See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/369883121

Analytical approach for bursting cracking analysis of post-tensioned

anchorage zone

Article  in  Structures · April 2023

DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2023.04.010

CITATIONS READ

0 1

4 authors, including:

Zhi-Qi He Zhao Liu

Southeast University (China) Southeast University (China)
48 PUBLICATIONS   405 CITATIONS    86 PUBLICATIONS   613 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zhongguo John Ma
University of Tennessee
127 PUBLICATIONS   1,826 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Shear of concrete structures View project

the National Natural Science Foundation of China View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhi-Qi He on 08 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structures 52 (2023) 401–409

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Analytical approach for bursting cracking analysis of post-tensioned

anchorage zone
Zhi-Qi He a, *, Jiatong Chen a, Zhao Liu a, Zhongguo John Ma b
a
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
b
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In prestressed concrete structures, improper design and detailing of the anchorage zone frequently cause bursting
Prestressed concrete cracking along the tendon path. Due to the complex stress state in the anchorage zone, it is difficult to estimate
Anchorage zone the actual cracking load, even in well-controlled experimental tests. Previous studies on anchorage zone cracking
Bursting stress
are mainly based on numerical simulation. There is still a lack of explicit approaches for practical use. This study
Cracking load
Analytical approach
aims to provide an analytical approach for predicting the first bursting cracking loads in the post-tensioned
anchorage zone. It is found that the stress ratio of compression to tension is significantly higher in the
anchorage zone than in the split cylinder. Thus, a strength correction factor is derived to compensate for the
tensile-strength reduction due to the effect of biaxial stress state. Besides, a tension chord model is developed to
quantify the contribution of bursting reinforcement in enhancing the tensile strength of concrete. After clarifying
the effect of biaxial stress state and the contribution of bursting reinforcement, direct equations are proposed for
predicting the first bursting cracking loads in the anchorage zone. The analytical approach is compared with
existing test data and is applied in the cracking analysis of an actual bridge, indicating that it is accurate and
convenient for application.

1. Introduction
In a post-tensioned anchorage zone, the lateral spreading of
concentrated tendon forces induces transverse tensile stresses (bursting
stresses) along the tendon path. The resultant of the bursting stresses is
usually referred to as bursting force or splitting force (Fig. 1). Improper
design and detailing of the anchorage zone frequently cause bursting
cracking along the tendon path [1–7]. Actually, anchorage zone
cracking may occur in three zones: the bursting zone, the spalling zone,
and the longitudinal edge tension zone [2]. This study focuses on the
problem of bursting cracking in the post-tensioned anchorage zone. In
the serviceability limit state, the crack control of the anchorage zone
mainly includes two aspects: the prediction of the first cracking load and
the control of the crack width by sufficient reinforcement. As recently
reviewed by Jain and Khapre [8], the resultant bursting force (Tburst) in
post-tensioned anchorage zones has been thoroughly investigated
[9–13]. Meanwhile, the design and detailing of the bursting reinforce­
ment have been well documented in design codes [14–16] and guide­
lines [17,18]. The last substantial research on post-tensioned anchorage
zones was conducted by Breen et al. [2] as part of NCHRP Project 10-29,
and the recommendations from this research were adopted by AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications since the first edition published in
1994.
The prediction of the first cracking load may be necessary in some
applications of post-tensioned construction. There are cases when post-
tensioned concrete is used in highly corrosive environments and it is
important that it stays uncracked. In those applications, it is desirable to
have a crack prediction method. However, as pointed out by Sanders
[9], it is difficult to estimate the actual cracking load of the anchorage
zone, even in well-controlled experimental tests. The difficulties mainly
lie in two aspects: 1) it is not straightforward to evaluate the complex
stresses in the anchorage zone (Fig. 1); and 2) it is difficult to determine
the actual tensile strength of concrete under a biaxial stress state in the
anchorage zone.
Up to now, there have been several investigations on the bursting
crack analysis of post-tensioned and pre-tensioned anchorage zones,
mainly based on finite element analysis (FEA). In the comprehensive
study by Sanders [9], the predicted cracking load was determined by
setting the peak elastic tensile bursting stress obtained from a linear
elastic FEA to the measured tensile strength of the concrete, as obtained

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: z.he@seu.edu.cn (Z.-Q. He).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.04.010
Received 12 January 2023; Received in revised form 26 March 2023; Accepted 2 April 2023
2352-0124/© 2023 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z.-Q. He et al. Structures 52 (2023) 401–409

actual bridge.

2. Evaluation of critical stresses in anchorage zone

Fig. 2(a) shows the distribution of transverse stresses along the

tendon path of the concentric anchorage zone. The value of most interest
for the prediction of the first cracking load is the peak bursting stress.
More importantly, the critical Point A of the anchorage zone is subjected
to a biaxial stress state of tension–compression. The orthogonal tensile
and compressive stresses are to be evaluated analytically in this section.
Fig. 3 shows the elastic bursting stress distribution for various a/h
ratios according to the elasticity solutions of Guyon [34]. It can be seen
that there is a linear relationship between the peak bursting stress and
the relative plate size (a/h). According to the theoretical results of
Guyon [34] and He and Liu [20], the magnitude and the position of peak
Fig. 1. Stress state and bursting cracking in post-tensioned anchorage zone.
bursting stress (σ b,max) in the concentric anchorage zone can be taken as
( a) P
from split-cylinder tests. Oh et al. [19] experimentally studied the σ b,max = 0.5 1 − = 0.5(1 − λ)σ0 (1)
characteristics of the stress distribution in the anchorage zone and the h ht
cracking and failure patterns. He et al. [20] developed compression-
db,max = (0.2 + 0.5λ)h (2)
dispersion models to obtain the peak bursting stress for the prediction
of the first cracking load. Based on fracture mechanics and elasto-plastic where σ b,max = magnitude of peak bursting stress; db,max = distance from
strut-and-tie models, Zhou et al. [21,22] investigated the crack propa­ loading surface to the point of peak bursting stress; P = tendon force; h
gation in concentric anchorage zones. Through field monitoring and = height of anchorage section; t = thickness of anchorage section; a =
finite element analysis, Maree [23] studied the end diaphragm cracking width of bearing plate; λ = relative size of bearing plate (λ = a/h); and σ0
due to post-tensioning in box girder bridges. Appling nonlinear FEA, Jia = uniform compressive stress at the far end of the general anchorage
et al. [24] studied the vertical cracking at girder ends during post- zone (σ 0 = P/ht).
tensioning of T-girders. At the same time, some studies have been con­
ducted to investigate anchorage zone cracks in pre-tensioned concrete
girders [25–28]. In particular, Okumus et al. [29] applied nonlinear FEA
to study horizontal cracking at the ends of pre-tensioned bridge girders.
They also studied the contributions of curing temperatures, creep, and
shrinkage to crack growth after strand detensioning [30]. Steensels et al.
[31] conducted an in-depth numerical evaluation of the end-zone rein­
forcement detailing of various design models for pre-tensioned concrete
girders. Ronanki et al. [32] and Van Meirvenne et al. [33] performed
nonlinear FEA of the anchorage zone in pre-tensioned concrete girders
with multiple strands and various strand diameters.
From the literature review, previous studies on anchorage zone
cracking are mainly based on numerical simulation. There is still a lack
of explicit approaches for practical use. The aim of this study is to pro­
vide an analytical approach for the prediction of the bursting cracking
load in the post-tensioned end anchorage zone. The main characteristics
of the proposed approach are the explicit solution of the critical stresses
in the anchorage zone, and the proper estimation of the concrete tensile
strength considering the effect of biaxial stress state and the contribution
of bursting reinforcement. The proposed analytical approach is vali­
dated by comparisons with existing test data and case studies of an Fig. 3. Bursting stress distribution in anchorage zone with various a/h.

Fig. 2. Stress state in end anchorage zone: (a) distribution of transverse stresses; and (b) spreading of compressive stresses.

402
Z.-Q. He et al.
Fig. 2(b) shows the assumed spreading of the tendon force for the
approximate computation of compression stresses. In this model the
stresses are assumed to act in an effective width. The effective width is
equal to the width of the bearing plate just underneath the anchor (x =
0) and to the full width of the section at a distance equal to the height of
the section (x = h). The above assumption was first proposed by Sanders
[9], and it was validated by finite-element analysis.
At the point of peak bursting stress (i.e., Point A), the effective width
(Weff) and the magnitude of compressive stress (σ2) can be calculated as
Weff = a + db,max (1 − λ) (3)
P σ0
σ2 = = (4)
Weff t λ + (1 − λ)(0.2 + 0.5λ)
3. Effect of biaxial stresses in anchorage zone
3.1. Biaxial stress state
The stress state in the anchorage zone is biaxial in nature with
compression applied perpendicularly to the tension direction. From the
pioneering work by Kupfer et al. [35], the strength in a ten­
sion–compression regime of the biaxial strength envelope shows a
decrease in tensile strength when a corresponding orthogonal
compressive stress is applied. The split cylinder test appears to be the
best companion material test to determine the tensile strength of the
concrete in anchorage zones [9]. In the split cylinder test, the spreading
of the concentrated forces induces lateral tension along the centerline of
the cylinder, which causes the cylinder to split. In the anchorage zone,
the same process causes the anchorage to split.
As shown in Fig. 4, a closer look at the split cylinder test reveals a
significant difference between the split cylinder test and the splitting
phenomenon in the anchorage zone. This difference is the relative
amount of compression along the axis normal to the splitting [9]. As
illustrated in Fig. 4(a), at the center of the split cylinder, the ratio of
vertical compressive stress to transverse tensile stress is exactly 3 ac­
cording to the theory of elasticity [36,37]. In the anchorage zone, the
stress ratio of compression to tension at the critical point (i.e., the
location of peak bursting stress) can be obtained from Eqs. (1) and (4) as
σ2 σ2 2
γσ = = = (5)
σ 1 σ b,max (1 − λ)[λ + (1 − λ)(0.2 + 0.5λ)]
where γσ = stress ratio of compression to tension; and λ = relative plate
size (λ = a/h).
Fig. 4. Biaxial stress state: (a) split cylinder; and (b) anchorage zone.
403
Structures 52 (2023) 401–409
The expression in Eq. (5) is plotted in Fig. 4(b), indicating that the
stress ratio (γσ) in the anchorage zone is related to the relative plate size.
The value of γσ in the anchorage zone is approximately between 5 and
10, which is significantly higher than that in the split cylinder test (γ σ =
3). In the anchorage zone, the axial compressive stress at the location of
the peak bursting stress can be two or three times higher than that
applied in the split cylinder test [9]. Therefore, the cylinder splitting
strength cannot be directly applied in the anchorage zone.
3.2. Effective tensile strength of concrete
Concrete strength under biaxial state of stress has been thoroughly
investigated. Fig. 5 shows the tension–compression regime of the biaxial
strength envelope. According to previous studies [35,38], the tensile
strength under biaxial state of stress can be approximately given as
( )
σ2
fctb = kσ fct = 1 − ′ fct (6)
fc
where fctb = tensile strength of concrete corrected by biaxial stress effect;
fct = uniaxial (direct) tensile strength of concrete; fc’ = cylinder
compressive strength of concrete; kσ = strength correction factor; and σ2
= principal compressive stress.
According to AASHTO LRFD [16], the direct tensile strength of
concrete (fct) may be estimated as
√̅̅̅̅
(7)
′
fct = 0.62 f c
where fc’ = cylinder compressive strength of concrete (MPa).
At the same time, Fig. 5 shows the level of compressive stress in the
split cylinder and the anchorage zone. As can be seen, the splitting
tensile strength is about 91% of that expected in a uniaxial test [39].
Therefore, the splitting tensile strength is estimated as 0.56√fc’ in ACI
318-19 [15]. In the anchorage zone, the level of compressive stress is
much higher, and thus the effective tensile strength of concrete will have
a much more drop than that in the split cylinder.
4. Effect of bursting reinforcement
4.1. Tension chord model
Generally speaking, the reinforcement in reinforced concrete struc­
tures has little effect on increasing the cracking load. This is because the
ultimate tensile strain of concrete is only 100 ~ 200 με, and the stress of
Z.-Q. He et al. Structures 52 (2023) 401–409

Fig. 5. Strength of concrete under combined tension and compression.

reinforcement when concrete cracks is neglectable. However, under the t = thickness of anchorage section; Es = modulus of elasticity of rein­
biaxial stress state of tension–compression in the anchorage zone, the forcement; εs = tensile strain in the bursting reinforcement; and ρv =
ultimate tensile strain of plain concrete can reach 300 ~ 400 με, which is bursting reinforcement ratio.
about 2 ~ 3 times that under uniaxial tension [40]. Before concrete The tensile strain in the bursting reinforcement (εs) is equal to the
cracking, the bursting reinforcement is subjected to considerable tensile transverse strain of the surrounding concrete, which is the sum of the
stress (generally more than 50 MPa), which is helpful in enhancing the direct strain induced by the tensile bursting stress σ1,c and the indirect
tensile strength of concrete. According to the experimental research strain due to the Poisson’s effect of the compressive stress σ 2,c. It can be
conducted by the China Academy of Building Research [40], the expressed as
cracking load can be increased by 17%~23% for every 1% increase in σ 1,c σ2,c σ1,c
the reinforcement ratio. εs = + μc = (1 + μc γσ ) (11)
Ec Ec Ec
This section gives a theoretical derivation of the contribution of
bursting reinforcement to the cracking strength of concrete in the where μc = Poisson’s ratio of concrete; and γ σ = stress ratio of
anchorage zone. Fig. 6 shows a tension chord with a unit height isolated compression to tension in the anchorage zone, as defined in Eq. (5).
from the anchorage zone. The reinforcement enhancement factor (ks) for From the relationships in Eqs. (8) ~ (11), the reinforcement
increasing the concrete tensile strength can be defined as enhancement factor (ks) can be derived as
ks = (Tc + Ts )/Tc (8) Es
ks = 1 + (1 + μc γ σ ) ⋅ρ (12)
Ec v
where Tc = tension capacity of plain concrete before cracking; and Ts =
additional tension capacity of reinforcement before concrete cracking. where Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, which can be taken as
Based on equilibrium and compatibility requirements in the tension 4800√fc’ (MPa); Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement; μc =
chord, Tc and Ts can be expressed as Poisson’s ratio of concrete (μc = 0.2); γ σ = stress ratio of compression to
tension defined in Eq. (5); and ρv = ratio of bursting reinforcement.
Tc = σ 1,c Ac = σ1,c t (9)

Ts = σ s ρv t = Es εs ρv t (10) 4.2. Model verification

where σ 1,c = principle tensile stress in the concrete (i.e., bursting stress); In this section, the tension chord model is to be verified by anchorage
zone tests conducted by Breen et al. [2] and Sanders and Breen [41]. For

Fig. 6. Tension chord model in anchorage zone.

404
Z.-Q. He et al.
Specimen B1 in this test series, the material properties are as follows: fc’
= 37.1 MPa, fct = 3.78 MPa, Ec = 4800√fc’ = 29237 MPa, and Es = 2 ×
105 MPa. The relative plate size is a/h = 165.1/406.4 = 0.41. According
to Eq. (5), the stress ratio of compression to tension at the critical point
can be obtained as γσ = 5.22. For the rebar at the location of the peak
bursting stress, the lateral strain components can be calculated by Eq.
(11) as follows:
(1) Direct strain induced by bursting stress:
6
ε1,c = fct /Ec = 3.78 × 10 /29237 = 129.3με (13)
(2) Indirect strain due to the Poisson’s effect:
μc γσ ⋅ε1,c = 0.2 × 5.22 × 129.3 = 135.0με (14)
(3) Total tensile strain of bursting reinforcement upon concrete
cracking:
εs = (1 + μc γσ )ε1,c = 264.3με (15)
Fig. 7 shows the strain gauge data of the bursting reinforcement. The
bursting cracking load of Specimen B1 was 200 kips (890 kN). Upon
concrete cracking, the strain of the bursting reinforcement was about
250 με, which is close to the value predicted by the tension chord model.
Under the biaxial stress state of tension–compression in the anchorage
zone, the tensile stress of the bursting reinforcement upon concrete
cracking reached 50 MPa, which is helpful in enhancing the tensile
strength of concrete.
5. Equations for predicting first cracking load
5.1. Design equations
The ordinary hypothesis for the prediction of the first cracking load is
that the concrete will crack when the peak bursting stress exceeds the
effective tensile strength [9]. In this study, the effective tensile strength
is modified from the uniaxial tensile strength by two factors: the stress
strength correction factor (kσ) to account for the effect of biaxial stress
state, and the reinforcement enhancement factor (ks) to account for the
contribution of bursting reinforcement. Therefore, the critical equation
for predicting the first cracking load can be expressed as
σ b,max ⩾kσ ks fct (16a)
Fig. 7. Bursting stain data of Specimen B1 tested by Breen et al. [2].
405
Structures 52 (2023) 401–409
(16b)
′
kσ = 1 − σ 2 /fc
Combing Eqs. (1), (2), and (16), the load (Pcr) to cause the first bursting
crack in the anchorage zone can be solved as
2k f ht
Pcr = ( s ct ) (17a)
(1 − λ) 1 + ks γ σ fct /fc′
2
γσ = (17b)
(1 − λ)[λ + (1 − λ)(0.2 + 0.5λ)]
where ks = reinforcement enhancement factor expressed in Eq. (12); γ σ
= stress ratio of compression to tension at the critical point; h = height of
anchorage section; t = thickness of anchorage section; λ = relative plate
size (λ = a/h); fct = direct tensile strength of concrete, which can be
estimated as 0.62√fc’ (MPa) in accordance with AASHTO LRFD; fc’ =
cylinder compressive strength of concrete; Ec = modulus of elasticity of
concrete, which can be taken as 4800√fc’ (MPa); Es = modulus of
elasticity of reinforcement; μc = Poisson’s ratio of concrete, which can
be taken as 0.2; and ρv = ratio of bursting reinforcement.
5.2. Experimental verification
In this section, the proposed Eq. (17) for predicting the first cracking
load is verified by the experimental tests of Sanders and Breen [41].
Series “B” consisted of eight rectangular specimens designed with highly
conservative local zone reinforcement to prevent any local zone failure
[Fig. 8(a)]. For Specimens B1 ~ B8, the relative plate size (a/h) was held
constant at 0.41, and the primary objective was to determine the effect
of the distribution of general zone bursting reinforcement. Fig. 8(b)
compares the elastic bursting stress distribution and the bursting rein­
forcement placement. In these specimens, cracks formed and propagated
along the specimen centerline to the base of the specimen with sec­
ondary cracks fanning out from the loading plate toward the edges. The
first cracking loads were determined by a combination of observation of
the changes in strain readings on the bursting reinforcement and visual
observations of the cracks on the concrete surface [41].
Table 1 lists comparisons between predicted and tested first cracking
loads. Statistically, the tests have an average predicted-to-test ratio of
0.99 and a coefficient of variation (COV) of 10.3%. At the same time,
Fig. 9 shows the degree of accuracy of different methods. If neither the
effect of biaxial stress state nor the effect of reinforcement are consid­
ered in the prediction, Eq. (17) is reduced to Pcr = 2htfct /(1 − γ), which
gives an overestimation of the cracking loads. If the effect of biaxial
Z.-Q. He et al. Structures 52 (2023) 401–409

Fig. 8. Layout of specimens tested by Breen et al. [2]: (a) geometry and local zone reinforcement; and (b) distribution of bursting reinforcement in general zone.

Table 1
Comparisons between predicted and tested first cracking loads.
Specimen fc’ (MPa) fct (MPa) ρv (%) γσ ks Pcr,pred (kN) Pcr,test (kN) Pred. /Test

B1 37.1 3.78 0.69 5.22 1.10 819.2 888.9 0.92

B2 37.1 3.78 0.38 5.22 1.05 798.3 826.7 0.97
B3 37.1 3.78 0.78 5.22 1.11 824.5 964.4 0.85
B4 37.1 3.78 0.64 5.22 1.09 815.6 888.9 0.92
B5 37.1 3.78 0 5.22 1.00 771.9 755.6 1.02
B6 37.1 3.78 0.64 5.22 1.09 815.6 760.0 1.07
B7 36.7 3.76 0.64 5.22 1.09 809.8 755.6 1.07
B8 36.7 3.76 0.64 5.22 1.09 809.8 693.3 1.17

×
×

Fig. 9. Degree of accuracy of different methods.

406
Z.-Q. He et al. Structures 52 (2023) 401–409

stress state is included while the effect of reinforcement is not included

(set ks = 1), the prediction accuracy is greatly improved. If both effects
are considered, the corresponding Eq. (17) shows an excellent agree­
ment with test data.

6. Case study: Application of analytical approach

6.1. Bridge descriptions

This section reports the bursting cracking in the end anchorage zone
of a prestressed concrete box-girder bridge. As illustrated in Fig. 10, the
bridge was simply supported with a span length of 50 m. The depths of
the box-girder were constant at 3 m over the length of the bridge. The
bridge was built using the precast segmental construction method. In the
girder end, five 22Φ15.2 prestressing tendons were anchored in each
girder web. The designed jacking stress of the prestressing tendon was
1395 MPa. Therefore, the designed jacking force in each tendon was 22
(strands) × 140 (mm2) × 1395 (MPa) /1000 = 4296.6 kN.
After the completion of prestress tensioning, several longitudinal
hairline cracks were observed in the webs of the girder ends. As shown in
Fig. 11, the direction of these cracks is roughly along the prestressing
tendons, and thus they can be diagnosed as bursting cracks. The widths Fig. 11. Distribution of cracks in girder end zone.
of these hairline cracks were below 0.05 mm. These cracks will have an
influence on the structure durability, but they are not likely to impact
the structure safety.

6.2. Stress analysis by FEM

In order to analyze the cause of cracking in the bridge under inves­

tigation, a three-dimensional finite-element model (FEM) is built to
check the elastic stresses in the end zone (Fig. 12). In view of the sym­
metry of the structure, only one-half the box-girder was modelled by
solid elements “SOLID 45” in ANSYS. The length of the model was 9 m,
which was three times the girder depth. Fixed boundary conditions were
imposed on the end section of the model. The modulus of elasticity of
concrete was taken as 3.04 × 104 MPa, and the Poisson’s ratio of con­ Fig. 12. Finite element model for the bridge end zone.
crete was set to be 0.2. The prestressing tendons were not directly
modelled, while the tendon forces were applied as uniform loads on the principal tensile stresses in the web of the box-girder is shown in Fig. 13
anchor plates. The steel bars were not modeled in this linear elastic (a). It can be seen that the zone of high tensile stresses almost coincides
analysis due to their negligible effects in the linear elastic range. with the cracking zone shown in Fig. 13(b). The peak bursting stress
Under the action of concentrated tendon forces, the distribution of

C
L

C
L
h

Fig. 10. Layout of the bridge under investigation (dimensions in meters).

407
Z.-Q. He et al.
Fig. 13. Results of finite element analysis: (a) contours of principal tensile
stresses; and (b) observed cracks in the web.
appears at Point A, which is about 1.4 m away from the anchor plate. At
Point A, the peak bursting stress is 2.8 MPa, along with a principal
compressive stress of 14.9 MPa.
6.3. Cracking analysis by analytical approach
Since the finite element analysis is often time-consuming, bridge
designers prefer the use of an analytical approach in the design. Fig. 10
shows the simplification of the box-girder section into a web slab. Pre­
vious studies [6,9] have demonstrated that the top flange and bottom
flanges as well as the webs in the box-girder can be considered as rect­
angular components of the cross-section. As a result, the spreading of the
tendon force can independently be investigated on each of the compo­
nents of the cross-section. The current study focuses on the evaluation of
bursting stresses in the web slab. In the simplified analysis, the web slab
has a width of 0.6 m and a height of 3.15 m, which is equivalent to the
effective area of the inclined web.
According to AAHTO LRFD [16], if the centre-to-centre spacing of
the anchorage devices is not exceed 1.5 times plate width (i.e., s ≤ 1.5a)
then they can be considered as closely spaced. The above condition is
satisfied in the anchorage zone under investigation. Thus, this multiple
anchorage can be converted into a single anchorage, with a total tendon
force of 5 × 4296.6 = 21483 kN and an effective plate width of 5 × 0.32
= 1.6 m. The relative plate size is λ = a/h = 1.6/3.15 = 0.508. The
procedure of cracking analysis is as follows.
(1) Evaluation of critical stresses
Applying Eqs. (1) and (2), the magnitude and the position of peak
bursting stress can be estimated as
0.5ΣP
(
Σa
) split cylinder. Therefore, the cylinder splitting strength of concrete
σ b,max = 1− = 2.80 MPa (18)
ht h
db,max = 0.5h(0.4 + Σa/h) = 1.43 m (19)
Applying Eq. (4), the principle compressive stress can be estimated as
ΣP 1 tension–compression in the anchorage zone, the bursting reinforce­
σ2 = ⋅ = 15.5 MPa (20)
ht λ + (1 − λ)(0.2 + 0.5λ)
It can be seen that the predictions of the analytic approach agree well
with the results of finite element analysis in Section 6.2.
(2) Evaluation of effective concrete tensile strength
In the box-girder of the bridge under investigation, the cylinder
compressive strength of concrete is 40 MPa. The direct tensile strength
of concrete can be calculated as fct = 0.62√fc’ = 3.92 MPa, and the
modulus of elasticity of concrete can be calculated as Ec = 4800√fc’ =
3.04 × 104 MPa. In each web of the box-girder, the area of stirrup legs is
Av = 2 × 380 = 760 mm2, and the spacing of stirrups is sv = 150 mm.
Thus, the ratio of bursting reinforcement is ρv = Av / (svbw) = 0.84%.
Applying Eq. (16b), the strength correction factor to compensate for
the effect of biaxial stress state can be given as
408
Structures 52 (2023) 401–409
(21)
′
kσ = 1 − σ 2 /fc = 0.61
According to Eq. (17b), the stress ratio of compression to tension (γσ)
is obtained as 5.56. Applying Eq. (12), the reinforcement enhancement
factor can be given as
Es
ks = 1 + (1 + μc γ σ ) ⋅ρ = 1.12 (22)
Ec v
Therefore, the effective tensile strength of concrete is
kσ ks fct = 0.61 × 1.12 × 3.92 = 2.67 MPa (23)
(3) Prediction of cracking occurrence (evaluation of bursting
cracking load)
Based on the above calculations, it can be concluded that the peak
bursting stress is greater than the effective tensile strength of concrete,
that is
σ b,max (2.80MPa) > kσ ks fct (2.67MPa) (24)
Therefore, the anchorage zone would crack due to bursting tensile
stresses. This prediction is consistent with the actual situation observed
in the bridge under investigation.
It is important to clarify that the proposed analytical approach is
suitable for post-tensioned anchorage zones made of normal-strength
concrete and with geometric configurations that can be simplified into
two-dimensional problems. However, the current study does not ac­
count for the three-dimensional spreading effect [6] and the end-
diaphragm effect [4]. It is essential to keep these limitations in mind
when applying the analytical approach and make necessary adjustments
if required. For instance, when extending the proposed approach to
UHPC anchorages, it is crucial to carefully define the tensile strength of
concrete.
7. Conclusions
Through theoretical investigations, this study provides an analytical
approach for predicting the first bursting cracking loads in the post-
tensioned end anchorage zone. The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Effect of biaxial stress state: The stress ratio of compression to
tension (γσ) is significantly higher in the anchorage zone than in the
cannot be directly applied in the anchorage zone. On the basis of the
explicit equation for γσ, the strength correction factor (kσ) is derived
to compensate for the effect of biaxial stress state in the anchorage
zone.
2. Effect of bursting reinforcement: Under the biaxial stress state of
ment is subjected to considerable tensile stress, which is helpful in
enhancing the tensile strength of concrete. Based on the tension
chord model, the reinforcement enhancement factor (ks) is derived to
account for the contribution of bursting reinforcement.
3. Prediction of first cracking loads: Direct equations are proposed
for predicting the first bursting cracking loads in the post-tensioned
end anchorage zone, considering both the effects of biaxial stress
state and bursting reinforcement. Through experimental verification
with existing test data and the case study of an actual bridge, the
analytical approach is proved to be accurate and convenient for
application.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Z.-Q. He et al.
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 52178116 and No. 51978161), and the Natural Science
Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20220072).
References
[1] Podolny W. The cause of cracking in post-tensioned concrete box girder bridges
and retrofit procedures. PCI J 1985;30(2):82–139.
[2] Breen JE, Burdet O, Roberts C, Sanders D, Wollmann G. Anchorage zone
reinforcement for post-tensioned concrete girders. Washington, DC: Transportation
Research Board; 1994. NCHRP Report 356.
[3] Okumus P, Oliva MG. Evaluation of crack control methods for end zone cracking in
prestressed concrete bridge girders. PCI J 2013;58(2):91–105.
[4] Maree A, Sanders D. End diaphragm cracking of box girder bridges due to
posttensioning: Case study. In: 39th IABSE Symposium; 2017. p. 936–943.
[5] He ZQ, Xu T, Xing Y, Liu Z, Ma ZJ. Overlap of splitting in slabs with closely spaced
intermediate anchorages. J Bridge Eng 2020;25(8):04020045.
[6] He ZQ, Hong H, Liu Z, Ma ZJ. Three-dimensional spreading of prestressing forces in
box girders. Structures 2021;33:4803–16.
[7] Ji J, Dong Z, Liu Z, Sun Y, Zhu H, Wu G, et al. Feasibility of using Fe-SMA rebar as
cracking resistance spiral stirrup in the anchorage zone of post-tensioned
prestressed concrete. Structures 2023;48:823–38.
[8] Jain M, Khapre R. Post-tensioned anchorage zone: a review. Structures 2022;46:
31–48.
[9] Sanders DH. Design and behavior of anchorage zones in posttensioned concrete
members. The University of Texas at Austin; 1990. Ph.D. Thesis.
[10] Burdet O. Analysis and design of anchorage zones for posttensioned concrete
bridges. The University of Texas at Austin; 1990. Ph.D. Thesis.
[11] Wollman GP. Anchorage zones in post-tensioned concrete structures. The
University of Texas at Austin; 1992. Ph.D. Thesis.
[12] Ibell T. Behaviour of anchorage zones for prestressed concrete. University of
Cambridge; 1992. Ph.D. Thesis.
[13] Songwut H. Linear and nonlinear finite element analyses of anchorage zones in
post-tensioned concrete structures. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.;
2004. Ph.D. Thesis.
[14] CEN (European Committee for Standardization). Design of concrete structures, part
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. Eurocode 2: EN 1992-1-1; 2004.
[15] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary (ACI 318-19). Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute;
2019.
[16] AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials).
AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 9th ed. Washington, DC; 2020.
[17] PTI (Post-Tensioning Institute). Anchorage zone design. Phoenix, AZ: PTI; 2000.
[18] FIB (International Federation for Structural Concrete). Practical design of
structural concrete. London: SETO; 1999.
409
View publication stats
Structures 52 (2023) 401–409
[19] Oh BH, Lim DH, Park SS. Stress distribution and cracking behavior at anchorage
zones in prestressed concrete members. ACI Struct J 1997;94(5):549–57.
[20] He ZQ, Liu Z. Investigation of bursting forces in anchorage zones: Compression-
dispersion models and unified design equation. J Bridge Eng 2011;16(6):820–7.
[21] Zhou L, Liu Z, He ZQ. Investigation of crack propagation of the concentric
anchorage zones based on linear elastic fracture mechanics. Struct Concr 2018;19
(6):1540–50.
[22] Zhou L, Wan S. Full-range nonlinear analysis of post-tensioned anchorage zones
based on modified strut-and-tie model. Structures 2022;35:565–76.
[23] Maree A. Performance and design of anchorage zones for post-tensioned box girder
bridges. the University of Nevada at Reno; 2018. Ph.D. Thesis.
[24] Jia J, Zhang K, Wu S, Xiong T, Bai Y, Li W. Vertical cracking at girder ends during
post-tensioning of prefabricated prestress concrete bridge T-girders. Struct Concr
2021;22(5):3094–108.
[25] Mirza JF, Tawfik ME. End cracking in prestressed members during detensioning.
PCI J 1978;23(2):66–78.
[26] Arab AA, Badie SS, Manzari MT. A methodological approach for finite element
modeling of pretensioned concrete members at the release of pretensioning. Eng
Struct 2011;33(6):1918–29.
[27] Yapar O, Basu PK, Nordendale N. Accurate finite element modeling of pretensioned
prestressed concrete beams. Eng Struct 2015;101:163–78.
[28] De CW, Van MK, Boel V, Taerwe L. Design of anchorage zones of pretensioned
concrete girders: A comparison of nonlinear 3D FEM results with measurements on
a full scale beam. Appl Sci 2020;10(22):8221.
[29] Okumus P, Oliva MG, Becker S. Nonlinear finite element modeling of cracking at
ends of pretensioned bridge girders. Eng Struct 2012;40:267–75.
[30] Okumus P, Kristam RP, Diaz AM. Sources of crack growth in pretensioned concrete-
bridge girder anchorage zones after detensioning. J Bridge Eng 2016;21(10):
04016072.
[31] Steensels R, Vandoren B, Vandewalle L, Degée H. Evaluation of end-zone detailing
of pre-tensioned concrete girders. Eng Struct 2019;187:372–83.
[32] Ronanki VS, Burkhalter DI, Aaleti S, Song W, Richardson JA. Experimental and
analytical investigation of end zone cracking in BT-78 girders. Eng Struct 2017;
151:503–17.
[33] Van Meirvenne K, De Corte W, Boel V, Taerwe L. Non-linear 3D finite element
analysis of the anchorage zones of pretensioned concrete girders and experimental
verification. Eng Struct 2018;172:764–79.
[34] Guyon Y. Prestressed concrete. New York (NY): Contractors Record; 1953.
[35] Kupfer H, Hilsdorf HK, Rusch H. Behavior of concrete under biaxial stresses. ACI J
1969;66(8):656–66.
[36] Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN. Theory of elasticity (3rd Edition). London: McGraw-
Hill Book Company; 1970.
[37] Japaridze L. Stress-deformed state of cylindrical specimens during indirect tensile
strength testing. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 2015;7(5):509–18.
[38] Okeil AM. Allowable tensile stress for webs of prestressed segmental concrete
bridges. ACI Struct J 2006;103(4):488–95.
[39] Bentz EC. Empirical modeling of cracking in reinforced concrete. ACI Struct J
2019;116(3):233–42.
[40] CABR (China Academy of Building Research). Reinforced concrete structure
research reports (Vol. 2). Beijing: China Building Industry Press; 1981.
[41] Sanders DH, Breen JE. Post-tensioned anchorage zones with single straight
concentric anchorages. ACI Struct J 1997;94(2):146–58.