ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 100-S67

Tendon Stress and Flexural Strength of Externally

Prestressed Beams
by Chee-Khoon Ng
Externally prestressed beams are structural concrete members
where the prestressing tendons are placed outside of the concrete
section. The flexural response of an externally prestressed beam
has been commonly equated to that of a beam with internal
unbonded tendons, for which most of the previous analytical studies
give the stress in the tendon at ultimate flexure limit state as a
function of the span-depth ratio of the beam. It is, however, shown
in this study that the span-depth ratio has insignificant effect on the
tendon stress at ultimate in externally prestressed beams. Tests
carried out on prototype beams confirmed the analytical results.
Therefore, a modified bond reduction coefficient is proposed for
the evaluation of the flexural strength of externally prestressed beams
based on strain compatibility and force equilibrium. Theoretical
calculations based on this bond reduction coefficient and accounting
for second-order effects were found to agree with the test results.

Fig. 1Strain and stress distributions at critical section of

externally prestressed beam at ultimate flexure limit state.

Keywords: beam; bond; prestress; tendon.

INTRODUCTION
External prestressing, in which the prestressing tendons
are placed outside of the concrete section, is an efficient
method in the construction of segmental bridge box girders
and in the strengthening of existing concrete beams.1,2 There
has been relatively little documentation, however, particularly
on the latter subject.
Two of the reasons that lead to the complexity in the analysis
of externally prestressed beams are stress increase in the
external tendons which is depending on the overall deformation of the member and eccentricity variations of external
tendons under load, commonly referred to as second-order
effects.3-8 Therefore, the elongation of the external tendons is
dependent of the total deformation of the structural member
rather than being solely dependent of the section under consideration. As a result, most of the proposed methods of analysis
for the behavior of externally prestressed beams involve
complicated numerical analysis.4-6,9,10
In previous research,3,4,6,11 the development on external
prestressing has been associated with internally unbonded
prestressing, in which the span-depth ratio was reported to have
a significant effect on tendon stress at ultimate. Due to limited
contact points of tendons to the concrete member in the case of
external prestressing, however, the effect of span-depth ratio on
external tendon stress is found to be insignificant in this paper.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The pseudo-section analysis based on bond reduction
coefficients offers a simple and convenient method to evaluate
the ultimate tendon stress and flexural strength of externally
prestressed beams. Previous works by other researchers6,11 had
established the bond reduction coefficient and hence tendon
stress increase for the ultimate limit state as a function of the
span-depth ratio of the beam. The present theoretical and
644

Fig. 2Type of loading and configurations of external

tendons and deviators.
experimental studies indicate, however, that the stress increase
in the external tendons is independent of this parameter of
the beam. Thereupon, a modified bond reduction coefficient
is proposed herein, thus providing a simple and accurate
method for the calculation of flexural strength accounting for
second-order effects.
BACKGROUND
A literature review indicated that the stress in the external
tendons at ultimate limit state fps may be obtained from
equations that were derived empirically or semi-empirically.
According to the ACI Building Code,12 the ultimate tendon
stress for unbonded tendons is given as (refer to Fig. 1 and 2)

fc
L
f pe + 70 + -------------- f py or f pe + 420 for --------- 35
100 p
d ps0

f ps =
(1)
fc
L

f py or f pe + 200 for --------- > 35

f pe + 70 + -------------

300

d ps0
p

ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 5, September-October 2003.

MS No. 02-298 received August 19, 2002, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2003, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the JulyAugust 2004 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2004.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

Chee-Khoon Ng is a lecturer in civil engineering at University Malaysia Sarawak.

He received his PhD from the National University of Singapore. His research interests
include external prestressing for beam strengthening, ductility of reinforced concrete
beams strengthened with external reinforcement, and nondestructive testing of
concrete structures.

in which fpe, fpy = effective prestress and yield strength of

prestressing tendons respectively; fc = concrete cylinder
compressive strength; p = prestressing steel ratio; L = effective
beam span; and dps0 = initial tendon depth. Harajli13 had
attempted to modify Eq. (1), which was already in the earlier
edition of ACI Building Code 14 by including the spandepth ratio directly as follows (converted to SI units by the
author of this paper)
fc
8
f ps = f pe + 70 + -------------0.4 + -----------------
100 p
L d ps0

(2)

f py or f pe + 420
Equation (2) is excessively conservative for simply
supported members under third-point or uniform loading but
is reasonably accurate for midspan concentrated load.
Harajli13 noted that the value of fps can be more accurately
predicted based on the strain compatibility method by taking
the elongation of the unbonded tendon as the total deformation
of the concrete member at the tendon level in the plastic zone
and ignoring the relatively small deformation in the elastic zone.
In a pseudo-section analysis based on the bond reduction coefficients, Naaman and Alkhairi11 proposed that (refer to Fig. 1)
d ps0
f ps = f pe + f ps = f pe + u E ps cu -------- 1 f py
c

(3)

where fps = stress increase in internally unbonded or

external tendons; Eps, fpe, fpy = modulus of elasticity, effective prestress, and yield strength of external tendons, respectively; cu = strain in the top concrete fiber at ultimate =
0.003 according to ACI Building Code;12 c = neutral axis
depth at critical section under consideration; and u = bond
reduction coefficient at ultimate limit state. It is noted that
Eq. (3) neglects the tendon strain component due to precompression ce, which is insignificant at ultimate.
For simply supported beams, the value of u is given by

u =

2.6
----------------- (for midspan concentrated load)
L d ps0
5.4 ( for third-point and uniformly
----------------- distributed load)
L d ps0

(4)

(5)

in which Sd = distance between two deviators placed symmetrically with respect to the centerline of the beam as shown in
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

Fig. 2. For the more general case of beam subjected to two

symmetrically applied concentrated loads
L q
1.47 + 10.3 ----
L S
L
u = --------------------------------------- 0.29 ----q- ----dL L
L
-------- d ps0

(6)

where Lq = distance between the concentrated loads (refer to

Fig. 2). It is noted that Eq. (6) does not reduce to Eq. (5)
when Lq /L = 1/3.
THEORETICAL EVALUATION OF TENDON STRESS
Previous studies4,6,11,13 and code provisions12,14 suggested
that span-depth ratio governs the strain or stress increase in
external tendons. This is only valid if shear deformation due
to diagonal tensile cracking is effective in increasing the
external tendon stress. Due to the unbonded nature and
unrestrained movement of external tendons, diagonal tensile
cracking cannot induce dowel action on the external tendons
(refer to Fig. 3). Gauvreau9 had verified that the consideration
of shear deformation in a strut-and-tie model had no significant
effect on the external tendon stress. Based on the bending
theory and considering that second-order effects are minimized
by sufficient provision of deviators, it can then be shown that
the strain or stress increase in external tendons is independent of
the span-depth ratio as presented in the foregoing discussion.
Defining the strain increase in the external tendons ps at
ultimate limit state as

ps =
-----l
L

Equation (1) to (3) do not account for second-order effects

due to eccentricity variations. To incorporate the effect of
symmetrically placed deviators (refer to Fig. 2), Mutsuyoshi
et al.6 further modified the values of u given in Eq. (4) for the
case of beams under third-point loading as
S
4.36
u = --------------------- 0.084 ----dL
( L d ps0 )

Fig. 3Dowel action in internal tendon and unrestrained

movement of external tendon.

(7)

in which l = total elongation of the external tendon, normally

taken as equal to the total deformation of concrete at the
same level as the tendon, the value of the external tendon
stress can then be written as
f ps = f pe + E ps ps f py

(8)

Figure 4 shows two beams, A and B, under third-point

loading, with the same tendon depth and cross-sectional
properties but with different spans, L and L, respectively. Both
beams thus have different span-depth ratios, but they are
subjected to arrangement of loads that caused similar bendingmoment diagrams as shown in Fig. 4, with the same bending
moment within the constant moment region. If the shear span
of each beam is divided into the same number of sections
along the beam axis with equal spacing, the corresponding
645

Fig. 4Bending moment diagrams and strain distribution of concrete at tendon level for
beams with different span-depth ratio.
sections in Beams A (cross section at distance xi from the
left support) and B (cross section at distance xi from the left
support) will be subjected to the same bending moment (MA,i
= MB,i), as shown in Fig. 4. Two identical sections subjected
to the same bending moment must posses the same strain
distribution across the depth of each section with the same
curvature based on the assumption of plane section remains
plane in bending theory. Thus, the concrete strain at the tendon
level in these respective cross sections must be the same
(refer to Fig. 4). Therefore, the total tendon elongation in
each beam, which is equal to the total elongation of the concrete
fiber at the tendon level, can be written respectively as
n

lA = 2

- (for Beam B)
i x + m -----3

i=1

where n = number of sections within the shear span; i = concrete

strain at the same level as the tendon at section i along the
beam axes within the shear span; m = concrete strain at the
same level as the tendon at sections within the constant moment
region; x = width of one segment in Beam A; and x = width
646

(10)

i x + m ------3 -

i=1
ps, B = ------------------------------------------=
L

2
(9)

i x + m --3-

i=1
- (for Beam A)
ps, A = ---------------------------------L

i=1

lB = 2

i x + m --3- (for Beam A)

n

of one segment in Beam B. The average strain in the external

tendons of each beam is thus respectively given by

i x + m --3L

i=1
----------------------------------(for Beam B)
L

From Eq. (10), it is shown that the average strain in the

external tendons is the same for both Beams A and B and
is independent of the effective beam span, and therefore
independent of the span-depth ratio. The previous evaluation
follows only the assumption that a plane section remains
plane after bending, so it is valid for the elastic range behavior
as well as the ultimate flexure limit state.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

Table 1Details of test beams (refer to Fig. 7)

Effective
span L,
Investigators Beam
mm
ST-1
ST-2
ST-2C

Fig. 5Schematic representation of prototype T-beams for

evaluation of external tendon stress at ultimate flexure
limit state.
EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF
TENDON STRESS
An experimental study of effect of span-depth or L/dps0 ratio
and the number of deviators on the stress increase in external
tendon stress was also carried out in this study. Seven prototype
concrete T-beams were prepared for this evaluation. In all
beams, the internal longitudinal reinforcement consisted of
two T16 bottom bars and four R8 top bars, with average
yield strengths of 530 and 338 MPa, respectively. The beams
were reinforced with R8 mild steel stirrups throughout their
lengths. The design cube strength of the concrete used was
38 MPa at 28 days. In Beams ST-1, ST-2, ST-3, ST-4, and
ST-5, a 100 mm-wide deviator at midspan was provided in
each beam, as shown in Fig. 5. In Beam ST-5A, two deviators
were provided, one each at the 1/3 span sections; and
Beam ST-5B had three deviators, each at 1/4 span sections
(refer to Fig. 5). The effective depth of the external tendons
dps0 for all the beams was kept to 200 mm, with spans that
led to span-depth ratios of 7.5, 9.0, 15, 22.5, and 30.0 for
Beams ST-1, ST-2, ST-3, ST-4, and ST-5, respectively
(refer to Table 1 and 2). Beams ST-5A and ST-5B had the
same span as Beam ST-5 (refer to Table 1 and 2 and Fig. 5).
The beams were prestressed using external tendons 1 day
before testing. Two straight seven-wire prestressing strands,
with a diameter of 12.9 mm and an average tensile strength
fpu of 1900 MPa, were stressed to about 0.4fpu or 760 MPa,
one on each side of the beam. Each beam was instrumented to
measure the deflections, curvature, concrete and internal
steel strains, forces in the external tendons, and crack widths.
All strains were measured using electrical resistance strain
gages attached to the surface of steels and concrete near the
midspan. Each beam was simply supported and loaded
monotonically at third-points to failure.
It was found that for beams provided with a single deviator
at midspan and L/dps0 ratios ranging from 7.5 to 22.5, the
stress increase fps is proportional to the concrete strength fc
of each beam (refer to Table 2). If the stress increase is
normalized with the concrete strength in each beam, the
span-depth ratio L/dps0 had no effect on the stress increase in
the external tendons, as shown in Fig. 6. For Beam ST-5 with
L/dps0 ratio of 30, however, one deviator provided at midspan is
not effective in minimizing second-order effects and therefore
registered a smaller stress increase. When two or three deviators
were provided in such long beams, as in Beams ST-5A and
ST-5B, respectively, the stress increase in external tendons
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

Present
research
(Series ST
and T)

Area of
internal
reinforcement
As, mm2

Effective
depth of Area of
internal external
reinforce- tendon
Aps,
ment
ds, mm
mm2

1500
1800

ST-2P

1200

ST-3

3000

ST-4

4500

201
200

ST-5
ST-5A

6000

ST-5B
T-0

3000

T-0A

4500

T-0B

6000

402

265

110

T-1
T-1A
T-1D

3000

250

T-2
Mutsuyoshi
et al.6
(Series Y)
Yaginuma15
(Series Y)

Tay16
(Series SR)

Initial
tendon
depth
dps0,
mm

200

M-1
M-2

5200

236

4000

567

NA-1
OA-1

354

266

SR2

982
3000

266
982

SR5

266

SR6

982

250
284

831

355

SR1

SR4

277

355

SA-1

SR3

294

281
284

330
265

201
210

was again observed to be independent of the beam span

(refer to Table 2 and Fig. 6).
The rationale of normalizing the stress increase fps, with
the concrete strength fc in Fig. 6, is evident in accord with
the strain and stress distribution in a cross section as shown
in Fig. 1. If the concrete strength is lower than a reference value,
the compression of the concrete compression zone C will be
smaller. To recover some of the compression to achieve
equilibrium with the tensile forces in the steels, the depth of
neutral axis c must be increased. The increase in neutral axis
will correspond to a steeper strain distribution (smaller
curvature) in Fig. 1(b), as the value of ultimate strain cu is a
constant, and hence corresponds to smaller tensile strains in
the tension zone. So, the stress in the external tendons is
relatively smaller. This phenomenon of adjustment of neutral
axis depth to achieve equilibrium of the compressive and tensile
forces based on strain compatibility is the essence of section
analysis. So, the stress increase in the external tendons is indeed
proportional to the concrete strength.
Mathematically, the equilibrium equation can be written
for forces in the cross section (refer to Fig. 1(c)) as
0.85f c [ ( b b w ) h f + b w 1 c ] + A s f y = A ps f ps + A s f y (11a)
where Aps, fps = area and stress at ultimate of external tendons
respectively; As, fy = area and yield strength of internal tension
reinforcement, respectively; As , fy = area and yield strength
647

Table 2Ultimate stress and stress increase to external tendons

Investigators Beam series

ST

Present
research

Beam
ST-1

34.5

ST-2

29.9

ST-2C

26.2

ST-2P

36.3

6.0

33.2

ST-4

28.3

ST-5

25.1

ST-5A

31.7

ST-5B

26.4

T-0

34.6

T-0A

T-0B

1207.6

443.2

1152.1

380.9

1099.3

330.2

1018.7

259.2

15.0

1159.6

409.2

22.5

1122.7

366.2

1029.9

269.6

1137.7

376.0

1154.2

412.4

15.0

1707.5

410.8

31.3

22.5

1005.1

260.7

29.3

30.0

965.9

224.0

T-1

34.2

15.0

1786.0

589.5

T-1A

30.4

1137.6

810.9

T-1D

32.1

1242.8

954.9

T-2

28.7

1709.4

527.5

M-1

39.2

1347.6

357.4

1331.7

341.5
179.2

ST-3

Mutsuyoshi
et al.6

Yaginuma15

Tay16

*Calculated

SR

*
No. of deviators Concrete strength fc , MPa Span-depth ratio L/dps0 Ultimate stress fps, MPa Stress increase fps, MPa

M-2

39.2

7.5
9.0

30.0

12.0
15.0
20.8

NA-1

Internal

31.7

14.1

670.3

OA-1

31.7

14.2

651.8

160.9

SA-1

2||

31.7

14.1

676.7

187.8

SR 1

31.0

1784.5

815.5

SR 2

27.0

1647.6

602.6

SR 3

21.4

1809.4

422.4

24.2

1737.6

426.6

SR 5

23.7

1704.3

621.3

SR 6

28.0

1462.7

360.7

SR 4

1
1

9.1

14.3

from measured cube strength, that is, fc = 0.8fcu.

Deviator(s) at equal spacings.

Deviators at spacing of 1800 mm.

Deviators at spacing of 3000 mm.

||Deviators at spacing of 600 mm.

A ps u E ps cu
d ps0
--------f c = ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 +

0.85 [ ( b b w ) h f + b w 1 c ] c

(11b)

As fy As fy
------------------------------------------------------------0.85 [ ( b b w ) h f + b w 1 c ]
If fc and c are the only two variables, which is true in
Eq. (11b), it can then be generally written as
1
1
f c = f ----2 + f ---

c
c
Fig. 6Normalized stress increase in external tendons of
beams with different span-depth ratio.
of internal compression reinforcement, respectively; b, bw =
beam width and beam-web width, respectively; and 1 =
compression stress block depth factor12 = 0.85 0.05(fc 30)/7,
which should be between 0.65 to 0.85. Substituting Eq. (3)
into Eq. (11a) and solving for fc
648

(11c)

in which f(1/c2) = function of 1/c2 and f(1/c) = function of 1/c.

If the function f(1/c2) is dominant in Eq. (11c), then
1
f c ----2
c

(12a)

Similarly, if the function f(1/c) is dominant in Eq. (11c), then

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

Fig. 7Cross sections and reinforcement details of test beams. (Note: R-bars: fy =
338 MPa; T-bars: fy = 530 MPa; D-bars: fy = 400 MPa; and Y-bars: fy = 460 MPa.)
1
f c --c

(12b)

In this study, the intermediate case between Eq. (12a) and

(12b) was assumed to be dominant. So
1
f c --------32
c

(12c)

From Eq. (3), the following can be written

d ps0
f ps = u E ps cu -------- 1
c

(13)

In Eq. (13), the only variables are fps and c. So

1
f ps --c

(14)

From Eq. (12c) and (14), it can be concluded that

f ps ( f c )

23

(15)

From Eq. (15), the normalization in Fig. 6 is justified.

It can be observed in Fig. 6 that for span-depth ratios ranging
from 7.5 to 22.5 (Beams ST-1, ST-2, ST-3, and ST-4), the
normalized stress increase in the external tendons is almost
similar. For Beam ST-5 with L/dps0 ratio of 30, the normalized
stress increase is smaller, due to second-order effects at the
failure section away from the midspan and partly due to lower
concrete strength. Otherwise, the normalized stress increase
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

would be similar to those observed in beams with smaller L/dps0

ratio. The theoretical predictions of the normalized stress
increase using the proposed bond-reduction coefficient
independent of the span-depth ratio in the foregoing discussion
confirmed that the declination in tendon stress from L/dps0
ratio of 22.5 to 30 is partly due to lower concrete strength (refer
to Fig. 6), not the effect of span-depth ratio.
PROPOSED BOND-REDUCTION COEFFICIENT
A bond-reduction coefficient is developed herein using the
correlation of average strains in the external tendons obtained
through the rational analysis based on strain compatibility
and force equilibrium, on externally prestressed beams tested
and reported in the literature.6,7,15,16 The details of the
beams are shown in Table 1 and 2 and Fig. 7. These beams
are: (a) Series ST and T beams with straight tendons (except
for Beam T-1D, which had draped tendons with zero eccentricity
at supports) tested under third-point loading, except for
Beam ST-2P, which was tested under midspan concentrated
load by Ng;7 (b) Series M beams with an effective span of
5.2 m and draped tendons, tested under two symmetrically
applied concentrated loads spaced at 900 mm apart by
Mutsuyoshi et al.;6 (c) Series Y beams with an effective span of
4.0 m and straight tendons, tested under two symmetrically
applied concentrated loads spaced at 600 mm apart by
Yaginuma; 15 and (d) Series SR beams with an effective
span of 3.0 m and draped tendons, tested under third-point
loading by Tay. 16
It was shown both theoretically and experimentally that
the beam span has no significant effect on the stress increase
in external tendons. Therefore, the nondimensionalized
parameter was chosen to be the ratio of initial tendon depth
649

in which h = overall beam height.

Further improvement on Eq. (16) is possible by incorporating
the type of loading. The correlation of rational analysis and
test results of the 18 beams (Beams ST-5B, NA-1, and all the
beams with the number of deviators of 1 [refer to Table 2])
subjected to two symmetrically applied concentrated loads
or midspan concentrated load, gives the bond reduction
coefficient as
L
d ps0
u = 0.895 1.364 -----s -------- L h

(17)

where Ls = distance from the beam support to the loading

point (refer to Fig. 2), generally known as shear span.
Equation (17) can be used for externally prestressed beams
where second-order effects are considered to be not significant.
For the consideration of second-order effects, the method
which is similar to that of Mutsuyoshi et al.6 was adopted but
using a different parameter. Mutsuyoshi et al.6 had chosen
the parameter Sd /L, which is the ratio of deviator spacing to
the effective beam span. Sd /L, however, is not an appropriate
parameter for the consideration of second-order effects because
for beams with the same Sd /L but different span length, secondorder effects will be larger in those beams with a longer span
due to larger beam deflection at ultimate limit state. Therefore,
the parameter for the consideration of second-order effects
was chosen to be Sd /dps0 in this paper, which is the ratio of
deviator spacing to the initial tendon depth. This parameter
adequately reflects the fact that second-order effects are
more significant in beams with larger deviator spacing and
they are relatively less significant when the initial tendon
depth is larger. Considering the parameter Sd /dps0 in the
bond-reduction coefficient and correlating with the results of
all the beams listed in Table 1 and 2 results in
L
d ps0
u = 0.895 1.364 -----s -------- ks
L
h

(18)

in which the constant for consideration of second-order

effects ks is given by

Fig. 8Comparison of experimental results with predicted

values.
to the overall beam height, that is, dps0 /h, and second-order
effects were first neglected. This parameter was chosen as
such because when the initial tendon depth is larger, the
eccentricity of the tendon is accordingly larger, and hence
the strain increase is larger. When the overall beam height
increases with respect to dps0, the neutral axis is relatively
closer to the tendons, and therefore the strain increase is less
as a result of a smaller tendon eccentricity. The bond-reduction
coefficient for a simply supported beam with third-point
loading is obtained using the test results of 16 beams provided
with a deviator at midspan (Beam ST-5B and all the beams
with the number of deviators of 1 excluding Beam ST-2P
[refer to Table 2]) by a random variable correlation analysis.
This analysis gives
d ps0
u = 0.44 -------- h
650

(16)

Sd
0.0096 -------- d ps0

ks =

0.144

Sd
for -------- 15

d ps0
Sd
for --------> 15

d ps0

(19)

Figure 8(a) and (b) compare the test results with the predictions of Eq. (18) and two other equations proposed by Naaman
and Alkhairi11 (Eq. (4)) and Mutsuyoshi et al.6 (Eq. (6)). It
is noted that the proposed equation yields better correlation
for both the stress increase and stress of the external tendons
at ultimate. Table 3 shows the results of the correlation analysis
between the test results of the beams listed in Table 1 and 2
and the predicted values. The proposed equation gives a
coefficient of correlation of 1.03 for both the stress increase
and stress in the external tendons at ultimate, with relatively
less variability compared with the other equations. Naaman
and Alkhairis equation11 over-predicted the stress increase
by 17% with a variability of 0.1 due to the neglect of secondorder effects. Although Mutsuyoshi et al.s equation 6 has
relatively good coefficients of correlation, the variabilities
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

Table 3Correlation of test results and theoretical

predictions for stress increase and stress in
external tendons at ultimate limit state
Stress increase, fps

Methodology

Ultimate stress, fps

Variability
Variability
Coefficient within 95% Coefficient within 95%
of correlation confidence of correlation confidence

Proposed Eq. (18)

1.03

0.087

1.03

0.028

Naaman and
Alkhairi11 Eq. (4)

0.83

0.100

0.96

0.045

Mutsuyoshi et al.6
Eq. (6)

0.92

0.109

1.00

0.042

are relatively larger than the proposed equation due to the

inappropriate parameter for the consideration of secondorder effects.
Figure 9(a) and (b) show the ratios of test to predicted values
for the stress increase and stress in external tendons at ultimate,
respectively, plotted against the parameter Sd /L. The value
of Sd /L of zero corresponds to a beam provided with a deviator at midspan, whereas the maximum value of Sd /L of
1.0 corresponds to a beam with no deviator (refer to Fig. 2).
It is seen that for beams with Sd /L = 0, Eq. (18) predicted the
stress increase and stress in the external tendons at ultimate
well compared with the other two equations. As the value of Sd /
L increases, Naaman and Alkhairis equation11 overestimates and Mutsuyoshi et al.s equation6 underestimates the
tendon stress at ultimate, whereas Eq. (18) still gives good
predictions. It can therefore be concluded that Eq. (18) serves as
a better equation for the bond-reduction coefficient.
The predicted normalized stress increase in external tendons
using Eq. (4), (6), and (18) are shown in Fig. 6. The predicted
results using Eq. (18) agreed well with the test results,
whereas Eq. (4) and (6) overestimate the stress increase for
L/dps0 of less than 20 and underestimate the stress increase
for larger L/dps0. Therefore, Eq. (18) is proposed herein to
replace Eq. (4) to (6) for the evaluation of tendon stress in
externally prestressed beams.

Fig. 9Accuracy of predicted results for beams with different

deviator spacing.
2

ULTIMATE FLEXURAL STRENGTH

For the calculation of stress increase in external tendons,
the initial tendon depth dps0 as given in Eq. (3) can be
used and second-order effects are accounted for in the
bond-reduction coefficient, Eq. (18).
Apparently, when beam deflection takes place, the external
tendons at the critical section will move relatively to the
concrete section due to second-order effects, except for the
case where a deviator is provided at this section. Therefore,
the tendon depth at ultimate is no longer similar as that at the
initial state (refer to Fig. 1). As a first approximation, the
equation for the tendon depth at ultimate dps,u is given by7
(a) for the case of Ld < Ls (refer to Fig. 2)
2

d ps, u

u L L d
L L 2
L
- 3 ----- 1 -----s 3--- ----d- -----d (20a)
= d ps0 + --------- L
6
L 4 Ls L

u L L d
L
f ps A ps
- 3 ----- 1 -----d 3
d ps, u = d ps0 + ---------- (20b)
--- + ------------

6
L
L
EcIe
4
2
2
Ld
L LL
e u ----- --------d- + ------8
2
2

where Ld = distance form beam support to the deviation point

(refer to Fig. 2); Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete; and
u = curvature at ultimate limit state given by
Mu
cu
u = --------- = -----EcIe
c

(21)

in which Mu = ultimate moment of resistance as given in Eq. (24)

and eu = eccentricity of external tendons at ultimate given by7:
(a) for the case of Ld < Ls (refer to Fig. 2)
2

L
+ -----s
L

f ps A ps L 2 LL d Ld2
+ ------------- e ----- --------- + ------EcIe u 8
2
2

(b) for the case of Ld Ls (refer to Fig. 2)

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

L
L L 2 L 2
u L
L
- 3 ----d- 1 -----s 3
e 0 + ------------ ----d- ----d- + -----s
L
6
L 4 L s L s L
e u = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------f ps A ps L 2 LL d L d2
(22a)
1 -------------- ----- --------- + ------Ec Ie 8
2
2
651

Table 4Comparison of ultimate moment of

resistance with theoretical predictions
Ultimate moment Mu, kNm

Fig. 10Flowchart for procedure of analysis of externally

prestressed beams at ultimate limit state.
(b) for the case of Ld Ls (refer to Fig. 2)

Beam

Experimental

Theoretical

M u, experimental
------------------------------------M u, theoretical

ST-1

97.0

95.0

1.02

ST-2

93.6

92.4

1.01

ST-2C

90.7

88.1

1.03

ST-2P

99.2

89.0

1.11

ST-3

94.2

94.0

1.00

ST-4

87.8

90.4

0.97

ST-5

80.0

86.7

0.92

ST-5A

81.8

84.1

0.97

ST-5B

84.2

87.9

0.96

T-0

79.6

77.9

1.02

T-0A

68.2 (73.7)*

61.0 (76.8)*

1.12 (0.96)*

T-0B

52.7 (64.9)*

NA (70.7)*

NA (0.92)*
0.98

T-1

84.1

86.2

T-1A

81.5

85.0

0.96

T-1D

78.1

85.4 (74.8)

0.91 (1.04)

T-2

83.4

81.3

1.03

M-1

98.6

102.3

0.96

M-2

89.3

84.4

1.06

NA-1

176.7

187.4

0.94

OA-1

172.6

146.4

1.18

SA-1

195.9

184.7

1.06

SR1

240.0

139.6

1.72

SR2

167.5

178.2

0.94

SR3

111.0

144.9

0.77

SR4

172.5

177.9

0.97

SR5

82.5

87.4

0.94

SR6

143.5

142.5

1.01

*Ultimate

load occurred just after yielding of internal steel reinforcement.

on actual failure section.
cell error in test.

Premature failure by rupture of tendon wire.

Note: NA = not available due to predicted variation in tendon depth being larger than
headroom (vertical distance from initial external tendon level to soffit of beam flange)
for relative movement of external tendons.
Based
Load

L
u L
L
- 3 ----d- 1 ----d- 3--e 0 + ---------

6
L
L 4
e u = ------------------------------------------------------------------------2
f ps A ps L LL d L d2
- ----- --------- + ------1 ------------EcIe 8
2
2

(22b)

M u = A ps f ps ( d ps, u k 1 c ) + A s f y

where e0 = initial tendon eccentricity and Ie = effective moment

of inertia given by17
M cr 3
M cr 3
- I tr + 1 -------- I I
I e = ------- Mu
M u cr tr

(23)

in which Mcr = cracking moment and Itr, Icr = moment of

inertia for transformed and cracked cross section taken
about the neutral axis, respectively.
By using Eq. (3) and (18), and assuming yielding of internal
steel reinforcements (which is always the case at ultimate
limit state for beams), the tendon stress at ultimate can be
obtained by strain compatibility and force equilibrium, as
shown in Fig. 1. After that, by assuming an initial value of
ultimate moment of resistance Mu, the effective moment of
inertia Ie can be calculated from Eq. (23), and hence the values
of tendon eccentricity eu from Eq. (22) and tendon depth
652

dps,u from Eq. (20). Then the value of the ultimate moment
of resistance can be determined using the following equation
(24)

( d s k 1 c ) + A s f y ( d s k 1 c )
where ds = effective depth of internal tension reinforcement; ds
= effective depth of internal compression reinforcement; and
k1c = depth of centroid of the concrete compression zone
(refer to Fig. 1) in which k = 0.5 for rectangular section or
T-section with 1c hf , where hf = flange thickness. Otherwise, k has to be determined from the centroid of force in the
concrete compression zone for T-section when 1c > hf . The
calculated value of Mu is then checked against the assumed
value. If the predetermined accuracy has not been attained,
the iteration process is repeated until the value of Mu has
converged. The procedure for the calculation is shown in the
flowchart of Fig. 10.
Table 4 shows the comparison of the test results with the
predicted ultimate moment of resistance using Eq. (24). The
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

predicted values of ultimate moment of resistance were

found to be in very good agreement with the test results,
where the mean and standard deviation are 1.00 and 0.067,
respectively (neglecting the results of: 1) Beam T-0B due to
the predicted variation in tendon depth being larger than the
available headroom [vertical distance from the initial tendon
level to the soffit of the beam flange] for the relative movement
of the external tendons; 2) Beam SR1 due to load cell error
in testing; and 3) Beam SR3 where premature failure of
rupture of tendon wire occurred).
CONCLUSIONS
The effect of span-depth ratio on the tendon stress at ultimate
flexure limit state of externally prestressed beams should be
less pronounced than usually assumed in other literatures.4,6,11-14
The theoretical evaluation based on flexural theory confirmed
this hypothesis and it was further verified by tests carried out
on seven externally prestressed prototype beams. Therefore,
a modified bond reduction coefficient that is independent of
the span-depth ratio is proposed herein for the evaluation of
tendon stress of beams prestressed with external tendons.
This bond-reduction coefficient also accounts for type of
loading and second-order effects. It gives better prediction of
the stress increase in the external tendons as compared
with two other bond-reduction coefficients proposed by
other investigations.6,11
The predicted values of ultimate moment of resistance using
the proposed analytical procedure agreed well with the test
results, indicating that accounting for variation in tendon
depth gives better representation of the behavior of externally
prestressed beams. It is recommended that the variation in
tendon depth, or second-order effects, be taken into consideration in the analysis since the iteration process is attainable
with a simple computer program.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Part of the study reported herein is a research project funded by the National
University of Singapore under Research Grant No. RP 930647.

NOTATION
Aps
As
As
b
bw
c
dps0
dps,u
ds
ds
Ec
Eps
e0
eu
fc
fcu
fpe
fps
fpy
fy
fy
h
hf
Icr
Ie
Itr

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

ks
L

=
=

area of prestressing or external tendons

area of internal tension reinforcement
area of internal compression reinforcement
beam width
beam web width
neutral axis depth
initial tendon depth
tendon depth at ultimate limit state
effective depth of internal tension reinforcement
effective depth of internal compression reinforcement
modulus of elasticity of concrete
modulus of elasticity of prestressing or external tendons
initial tendon eccentricity
tendon eccentricity at ultimate limit state
concrete cylinder compressive strength
concrete cube compressive strength
effective prestress of prestressing or external tendons
ultimate tendon stress of prestressing or external tendons
yield strength of prestressing or external tendons
yield strength of internal tension reinforcement
yield strength of internal compression reinforcement
overall beam height
flange thickness of beam
moment of inertia for cracked cross section taken about neutral axis
effective moment of inertia
moment of inertia for transformed cross section taken about
neutral axis
constant for consideration of second-order effects
effective beam span

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

Ld
Lq
Ls
Mcr
Mu
Sd
x
1
fps
l
ps
ce
cu
i

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

u
p
u

=
=
=

distance from beam support to deviation point

distance between two symmetrically applied concentrated loads
distance from beam support to loading point
cracking moment
ultimate moment of resistance
distance between two symmetrically placed deviators
width of one segment
compression stress block depth factor
stress increase in prestressing or external tendons
total elongation of external tendons
strain increase in external tendons
precompression strain in prestressing or external tendons
strain in top concrete fiber at ultimate
concrete strain at external tendon level at beam section within
shear span
concrete strain at external tendon level at beam section within
constant moment region
curvature at ultimate limit state
prestressing steel ratio
bond reduction coefficient at ultimate limit state

REFERENCES
1. External Prestressing in Bridges, SP-120, A. E. Naaman and J. E.
Breen, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1990,
458 pp.
2. External Prestressing in Structures, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Behavior of External Prestressing in Structures, E. Conti
and B. Foure, eds., Saint-Rmy-ls-Chevreuse, France, Association Franaise
pour la Construction, June 9-12, 1993, 472 pp.
3. Trinh, J. L., Structural Strengthening by External Prestressing,
Proceedings of the U.S.-European Workshop on Bridge Evaluation,
Repair and Rehabilitation, A. S. Nowak, and E. Absi, eds., Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Md., Apr. 30-May 2, 1990, pp. 513-523.
4. Alkhairi, F. M., and Naaman, A. E., Analysis of Beams Prestressed
with Unbonded Internal or External Tendons, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 119, No. 9, Sept. 1993, pp. 2681-2700.
5. Virlogeux, M., and MRad, A., Flexural Behavior of Externally
Prestressed Structures for Ultimate Loads, Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Behavior of External Prestressing in Structures, E. Conti, and
B. Foure, eds., Association Franaise pour la Construction, Saint-Rmy-lsChevreuse, France, June 9-12, 1993, pp. 185-206.
6. Mutsuyoshi, H.; Tsuchida, K.; Matupayont, S.; and Machida, A.,
Flexural Behavior and Proposal of Design Equation for Flexural Strength
of Externally PC Members, Journal of Materials, Concrete Structures and
Pavements, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, No. 508/V-26, Feb. 1995,
pp. 67-76. (in Japanese)
7. Ng, C. K., External Prestressing for Beam Strengthening, PhD thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore, 1997, 257 pp.
8. Tan, K.-H., and Ng, C.-K., Effects of Deviators and Tendon Configuration
on Behavior of Externally Prestressed Beams, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1997, pp. 13-22.
9. Gauvreau, D. P., Ultimate Limit State of Concrete Girders Prestressed
with Unbonded Tendons, Birkhuser Verlag Basel, Berlin, 1993, 164 pp.
10. Rao, P. S., and Mathew, G., Behavior of Externally Prestressed
Concrete Beams with Multiple Deviators, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93,
No. 4, July-Aug. 1996, pp. 387-396.
11. Naaman, A. E., and Alkhairi, F. M., Stress at Ultimate in Unbonded
Post-Tensioning TendonsPart 2: Proposed Methodology, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 88, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1991, pp. 683-692.
12. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318M-99) and Commentary (318RM-99), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, 391 pp.
13. Harajli, M. H., Effect of Span-Depth Ratio on the Ultimate Steel
Stress in Unbonded Prestressed Concrete Members, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 87, No. 3, May-June 1990, pp. 305-312.
14. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary (318R-89), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1989, 347 pp.
15. Yaginuma, Y., Non-Linear Analysis of Ultimate Flexural Strength
of Beams with External Tendons, Journal of Prestressed Concrete, Japan,
V. 37, No. 3, May 1995, pp. 54-65. (in Japanese)
16. Tay, C. S., Strengthening of Beams by External Prestressing, BEng
dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, National University of
Singapore, Singapore, 1996, 82 pp.
17. Naaman, A. E., Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design:
Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1982, 670 pp.

653