the compression to the 95% lower bound of the actual stress-strain
stress in the current code. relationship.
Therefore, the current Korean and American Nonlinear sectional analysis using the proposed
design code are acceptable for calculating the material model of high-strength strand was
nominal flexural strength of PSC members with carried out to evaluate the current Korean and
high-strength strands in spite of fairly inaccurate American design code on flexural strength of PSC
estimation of strand stress. members with high-strength strands.
10000 The approximate equation underestimates the
fpu=2,160 MPa
SWPC7CL actual strandstress for tension-controlled section,
8000
SA(0.6fpu) while overestimates for compression-controlled
SA(0.5fpu) section.
Moment, kNm

6000
However, the nominal flexural strength derived
a=hf using the approximate equation for strand stress
4000
is fairly matched with the results from nonlinear
sectional analysis due to the assumption in the
2000 calculation procedure of the design code.
Tension Transition Compression
controlled section controlled
section section
0 5 Acknowledgement
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
ρ pfpu/fck This research was supported by the grant (13CCTI-
Figure 8.Comparison of nominal flexural strengths A052531-06-000000) from the Ministry of Land,
from nonlinear sectional analysis and the Transport and Maritime of Korean government
approximate equation (2,160 MPa strand) through the Core Research Institute at Seoul
National University for Core Engineering
10000
fpu=2,400 MPa Technology Development of Super Long Span
SWPC7DL Bridge R&D Center.
8000
SA(0.6fpu)
SA(0.5fpu) 6 References
Moment, kNm

6000
[1] KS D 7002. Uncoated Stress-Relived Steel
a=hf Wires and Strands for Prestressed Concrete.
4000
Seoul, Korea: Korean Agency for Technology
2000
and Standards; 2011.
Tension Transition Compression
controlled section controlled [2] Korea Concrete Institute. Standard
section section
0 Specifications for Concrete Construction-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Performance Test of Anchorage and
ρ pfpu/fck Couplers for Prestressed Concrete Tendon.
Figure 9.Comparison of nominal flexural strengths Seoul, Korea: Kimoondang Publishing
from nonlinear sectional analysis and the Company; 2009.
approximate equation (2,400 MPa strand) [3] Korea Concrete Institute. Concrete Design
Code and Commentary. Seoul, Korea:
4 Conclusions Kimoondang Publishing Company; 2007.
The following conclusions can be drawn based on [4] American Concrete Institute. Building Code
the obtained results: Requirements for structural concrete (ACI
A material model of high-strength strand is 318-14) and Commentary. Michigan; 2014
proposed. The proposed curves are precisely close [5] Mattock, A. H. Modification of ACI code
Equation for Stress in Bonded Prestressed

6
IABSE Conference – Structural Engineering: Providing Solutions to Global Challenges
September 23-25 2015, Geneva, Switzerland

Reinforcement at Flexural Ultimate. ACI

Journal. 1984; 81(4): 331-339.
[6] Devalapura, R.K. and Tadros, M.K. Stress-
Strain Modeling of 270 ksi Low-Relaxation
Prestressing Strands. PCI Journal. 1992;
37(2): 100-105.
[7] Benjamin, J. R. and Cornell, C. A. Probability,
Statistics and Decision for Civil Engineers.
New Yor: McGraw-Hill; 1970.
[8] Popovics, S. A. Numerical Approach to the
Complete Stress-Strain Curve of Concrete.
Cement and Concrete Research. 1973; 3(5):
483-599.