Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
A further and not difficult development of this is to make an optimal cost fully automatical design
l 20 m span length
ton
qD 1.5 uniform dead load, exclusive of (i.e., not including) beam's weight
m
ton
qL 2 uniform live load
m
safety factor for the point live loads, just in case if inferior to CSL in account
CSLR 1.6
load reduction; for limit strength evaluation
Point Loads
If needed, use Mathcad to add rows to vector data
NP length PD NP 4
Concrete
40 40 20
40 16 10
16 16 100
d cm
16 40 10
40 150 10
150 150 10
150
YYk
cm
100
Yk
cm
50
0
100 50 0 50 100
XXk Xk
cm cm
2
Area 0.54 m
ton
weightgirder 1.3
m
4
Ix 16816202.21 cm
3
Sb 164820.92 cm elastic modulus of section at bottom face
Propertie
section o
3
St 290070.11 cm elastic modulus of section at top face
Moment from exclusively weight, service level
weightgirder x
Mw ( x) ( l x)
2
( l ab)
MP ( P ab x) P x if x ab
l
ab
P ( l x) otherwise
l
( l ab)
VP ( P ab x) P if x ab
l
ab
P otherwise
l
Service Level
NP
qD qL weightgirder x (l x)
M ( x)
2
MP PD PL Ai x
i i
i1
NP
V ( x) qD qL weightgirder x
l
2 VP PD PL Ai x
i i
i1
l
j 1 Nparts 1 xxj ( j 1) MMj M xxj MMUj
Nparts
MWj Mw xxj
Moments
500
MMUj 400
m ton
MMj 300
m ton
200
MWj
m ton 100
0
0 5 10 15 20
xxj
Shears m
100
50
VVUj
ton
0
VVj
ton
50
100
0 5 10 15 20
xxj
m
Tendon profile
Choice 3 3 if Parabolic Drape poin
2 if harped at 2 points
kL 0.4 will have u
1 if harped at center
0 if straight
ye yg height of tendon at end
from bottom
yc 12 cm height of tendon at center
Chart Profile
tendon
1.2
0.8
YTj
0.6
m
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20
xxj
m
Prestress Force
2
Nstrands 18 Ap_1 0.217 in 0.6 in fpu 270
Initial
Final
kpe ki ( 1 loss) kpe 0.6 fpe kpe fpu fpe 162 ksi
lt 50 lt 76.2 cm
We surmiss a linear decay from the full value of prestress at the age towards ends, hence
prestress forces at each section have to be redefined...
xxj
PIj Pi if xxj lt xxj
lt PEj Pe if xxj lt
lt
otherwise
Pi if AND2 xxj lt xxj l lt otherwise
Pe if AND2 x
l xxj
Pi otherwise l xxj
lt Pe othe
lt
Stresses
Compression figures positive t stands for top face and b for bottom face
fci
ci_lim 0.6 fci ti_lim 6 psi
j j psi
30
bi
j
MPa 20
ti
j
MPa
ci_lim 10
j
MPa
ti_lim
j 0
MPa
10
0 5 10 15 20
xxj
Check final stresses at service level
fc
c_lim 0.45 fc t_lim 6 psi
j j psi
30
b
j
MPa 20
t
j
MPa
c_lim 10
j
MPa
t_lim
j 0
MPa
10
0 5 10 15 20
xxj
Note how for the example the full service level condition is very favourable, since the full beam
remains compressed around the average 5 MPa level. However the beam has to have too
much depth for our taste, due to uncommon loading.
Pe
fpc fpc 5.2 MPa
Area
Change the choice of tendon profile and see the stresses vary.
It is usual to provide bonded reinforcement at 4 per thousand of area between cgc and bottom
face, distributed cgc down.
When no tensile stresses appear long term (like here) or they are moderate, no bonded
reinforcement is required per ACI 18.9.3.1. Still it is a good practice.
2
As_recommended 0.004 Areacgc_down As_recommended 8.93 cm
We check limit strength with fx124b.mcd and 6 16 mm passive rebar (more than
recommended) close to the bottom of the beam and we see that at the center we have
Mn=429.15 mton capacity, which is close enough for the factored condition (any arbitrary
or based in engineering practice assumed value can cause such difference in flexural
capacity) and we decide to approve flexural strength at least for this theoretical case.
Other sections would need to be checked.
Raising eyebrows? Take this then. Rare as it may sound to you, it may be happening that in
some bridge decks where concrete is of much lower strength than the precast beams below,
the deck adds nothing to limit bending strength; it is no more than butter (and flexurally a
nonuseful burden) to the stiff members below. The overall maximum flexural strength never
will be more than that of the strong supporting precast members.
This can also happen for composite decks on steel stringers. Once the compressed part of
the steel shape attains plasticity, the axial rigidity of the deck is (for such cases) unable to
refrain it. Many composite beam checks can be promptly dismissed if you prove such is the
case, since the deck is then more than anything another superimposed dead load.
Checking shear
First we also state mean compression at every point taking into account transfer length
PEj
Fpc
j Area
d
Slopet ( x) yt ( x) SLOPEj Slopet xxj the harped tendons may re
dx other treatment due to met
discontinuity
Since prestress is always favourably opposing shearing action, we can consider it always
positive.
0.8 h
Depthj max
h yt xxj
We identify width of web as the lesser of the stated widths
bw1 min d 1 b
bw 16 cm
fc
Vcw 3.5 psi 0.3 Fpc bw Depthj Vp Web shear cracking capacity
j psi j j at the investigated points
j
Mcr b_p t_lim
j j Sb decompression by flexion action
and further bending causing
tension, the bottom face cracks
fc V xxj
0.6 psi bw Depthj Mcr
psi M xxj j
Vci max since in a quotient facto
j fc unfactored moments if c
don't mind.
1.7 psi bw Depthj
psi
fc
j 1 Vci 0.6 psi bw Depthj mind not
j psi
j Nparts 1 fc
Vci 0.6 psi bw Depthj mind not
j psi
Vcwj
Vc min
j Vci
j
VVUj 100
ton
Vc s
j
ton 50
0
5 10 15
xxj
m
Stirrups reinforcement
VVUj Vcj s
Vs max if AND2 xxj 0.5 h xxj l 0.5 h
j
0 ton
0 ton otherwise
Vs
j
Vs
j s
Note that we exclude from any stirrups need the sections closer than 0.5h to supports, as
proper for prestressed beams. This is not to say we won't be placing stirrups there.
SectionSize "is valid anywhere from the viewpoint of size required for the assume
"you need enlarge the shear section since it does not meet the shear siz
SectionSize "is valid anywhere from the viewpoint of size required for the assumed f
Will reinforce in this sheet in the classical approach where the angle formed by the concrete
struts with longitudinal axis is not a factor. This is not consistent but is a conservative
assumption for any prestressed beam. Note however that prestress effect is at least partially
accounted for in the evaluation of the web shear and shear-flexural strength capacities above.
fraction of le
Nleg_e 2 number of legs per plane e 8 mm ke 0.3 stirrup arran
of stirrups at beams ends
number of legs per plane of
Nleg_c 2 stirrups at remaining center c 8 mm
se 60 cm sc 60 cm
Plot shear strength check with the input stirrups (at the
given separation) contribution
150
VVUj 100
ton
Sc
j
ton 50
0
5 10 15
xxj
m
Whatever the result, I wouldn't reinforce in shear with stirrups farther apart than 2bw for thin
web beams.
mom@arrakis.es
exural strength checks are not.
t of live
3
3
PTOT ton
3
0
i CSLR PLi Ai x
xxj lt xxj l lt
erwise
quire some
bw1
w2 min d
2
bw min
bw2
don force)
ource to any
e shear capacity
t. There is an
nk in such terms for
apacity anywhere in the beam, from
nclination of tendon if any
factored shear"