ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 99-S54
Stresses in Unbonded Prestressing Tendons at Ultimate:
Recommendation
by Antoine E. Naaman, Ned Burns, Catherine French, William L. Gamble, and Alan H. Mattock
The use of unbonded tendons is common in prestressed concrete
structures such as two-way slab systems, nuclear vessels, and
external prestressing. The analysis of members prestressed with
unbonded tendons and subjected to loading up to their ultimate
behavior is more difficult than that of those with bonded tendons.
Indeed, the stress increase in unbonded tendons under load, unlike
bonded tendons, is member-dependent instead of section-dependent.
Thus, the stress in unbonded tendons depends on the deformation
of the entire member and is assumed to be uniform at all sections. It
cannot be directly determined from the analysis of a beam cross
section by conventional strain compatibility, as can be done with
bonded tendons. Rather, the stress increase in the tendons must be
determined from the analysis of the loading-induced deformations
of the entire structure. This is true for the elastic, inelastic, and
ultimate limit states.
To determine the nominal moment resistance of beams pre-
stressed with unbonded tendons, and thus verify the ultimate-
strength limit state as is required in most codes, there is need to
predict the stress fps in unbonded tendons at ultimate or nominal
bending resistance. This can be done using nonlinear analysis and
numerical solutions techniques. However, a simplified method or a
prediction equation for fps is needed for code purposes. Herein, the
authors, who are members of the Subcommittee on Stresses in
Unbonded Tendons of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 423, Prestressed
Concrete, recommend a procedure believed to represent the state
of the art and the best tradeoff at this time.
Keywords: bond; prestressed concrete; stress.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Equations to predict the stress in unbonded tendons at
nominal bending resistance of flexural members are given in
various codes. They are based on past experience with steel
tendons and do not account for a number of important param-
eters, such as the use of fiber-reinforced polymeric (FRP)
tendons, partial prestressing, span-depth ratio, loading con-
ditions, and loading patterns in continuous beams. The meth-
odology and prediction equation proposed in this study attempt
to provide a rational solution to this problem and offer a
recommendation for code implementation.
FUNDAMENTAL FORMULATION OF
PREDICTION EQUATION
To provide a rational procedure to predict the value of fps
at nominal bending resistance, a reference state of stress
must be defined. Herein, the reference state is assumed to
represent the state of stress under the combined effect of
final or effective prestressing force F (after all prestress losses
have occurred) and dead load moment MD.
Thus, under F + MD
fp = fpe (1)
518
TECHNICAL PAPER
where fp = the stress in the prestressing tendon, in general, at
the loading considered; and fpe = the effective prestress.
The stress in the tendon for any level of loading beyond
the reference state can be expressed as follows.
For F + MD + ∆M,
fp = fpe + ∆fps (2)
where ∆fps is the stress increment in the tendons due to ∆M.
Equation (2) also applies for any loading beyond MD up to and
including the nominal bending resistance, in which case the
stress in the prestressing tendons is termed fps by the ACI Code
fps = fpe + ∆fps (3)
Most codes recommend prediction equations to estimate the
value of fps from Eq. (3), which amounts to estimating as accu-
rately as possible the value of the stress increment ∆fps. In partic-
ular, the ACI Code recommends a prediction equation originally
developed by Mattock, Yamazaki, and Kattula (1971) and later
modified to account for the effect of the span-depth ratio, based
on a study by Mojtahedi and Gamble (1978)
f c′
fps = fpe + 10,000 + ---------
- psi (4)
k ρ ps
where k = 100 for L/dp ≤ 35, and k = 300 for L/dp > 35.
REVIEW OF PREDICTION EQUATIONS FOR fps
To keep the length of this paper reasonable, prior investi-
gations cannot be reviewed in detail. Instead, the authors
refer the reader to the main references listed at the end.
Therefor, the following provides only a brief summary.
Numerous equations were developed to predict the stress
fps at nominal bending resistance of beams prestressed with
unbonded tendons. In an extensive study published in 1991,
10 such equations were reviewed and evaluated (Naaman
and Alkhairi 1991a,b). They included those given in the ACI
Code (ACI Committee 318 2002), AASHTO (1996), Cana-
dian Code (CSA 1994), British Code (British Standard Insti-
tution 1985), Swiss Code (1979), Dutch Code (1984) Dutch
practice (1990), German Code (1980), French Code (1983),
Mattock, Yamazaki, and Kattula (1971), Pannell (1969),
Tam and Pannell (1976), Harajli (1990), Du and Tao (1985),
Kordina, and Hegger (1987), Mojtahedi and Gamble (1978),
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-August 2002.
MS No. 01-376 received November 14, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publica-
tion policies. Copyright © 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright pro-
prietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the May-June 2003 ACI Structural
Journal if received by January 1, 2003.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002
Antoine E. Naaman, FACI, is a professor of civil engineering at the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. He is a member of ACI Committees 440, Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Reinforcement; 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete; 549, Thin Reinforced
Cementitious Products and Ferrocement; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 423, Pre-
stressed Concrete. His research interests include high-performance fiber-reinforced
cement composites and prestressed concrete.

Ned Burns, FACI, is Zarrow Centennial Professor Emeritus at the University of Texas
at Austin, Austin, Tex., where he has been active in teaching and research since 1962.
He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 423, Prestressed Concrete, and is also
a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

Catherine French, FACI, is a professor of civil engineering at the University of

Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. She is Chair of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445,
Shear and Torsion; and a member of ACI Committee 318, Structural Concrete Building
Code, and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic
Concrete Structures. Her research interests focus on the behavior of reinforced and
prestressed concrete structural systems, including the application of new materials,
retrofitting methods, and the development of new structural details.

William L. Gamble, FACI, is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he has been a faculty member
since 1963. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 421, Design of Reinforced
Concrete Slabs; and 423, Prestressed Concrete; and ACI Committees 216, Fire Resis-
tance and Fire Protection of Structures; 543, Concrete Piles; and Subcommittee 318- Fig. 2—Correlation between predicted and experimental
F, Two-Way Slabs. His research interests include concrete bridges, reinforcing bar values of ∆fps used to determine Ωu from data (Naaman and
couplers, and concrete tunnel linings.
Alkhairi 1991b).
ACI Honorary Member Alan H. Mattock is Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering
at the University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. He is a member of ACI Committee 318,
Structural Concrete Building Code; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 423, Pre-
stressed Concrete; 445, Shear and Torsion; and 550, Precast Concrete Structures. He
was the recipient of ACI’s Wason Medal in 1967, the ACI’s Alfred E. Lindau Award in
1970, and ACI’s Joe W. Kelly Award in 1991.

Fig. 3—Correlation between predicted and experimental

values of fps using reduced value of Ωu recommended for
code application in Eq. (14) (Naaman and Alkhairi 1991b).

Fig. 1—Correlation between predicted and experimental

values of fps used to determine Ωu from data (Naaman and
Alkhairi 1991b).

and Naaman and Alkhairi (1991b). The predictions given by

these equations were also compared with data from 143
beam tests carried out between 1962 and 1990 by 10 different
investigators around the world (see details in Naaman and
Alkhairi (1991a)). Particular attention was placed on com-
paring not only the predicted and observed values of fps but,
most importantly, the corresponding values of ∆ fps , where
the variability in the results is much more significant. The
equation developed by Naaman and Alkhairi (1991b) led to
the best correlation in all cases.
Figure 1 through 4, which are taken from Naaman and
Alkhairi (1991b), show the level of correlation for both fps
and ∆fps , where two values of the strain reduction coefficient
Ωu were used: one as obtained directly from the best correla- Fig. 4—Correlation between predicted and experimental
tion, and the other as recommended for code use to lead to values of fps using reduced value of Ωu recommended for
results on the safe side. code application in Eq. (14) (Naaman and Alkhairi 1991b).

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002 519

 Since the aforementioned extensive study, three additional
equations known to the authors have been suggested: the
first is in a study by Lee, Moon, and Lim (1999); the second
is in a study by Allouche et al. (1998, 1999); and the third is
in the 1998 edition of the AASHTO LRFD Specification for
Bridge Design (1998) and MacGregor, Kreger, and Breen
(1989). For the sake of brevity, these equations are not repro-
duced herein. The Subcommittee, however, gives as fol-
lows the main reason these equations were evaluated but
not selected as its first recommendation. This does not imply
that they cannot be used, but simply that they are less pre-
ferred. Note that a prediction equation published the same
year as Naaman and Alkhairi (1991b) by Harajli and Hijazi
(1991) attempted to provide a unified formulation for both
bonded and unbonded tendons; it was also reviewed but con-
sidered to be less desirable.
The equation proposed by Lee, Moon, and Lim (1999)
offered a combination of deformation compatibility based on
plastic hinge formation and regression analysis. It also repre-
sents an extension of Moon and Burns (1997). The authors
carried out a correlation with essentially the same experi-
mental data used by Naaman and Alkhairi (1991a), and found
similar levels of correlation. Their equation, however, was con-
sidered less desirable by the committee because: 1) it did
not preserve the fundamental form of Eq. (3) (it was put in
the form fps = 0.8fpe + ∆fps ); 2) it was significantly lengthier
and used a coefficient f related to the length of plastic
hinge to be computed from another equation derived in
Harajli (1990), Harajli and Kanj (1991), and Harajli and
Hijazi (1991); and 3) it did not provide a significantly better
correlation than did the equation proposed by Naaman and
Alkhairi (1991b).
The equation suggested by Allouche et al. (1999) offered
a modification to the Canadian Code equation by introducing
a multiplying factor (1 + cy /dp2 )that leads to a cubic equation
in c, where c is the depth of the neutral axis; cy is the value
of c assuming yielding of the reinforcement; and dp is the
distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid
of the prestressed reinforcement. No correlation with the ex-
tensive body of experimental data was provided for simply
supported beams, and the use of the equation was suggested
as an improvement for continuous beams. The multiplier
could be reduced for all practical purposes to almost a con-
stant, however. Thus, the equation can be shown to be really
insensitive to the level of continuity. Thus, it is not clear
whether the improved predictions are due to the use of their
term le , which is related to the continuity of the member, or
simply to the use of the multiplier. Allouche et al. (1999) eval-
uated only a handful of experimental data on continuous beams,
did not evaluate a large body of data on simply supported
beams, and did not consider the span-depth ratio in their equa-
tion. The Committee believed that any adopted equation should
also be particularly accurate for simply supported beams.
Finally, the 1998 AASHTO-LRFD equation leads to very
conservative values of ∆fps that cannot be matched by the
large body of experimental observations. The equation was
initially derived by MacGregor, Kreger, and Breen (1989) as
part of an investigation on a three-span, externally post-ten-
sioned box girder bridge model. It is based on a prior equa-
tion developed by Tam and Pannell (1976) and modified for
continuous members by accounting for the number of poten-
tial plastic hinges forming at failure.
The aforementioned, very brief review of more recent
studies left the basic equation initially proposed by Naaman
520
and Alkhairi (1991b) as the best candidate for a code rec-
ommendation. The following reasons are given for selecting
this equation. Most importantly, it offers a tradeoff among
accuracy, simplicity, and generality and, unlike any of the
other equations reviewed, it applies to both steel and FRP
tendons. It is also very stable and remains valid over a wide
range of parameters.
For beams prestressed with bonded tendons, strains, and
stress changes under load beyond the reference state Eq. (1)
can be determined in any typical section along the span using
equilibrium equations, stress-strain relations, and strain
compatibility. This is generally described as strain-compati-
bility analysis. An underlying assumption of such analysis is
that perfect bond exists between steel and concrete, which
implies that the strain change under load in the steel is equal
to the strain change in the concrete at the level of the steel.
Conventional strain compatibility does not apply as-is in
computing the stress in unbonded tendons. This is because,
under loading, the strain change in the unbonded tendon is
averaged between end anchorages, and this is different from
the strain change in the concrete at the level of the tendon at
any given section.
Strain reduction or bond reduction coefficient
Baker (1949) was the first to suggest the use of a reduction
coefficient F to accommodate unbonded tendons. He defined
it as the: “(Average concrete stress adjacent to steel)/(Maxi-
mum concrete stress adjacent to steel),” and noted that “its
value may be assumed to be 0.66 for beams supporting uni-
formly distributed load, and not less than 0.5 for beams sup-
porting central point load.” Baker also suggested that the
coefficient F can be determined experimentally and, in a fol-
low-up paper (Baker 1951), he recommended a value of F =
0.1, based on an experimental test by Mattock (1949).
Subsequent investigations by several researchers into the
ultimate resistance of beams prestressed with unbonded tendons
led to a number of recommended values for F. From his tests,
Revesz (1953) concluded that F = 0.0005/εcu. Basically, if εcu
= 0.003, then F = 0.167. Gifford (1953, 1954) carried out tests
where he directly measured the strain in unbonded steel wires
and recommended the use of F = n. Using the current ACI
notation, the definition of n is: n = ρp(fpu /0.85fc′ ), where
0.85fc′ is the average stress in the concrete stress block; thus,
n is similar to the prestressing index and is expected to be less
than approximately 0.30 for under-reinforced sections. Cowan
(1955) and Tellerfield (1953) also published values of F versus
n ranging from 0.1 to 1. The factor F was also used by
Warwaruk, Sozen, and Siess (1962) in connection with the in-
crement of strain beyond that corresponding to fpe. The value
of F depended on the shape of the moment diagram as the depth
of neutral axis c/dp. Pannell (1969) reviewed most of the above
investigations and further clarified the definition of F as “the
ratio of steel strain to concrete strain at the level of the steel at
ultimate load in unbonded prestressed concrete beams.”
For all practical purposes, the coefficient F has the same
basic definition as the coefficient Ωu , used in this study and
expanded upon subsequently, except that Ωu uses increments
of strains beyond a reference state defined as that corre-
sponding to the effective prestress and dead load.
Following the same general definition of the strain-reduction
coefficient, Naaman (1990) was the first to develop analytical
expressions for the coefficient that apply to the elastic un-
cracked, elastic cracked, and ultimate limit states in bending.
He integrated these coefficients in a modified strain-com-
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002
patibility analysis to predict the moment curvature of beams
prestressed with unbonded tendons. The solution proposed
essentially reduces the analysis of beams with unbonded
tendons to that of beams with bonded tendons through the use
of appropriate strain reduction (or bond reduction) coefficient
(Naaman 1990; Naaman and Alkhairi 1991b). Equivalently, the
coefficient reduces a deflection-compatibility analysis to a
strain-compatibility analysis (Naaman 1991). The strain-
reduction coefficient was defined as the ratio of the average
strain increment in the unbonded tendon to the strain increment
in the equivalent bonded tendon at the section of maximum
moment. Its derivation can be summarized as follows:
Simply supported beams with constant EIg throughout their
lengths, symmetrical loadings, and tendon profiles are consid-
ered. The critical design section is assumed to be the midspan
section, at which the maximum eccentricity of the tendons is
assigned. It can then be shown that the strain-reduction coeffi-
cient can be calculated in the most general case from (Naaman
1990; Naaman and Alkhairi 1991b)

2 L⁄2
Ω = --------------------------------------
∆ M max ( e o ) max L ∫0 ∆ M ( x ) e o ( x ) dx (5) Fig. 5—Strain distribution along section of maximum moment.

Naaman and Alkhairi attempted to extend the theoretical

Lc ⁄ 2
I cr 2  I cr ∆ M ( x ) e o ( x ) dx
Ω c = Ω -----
- + --- 1 – -----
Ig L 
-
Ig  ∫ ------------------------------------
∆ M max ( e o ) max
(6)
0
where Ω = for the case where the section is uncracked; Ωc =
for the case where the section is cracked; eo (x) = eccentricity
of the centroid of the tendons; (eo)max = eccentricity at the
midspan section; Ig = the moment of inertia of the uncracked
section;
Icr = the moment of inertia of the cracked section; ∆M(x) =
the moment in excess of dead-load moment; ∆Mmax = the
value of ∆M(x) at the midspan section; and x = the distance
from midspan to the section considered.
L is the span length, and Lc is the length of the segment of
the beam assumed to be cracked. Lc is generally very small
compared with L because, theoretically, a plastic hinge
forms at the cracked section, and the lack of bond does not
allow multiple cracking to develop beyond that region. Lc
remains relatively small compared with L even when internal
bonded reinforcement is provided to produce well-distributed
cracks, as recommended in the ACI Building Code (1999,
2002) for slabs. Closed-form numerical solutions for Ω and
Ωc for different cases of loading and tendon profiles are given
and discussed in Naaman (1990) and Naaman and Alkhairi
(1991b). They are very simple, especially for Ω. In particular,
they show that the strain-reduction coefficients depend only
on the tendon profile and the applied load; moreover, their
numerical value is quite sensitive to whether the eccentricity at
the supports is negative, positive, or nil.
It was also shown that, for the closed-form solution obtained
for Ωc , the following approximation holds in all cases
(Naaman 1990, 1991; Naaman and Alkhairi 1991b)
derivation of the strain-reduction coefficient to the ultimate
limit state in bending; they defined the coefficient as Ωu and
tried to develop an equation for it that is of the same form as
Eq. (6) and (7). They worked in particular on the simplified
form of Eq. (7), where Lc becomes the plastic hinge length at
ultimate, and Icr becomes the moment of inertia of the
cracked section at ultimate; however, the task proved to be
extremely challenging and no satisfactory solution could be
found in terms of consistently fitting all available experi-
mental data. Hence, they analyzed 143 beam tests from ten
different investigations spanning from 1962 to 1990 and
back-calculated a strain-reduction coefficient Ωu from the
data (Fig. 1 and 2). The coefficient accounted for two variables,
loading condition (midspan, third-point, or uniform loading),
and span-depth ratio. Naaman and Alkhairi (1991b) integrated
the value of Ωu in a strain compatibility analysis according to
Fig. 5, and showed that the relations obtained led to the
highest correlation (among existing prediction equations)
between predicted and experimental observations, not only for
the values of fps, but also for the value of ∆fps. They then
reduced the values of Ωu obtained by a safe margin (Fig. 3 and
4), for the purpose of inclusion in a code recommendation and
developed several examples to illustrate the accuracy and
validity of their method.
Prediction equation for fps
Based on their findings, Naaman and Alkhairi (1991b)
proposed the following prediction equation for the stress in
the unbonded prestressing tendon at nominal bending resistance
L
fps = fpe + ΩuEpsεcu  ----p- – 1 -----1
d
(8)
c  L2

Icr  I cr L c I cr
Ω c ≈ Ω ----- - ----- ≈ Ω -----
- + 1 – -----

- (7) where Eps = elastic modulus of prestressing steel; L = length
Ig Ig L Ig of span for which computation is carried out; L1 = the sum of
lengths of loaded spans containing tendon(s) considered; L2 =
Whether using the first or second approximation of the total length of tendon(s) between anchorages; εcu = assumed
right-hand term, Eq. (7) leads to a greatly simplified analysis failure strain of concrete in compression equal to 0.003; and
for the elastic cracked range of behavior of a member pre- Ωu = 3/(L/dp) for uniform or third-point loading, and 1.5/(L/dp)
stressed with unbonded tendons. for one-point midspan loading.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002 521

 The strain-reduction coefficient Ωu is defined as the ratio
of strain increase in the unbonded tendon to that of the equiv-
alent bonded tendon at the section of maximum moment, at
nominal bending resistance. When Eq. (8) is applied at inter-
mediate supports of continuous members, L can be taken as
the average of the two spans on either side of the support.
Equation (8) can be derived directly from the strain diagram
in Fig. 5, neglecting the effect of εce and assuming that the
stress in the prestressing steel is linear elastic; that is,
fps = Epsεps (9)
Modifications and extension
Because Eq. (8) is valid only when the stress in the pre-
stressing steel is in the elastic range of behavior, a limit of
0.80fpu is suggested. The limit represents 0.94fpy for stress-
relieved strands, and 0.89fpy for low-relaxation strands. It is
consistent with Eq. (9).
Equation (8) is valid for simple spans where the tendon
length between anchorages is the same as the span length.
When continuous tendons are used over several spans, the
loading of one span creates deformations in that span leading
to a strain increment in the tendons that is averaged between
the anchorages, that is, over several spans. To account for
this effect, Eq. (8) was modified by adding the factor L1/L2,
where L1 is the length of the loaded span (or, more generally,
the sum of the lengths of loaded spans containing or crossed
by tendon[s] considered), and L2 is the length of the tendon
between anchorages. A discussion related to the use of L1/L2
and the influence of the pattern and type of loading is given
in Appendix B.
Because Eq. (8) is valid for the linear-elastic range of be-
havior of the reinforcement, it also applies to FRP tendons,
which are known to have a linear-elastic stress-strain response
up to failure. Thus, for FRP tendons, Eq. (8) will be valid
provided that the modulus of elasticity of the steel is replaced
by that of the FRP tendon. The upper limit of 0.80fpu seems
reasonable for safety reasons, even for FRP tendons, but
could be modified pending further calibration with FRP
materials data.
RECOMMENDED EQUATIONS TO REPLACE
CODE SECTION 18.7.2(b)
The ACI 423 Subcommittee recognizes that the stress in-
crement in unbonded tendons is generally small and, often,
the need for an accurate prediction equation may not be
warranted. Because a member-strain compatibility or a
deflection compatibility analysis can be time-consuming,
two equations are recommended subsequently as alterna-
tives: 1) a conservative approximation sufficient for slabs
and numerous other cases; and 2) a more refined prediction
equation applicable to all cases. For unbonded steel tendons,
a minimum stress increment limit of 7.5 ksi (52.5 MPa) is
also recommended for any span or loading case.
Conservative approach
fps = fpe + ∆fps (10a)
Ep L1
∆fps = -----------
- ----- (10b)
1866 L 2
where ∆fps is the increment of stress from the effective
prestress level to nominal resistance; and Ep is the elastic
522
modulus of prestressing tendons (steel or FRP) as obtained
from tests or specified by the manufacturer. The value of Ep for
prestressing steels may be taken as 28,000 ksi (196,000 MPa).
For simply supported beams or slabs prestressed with un-
bonded steel tendons, Eq. (10b) leads to an increment of
stress of 15 ksi (105 MPa). This value has been extensively
used in the past for its simplicity, and no adverse effects were
reported or are known to the Subcommittee.
Because of the ratio L1 /L2, the increment of stress ∆fps can
become very small in a multispan system. Experimental tests
by Burns (1990) suggest that ∆fps does not vanish, due to
some friction. Thus, for one- or two-way slab systems with
three spans or more, the subcommittee recommends the use
of Eq. (10) with an increment of stress limited as follows
Ep
∆ f ps ≥ -----------
- (11)
3732
For prestressing steels, Eq. (11) implies an increment of stress
not less than 7.5 ksi (52.5 MPa); this limit is also recommended
as a lower limit for all members with prestressing steel.
Integrating Eq. (10) and (11) into a single equations leads to
Ep L1 Ep
- ----- ≥ f pe + -----------
f ps = f pe + ----------- - (12)
1866 L 2 3732
Eq. (12) is recommended herein for code use. It applies to
steel or FRP tendons and is independent of the system of
units. If Eq. (12) is written for steel tendons and in U.S. units,
it will read as follows
L
f ps = f pe + 15 ----1- ≥ f pe + 7.5 ksi (13)
L2
Refined approach
Steel tendons—
L
f ps = f pe + Ω u E ps ε cu  ----p- – 1 ----1-
d
(14)
c  L2
FRP tendons—
L
f frp = f pe + Ω u E frp ε cu  ----p- – 1 -----1
d
(15)
c  L2
Steel or FRP or any linear elastic reinforcement—If the
stress in the prestressing tendon (made of steel or FRP or any
other material with linear elastic behavior) where nominal
bending resistance is defined as fpn, and if the modulus of
elasticity of the tendon is defined as Epr, then Eq. (14) and
(15) can be represented by the same equation
d L
f pn = f pe + Ω u E pr ε cu  ----p- – 1 -----1 (16)
c  L2
where the strain-reduction coefficient Ωu is as given in Eq. (8).
Use of recommended equation
To obtain the value of fpn from Eq. (16), the equation of
force equilibrium in the section at ultimate and the prediction
equation of fpn (Eq. (16)) must be solved simultaneously for
c and fpn. A quadratic equation in c is obtained and solved
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002
first; then fpn is computed. A closed-form solution and some
detailed examples are given in Naaman and Alkhairi (1991b)
and Naaman (1995). It should be noted that Eq. (14) was ini-
tially adopted in the first draft of the AASHTO-LRFD Spec-
ification for Bridge Design (1995), and then was replaced by
a new equation. Equation (14) through (16) are nondimen-
sional; thus, they apply to all systems of units. Should only
steel be considered, it would be easy to further simplify Eq. (14)
and (16) by replacing the product Epr εcu with its numerical
value. Several examples illustrating the computation procedure
using Eq. (16) for beams and slabs are given in Appendix A.
Advantages of proposed equation
First and foremost, the proposed prediction equation for
fps (or fpn ) is rational and based on a fundamental analysis
where equilibrium equations, stress-strain relations, and
compatibility of deformations are satisfied. It is stable over a
wide range of variables. Equation (8) and (14) gave the high-
est levels of correlation with experimental data using steel
tendons and predicted the trends for most important vari-
ables. The value of the depth of the neutral axis c at ultimate
accounts for the presence of nonprestressed reinforcement
(tensile and compression) and satisfies equilibrium at ulti-
mate for rectangular and T-section behavior. Other features
are listed as follows:
1. Because it is based on compatibility and equilibrium,
Eq. (16) incorporates the elastic modulus of the tendons and
is applicable to both prestressing steels and FRP tendons.
Equation (16) is currently needed when FRP tendons are
used; it is particularly suitable because FRP tendons have an
elastic modulus spanning a very wide range, from one-tenth
(such as that of PVA) to more than twice (in the case of some
grades of carbon) that of steel;
2. Although the strain reduction coefficient Ωu was cali-
brated based on tests of 143 simply supported beams pre-
stressed with unbonded steel tendons (Naaman and Alkhairi
1991b), it should be applicable in principle to FRP tendons
as well because, by definition, the strain-reduction coeffi-
cient (Eq. (5) and (6)) theoretically depends only on the ten-
don profile and the external loading conditions. Future
modifications, if necessary, can be accommodated through
the strain-reduction coefficient without changing the funda-
mental nature of Eq. (16). For example, Ng and Tan (2002)
have recommended some adjustment to Ωu to accommodate
the effects of eccentricity variations in external prestressing;
3. Through the strain reduction coefficient Ωu , Eq. (16)
also accommodates the span-depth ratio;
4. Equation (16) takes into consideration the influence of
loaded span versus nonloaded span or spans through the ratio
L1/L2; and
5. Equation (16) may lead to prediction values of fpn sig-
nificantly higher than those obtained from the conservative
approach (Eq. (10) through (13)), resulting in higher values
of nominal bending resistance and potential cost savings.
It should be noted that, within a given span of a multiple-span
member, it would be adequate to compute fpn from Eq. (16) at
the critical sections, then use an average value for the loading
condition selected. Equation (10) through (16) depend on the
effective prestress as the reference stress fpe. It should be not-
ed that fpe is itself section-dependent as the section moves
from jacking end to holding end; thus, fpe can be different at
different critical sections, and this may have a bearing on the
value of nominal bending resistance. The effect, however, is
small and is often neglected in practice.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002
Proposed change to ACI Code Eq. (18-4) and (18-5)
The current ACI Code equation to predict the stress fps in
unbonded prestressing tendons is given in Eq. (3) and is still
useful in many cases. There are, however, several key rea-
sons to replace the code equation by Eq. (16), namely:
• To accommodate partial prestressing; that is, the com-
bined presence of reinforcing and prestressing steels;
• To accommodate both prestressing steel and FRP ten-
dons, which are increasingly considered in prestressed
concrete applications;
• To account for the effect of the elastic modulus of the
prestressing tendons used;
• To provide a more accurate formulation based on
deflection compatibility;
• To incorporate the span-depth ratio, the tendon profile,
and the loading conditions in a more rational way; and
• To account for the effect of loaded span or spans, versus
length of tendon between anchorages.
The proposed change was put in a code format in Table 1
to replace Section 18.7 of the ACI Building Code. The notation
of the code was used; however, the definitions of some terms
need to be clarified to include prestressing reinforcement
other than steel reinforcement. Namely, Ep can be defined as
the modulus of elasticity of the prestressed reinforcement to
include steel or FRP.
EXAMPLES
The examples described in Appendix A are by no means
exhaustive and are simply offered to provide typical exam-
ples of solutions for the case of a simply supported beam and
a continuous slab. Six other examples are developed in detail
in Naaman and Alkhairi (1991b). The closed-form solutions
of the two equations (Eq. (16) and the equation for force
equilibrium) for the case of rectangular and T-section behavior
are given in Naaman and Alkhairi (1991b) and Naaman
(1995). These are, essentially, the solutions of a quadratic
equation. A simple iterative procedure, however, can be fol-
lowed, for instance: 1) assume fps = fpe + 15 ksi (105 MPa)
(or assume fps = 0.8fpu), and then compute c from equilibri-
um; 2) using the c obtained, compute fps from Eq. (14); and
3) repeat the procedure until there is little gain in the itera-
tion. The examples in Appendix A illustrate the sensitivity of
the proposed equation in cases where reinforcing bars are
used in addition to prestressing tendons, in case of FRP ten-
dons, in cases where one or two versus several spans are
loaded, and the case of the span-depth ratio.
The possible interpretation of the ratio L1/L2 used in Eq. (14)
through (16) was the subject of a long discussion by the
Subcommittee. Appendix B clarifies the influence of pattern-
loading and type of load on the value of that ratio. It is pro-
vided for completeness of information but, for all practical
purposes, should not affect the definition of L1/L2 used in
Eq. (8), (12), (14), (15), and (16).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Subcommittee recognizes that, in unbonded prestressing
tendons, the increment of stress from the effective prestress
to ultimate or nominal resistance is generally small when
compared with that of bonded tendons and also when com-
pared with the effective prestress itself. In many cases, an
approximation fps to estimate the stress at ultimate is sufficient,
such as in Eq. (13), where a maximum stress increment of
15 ksi (105 MPa) is used for prestressing steel. The recom-
mended equation (Eq. (16)) to predict fps , however, permits
523
Table 1—Summary of code recommendation*
Recommended equations to replace ACI Code, Section 18.7.2(b)
For members prestressed with unbonded tendons, instead of a deflection compat- Eq. (18-4) and (18-5) hold for all systems of units.
ibility analysis, one of the following approaches can be used:
1. Conservative approximate prediction equation
Ep L1 Ep
- ----- ≥ f se + -----------
f ps = f se + -----------
1866 L 2 3732
where fps is the stress in the prestressed reinforcement at nominal bending resis-
tance; other notation is as per Eq. (18-5).
2. Accurate prediction equation
f ps = f se + Ω u E p ε cu  ----p- – 1 -----1 ≤ 0.80f pu
d L
c L2
where
fse = effective prestress in the prestressed reinforcement;
Ep = elastic modulus of prestressed reinforcement;
εcu = failure strain of concrete in compression, assumed = 0.003;
dp = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of prestressed reinforcement;
c = depth of neutral axis at nominal bending resistance;
L = length of span for which computation is carried out;
L1 = sum of lengths of loaded spans containing tendon(s) considered;
L2 = total length of tendon(s) between anchorages;
Ωu = 3/(L/dp) for uniform or third-point loading;
Ωu = 1.5/(L/dp) for one-point midspan loading; and
fpu = specified tensile strength of prestressed tendons.
*
ACI Code notation is used when available.
taking advantage of stress increments larger than 15 ksi
(105 MPa) when justifiable. The proposed equation accounts
for a number of parameters not currently covered in any
other code. It is rational; that is, it is based on theory and
supported by experimental validation—it accommodates the
combined presence of reinforcing steel and prestressing, the
span-depth ratio, nonmetallic reinforcements, and differences in
load patterns. Moreover, it provides a theoretical reference
measure in cases where unusual conditions are encountered or
trends are to be estimated. The recommendation summarized
in Table 1 represents the Subcommittee's consensus given
the current state of knowledge.
REFERENCES
AASHTO, 1996, “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,” 16th
Edition, American Association of Highways and Transportation Officials,
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
AASHTO LRFD Specification for Highway Bridge Design, 1995,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C.
ACI Committee 318, 1999, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 391 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 2002, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, 443 pp.
Allouche, E. N., Campbell, I. T., Green, M. F., and Soudki, K. A.,
1998, “Tendon Stress in Continuous Unbonded Prestressed Concrete
Members—Part 1: Review of Literature,” PCI Journal, V. 43, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec., pp. 86-93.
Allouche, E. N.; Campbell, I. T.; Green, M. F.; and Soudki, K. A., 1999,
“Tendon Stress in Continuous Unbonded Prestressed Concrete Members—
Part 2: Parametric Study,” PCI Journal, V. 44, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 60-73.
Baker, A. L. L., 1949, “A Plastic Theory of Design for Ordinary
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Including Moment Redistribution in
Continuous Members,” Magazine of Concrete Research (London), V. 1,
No. 2, June, pp. 57-66.
Baker, A. L. L., 1951, “Recent Research in Reinforced Concrete and its
Application to Design,” Journal, Institution of Civil Engineers (London),
V. 35, No. 4, Feb., pp. 262-329.
524
Remarks/Commentary
When not obtained from test or supplied by the manufacturer, the elastic
modulus of prestressing steel may be taken as 28,000 ksi (196,000 MPa).
Applied to prestressing steel and U.S. units, Eq. (18-4) can be written as
- (18-4)
L
f ps = f se + 15 -----1 ≥ f se + 7.5 ksi
L2
It leads to an increment of stress beyond effective prestress equal to a
(18-5) maximum of 15 ksi (105 MPa) and a minimum of 7.5 ksi (52.5 MPa).
Equation (18-5) is based on deflection compatibility analysis along the
member that is reduced to a section strain compatibility through the
strain reduction coefficient Ωu.
Equation (18-5) is derived assuming the tendons are in the linear range of
behavior. The limitation of 0.80fpu corresponds to 94% of yield for stress
relieved steel strand, and 89% of yield for low relaxation strand. It is also a
safe limit for FRP tendons.
The value of depth of neutral axis c at ultimate accounts for the presence
of nonprestressed reinforcement and satisfies equilibrium at ultimate.
The equation of force equilibrium in the section and the prediction equa-
tion of fps must be solved simultaneously for c and fps.
At intermediate supports of continuous members, L can be taken as the
average of the two spans on either side of the support.
British Standard Institution, 1985, “Structural Use of Concrete,” BS
8110, Section 4.3.7.3, BSI, London.
Burns, N. H., 1990, “Post-Tension Force Changes in Continuous Beams,”
ASCE Structures Congress Abstracts, ASCE, New York, pp. 455-456.
Cowan, H. J., 1955, “The Ultimate Strength of Prestressed Concrete
Beams,” The Structural Engineer, V. 33, No. 7, July, pp. 197-212.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association) A23.3-94, 1994, “Design of
Concrete Structures,” Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Du, G., and Tao, X., 1985, “Ultimate Stress in Unbonded Tendons of
Partially Prestressed Concrete Beams,” PCI Journal, V. 30, No. 6, Nov.-
Dec., pp. 72-91.
Dutch Code, 1984, “Voorschriften Beton VB,” NEN 3880, Part H,
Section 503.1.3.
Dutch practice, 1990, private communication with A. S. G. Bruggeling.
“French Code for Limit State Design of Prestressed Concrete,” 1983,
Regles B.P.E.L 83, Fascicule No. 62, Titre 1, Section 2, Marche Publics de
Travaux, Secretariat General de la Commission Centrale des Marches,
Paris, France, Oct. (in French)
German Code, 1980, “Spannbeton, Bauteile mit Vorspannung ohne
Verbund,” (Entwurf), DIN 4227, Teil 6. (in German)
Gifford, F. W., 1953, “Test of End-Anchored, Unbonded Prestressed
Concrete Beams Having Parabolic Steel Eccentricity, Subjected to Uni-
formly Distributed Loading,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 5, No.
13, Aug., pp. 27-36.
Gifford, F. W., 1954, “The Design of Simply Supported Prestressed Con-
crete Beams for Ultimate Loads,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Part III, V. 3, No. 1, Apr., pp. 125-143.
Harajli, M. H., 1990, “Stress in Unbonded Prestressed Members,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 3, May-June, pp. 305-312.
Harajli, M. H., and Kanj, M. Y., 1991, “Ultimate Flexural Strength of
Concrete Members Prestressed with Unbonded Tendons,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 88, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 638-673.
Harajli, M. H., and Hijazi, S., 1991, “Evaluation of the Ultimate Steel
Stress in Unbonded Prestressed Members,” PCI Journal, V. 36, No. 1, Jan.-
Feb., pp. 62-82.
Kordina, K., and Hegger, J., 1987, “Determination of the Ultimate
Strength in Bending in the Case of Prestress Without Bond,” Beton—Und
Stahlbetonbau, Wilhelm Ernst + Sohn, Berlin, V. 82, Apr., pp. 85-90.
(in German)
Lee, L.-H.; Moon, J.-H.; and Lim, J.-H., 1999, “Proposed Methodology
for Computing of Unbonded Tendon Stress at Flexural Failure,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 96, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 1040-1048.
MacGregor, R. J. G.; Kreger, M. E.; and Breen, J. E., 1989, “Evaluation
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002
of Strength and Ductility of a Three-Span Externally Post-Tensioned Box
Girder Bridge Model,” Research Report 365-3F, Center for Transportation
Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., Jan.
Mattock, A. H., 1949, “A Study of Design Methods for ‘End Anchored’
Prestressed Concrete Beams,” thesis submitted for MSc in Engineering,
University of London, June, 165 pp.
Mattock, A. H.; Yamazaki, J.; and Kattula, B. T., 1971, “Comparative
Study of Prestressed Concrete Beams, with and without Bond,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 68, No. 3, Feb., pp. 116-125.
Mojtahedi, S., and Gamble, W. L., 1978, “Ultimate Steel Stresses in
Unbonded Prestressed Concrete,” ASCE Structural Journal, July, pp.
1159-1165.
Moon, J.-H., and Burns, N. H., 1997, “Flexural Behavior of Members Fig. A1—Beam section and properties considered.
with Unbonded Tendons. I: Theory, II: Applications,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 123, No. 8, Aug., pp. 1087-1094. Eq. (18-4) or (18-5) and the proposed equations of Table 1
Naaman, A. E., 1982, Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design: Fun- for the various cases shown as follows.
damentals, McGraw Hill, New York.
Naaman, A. E., 1990, “A New Methodology for the Analysis of Beams
Prestressed with External or Unbonded Tendons,” External Prestressing in Steel tendons: 1999 ACI Code
Bridges, SP-120, A. E. Naaman and J. E. Breen, eds., American Concrete The following can be computed
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 339-354.
Naaman, A. E., 1991, “Stress at Ultimate in Unbonded Tendons by A ps 0.612
Strain Compatibility,” Progress in Structural Engineering, D. E. Grierson, ρ p = -------- = ------------------ = 0.001417
A. Franchi, and P. Riva, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 217-227. bd p 24 × 18
Naaman, A. E., 1992, “Unified Design Recommendations for Reinforced,
Prestressed, and Partially Prestressed Concrete Bending and Compression
L 40 × 12
Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 200-210. ----- = ------------------ = 26.7 ≤ 35
Naaman, A. E., 1995, “Bending Strength Design of Prestressed and Partially dp 18
Prestressed Concrete Members with the New AASHTO Code,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 121, No. 6, June, pp. 964-970.
Naaman, A. E., and Alkhairi, F. M., 1991a “Stress at Ultimate in f c′
fps = fse + 10 + --------------------
Unbonded Prestressing Tendons—Part I: Evaluation of the State-of-the- 100 × ρ p
Art,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 641-651.
Naaman, A. E., and Alkhairi, F. M., 1991b, “Stress at Ultimate in
Unbonded Prestressing Tendons—Part II: Proposed Methodology,” ACI 7
Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 683-692. = 150 + 10 + ---------------------------------- = 209.4 ksi
Ng, C. K., and Tan, K. H., 2002, “Evaluation of Tendon Stress in Exter-
100 × 0.00142
nally Prestressed Beams at Ultimate Flexural Limit State.” (in print)
Pannell, F. N., 1969, “The Ultimate Moment of Resistance of Unbonded fps = 209.4 ksi ≤ fse + 60 = 210 ksi O.K.
Prestressed Concrete Beams,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 21, No. 66, ≤ fpy = 230 ksi O.K.
Mar., pp. 43-54.
It should be noted that the ACI equation is not sensitive to
Revesz, S., 1953, “Factors Governing the Ultimate Bending Moment of
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams with Reference to a Proposed the presence of As, be it zero or double the value given.
Plastic Theory,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 5, No. 13, Aug., pp. 11-26.
Swiss Code, 1979, “Ultimate Load Behavior of Slabs,” SIA 162, Work- Steel tendons: proposed equation of Table 1
ing Party 5. (draft) (Eq. (14))
Tam, A., and Parnell, F. N., 1976, “The Ultimate Moment of Resistance The equation for force equilibrium of the section at nominal
of Unbonded Partially Prestressed Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Magazine
of Concrete Research, V. 28, No. 97, Dec., pp. 203-208. bending resistance assuming rectangular section behavior is
Tellerfield, D. W., 1953, “The Ultimate Flexural Strength of Prestressed written as
Concrete Beams,” thesis presented to the University of Sheffield, 127 pp.
Warwaruk, J., Sozen, M. A., Siess, C. P., 1962, “Investigation of Pre- Aps fps + As fy = 0.85fc′ β1c (A-1)
stressed Reinforced Concrete for Highway Bridges, Part III: Strength and
Behavior in Flexure of Prestressed Concrete Beams,” Bulletin No. 464, from which
University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, Ill, Aug.,
105 pp.
A ps f ps + A s f y
c = ----------------------------- 0.612fps + 2 × 60-
- = ------------------------------------------- (A-2)
APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES 0.85f c′ b β 1 0.85 × 7 × 24 × β 1
It should be noted that, in the following computations, a
high number of decimals is used only to allow the reader to 0.612f ps + 120
verify the calculations; generally, this is not necessary. In the = ----------------------------------
-
following examples, the notation is given in Table 1 and is 99.96
consistent with the ACI Code used.
c = 1.2005 + 0.00612f ps (A-3)
EXAMPLE 1—SIMPLY SUPPORTED BEAM
The beam under consideration is the simply supported For simply supported beams with uniform loading
beam with the cross-sectional dimensions and material prop-
erties shown in Fig. A1. The section was reinforced with two 3 3
L1 = L2 and Ωu = ------------ = ---------------------------- = 0.1125
No. 9 reinforcing bars and prestressed with four 1/2 in.- L ⁄ dp 40 × 12 ⁄ 18
diameter unbonded prestressing strands. The span length L
was 40 ft.
L
f ps = f se + Ω u E p ε cu  ----p- – 1 -----1
d
The stress in the unbonded tendons at nominal bending
c  L2
resistance should be computed using the 1999 ACI Code

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002 525

Fig. A2—Equivalent frame for slab considered.

= 150 + 0.1125 × 27,000 × 0.003  ------ – 1

18
c 
Fig. A3—Slab cross section and properties.
f ps = 150 + 9.1125  -----
18- – 1 (A-4)
c 
f ps = 150 + 2.7  ------ – 1
18
(A-5)
c 
Simultaneously solving Eq. (A-3) and (A-4) leads to a
quadratic equation in c
The solution of Eq. (A-2) and (A-5) leads to: c = 2.235 in.
2 and fps = 169.04 ksi.
c – 2.0627c – 1.0038 = 0

Its solution leads to Carbon FRP tendons

c = 2.47 in. and fps = 207.3 ksi ≤ 0.8fpu = 216 ksi O.K.
The solution of Eq. (A-3) and (A-4) could have also been
obtained by iteration such as that in the following steps:
1. Starting with fps = 0.80fpu = 216 ksi, plug in Eq. (A-3)
and compute c = 2.52 in.;
2. Plug c = 2.52 in. in Eq. (A-4) and compute fps = 206 ksi;
3. Plug fps = 206 ksi in Eq. (A-3) and compute c = 2.46 in.;
4. Plug c = 2.46 in. in Eq. (A-4) and compute fps = 207.5 ksi;
5. Plug fps = 207.5 ksi in Eq. (A-3) and compute c = 2.47;
and
6. Plug c = 2.47 into Eq. (A-4) and compute fps = 207.3 ksi.
For the iteration, the starting value of fps could also be that
recommended in Eq. (8); that is, fps = 150 + 15 = 165 ksi. The
iterations lead in order to the following successive results: c
= 2.21 in. → fps = 215.1 ksi → c = 2.517 in. → fps = 206.05 ksi
→ c = 2.461 in. → fps = 207.54 ksi → c = 2.47 in. → fps =
207.3 ksi; that is, same answer given in the previous steps.
It should be noted that, if the value of As is doubled, the pro-
posed procedure leads to c = 3.5463 in. and fps = 187.14 ksi. This
shows that when the section tends toward over-reinforcement,
the stress in the prestressing tendons at ultimate decreases.
Glass FRP tendons
Assuming that instead of having steel tendons, glass FRP
tendons of the same cross-sectional area Aps = 0.612 in2 are
used. Their strength and elastic modulus, respectively, are
fpu = 300 ksi and Ep = 8000 ksi.
The 1999 ACI Code Eq. (18-4) and (18-5) do not apply to
FRP tendons. If used, they would lead to the same results as
those for steel tendons.
Using the proposed procedure leads to the same equation
of equilibrium as Eq. (A-2), and
Assume that instead of having steel tendons, carbon FRP
tendons of the same cross-sectional area Aps = 0.612 in2 are
used. Their strength and elastic modulus, respectively, are:
fpu = 315 ksi and Ep = 21,000 ksi.
L
f ps = f se + Ω u E p ε cu  ----p- – 1 -----1
d
c  L2
= 150 + 0.1125 × 21,000 × 0.003  ------ – 1
18
c 
f ps = 150 + 7.0875  ------ – 1
18
(A-6)
c
The solution of Eq. (A-2) and (A-6) leads to: c = 2.40 in.
and fps = 196.07 ksi.
EXAMPLE 2: THREE SPANS CONTINUOUS SLAB
WITH STEEL TENDONS
An example of the design of a three-span continuous slab
using the equivalent frame method (Fig. A2) is covered in
detail in Naaman (1982). An interior strip representing the
slab in one direction is considered herein. It is 30 ft wide and 9
in. deep, with three equal spans of 30 ft each. The design
arrived at includes 35 strands 0.6 in. in diameter, all of which
were anchored at the two free ends of the slab. In addition,
six No. 8 reinforcing bars are used at the supports along the
column strip, and no reinforcing bars are used in span (Fig. A3).
The value of fps for the unbonded strands can be computed
using various prediction equations:
Using 1999 ACI Code Eq. (18-5)
L = 30 ft dp = 7.75 in. ds = 7.75 in.

d L 30 × 12
f ps = f se + Ω u E p ε cu  ----p- – 1 -----1
L
----- = ------------------ = 46 > 35
c  L2 dp 7.75

A ps
= 150 + 0.1125 × 8000 × 0.003  ------ – 1
18 7.56
ρ p = -------- = ----------------------------------- = 0.00271
c  bd p 30 × 12 × 7.75

526 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Fig. A4—Typical loading for maximum moment at interior Fig. A5—Typical loading for maximum moment in span.
supports.
f c′ 5 Critical section in span with two spans loaded (Fig. A5)—
f ps = f se + 10 + -------------------- = 160 + 10 + ---------------------------------- The main difference between this case and Case A is that
300 × ρ p 300 × 0.00271
there are no additional reinforcing bars in the section (Fig. A.3).
The force equilibrium equation leads to
= 176.15 ksi
A ps f ps 7.56f ps
This value of fps holds in span and at the supports. It remains c = ------------------------- = ---------------------------------------------------------
- (A-9)
the same whether the section has no reinforcing bars or 0.85f c′ b β 1 0.85 × 5 × 30 × 12 × 0.8
many reinforcing bars. It also remains the same for any loading
pattern; that is, whether one, two, or three spans are loaded. 7.56f ps
= ---------------- = 0.00618f ps
1224
Using the proposed equation for fps (Table 1)
Support sections with two spans loaded (Fig. A4)—The and the equation for fps is the same as Eq. (A-8) in Case A. The
equation of force equilibrium of the section at nominal bend- solution leads to: c = 1.1168 in. and fps = 180.71 ksi. The value
ing resistance is written as of fps herein is larger than that in Case A because the section
contains less reinforcement (that is, it has no reinforcing bars).
Aps fps + As fy = 0.85fc′ β1c (A-1) Critical section in span with only one span loaded (Fig. A6)—
Herein, because all spans are equal in length and the rein-
from which forcement is the same throughout, the same solution applies
to the two possible loading cases shown in Fig. A6.
A ps f ps + A s f y 7.56f ps + 4.74 × 60 The force equilibrium equation leads to
c = -----------------------------
- = ---------------------------------------------------------
-
0.85f c′ b β1 0.85 × 5 × 30 × 12 × 0.8
A ps f ps 7.56f ps
c = ------------------------- = ---------------------------------------------------------
- (A-9)
7.56f ps + 284.4 0.85f c′ b β 1 0.85 × 5 × 36 × 12 × 0.8
= ------------------------------------
1224
7.56f ps
= ---------------- = 0.00618f ps
c = 0.23235 + 0.00618fps (A-7) 1224

For two spans loaded out of three, L1/L2 = 2/3 For one span loaded out of three, L1/L2 = 1/3

3 - = --------------------------------
Ω u = ----------- 3 3 3
= 0.0646 Ω u = ------------ = -------------------------------- = 0.0646
L ⁄ dp 30 × 12 ⁄ 7.75 L ⁄ dp 30 × 12 ⁄ 7.75

d L
f ps = f se + Ω u E p ε cu  ----p- – 1 -----1
L
f ps = f se + Ω u E p ε cu  ----p- – 1 -----1
d
c L2 c  L2

= 160 + 0.0646 × 27,000 × 0.003  7.75

---------- – 1 --- = 160 + 0.0646 × 27,000 × 0.003  7.75
---------- – 1 ---
2 1
 c 3  c 3

f ps = 160 + 5.2312  ---------- – 1 --- f ps = 160 + 5.2312  ---------

7.75- – 1 1
7.75 2
(A-8) --- (A-10)
 c 3  c 3

= 160 + 3.4884  7.75

---------- – 1 = 160 + 1.7442  ---------- – 1
7.75
 c   c 

Simultaneously solving Eq. (A-7) and (A-8) leads to a Simultaneously solving Eq. (A-9) and (A-10) for fps and c
quadratic equation in c. Its solution leads to leads to a quadratic equation in c. Its solution leads to

c = 1.3256 in. and fps = 176.9 ksi ≤ 0.8fpu = 216 ksi O.K. c = 1.057 in. and fps = 171.04 ksi ≤ 0.8fpu = 216 ksi O.K.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002 527


Fig. A6—Typical loading for one span.
It should be noted herein that the loading of one span versus
two spans results in a decrease of approximately 5.4% in fps
and the corresponding value of nominal bending resistance.
The increment of stress here is 11.04 ksi; it is higher than that
using the conservative value of 7.5 ksi recommended in
Eq. (18-4) in Table 1.
Critical section in span with three spans loaded—If the
critical section in span is analyzed assuming that all three
spans are loaded, the answer would be: c = 1.1706 in. and fps
= 189.41 ksi. This illustrates that the stress increment is high-
er than that for the cases where one or two spans are loaded.
In comparing this case to Example 1, which has a higher re-
inforcement ratio, the influence of the span-depth ratio can
be observed.
Four-span continuous slab with one span loaded—If the
slab considered previously had four continuous spans instead
of three, and if one span only is loaded, such as in Loading J
of Fig. B.1 in Appendix B, the results obtained would be: c
= 1.041 in. and fps = 168.4 ksi. The stress increment herein
(in excess of fpe) is 8.4 ksi. This compares favorably with the
recommendation given in the approximate procedure (Eq. (18-
4) of Table 1) where stress increment is limited on the lower end
to 7.5 ksi.
Remarks
The previous examples illustrate several points regarding
the proposed prediction equation for fps, namely that:
• It accounts for the presence of the entire reinforcement
in the section (reinforcing bars and prestressing
strands);
• It accommodates partial loading (such as one span out
of three) in continuous structures;
• It applies to steel or FRP tendons; and
• It is sensitive to the value of the span-depth ratio. More-
over, it is stable over a wide range of variables and
parameters.
APPENDIX B: INFLUENCE OF
PATTERN LOADING ON ∆fps
In the following examples, continuous beams of equal
spans and a prestressing tendon running throughout the total
length of each beam are assumed; that is, L2 is equal to the
sum of the span lengths, while L1 represents the sum of the
lengths of the loaded spans.
Because the stress in unbonded tendons depends on the
level of loading as modeled in Eq. (8) and (16), the pattern of
loading applied will influence the value obtained; this effect
is discussed subsequently.
528
In a three-span continuous beam, loading one span only,
such as the middle span, to obtain the maximum positive mo-
ment leads to a ratio L1/L2 = 1/3, whereas loading two adjacent
spans to obtain the maximum negative moment leads to a ratio
of 2/3. Using various loading patterns, it can be shown that, for
equal spans, continuous members (of any numbers of spans)
the ratio L1/L2 varies from 1/3 to 1. This is illustrated in Fig.
B1 in the pattern of Loading A to Loading I.
It can be argued, however, that pattern loading applies
only to the live load, whereas the dead load always applies
throughout. Moreover, at ultimate, each load is modified by
a different factor. This can have an influence on the value of
the stress increment induced in unbonded tendons, and an
adjustment to the multiplier factor L1/L2 may be warranted.
To evaluate this effect, an adjustment factor was derived and
evaluated. It is explained as follows.
Adjustment factor
Assuming that the most common combination of dead and
live load currently used in the ACI Code controls at ultimate,
the section is subjected to the following loading
Fn = 1.4MD + 1.7ML (B-1)
where Fn = the value of the prestressing force at nominal re-
sistance; MD = the dead load; and ML = the live load moment.
The nominal value of the prestressing force is due to the
following stress in the prestressing tendons at ultimate
fps = fpe + ∆fps (B-2)
where fpe = the effective prestress; and ∆fps = the stress in-
crement achieved at nominal resistance.
In principle, the effective prestress in prestressed concrete
accounts for the combined effects of prestress and dead load.
This is how prestress losses are calculated. Thus, to be exact,
1 × D used throughout a continuous beam is already included
in the value of fpe.
Hence, the stress increment ∆fps is due to any load in ex-
cess of the dead load. Assuming that the ultimate load is
(1.4D + 1.7L), then the increment of load affecting the value
of ∆fps is (0.4D + 1.7 L).
In computing ∆fps for a pattern loading, one can further argue
that the increment of dead load up to ultimate should be
applied uniformly over the beam length (all spans), while the
live load is applied selectively over some spans to create the
maximum effects.
The example of a three-span continuous beam should be con-
sidered, assuming interest in the loading that leads to maximum
moment at the first interior support. In a first assumption, the
pattern loading shown in Fig. B2 (Assumption 1) is used as
assumed in Eq. (14). A second assumption of pattern loading
can be used, however, which is also shown in Fig. B.2
(Assumption 2). The effect of using Assumption 2 versus
Assumption 1 on the increment of moment (and thus, the incre-
ment of stress) can be evaluated from the following factor
L L
0.4D ----1- + 1.7L ----1-
Assumption 1 L2 L2
Factor = --------------------------------- = -----------------------------------------
- (B-3)
Assumption 2 L1
0.4D + 1.7L -----
L2
This factor can be computed for a real slab.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Fig. B1—Examples of loading patterns for continuous
beams with different number of spans.
The slab under consideration is a three-equal-span continu-
ous slab described in detail in Naaman (1982). It is 9 in. deep
with a span length of 30 ft, and is subjected to a 25 lb/ft 2
superimposed dead load and an 80 lb/ft2 live load. Assuming
normal-weight concrete leads to
D = 112.5 + 25 = 137.5 lb/ft2
L = 80 lb/ft2
To design for the support section, a pattern loading of two
spans out of three is used (Fig. B1, Loading D); that is, L1/L2
= 2/3. The corresponding adjustment factor will be
0.4 × 1.375 × --- + 1.7 × 80 × ---
Assumption 1
Factor = --------------------------------- = -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption 2
0.4 × 137.5 + 1.7 × 80 × ---
= 0.874
For a zero value of superimposed dead load, the factor
would be 0.89. If the superimposed dead load is kept as is
and the live load is changed to 50 lb/ft2, the corresponding
value of the adjustment factor would be 0.84.
In similar computations, it can be shown that, if L1/L2 = 1/2
(such as for Loadings F and G of Fig. B1) or L1/L2 = 3/5 (such
as for Loadings H and I of Fig. B1), the corresponding adjust-
ment factor for the previous example would, respectively, be
0.78 and 0.84.
Returning to the derivation of the adjustment factor and using
the newly recommended load combination of the ACI 2002
Code; that is, (1.2D + 1.6L) instead of (1.4D + 1.7L), leads to
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002
Fig. B2—Two possible assumptions for incremental loading
to ultimate.
L L
0.2D -----1 + 1.6L ----1-
Assumption 1 L2 L2
Factor = --------------------------------- = -----------------------------------------
- (B-4)
Assumption 2 L1
0.2D + 1.6L -----
L2
Applied to the example of the slab described previously, it
will lead to a numerical value equal to 0.922 instead of
0.874; that is, the adjustment factor moves closer to unity
and the difference between the two assumptions of Fig. B2
becomes increasingly negligible.
In summary, it can be concluded that the influence of the
adjustment factor is generally not significant and could, for
all practical purposes, be ignored. Understanding its impli-
cations, however, may be useful in research studies or par-
ticular situations.
The Subcommittee also believes that the main intent of using
load factors is to achieve a certain level of reliability or
safety factor. For a target safety level, the increment of load
leading to failure can be achieved in many ways, whereas the
required nominal resistance can be the same.
Prestressed slabs and pattern loading
A final note regarding pattern loading and beams with un-
bonded tendons is in order. Pattern loading is usually the
norm in conventional reinforced and prestressed concrete.
When unbonded tendons are used, however, good engineering
judgment leads one to also consider a one-span loading such
as shown in Loading J of Fig. B1. This is because in satis-
2 2
fying the relationship
3 3-
2 Mu ≤ φMn (B-5)
3
both Mu and Mn are affected by the loading. Compared with
loading a single span, (such as in Loading J of Fig. B1), pat-
tern loading will increase Mu, but also will increase Mn
through ∆fps. Thus, Loading J of Fig. B1 may be more criti-
cal than Loadings H or I. The committee recommends that
one-span loading always be considered in slab systems
because its likelihood is real, such as in the cases of fire or
impact. The value of L1/L2 in such a case may be quite small,
which also leads to a small ∆fps. The designer is thus advised
to use the simple approximate formula for slabs suggested in
Eq. (12) and (13).
In summary, the Subcommittee believes that using the ratio
L1/L2 is a very good way to illustrate that the strain incre-
ment due to loading in one span is distributed throughout the
length of the tendon (as predicted by theory) and that one
cannot always count on the most favorable conditions.
529