Prestressing with Unbonded Internal or External Tendons:

Analysis and Computer Model

Nihal Ariyawardena1 and Amin Ghali, F.ASCE2

Abstract: A method of analysis is presented to predict the behavior of prestressed concrete structures with internal or external tendons
up to ultimate. The structure is modeled as an assemblage of plane frame members connected at nodes. The prestressing tendon is treated
as a member with a small moment of inertia connected to the structural nodes with short arms. Because the centroidal axis changes with
cracking and time-dependent effects, the nodes are located on an arbitrarily chosen axis called the reference axis. The analysis includes
the effects of tension stiffening, and geometric and material nonlinearities. Any nonlinear stress–strain relationship for concrete and
reinforcements can be applied. The analysis accounts for friction and slip of external tendons at deviators, variation of tendon eccentricity
with applied load 共geometric nonlinearity兲, and opening of joints in precast segmental construction. The computer program developed to
perform the analysis method is verified using experiments on simple and continuous beams with internal or external tendons.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2002兲128:12共1493兲
CE Database keywords: Prestressing; Tendons; Computer models; Concrete structures.

Introduction
Posttensioned tendons in prestressed concrete are sometimes pro-
tected against corrosion by cement grout ensuring the bond be-
tween the steel and the adjacent concrete. For economy and to
enable the use of prestressing ducts of a smaller diameter, the
tendons may be left unbonded and grease or other products are
used for corrosion protection. Fiber reinforced polymer unbonded
tendons have been introduced as an alternative material which
does not corrode. The prestressing tendon is often placed outside
the cross section of members, thus allowing their sizes to be re-
duced. With external prestressing, heavy concrete webs of bridge
girders have been replaced by steel corrugated sheets or steel
truss members, resulting in lighter and more attractive structures.
Externally prestressed tendons can be provided or replaced to
strengthen existing structures. The disadvantages of unbonded
tendons are that they can result in a structure with wider cracks
and smaller ultimate strength. These disadvantages have been ad-
dressed in modern designs by mixed prestressing, where both
internal bonded tendons and external tendons are employed in the
same structure. This paper is concerned with analysis of stresses
and deformations, at any load level up to failure, of structures
prestressed with unbonded internal or external tendons. Nonlinear
stress–strain relationships for concrete and reinforcements are
employed. The analysis also accounts for geometric nonlinearity
which is of importance when the members are slender.
1
PhD Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Calgary, Calgary AB, Canada T2N 1N4.
2 deviators, the tendon force remains constant between anchorages.
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Calgary, Calgary AB,
Canada T2N 1N4. E-mail: aghali@ucalgary.ca
Note. Associate Editor: Marc I. Hoit. Discussion open until May 1,
2003. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on September 6, 2000; approved on
March 29, 2002. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 128, No. 12, December 1, 2002. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2002/12-1493–1501/$8.00⫹$.50 per page.
When the tendons are bonded to the concrete, applied loads on
the structure produce equal changes in strain in the tendon and the
adjacent concrete. Thus, in a framed structure, the change in
strain at any section represents two unknowns: The axial strain,
⑀ O at reference point O and the curvature ␺ 共the slope of the
strain distribution diagram兲. It is here implied that plane cross
section remains plane after deformation, thus allowing the strain
change at any concrete fiber or any reinforcement layer to be
expressed linearly in terms of ⑀ O and ␺. The strain change in an
unbonded tendon is not compatible with the adjacent concrete;
only the displacements of the tendons at the anchors are the same
as the adjacent concrete and, in some cases, also at the deviators.
This makes the analysis more elaborate. The two parameters ⑀ O
and ␺ at any section are not sufficient to give the strain changes in
the unbonded tendons.
When a concrete member with external tendon deflects, the
tendon remains straight between the deviators or anchorages, re-
sulting in a change of tendon eccentricity, which imposes geomet-
ric nonlinearity in the analysis. The change in eccentricity at a
section between deviators is significant when the deflection at this
section is large relative to those at deviators; this is the case at a
high load level and/or in slender members. The effect of eccen-
tricity variations should be accounted for by considering geomet-
ric nonlinearity in the analysis.
The external tendon may be bonded or unbonded at the devia-
tors. When the tendon is bonded at the deviators, applied loads
cause the force in the tendon to differ on either side of a deviator;
whereas for the unbonded tendon free to slip without friction at
Experiments show 共Hindi et al. 1993兲 that when the tendon is
bonded at the deviators, the ultimate strength can be increased.
When friction at the deviators exists, the tendon may slip at a
higher load level resulting in a redistribution of force in the ad-
jacent parts of the tendons. When a structure is constructed with
precast segments and assembled with external prestressing, the
opening of the joints between the segments due to a relatively
high applied load significantly affects the change in external ten-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2002 / 1493

don stress and the stiffness of the member. This represents an-
other cause of nonlinearity in the analysis.
Several methods have been presented in literature to analyze
concrete structures with internal unbonded or external tendons.
However, most of these studies have limitations. The brief review
presented next explains the need for an accurate analysis method
to determine the behavior of concrete structures with internal or
external unbonded tendons. Such an analysis should account for
material and geometric nonlinearities and consider the parameters
mentioned herein. It should also account for the contribution of
concrete in the tension zone of cracked members 共tension stiffen-
ing兲 to the stiffness of members.
State-of-the-Art of Analysis Methods
The analytical studies reported in literature to determine the be-
havior of concrete structures with internal unbonded or external
tendons can be divided into simplified and general methods. Naa-
man and Alkhairi 共1991兲 have proposed a simplified method to
determine the strain in an internal unbonded tendon at service and
at ultimate loads in a simple beam with a symmetrical tendon
profile and symmetrical load, assuming a single crack formation
at the middle of the beam. In this method, the strain is calculated
for a bonded tendon, then the result is multiplied by a reduction
coefficient to determine the strain in the unbonded tendon. This
strain reduction coefficient at ultimate is calculated empirically.
Virolgeux 共1988兲 has presented a model for the analysis of simple
and continuous beams. The beam is composed of rigid bodies
separated by cracks at the midspan and support sections. The
change in tendon stress due to the applied loads is zero until the
cracks open. The sum of the crack openings gives the change in
length and hence the strain in the tendon; friction is ignored.
These simplified methods give only approximate values of the
stress in the tendon, because they ignore the tension stiffening
effect, eccentricity variation of the external tendon, and the fric-
tion and slip at the deviators. Also, these and similar methods
共Alkhairi 1991; Matupayont et al. 1995; Harajli et al. 1999兲 cal-
culate the change in tendon strain by integrating the strain of
concrete at the level of the tendon between the anchorages rather
than from the displacements of anchorages and deviators.
More general analyses based on finite-element methods have
also been reported 共Fenves 1986; Ramos and Aparicio 1995兲. The
strain in the external tendon is calculated from the displacements
at the deviators and anchorages. Nonlinearities in the analysis
result in out-of-balance nodal forces, which are eliminated by
iteration. Three types of elements are generally considered to rep-
resent the concrete beam, the tendon, and ‘‘the joint’’ in segmen-
tal construction. The method proposed by Fenves 共1986兲 consid-
ers material nonlinearity but ignores geometric nonlinearity and
friction and slip at the deviators. The method presented by Ramos
and Aparicio 共1995兲 includes nonlinearities due to material and
geometry, and the external tendon is assumed bonded or free to
slip at the deviators, thus ignoring the effect of friction. A ‘‘joint
element’’ is also proposed by them for use in precast segmental
construction. The joint element has the following characteristics:
Tensile strength of the concrete is zero, the length of element is
equal to the depth of the member and, of course, no reinforcement
is assumed in the joint element.
Other finite-element methods reported by Conti and Tardy
共1993兲 have either ignored the slip of the tendon at the deviators
or employed complicated models to represent slipping.
The equations presented in the design codes are intended for
internal unbonded tendons. Comité Euro-International du Béton-
1494 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2002
Fig. 1. Modeling of externally prestressed concrete structures in
analysis
Fédération International de la Précontrainte, Paris 共CEB-FIP兲 MC
90 共1993兲 mentions that unless an appropriate analysis is per-
formed to include effects such as eccentricity variations, the
change in the external tendon stress due to loads applied in excess
of prestressing plus self-weight, may be taken as zero, this is, of
course, extremely conservative. The method of analysis presented
next has been extensively verified 共Ariyawardena 2000兲 by com-
paring its results with published experimental data. The analysis
procedure is intended for use with a computer as a design tool. It
can also be employed in parametric studies to develop empirical
design equations to supplement or rectify the equations given in
codes.
Proposed Analysis Method
A method of analysis is proposed to determine the behavior of
externally prestressed concrete structure at any load level. The
same analysis applies to a structure with internal unbonded or
bonded tendons, simply by increasing the number of deviators
and using an appropriate friction coefficient. The concrete struc-
ture is modeled as an assemblage of short prismatic plane frame
members connected at nodes; external loads are applied at the
nodes. The distance between adjacent nodes depends on factors
such as spacing between external loads, location of deviators etc.;
typically a spacing of one to two times the depth of the member
can be used. The external tendon is considered as a plane frame
member with a negligible moment of inertia, connected to the
structure nodes by ‘‘short arms’’ 共Fig. 1兲. Since the centroidal axis
changes due to cracking and time-dependent effects, the structural
nodes are located on an arbitrarily chosen axis, called the refer-
ence axis. The nodal displacements 兵 D 其 3n⫻1 of the structure are
calculated using the conventional displacement method 共Ghali
and Neville 1997兲, by solving the equilibrium equation:
关 S 兴 兵 D 其 ⫽⫺ 兵 F 其 (1)
where 关 S 兴 3n⫻3n ⫽the structural stiffness matrix, n⫽the number of
nodes, and 兵F其⫽the nodal forces which can artificially restrain the
nodal displacements. The nodal forces include the effects of pre-
stressing, applied loads, and temperature. The calculation of 兵D其
in Eq. 共1兲 needs iteration because due to cracking, material, and
geometric nonlinearities, 关S兴 and 兵F其 depend on 兵D其. The well-
known Newton–Raphson 共N–R兲 iterative scheme is applied; par-
ticulars of this application are briefly discussed next.
Equivalent Nodal Forces
The equivalent nodal force vector of the structure is determined
by the assemblage of individual member end forces in global
directions. The end forces of a member in local and in global
directions 共see Fig. 2兲 are related by:

Fig. 2. Coordinates and degrees of freedom: 共a兲 global directions; 共b兲
local member directions; and 共c兲 cantilever used in derivation of
member stiffness matrix
兵 F 其 m⫽ 关 T 兴 T兵 F *其 m (2)
where 兵 F * 其 6⫻1 and 兵 F 其 6⫻1 ⫽the member end forces in local and
in global directions respectively and 关T兴⫽the transformation ma-
trix given in several references 共Ghali and Neville 1997兲.
Out-of-Balance Nodal Forces
If the analysis is linear, the equivalent nodal forces determined by
the assemblage of 兵 F 其 m 关Eq. 共2兲兴 at each node in global directions
should be in equilibrium with the applied nodal forces. However,
due to the nonlinearities just mentioned, the equilibrium at the
nodes is not satisfied, resulting in unbalanced or out-of-balance
forces at the nodes, that should be eliminated by the N–R itera-
tion. When out-of-balance nodal forces, 兵 ⌬F 其 3n⫻1 exist, 兵D其, 兵F其,
and 关S兴 in Eq. 共1兲 should be replaced, respectively, by 兵 ⌬D 其 ,
兵 ⌬F 其 , and 关 S t 兴 , where 关 S t 兴 is the tangent stiffness matrix.
Tangent Stiffness Matrix of Structure
The tangent stiffness matrix 关 S t 兴 can be expressed as a sum of
two matrices:
关 St兴⫽关 Se兴⫹关 Sg兴 (3)
where 关 S e 兴 and 关 S g 兴 ⫽the elastic and geometric stiffness matrices
of the structure, respectively. 关 S e 兴 depends on cracking, tension
stiffening, updated nodal coordinates and transformed area prop-
erties of individual members and 关 S g 兴 also depends on updated
nodal coordinates and, in addition, updated axial and shear force
of members 共Ghali and Neville 1997兲. 关 S e 兴 and 关 S g 兴 can be ob-
tained by the assemblage of the elastic and the geometric stiffness
matrices of individual members; these matrices are discussed
below.
Tension Stiffening Effect
The tension stiffening is the contribution of the concrete located
between the cracks to the stiffness of the member. The displace-
ments and crack widths are generally overestimated by ignoring
the concrete in tension, especially at the service load level. Con-
sider a concrete cross-section in Fig. 3; at any fiber located at a
distance y from the reference point O the strain can be expressed
as:
⑀ c 共 y 兲 ⫽⑀ O ⫹y␺ (4)
where ⑀ O and ␺⫽the strain at a reference point O and the curva-
ture (⫽d⑀/dy). For a cross section subjected to a given normal
force and bending moment, the values of ⑀ O and ␺ can be ex-
pressed in terms of the area properties of the transformed cross
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2002 / 1495
Fig. 3. Strain and stress distributions in concrete section; positive
sign convention
section 共assuming a linear stress–strain relationship for concrete;
see the Appendix兲. For the calculation of the displacements of a
cracked member, accounting for the tension stiffening effect, one
can introduce mean strain parameters 兵 ⑀ Om ,␺ m 其 , defined as fol-
lows:
再 冎 再 冎
⑀O
␺ m
⑀O ⑀O
⫽ ␺ 共 1⫺␨ 兲 ⫹ ␺
1
再 冎 2
␨ and ␨⫽1⫺␤ 冉 冊 f ct
␴ 1 max
2
(5)
where subscripts 1 and 2⫽the strain parameters calculated with
cracking ignored and with concrete in tension ignored respec-
tively, f ct⫽tensile strength of concrete, and ␴ 1 max⫽the extreme
tension fiber stress due to internal forces in an uncracked trans-
formed section. The value of ␤ depends on the bond properties of
the reinforcements and type of loading, and in most practical
cases⫽0.5. Eq. 共6兲 will be employed next to generate the ‘‘mean
stiffness’’ matrix of a cracked member.
Mean Elastic Stiffness Matrix of Member
The elastic stiffness matrix of a member 共Fig. 2兲 can be deter-
mined with respect to any reference axis 共not necessarily centroi-
dal兲. Since short prismatic members are assumed, transformed
area properties calculated at the midlength section of the member
represent the area properties of the entire member. A stiffness
matrix of a plane frame member can be derived by inverting its
flexibility matrix determined by treating the member as a cantile-
ver 关Fig. 2共c兲兴 共Ghali and Neville 1997兲. The mean flexibility
matrix 关 f m⬘ 兴 3⫻3 corresponding to the coordinates of a cantilever
can be obtained by 关Fig. 2共c兲兴:
关 f ⬘ 兴 m ⫽ 关 f ⬘ 兴 1 共 1⫺␨ 兲 ⫹ 关 f ⬘ 兴 2 ␨ (6)
where ␨⫽the interpolation coefficient defined in Eq. 共5兲 and
关 f ⬘ 兴 1 or 2 ⫽the flexibility matrix given by:
冉 冋 册冊
I ⫺Bl/2 B
l
关 f ⬘兴1 2⫽ ⫺Bl/2 Al 2 /3 ⫺Al/2
or
E c 共 AI⫺B 2 兲
B ⫺Al/2 A
1 or 2
(7)
where A, B, and I⫽the area, first, and second moment of trans-
formed areas, respectively, about the reference axis of the
midlength section of the member, E c ⫽the elastic modulus of con-
crete, and l⫽the length of the member. The subscript 1 or 2 refers
to uncracked or fully cracked cross section, respectively; for the
fully cracked section, the area of the concrete in the tension is
ignored. The mean stiffness matrix, 关 S ⬘ 兴 m , of a cantilever is
given by 关 f ⬘ 兴 m⫺1 . The mean stiffness of the member, 关 S * 兴 m cor-
responding to the six coordinates in Fig. 2共b兲 can then be calcu-
lated by the equilibrium of forces 共Ghali and Neville 1997兲.
关 S * 兴 m can be transformed into global directions by:
关 S 兴 m⫽ 关 T 兴 T关 S * 兴 m关 T 兴 (8)
At the service level, the stress–strain relationships of the concrete
and reinforcement are assumed linear, with E c being the secant
elasticity modulus.

Accounting for Material Nonlinearity in Mean

Member Stiffness Matrix
With nonlinear stress–strain relationships for the concrete or re-
inforcements applicable at a higher load level, the tangent modu-
Fig. 4. Coordinate system to determine member end forces: 共a兲
lus of elasticity of any concrete or reinforcement layer varies
initial position and 共b兲 deformed position.
according to the stress level in the layer. The transformed area
properties can be calculated to reflect this change in elasticity
modulus:
• Determine end forces of members corresponding to the de-
共 EA 兲 tan⫽⌺ 共 EA 兲 c or ns ; 共 EB 兲 tan⫽⌺ 共 EB 兲 c or ns ;
(9) formed member position accounting for cracking and tension
共 EI 兲 tan⫽⌺ 共 EI 兲 c or ns stiffening 共as discussed next兲, and
• Calculate the out-of-balance nodal forces to be used in next
where E⫽the tangent modulus of elasticity of a concrete or a
iteration, 兵 ⌬F 其 i⫹1 .
reinforcement layer determined from the slope of the stress–strain
graph at the stress reached in the layer, A, B, and I are the area of
the layer, and its first and second moments about the reference Stiffness Matrices of Tendon and Short Arm
axis, and the subscripts c and ns refer to concrete and nonpre-
Eq. 共7兲 and its inverse can give the elastic stiffness matrix for a
stressed reinforcement, respectively. The flexibility matrix given
tendon by setting I⫽B⫽0, and E⫽tangent or secant modulus
in Eq. 共7兲 can then be modified by replacing E c , A, B, and I
determined from the stress–strain relationship of prestressing ten-
respectively with 1, (EA) tan , (EB) tan and (EI) tan . The mean stiff-
don. The geometric stiffness matrix of a tendon can be obtained
ness matrix can be obtained as explained in the previous section.
with Eq. 共10兲, with F ⬘2 ⫽0. The stiffness matrix determined in this
It should be noted that when the tangent modulus becomes nega-
way represents the case where the tendon is bonded at the devia-
tive at a high stress level 共descending part of the concrete stress–
tors. For slip, with or without friction, a simple yet accurate pro-
strain curve兲, convergence problems may occur. This problem is
cedure is explained later. For the elastic stiffness matrix of the
solved by the use of secant elasticity moduli in Eq. 共9兲, instead of
short arms representing the deviators, again Eq. 共7兲 and its inverse
the tangent elasticity moduli.
are used setting B⫽0 and assuming appropriate values for A and
I; the use of excessively large values 共to represent rigid arms兲 can
Geometric Stiffness Matrix of Member cause numerical problems.

The geometric stiffness matrix, 关 S ⬘g 兴 3⫻3 of a cantilever can be

Calculation of Member End Forces
determined from the known member end forces 共Ghali and Nev-
ille 1997兲 关Fig. 2共c兲兴: The six member end forces can be determined from the displace-

冋 册 冋 册
ments, 兵 D̄ 其 defined in Fig. 4共b兲. The displacements 兵 D̄ 其 are re-
0 0 0 0 1 0
F ⬘1 F⬘ lated to the displacements 兵 D * 其 defined in Fig. 4共a兲 by the rela-
关 S g⬘ 兴 ⫽ 0 ⫺1 0 ⫹ 2 1 0 0 (10) tions:
l l
0 0 0 0 0 0 D̄ 1 ⫽l⫺l in ; D̄ 2 ⫽D *
3 ⫺共 D*
5 ⫺D *
2 兲 /l;
(11)
where F ⬘1 and F ⬘2 ⫽the axial and shear force at the free end of the
cantilever; these are calculated considering the equilibrium of the D̄ 3 ⫽D *
6 ⫺共 D*
5 ⫺D *
2 兲 /l
member in its position after deformation and l is the initial length where l in⫽the initial length of member and l⫽the length of the
of the member. The geometric stiffness matrix of the member in chord joining the nodes at the member end in their displaced
global directions, 关 S g 兴 6⫻6 can be determined by the equilibrium position. Also from geometry, Eq. 共12兲 can be used to calculate
and transformation 共Ghali and Neville 1997兲. the member end displacements 兵 D * 其 in its local coordinates from
the member displacements in the global direction, 兵 D 其 member :
Newton-Raphson Iteration Scheme 兵 D * 其 ⫽ 关 T 兴 兵 D 其 member (12)

The iterations are performed until the out-of-balance nodal forces An axial force 兵 F̄ 1 其 and two end moments 兵 F̄ 2 其 and 兵 F̄ 3 其 corre-
are sufficiently small compared to the applied nodal forces, or to sponding to the displacements 兵 D̄ 其 are given by:
the reactions when the analysis is for the effect of prescribed
displacements. A typical iteration cycle i, of the N–R method 兵 F̄ 其 ⫽ 关 S̄ 兴 兵 D̄ 其 (13)
involves where 关 S̄ 兴 ⫽the elastic stiffness matrix of an uncracked member;
• Calculate 关 S t 兴 i accounting for cracking and tension stiffening the matrix can be generated by:

冋 冋 册
and updated nodal coordinates at the end of iteration i, I ⫺B/2 B/2 ⫺1
• Calculate the increment in nodal displacement, 兵 ⌬D 其 i due to l
out-of-balance nodal forces 兵 ⌬F 其 i based on the updated
⫺1
关 S̄ 兴 ⫽ 关 f̄ 兴 ⫽ ⫺B/2 A/3 ⫺A/6
E 共 AI⫺B 2 兲
关 S t 兴 i⫺1 , B/2 ⫺A/6 A/3
• Update the nodal displacements 兵 D 其 i ⫽ 兺 ij⫽1 兵 ⌬D 其 j , (14)

1496 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2002

where A, B, and I are the area properties of the transformed sec-
tion at the midlength of member. Eqs. 共13兲 and 共14兲 apply only
when the member is not cracked. But if after 兵 F̄ 其 is determined it
is realized that the member is cracked, the calculation has to be
rectified using:
兵 F̄ 其 ⫽ 兵 F̄ 其 dec⫹ 关 S̄ 兴 m 兵兵 D̄ 其 ⫺ 兵 D̄ 其 dec其
where 兵 F̄ 其 dec and 兵 D̄ 其 dec are decompression forces and corre-
sponding displacements discussed in the Appendix. Once 兵 F̄ 其 is
determined by Eqs. 共13兲 or 共15兲, the remaining three member end
forces can be calculated by the equilibrium. The mean stiffness
matrix 关 S̄ 兴 m depends upon the interpolation coefficient, ␨ to ac-
count for the tension stiffness. In turn, ␨ is dependent upon 兵 F̄ 其 .
Thus iteration is necessary for the application of Eq. 共15兲. This
iteration, in which the depth of the compression zone, c and ␨ are
determined, is explained in the Appendix.
Change of Force in Tendon
The translation of the tips of the short arms 共Fig. 1兲 can be used to
calculate the change in length of any straight segment of the
tendon assuming no slip at the deviators. The change in length
divided by the initial length gives the change in strain and hence
the change in force can be determined from the known stress–
strain relationship of the tendon material. This will cause unequal
change in the forces in the adjacent tendon segments. When the
tendon is free to slip without friction at the deviators, the change
in tendon force is adjusted by N–R iterations starting with an
average tendon force given by:
冒
n n
F avg⫽ 兺 F i l i i⫽1
i⫽1
兺 li
where l i ⫽the length of the ith segment of the tendon, F i ⫽the
force in the same segment determined without slip at deviators,
and n⫽number of tendon segments. When the average force is
assumed to exist in all segments, out-of-balance forces will result
at the nodes where the tendon is connected to the deviators. The
difference F i ⫺F avg in each segment is reduced in successive it-
erations, resulting in a constant tendon force between the anchor-
ages at convergence.
When friction is considered at the deviators, the change in
force in each segment due to slip should also be taken into ac-
count in N–R iteration cycles. Slip occurs at deviator i when Eqs.
共17兲 or 共18兲 is satisfied:
If F i ⬎F i⫺1 F i ⭓F i⫺1 e 共 ␮␪⫹kx 兲 i
or
If F i ⬍F i⫺1 F i ⭐F i⫺1 e ⫺ 共 ␮␪⫹kx 兲 i
where F i⫺1 and F i ⫽, respectively, the forces in the tendon seg-
ments on the left-hand side and the right-hand side of deviator i;
␮ i , k i , ␪ i , and x i ⫽, respectively, the friction coefficient, wobble
coefficient, change in angle, and contact length with deviator i.
Eqs. 共17兲 or 共18兲 apply, respectively, when slipping occurs from
the left- to the right-hand side or vice versa. Due to slip, the
forces in the segments F i⫺1 and F i are adjusted, respectively, to
F i⫺1 and F i using
冉 冊 冉 冊
A psE A psE
F i⬘ ⫽F i ⫺ gi ; ⬘ ⫽F i⫺1 ⫹
F i⫺1 g ;
li l i⫺1 i
F i⬘ ⫽F i⫺1
⬘ e 共 ␮␪⫹kx 兲 I i
where g i ⫽slip at deviator i 共positive when slip occurs from the
left- to the right-hand side兲, A psE⫽product of area and elasticity
modulus of prestressing tendon, and l i and l i⫺1 ⫽the lengths of
the tendon segments i and i⫺1, respectively. I i ⫽⫹1 or ⫺1 de-
pending on the direction of slip. By solving Eq. 共19兲, the trial
⬘ , and F ⬘i can be obtained. These adjusted
values of g i , F i⫺1
(15) forces in the segments create out-of-balance forces equal to F i⫺1 ⫺
⬘ and F i ⫺F i⬘ that should be eliminated by iteration. The total
F i⫺1
slip at the deviator can be determined by the sum of slips, g i
calculated at each iteration cycle 共Ariyawardena 2000兲.
Computer Program
A computer program has been developed to perform the proposed
analysis. The program accounts for geometric nonlinearity. Mate-
rial nonlinearity is considered by entering as input any stress–
strain relationships for concrete and the reinforcements, repre-
sented by a series of straight lines. Slip with and without friction
or fixity at the deviators can be considered. Internal unbonded or
bonded tendons can be analyzed by the same program. Other
capabilities of the program 共Ariyawardena 2000兲, which have not
been discussed here are the analysis of the time-dependent effects
of creep and shrinkage of concrete and the relaxation of pre-
stressed reinforcement and the effects of opening of the joints in
precast segmental construction.
Verification of Method of Analysis
Experimental graphs for load versus deflection and load versus
(16) tendon stress for several concrete beams with internal and exter-
nal tendons are used to verify the analysis 共Ariyawardena 2000兲.
The discussion presented next is limited to six beams for which
data are given in Table 1. The simple beams T0 and T2 tested by
Tan and Ng 共1997兲 have a T section and an external straight
tendon 共Fig. 5兲. Beam T0 does not have deviators while beam T2
has two deviators located at third points. The two beams are sub-
jected to third point loads and the span length⫽3 m. Figs. 5共a兲
and 共b兲 compare the experimental and analytical load–deflection
variation for the two beams; similar comparisons for the stress in
the external tendon are shown in Figs. 6共a兲 and 共b兲. In the analysis
of beam T2, the external tendon is assumed free to slip at devia-
tors without friction. The graphs for T0 and T2 are not substan-
tially different because of the short span-to-depth ratio. Note that
the beams in these tests, as well as in other tests reported in
(17) literature, have small span-to-depth ratios compared to beams in
practice. To show the effect of deviators on the ultimate strength
and the tendon stress at ultimate, beams T0 and T2 are analyzed
(18) with the span length increased to 9.0 m. The results of this analy-
sis show that when span length is increased to 9.0 m 共span-to-
depth ratio increased from 15 to 45兲, the ultimate loads for beams
T0 and T2 are reduced, respectively, from 160 to 32 kN and from
167 to 43 kN.
The ultimate load for the beams T0 and T2 can also be calcu-
lated by the simplified method proposed by Naaman and Alkhairi
共1991兲, giving ultimate loads of 180 kN for both beams T0 and
T2. On the other hand, Virlogeux’s 共1988兲 model greatly under-
estimates the ultimate load, giving only 100 kN for both beams.
The ultimate loads obtained experimentally are 159 and 167 kN
for beams T0 and T2, respectively. A brief description and the
(19) limitations of the method of Naaman and Alkhairi 共1991兲 and that
of Virlogeux 共1988兲 are given above.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2002 / 1497
Table 1. Details of Beams Analyzed for Comparison with Experimental Data
Author
Du and
Tan and Ng Tao Campbell and Rizkalla
Description 共1997兲 Matupayont et al. 共1995兲 共1985兲 共personal communication 2000兲
Type of prestressing External straight External Internal Variably
deviated unbonded bonded
Type of prestressed Steel Steel Steel Carbon fibre
reinforcement 共Leadline兲
Number of beams Two One One Two
Beam designation T0 & T2 AR1 A-5 PPR07FB &
PPR07UB
Span length, ᐉ 共mm兲 3000 Two 4050 4200 3300
spans
A ps (mm2 ) 110 198 78.4 92.2
Effective prestress 1297 共T0兲, 1182 894 810 1209
共MPa兲 共T2兲
A ns (mm2 ), f y (MPa) 402, 530 266, 400 308, 400 200, 418
A ⬘ns(mm2 ), f y (MPa) 201, 338 266, 400 ¯ 18, 500
Concrete strength 34.6 & 28.7 共T0 38.8 30.6 40.0
共MPa兲 & T2兲

Fig. 5. Variation of midspan deflection with applied load for exter- Fig. 6. Increase in tendon stress with applied load for externally
nally prestressed beam with different number of deviators: 共a兲 no prestressed beams with different number of deviators: 共a兲 no devia-
deviators 共T0兲 and 共b兲 two deviators 共T2兲 tors and 共b兲 two deviators

1498 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2002

Fig. 7. Analytical load–deflection prediction of continuous exter-
nally prestressed beam tested by Matupayont et al. 共1995兲
Matupayont et al. 共1995兲 tested a two-span continuous beam
共AR1兲 with a T-section subjected to two point loads. Fig. 7 shows
the beam dimensions and compares the analysis results with ex-
perimental load–deflection variation. The external tendon is as-
sumed free to slip at the deviators without friction.
A simply supported rectangular beam, with unbonded internal
tendon, 共A-5兲 has been selected from a series tested by Du and
Tao 共1985兲. The proposed analysis can model the internal un-
bonded tendon by treating it as an external one with the deviators
located at close spacings 共350 mm兲 and assuming free slip at the
deviators. Fig. 8 shows the beam dimensions and compares the
predicted and the experimental variations of deflection with ap-
plied load.
Finally, two simply supported beams, having fiber-reinforced
polymer prestressed tendons and stainless-steel nonprestressed
bars, tested by Campbell and Rizkalla 共personal communication,
2000兲 are analyzed. The tendons have been bonded over the full
length or bonded only over a length l b at the ends 共Fig. 9兲. The
predicted variation of midspan deflections with an applied load is
compared with experiments in Fig. 9.
Conclusion
A method of analysis is proposed to predict the behavior of a
prestressed concrete structure with internal or external tendons up
Fig. 8. Analytical load–deflection prediction of beams tested by Du
and Tao 共1985兲
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2002 / 1499
Fig. 9. Variation of midspan deflection with applied load for simple
beam with unbonded length of tendon, l ub⫽600 or 1,600 mm
to ultimate. A computer program developed to implement the
analysis is verified using experimental results. The program can
be used for the analysis of any continuous prestressed plane
frame. The prestressing can be by pretensioned, bonded, or un-
bonded internal or external posttensioned tendons. The analysis
accounts for the friction, the slip of the tendons at the deviators,
and the change of the eccentricity of external tendons with the
variation of load level.
Acknowledgments
This research has been supported by grants from Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council 共NSERC兲 of Canada and ISIS
Canada 共Intelligent Sensing of Innovative Structures兲.
Appendix: Iteration Procedure to Determine Depth
of Compression Zone, c and Interpolation
Coefficient, ␨
The strain ⑀ O at a reference point O and the curvature ␺ are
related to the normal force N and the moment M by 共Fig. 3兲:
再 冎 冋 册再 冎
N
M ⫽E c
A
B
B
I
⑀O
␺ ;
(20)
再 冎
⑀O 1 I
␺ ⫽ E c 共 AI⫺B 2 兲 ⫺B冋 ⫺B
A
册再 冎
N
M
where A, B, and I⫽respectively, the transformed section area, its
first moment, and its second moment about an axis through O.
When the cross section is cracked, the transformed area does not
include the concrete in tension.
Let the parameters 兵 ␴ O ,␥ 其 define the initial stress distribution
共Fig. 3兲 in a prestressed section; then assume that the section is
subjected to a normal force N at O combined with a moment M,
producing cracking. The strain parameters due to 兵 N,M 其 are the
sum of the strain parameters, determined by Eq. 共20兲, due to
兵 N,M 其 dec and those due to 兵 N,M 其 cracking 共Ghali et al. 2002兲. The
subscript ‘‘dec’’ refers to the decompression forces that are just
sufficient to eliminate the initial stresses and are given by:
 再 冎
N
M ⫽⫺
dec
冋 册再 冎 再 冎
A
B
B
I
␴O
␥ ;
N
M cracking
N
再 冎 再 冎
N
⫽ M ⫺ M
dec
tionship to calculate ␴(y) corresponding to strain ⑀(y)⫽⑀ O2
⫹y␺ 2 and evaluate the integrals numerically over the cross sec-
tion area, ignoring the concrete in tension.
(21)
An iterative procedure is presented next to determine the depth of Step 3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 using 兵 N,M 其 trial⫽ 兵 N,M 其 calc until
compression zone, c and the interpolation coefficient, ␨ at the the difference between the trial values and the calculated values at
midlength section for a cracked member having given displace- the end of step 2 is small. When this is achieved the values of ␨
ments 兵 D̄ 其 关Fig. 4共b兲兴. The normal force and bending moment at and c calculated in steps 1 and 2 can be used to determine the area
the midlength section, 兵 N,M 其 mid can be expressed in terms of properties of a cracked section and to find the mean stiffness
member end forces 兵 F̄ 其 关Fig. 4共b兲兴 as: matrix.

兵 N,M 其 mid⫽ 兵 F̄ 1 ,0.5 共 F̄ 2 ⫺F̄ 3 其 (22)

Notation
The parameters 兵 ⑀ O ,␺ 其 defining the strain at the midlength sec-
tion are related to the nodal displacements 兵 D̄ 其 关Fig. 4共b兲兴 by The following symbols are used in this paper:
geometry: A, B, and I ⫽ transformed cross-sectional area, its first

册再 冎
moment and second moment, respectively;

冋
兵D其 and 兵F其 ⫽ nodal displacements and nodal forces,
再 冎
D̄ 1
⑀O 1 1 0 0 respectively;
␺ ⫽ D̄ 2 (23)
mid l 0 1 ⫺1 E ⫽ modulus of elasticity;
D̄ 3 e ⫽ eccentricity of prestressed tendon;
where l⫽the chord length of the member in its displaced position. 关f兴 ⫽ flexibility matrix;
Eq. 共23兲 can be verified by expressing ⑀ O and ␺ as first and l ⫽ length of member;
second derivatives of the displacement shape functions of a pris- 关S兴 ⫽ stiffness matrix;
matic bar 共Ghali and Neville 1997兲. The shape functions describe y ⫽ coordinate of fiber, measured downward
the deformed shapes when one of the displacements D̄ 1 , D̄ 2 , or from reference point;
⑀ and ␴ ⫽ strain and stress, respectively;
D̄ 3 is equal to unity while the other two are zero.
␨ ⫽ interpolation coefficient to account for
The parameters 兵 ␴ O ,␥ 其 defining the distribution of initial
tension stiffening; and
stress existing before the application of 兵 N,M 其 mid are assumed to
␺ and ␥ ⫽ slopes of strain and stress diagrams,
be known. The total strain at the midlength section determined by
respectively.
Eq. 共23兲 is the sum of the strains due to decompression forces and
Subscripts
the strain due to cracking forces:
c and ns ⫽ concrete and nonprestressed reinforcement,

再 冎 再 冎 再 冎
⑀O
␺ mid
⑀O
⫽ ␺
dec
⑀O
⫹ ␺
m
(24)
respectively;
m ⫽ mean strain parameters accounting for
tension stiffening;
where 兵 ⑀ O ,␺ 其 m ⫽mean strain parameters 关Eq. 共5兲兴; 兵 ⑀ O ,␺ 其 dec are e, g and t ⫽ elastic, geometric, and tangent stiffness
strain parameters given by ⫺ 兵 ␴ O ,␥ 其 /E c with E c being the modu- matrices, respectively;
lus of elasticity of concrete. The following are the steps of itera- O ⫽ reference point; and
tive procedure to determine c and ␨ from the trial values of 1 and 2 ⫽ uncracked and fully cracked states,
兵 N,M 其 mid . respectively.

Step 1. Substitute 兵 N,M 其 mid in Eq. 共20兲 with the area properties
of the uncracked transformed section to determine 兵 ⑀ O ,␺ 其 1 . Use
these two parameters to calculate the strain and stress ␴ 1 max at the
extreme tensile fiber. Apply Eq. 共5兲 to determine the interpolation
coefficient ␨ and to calculate the strain parameters of the fully
cracked section 共ignoring concrete in tension兲:
References
Alkhairi, F. M. 共1991兲. ‘‘On the flexural behaviour of concrete beams
prestressed with unbonded internal and external tendons.’’ PhD dis-
sertation, Univ. of Michigan, p. 415.
Ariyawardena, N. 共2000兲. ‘‘Prestressed concrete with internal or external

再 冎 冋再 冎 再 冎册
tendons: Behaviour and analysis.’’ PhD thesis, Univ. of Calgary, Cal-
⑀O ⑀O ⑀O
␺ ⫽␨ ⫺1 ␺ ⫺ 共 1⫺␨ 兲 ␺ (25) gary, Alberta, p. 276.
2 m 1 Comité Euro International du Beton-Fédération International de la Pré-
contrainte, Paris, France 共CEB-FIP兲 MC 90. 共1993兲. ‘‘Model code for
Step 2. Calculate the depth c of the compression zone and the concrete structures.’’ Thomas, Telford, London, 434.
Conti, E., and Tardy, R., eds. 共1993兲. Nonlinear calculation tests per-
corresponding normal force and moment, 兵 N,M 其 calc at the
formed for the workshop on behaviour of External prestressing in
midlength section using:

再 冎
structures, Saint-Rémy-lès-Chevreuse, France.

冕
Du, G., and Tao, X. 共1985兲. ‘‘Ultimate stress in unbonded tendons of

再 冎 再 冎
⑀ O2 N ␴da partially prestressed concrete beams.’’ PCI J., 30共6兲, 72–91.
Fenves, G. 共1986兲. ‘‘Nonlinear analysis of external prestressed bridges.’’
冕
c⫽d O ⫺ ␺ ; M ⫽ (26)
2 Proc., 9th Conf. on Electronic Computation, ASCE, Birmingham, Ala-
calc ␴yda
bama, 192–201.
Ghali, A., Farve, R., Elbadry, M. 共1994兲. Concrete structures, stresses,
where ␴⬅ 关 ␴(y) 兴 is the stress in the concrete or in the reinforce- and deformations, 3rd Ed., E&FN Spon, London, 608.
ment at the fiber whose coordinate is y, measured downward from Ghali, A., and Neville, A. M. 共1997兲. Structural analysis—A unified clas-
the reference point O 共Fig. 3兲. Use the given stress–strain rela- sical and matrix approach, 4th Ed., E&FN Spon, London, 831.

1500 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2002

Harajli, M., Khairallah, N., and Nassif, H. 共1999兲. ‘‘Externally pre-
stressed members: Evaluation of second-order effects.’’ J. Struct.
Eng., 125共10兲, 1151–1161.
Hindi, A., Macgregor, R. J., Kreger, M. E., and Breen, J. E. 共1993兲.
‘‘Enhancing the strength and ductility of posttensioned segmental and
box-girder bridges.’’ Proc., Workshop on Behaviour of External Pre-
stressing in Structures, E. Conti and B. Fouré, eds., Saint-Rémy-lès-
Chevreuse, France, 153–162.
Matupayont, S., Yamaguchi, T., Mutsuyoshi, H., and Machida, A. 共1995兲.
‘‘Flexural analysis of two span continuous prestressed concrete beam
with external tendons.’’ Trans. of the Japan Concrete Inst., 17, 211–
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2002 / 1501
216.
Naaman, A. E., and Alkhairi, F. M. 共1991兲. ‘‘Stress at ultimate in un-
bonded posttensioning tendon. Part 2- Proposed methodology.’’ ACI
Struct. J., 88, 683– 692.
Ramos, G., and Aparicio, A. C. 共1995兲. ‘‘Ultimate behaviour of externally
prestressed concrete bridges.’’ Struct. Eng. Int. (IABSE, Zurich, Swit-
zerland), 172–177.
Tan, K., and Ng, C. 共1997兲. ‘‘Effects of deviator and tendon configuration
on behaviour of externally prestressed beams.’’ ACI Struct. J., 99,
13–22.
Virlogeux, M. 共1988兲. ‘‘Nonlinear analysis of externally prestressed struc-
tures.’’ Proc., FIP Symposium, Jerusalem, 319–340.