PERFORMANCE OF PRECAST PRESTRESSED HOLLOW CORE SLAB WITH COMPOSITE CONCRETE TOPPING

Norman L. Scott
President The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. Glenview, Illinois

This load test of a machine-made hollow-core slab with composite topping verified a number of accepted industry design and fabrication practices, specifically the following: 1. Impact test hammer data taken on the side of the member provided an accurate assessment of concrete strength as determined by uncracked deflection behavior and ultimate moment capacity. 2. The observed ultimate moment was about 10 percent greater than calculations based on Eq.(18-3) in ACI 318-71 but nearly identical to calculations based on strain compatibility by Fig. 5.2.5 in the PCI Design Handbook. 3. The bilinear concept for predicting the deflection of cracked prestressed members was conservative well beyond a nominal bottom fiber tensile stress of 12i,/ f'c. 4. Composite action between the precast and cast-in place portions was evident up to ultimate load. The top surface of the precast slab was a smooth, even, machine cast finish and did not comply with Section 17.7 of ACI 318-71. There was no reinforcing steel projecting from the precast slab into the topping concrete. 5. A shear failure did not occur even though the ultimate shear stress vu was 1.75 times vc as computed in accordance with ACI 318-71.
64

.0.0.0 .
I- 600 W Z J a23.875

22.625 3000 psi topping 6700 psi precast

5 layers conc. blks = 540 plf 500

^4 layers conc.blks = 432 plf

W
U)

a] J 400 0 J a w a_ M o: w a 0 w_ J a 100 InitiaV 1^ loading

Reloading

.Initial loading

3 layers conc blks = 324 plf 300

Reloading

/ I 200

/2 layers conc. blks = 216 pif

(n

Unloading

layer conc. blks = 108 plf

+ I -4 -5' -6 -7" -8 -9" -10 -II"-12 -13"-14-15" -1" -2 -3" CAMBER DEFLECTION

Fig. 1. Load-deflection curves

At this time in the development of prestressed concrete it does not seem necessary to perform a load test of a widely used pretensioned member. But a conscientious producer of Spiroll hollow core slabs in La Crosse, Wisconsin (Hemstock Prestressed Inc.) asked for a load test just to confirm that they were still producing a quality product.

The resulting load test was routine and the slab performed as expected but it also verified a number of design practices and provisions of the 1971 ACI Building Code (ACI 318-71). The test member was an 8 in. deep 24 in. wide machine made hollow core slab with a 2 in. concrete topping (see Fig. 1). The precast pretensioned slab
65

PCI Journal/March-April 1973

C)

Table 1. Comparison of observed and calculated deflections for various loading stages
Load stage No load 1 layer of concrete block 108 lb per ft 2 layers of concrete block 216 lb per ft 3 layers of concrete block 324 lb per ft No load 1 layer of concrete block 108 lb per ft 2 layers of concrete block 216 lb per ft 3 layers of concrete block 324 lb per ft 4 layers of concrete block 432 lb per ft 5 layers of concrete block 540 lb per ft Calculated bottom fiber stress, psi 650 (compression) 75 (compression) 499 (tension) 1074 (tension) 650 (compression) 75 (compression) 499 (tension) 1074 (tension) 1649 (tension) 2224 (tension) Calculated deflection from initial camber, in. 0 0.36 0.71 1.07 0 0.36 0.71 1.07 1.42 1.78 Calculated deflection from level, in. -0.67* +0.31 t 0.04t 0.40t +0.67* +0.31 t +0.04t 0.40t 0.76t 1.11t Observed deflection from level, in. 0.66 +0.28 0.09 1.72 0.40$ 0.15 0.60 1.72 4.97 15.35 Cracking occurred while placing this layer of block Cracks reopened while placing this layer of block Further flexural cracking but no shear cracks Slab gradually settled to floor Remarks

* Camber calculated with elastic materials properties indicated 0.62 in. Value here is obtained using multipliers to account for creep and prestress losses. See computer output in the Appendix. Values calculated are based on gross section properties. Cracking occurred when the net tensile stress in the bottom fiber was near 619 psi or 7.5 -\ /t'. After cracking, section properties are greatly reduced and observed deflection values are accordingly larger than calculated. See the deflection calculations in the Appendix and Fig 2. $ Slab returned to within 0,26 in. of cambered position. Some creep set apparently occurred. With more time part of this set would probably have disappeared.
0

was taken from stock and consequently there was no opportunity to determine the concrete properties at time of mixing or the stressing provisions. Similarly, the concrete topping was cast without concrete cylinders so compression tests could not be used to verify the strength of the topping. Such a situation would seriously handicap any serious research study but this problem is typically encountered in the load testing of existing structures. A straight strand pretensioned floor slab can be easily checked after casting for dimensions, section properties, number, location, and size of strands. The concrete properties were determined with a concrete impact hammer. The dimensional measurements and the impact hammer data were sufficient to accurately determine the structural behavior and strength of the slab. It is unfortunate that we encounter so much suspicion and mistrust of the concrete impact hammer (Swiss hammer) within the engineering profession. Frequently we find engineers who will put almost blind faith in concrete test cylinders as representing the concrete in a structural member but will reject impact values taken directly on the member. Cores taken from concrete members frequently furnish erratic results but these too are usually given more credibility than impact values. The impact hammer is a practical method for determining the concrete strength of machine-made slabs and considerably more accurate than test cylinders. This is because the compaction of the machine cannot be accurately duplicated in making the cylinders. In my opinion the concrete impact hammer should be the standard method for determining compressive strength in machine-made slabs. The hollow core slab tested was prestressed with four 1/z in. diameter strands having an ultimate catalog strength of 250,000 psi. The precast
PCI Journal/March-April 1973

member is made with normal weight concrete consisting of limestone coarse aggregate and natural sand fine aggregate. At the time of the test the precast slab had reached a compressive strength of 6700 psi and the topping, 3000 psi. Both of these strength values were obtained by a concrete impact test hammer. An average of 8 readings were taken on the slab and 11 readings on the topping. It should be noted that the impact hammer readings were taken on the side of the floor member with the instrument in the horizontal position. The correlation to 6 x 12 in. compression cylinder strengths was made with the use of curves printed on a plate attached to the instrument. Obviously, it would have been better to have a correlation curve based on concretes mixed from local materials but such data were not available. Impact readings taken on hollow core floor and roof assemblies with the instrument in the vertical position are not as reliable as horizontal readings because of the presence of the cores. The cores tend to "soften" the hammer impact and hence indicate lower than actual compressive strengths. Again, this is a serious handicap in evaluating the strength of hollow core members in place on a building but with a single slab we had no difficulty obtaining reliable values from the sides of the slab. DESCRIPTION OF TEST The hollow core floor assembly was 33 ft long and the slab was placed on supports to provide a 31.5 ft clear span. One end of the slab was placed on a steel roller to eliminate the effects of horizontal friction which would be induced on a rigid support as the slab deflects. If these frictional forces are not eliminated, a negative moment is induced at the supports and can affect the results of the test. The roller end 67

support consisted of two plates with a 1 in. steel rod sandwiched between. The lower plate was supported by 6 x 8 in. solid concrete blocks stacked two high such that the support was about 15 in. above the floor. Deflection readings were taken with the aid of a transit locked in the horizontal position and a level rod reading in feet, inches, and eighths of an inch. Prior to the test, readings were taken at each end of the slab and in the center. TEST LOADS Before commencing the test it was determined that the slab would probably take about 500 lb per linear ft at failure. This determination was quickly made by a time-sharing computer. The data obtained from measurements on the test slab were telephoned to our office and the computer results were telephoned back within a half hour. Before the availability of the computer it was often not possible to compare actual results with analytical values until sometime after the test. In this case we could make comparisons as the test progressed. It was decided to load the slab in five increments and these loads would be applied using solid concrete blocks. The blocks were 55/s x 75/s x 155/8 in. (nominal 6 x 8 x 16 in.). Ten blocks were weighed and the average was 541/s lb per block. It was therefore assumed that each block would weigh an even 54 lb each. The test slab was marked off with 21 equal spaces, 11/z ft long over the 31V2 ft span. Since the slab was nominally 2 ft wide, each of the 21 rectangles represented 3 sq ft. By placing three 6 x 8 in. blocks in each of these rectangles, each block represented the load applied per square foot. In other words, one layer of block placed on the slab within these rectangles would represent 54 lb per sq ft or 108 lb per linear ft. After each layer of block was placed on the slab, deflection readings were taken. 68

TEST RESULTS Table 1 shows the results of the fivestage load test. The slab was first loaded up to Stage 3 which consisted of 324 lb per linear ft and the blocks were removed to determine the recovery. The reason for this step is that ACI 318-71 provides for a procedure to evaluate the strength of existing structures. Part 6 of the ACI Building Code specifies that the structure shall be subjected to a load consisting of 0.85 (1.4D + 1.7L). This load is to be left on the structure for 24 hours and the deflection readings taken. If the measured maximum deflection of a prestressed member exceeds 12 /20,000h, the deflection recovery within 24 hours after the removal of the test load shall be at least 80 percent. In this case the 12/20,000h equals 0.715 in. It will be noted from Table I that under the third stage load our deflection was 1.72 + 0.66 = 2.38 in. from the cambered position which exceeds the value specified by the ACI Code. Although it was not practical to hold the load on for 24 hours in this case, the recovery was nevertheless observed. It can be seen from Table 1 that the member went back to within 0.26 in. of its original cambered position. This is an 89 percent recovery. Table 1 shows that the slab initially had 0.66 in. of camber under its own dead load. The calculated camber value as shown on the computer sheets included in the Appendix was 0.67 in. (0.68 in. at erection, 0.66 in. final). For the first two load stages the computer output shows that the bottom fiber stress would be less than the modulus of rupture (7.5Vf',) and therefore elastic deflection behavior could be expected. The member performed almost exactly as calculated, as can be seen from Table 1. Under the first load stage it was anticipated that 0.36 in. of deflection would occur from the cambered

Load stage 5 540 plf

o0 I-

m z
I)

I- -1649 0

Load stage 4 432 plf

/<-Cracked I deflection

w a r w J
U, z

-1074 I2 fr-997 7.5 -.619- J

Load stage 3 324 plf

U H 6 - 499'

Load stage 2 216 plf

/ Gross I deflectio w z J 0 +75 z_

M 0 z

I-

Load stage I

108 plf

+650 1 + I -5" -6 -7"-8 -9"-10 -I I-12 -13-14 -15" -I' -2 -3" -4 CAMBER DEFLECTION

Fig. 2. Tensile stress-deflection curve

position, leaving a net camber of 0.31 in. The observed data show that the slab had a camber of 0.28 in. at this load stage. The calculations further show that under the second load stage the member would have a net deflection of 0.04 in. and the actual measurement was 0.09 in. This agreement between calculated and test results is very good, and confirms that the commonly used equation E = 33w 1 5 Vf', incorporating values for f' taken by impact hammer will provide accurate results in predicting deflections. It was anticipated that during the third load stage,

cracking would occur and the deflection would increase substantially. It can he seen from the load-deflection curve (see Fig. 1) that this did happen and the curve breaks over between Load Stages 2 and 3. Fig. 2 shows the same curve but relating net bottom tensile stress to deflection. The break in the curve would appear to come close to the load associated with a net tensile stress in the bottom of about 7.5-'./f' or 619 psi, which is the value given in Section 9.5.2.2 of the ACI Building Code. Although this section of the Code pertains to reinforced concrete,
69

PCI Journal/March-April 1973

the 7.5\/j' value seems reliable when applied to this type of prestressed member. After removal of the concrete blocks for the third load stage, the slab was reloaded for Stages 1, 2, and 3. Since the slab had cracked during the first loading it could be expected that the cracks would reopen when the net tensile stress in the bottom became zero. Computer calculations in the Appendix show that this net tensile stress in the bottom corresponds to a superimposed load of about 122 lb per linear ft. It can be noted from Fig. 1 that the reloading curve begins to break away from the straight line at about 122 lb per linear ft. When the third layer of blocks was applied, the slab returned exactly to the position that was observed for the first loading. This behavior is consistant with the results of many other load tests involving the reloading of previously cracked prestressed members. The next two layers of block were added with the results as shown in Table 1. Further flexural cracking occurred during both of these stages but there was no evidence of shear cracking or separation of the composite slab from the precast portion of the member. Failure of the slab occurred very near the time when the last block was applied near midspan for the fifth load stage. The failure was gradual and was the result of yielding of the prestressing strand. Following this tensile failure the topping buckled at midspan and separated from the precast slab about 6 ft each side of the centerline. As can be seen from the ultimate moment calculations, the observed ultimate moment is first determined and then the ultimate moment is calculated based on the two methods prescribed by ACI 318-71. The first calculations, based on Eq. (18-3) for fr,s, the steel stress at ultimate, underestimates the observed ultimate moment. The second calculation, based on strain compatibil70

ity making use of the design aid in the PCI Design Handbook (Fig. 5.2.5), shows much better agreement with the observed ultimate moment. The deflection behavior and ultimate flexural strength clearly demonstrated that full composite action was present up to the ultimate load. The precast slab had a smooth top surface finished by the vibrating screed that is part of the Spiroll machine. The surface obviously did not comply with the surface roughness requirements of Section 17.7 in ACI 31871. It is not practical to provide projecting steel from a machine cast slab and of course none was provided. From the computer output in the Appendix, it should be noted that at the final load stage (540 lb per linear ft) the shear stresses were very high yet no shear distress occurred. It can be noted from the output that at a point approximately 3 ft from a support the shear stress in the member was 137 psi over the value specified for plain concrete. This is considerably in excess of what the ACI Code allows for beams without the use of reinforcing steel. For beams without stirrups, Section 11.1 of , the ACT Code says that v,2 must be less than one-half v, but slabs and footings are exempted from minimum shear steel requirements. In this test v,, was 1.75 v0 at ultimate load. The load test proved that the code exemption for slabs is justified and applicable to machine made hollow core slabs. In designing machine made slab floor systems with high shear stresses it should be recognized that accidential cracking or web tearing could be present and could reduce the shear strength. The test, nevertheless, shows that these slabs do possess a substantial shear resistance without web reinforcement.

DEFLECTION
The deflection calculations relate to Load Stages 2 and 3. The computer

output sheets also calculate deflections but these computations are always based on the assumption of a gross section. Up to cracking this procedure is accurate as can be seen from Table 1. After cracking, the moment of inertia is substantially reduced and deflection calculations based on the gross moment of inertia will be unconservative as can he seen from Table 1. The ACI Building Code in Section 1.8.4.2(c) states that when the net tensile stress is 12Vf', a bilinear moment deflection relation must be used to calculate deflections. This relation is shown in the Appendix as well as in Fig. 2. The actual moment-deflection (or load-deflection or bottom fiber stress-deflection) diagram is approximated by two straight lines. The first line has a slope proportional to the gross moment of inertia Ig and the slope of the second line is proportional to the cracked moment of inertia I,, the two lines joining at the point corresponding to a net tensile stress of 7.5^/f',. This bilinear approximation was first developed by the PCI Committee on Allowable Stresses and adopted for the ACI Building Code. The calculations show that with this procedure the deflection at Load Stage 3 would be 2.32 in. The observed deflection was 1.72 in. so the bilinear method overestimates deflection at this stress level (-1074 psi or 13Vr) and hence is conservative. At Load Stage 4 (bottom fiber stress 1649 psi or 20i/) the calculated deflection is 4.84 in. and the observed deflection was 4.97 in. Above this load or tensile stress level the bilinear method would greatly underestimate the actual deflection. The bilinear method is apparently satisfactory for predicting deflections for this product within the service load range. In my opinion it is just as simple and more useful to calculate cracked deflection using the two-step approach PCI Journal/March-April 1973

rather than the effective moment of inertia method proposed in the ACI Commentary and presented in the PCI Design Handbook. CONCLUSIONS The results of this test reemphasize that the ultimate flexural capacity of prestressed members can be predicted very precisely using the provisions of the ACI Building Code. The slab tested on a 31.5 ft span carried 270 lb per sq ft (540 lb per linear ft) at flexural failure. At service load, cracking will not occur and the behavior can be judged from Table 1 for Stages 1 and 2 loading conditions. The test further demonstrated substantial shear strength capabilities for this member when used in conjunction with a 2 in. concrete topping of modest strength. Additionally, the test confirms that the bilinear method of predicting deflection behavior in the cracked range is conservative up to 12\/f', and beyond. In all respects, the member exhibited a behavior that is in very close agreement with the results expected from calculations. APPENDIX Ultimate moment calculations The ultimate moment observed is: Mu = 1.5(wn + wsz)L2 = 1.5(160 + 540) (31.5)2 = 1,040,000 in.-lb To compute the ultimate moment calculated use Eq. (18-3) of ACI 31871. For bonded members: fps=fpu-0.5pl,fr, U l Pe f',
fps _ Aps flu

bd f0 _ 4(0.144) 250 (22.625)(8.56) 3 = 0.25 71

12

LOAD OR MOMENT OR

THIS SLOPE IS A FUNCTION OF CRACKED MOMENT OF INERTIA

BOTTOM FIBER STRESS

CHANGE OCCURS WHEN BOTTOM FIBER STRESS REACHES NET TENSILE STRESS = 7.5 /C

THIS SLOPE IS A FUNCTION OF GROSS MOMENT OF INERTIA

DEFLECTION

Fig. Al. Bilinear moment-deflection diagram

The ultimate steel stress is fps = 250 [1-0.5(0.25)] = 219 ksi To determine the true ultimate moment, the 0 factor must be ignored.
M,, = Apsd(1-0.59Wr)

From the chart (bottom of Fig. 5.2.5), fps/fpu = 0.93. fps = 0.93(250) = 235 ksi
M,, = 4(0.144)(235)(8.56) X
[1

0.59(0.235)]

^p = bd

A,

fps

= 1,000,000 in.-lb 219 3 Thus, the ultimate moment using the strain compatibility method closely matches the observed ultimate moment. Deflection calculations Calculate the deflection using the bilinear moment- deflection relation (see Fig. Al), as specified in Section 18.4.2(c) of ACI 318-71. Use the PCI Design Handbook to calculate I cracked_ Eg ^a E

f,

_ 4(0.144) 22.625(8.56) = 0.22

M,, = 4(0.144)(219)(8.56) x

[1 0.59(0.22)] = 940,000 in.-lb From the PCI Design Handbook (Fig. 5.2.5) determine fps by strain compatibility. W,-

bd . f'u -0.25

29,000,000

6.15 4,716,000 =
4(0.144)

Now C = 1 for 3000-psi concrete and therefore Ca 0.25. 72

_ Aps _ Pp
bd

22.625(8.563)

- 0.003

np p = 6.15(0.003) = 0.0185

From Fig. 5.2.27, C = 0.17.

'cracked

Load Stage 3 (f b = 1074 psi, tension). The applied load after cracking is: 324 228 = 96 lb per ft
5wL4 384EIercked

bd3
= C 12

_ 0.17( 22. 625) (8.563)3 12 = 201 in.4 7.5 /6700=219 psi Find the load at 619 psi by averaging the conditions at Load Stages 2 and 3. Stage 2Tensile stress = 499 psi L, 619 L 1 = 187 Ib Stage 3Tensile stress = 1074 psi
324 lb _ L2

5(96)(31.5)4(1728) 384(4,716,000)(201) = 2.24 in. To this deflection add i = 0.08 in. Thus, the total calculated deflection is 2.32 in. From Table 1, the observed deflection is 1.72 in. But, the allowable stress is 12Vf'e = 997 psi. Therefore, the bilinear method is conservative at this level. Finally, calculate the deflection at Load Stage 4 (fn = 1469 psi, tension). The applied load after cracking is: 432 228 = 204 lb per ft _ 5(204)(31.5)4( 1728) 384(4,716,000)(201) = 4.77 in. To this deflection add A 1 = 0.08 in. Thus, the total deflection is 4.85 in. From Table 1 the observed deflection equals 4.97 in. Therefore, the bilinear method is very close at this stress level on this floor system.

2161b 499 psi

1074 psi L2 = 268 lbz

619

The average of these two conditions is 228 lb. 5wL4 ^l 384EIy

5(228)(31.5)4(1728)

384(4,716,000)(1427) = 0.75 in. From this deflection deduct the initial camber (calculated) of 0.67 in. Therefore, the net deflection is 0.08 in. Next, (calculate the deflection at

(See pp. 74-77 for typical computer output.)

Discussion of this paper is invited. Please forward your discussion to PCI Headquarters by August 1, 1973, to permit publication in the September-October 1973 issue of the PCI JOURNAL.
PCI Journal/March-April 1973

73

Table Al. Typical computer output

THE CONSULTING ENGINEERS GROUPi INC. PRESTRESSED CONCRETE MEMBER DESIGN--PAGE 1 PROJECT; SECTION: 6.00 8.00 WEB(8W) = WIDTH(B)= 24.00 DEPTH(H) = THICKNESS= TOPPING WIDTH= 22.63 2.00 SECTION PROPERTIES PLAIN COMPOSITE* A= 107 SO.IN. 137 SO.1N. I= 832 IN.4TH 1427 IN.4TH Y8= 4.00 IN 5.10 1N YT= 4.00 IN 4.90 1N Z8= 208 1N.3RD 280 IN.3RD L1= 208 IN.3RD 291 1N.3RD W= 108 PLF 153 PLF *DIFFERENCE 1N MODULUS OF' ELASTICITY OF TOPPING INCLUDED CONCRETE WT= 145 PCF FC= 6700 PSI EC= 4716 KSI FCI= 3500 PSI EC1= 3409 KSI TOPPING WT= 145 PCF FC= 3000 PSI EC= 3156 KSI LOAD STAGE 1 0 0 PSF SERVICE DEAD LOAD= PLF EXCLUDING TOPPING LIVE LOAD= 57 PSF 108 PLF SPAN= 31.50 Fl STRAND AREA= .144 SC IN PER STRAND FPU= 250 KSI NO. OF STRAND= 4 INITIAL LOSS= 10 PCT FINAL LOSS= 20 PCT P1= 101 KIPS Pu= KIPS 91 P= 81 KIPS END ECCENTRICITY= 2.56 IN IN CTR ECCENTRICITY= 2.56 ECC AT 0.4L= 2.56 1N DESIGNER: DATE:

SERVICE LOAD MOMENTS MIDSPAN 160 MSDL= 0 MTOP= 68 228 TOIL= MLL= 161 TOIL= 389
MDL=

K-IN K-1N K-IN K-IN K-IN K-1N

0.4L 154 K-iN 0 K-IN 65 K-iN 219 K-IN 154 K-IN 373 K-1N

74

Table Al (cont.). Typical computer output

STRESSES RELEASE END P/A PE/Z MDL/Z (MTOP+MSDL)/Z MLL/Z TOTAL 1964 ALLOWABLE 2100 FB 848 1117 FT 848 -1117 MIDSPAN FB FT 848 848 1117 -1117 -771 771 1193 2100 SERVICE LOADS MIDSPAN 0.4L FB FT FB FT 754 754 754 754 992 -992 992 -992 -771 771 -740 740 -326 326 -313 313 -575 552 -552 529 74 1410 141 1344 3015 3015 3015 3015

-269 -177

502 2100 CAMBER

PRESTRESS MEMBER WT SERVICE DL SERVICE'LL

RELEASE 1.46 -.84 NET .62

MULT 1.65 1.75

ERECTION 2.41 -1.47 .94 -.26 NET .68

MULL 2.20 2.50 1.75 NET

FINAL 3.22 -2.10 1.11 -.45 .66 -.36 .31

LOCAT10N 00 1.58 3.15 4.72 6.30 7.87 9.45 11.03 12.60 14.47 15.75

VU 143.7 129.3 114.9 100.6 86.2 71.8 57.5 43.1 28.7 14.4 .0

SHEAR VC 409.3 349.5 190.0 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7

VU-VC -265.6 -220.2 -75.1 -63.1 -77.5 -91.9 -106.2 -120.6 -135.0 -149.3 -163.7

(VU-VC)BW -1594 -1321 -450 -379 -465 -551 -637 -724 -810 -896 -982

LOAD TO PRODUCE ZERO BOTTOM FIBER STRESS SERVICE DEAD LOAD= LIVE LOAD= SPAN= 31.50 FT 0 PSF 65 PSF .0 PLF EXCLUDING TOPPING 122 PLF

SERVICE LOAD MOMENTS MJDSPAN MDL= 160 MSDL= 0 MTBP= 68 TOTL= 228 MLL= 182 TDTL410 K-1N K-IN K-1N K-1N K-IN K-1N 0.4L 154 K-1N 0 K-IN 65 K-IN 219 K-iN 174 K-1N 393 K-IN

PCI Journal/March-April

1973

75

Table Al (cont.). Typical computer output

STRESSES RELEASE END P/A PE/Z MDL/Z (MTOP+MSDL)/L MLL/Z TOTAL 1964 ALLOWABLE 2100 FB 848 1117 FT 648 -1117 MIDSPAN FB FT 848 848 1117 -1117 -771 771 1193 2100 502 2100 CAMBER RELEASE 1.46 -.84 NET .62 MULT 1.65 1.75 ERECTION 2.41 -1.47 .94 -.26 NET .68 MULT 2.20 2.50 1.75 NET SHEAR VC 409.3 349.5 190.0 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 FINAL 3.22 -2.10 1.11 -.45 .66 -.40 26 SERVICE LOADS MIDSPAN 0.4L FB FT FB FT 754 754 754 754 992 -992 992 -992 771 -771 -740 740 -326 326 -313 313 -649 623 -623 598 1481 1412 0 70 -962 3015 3015 3015

-269 -177

PRESTRESS MEMBER WT SERVICE DL SERVICE LL

LOCATION .00 1.58 3.15 4.72 6.30 7.87 9.45 11.03 12.60 14.17 15.75

VU 152.3 137.0 121.8 106.6 91.4 76.1 60.9 45.7 30.5 15.2 .0

VU-VC -257.0 -212.4 -68.2 -57.1 -72.3 -67.6 -102.8 -116.0 -133.3 -148.5 -163.7

(VU-VC)BW -1542 -1275 -409 -343 -434 -525 -617 -708 -800 -691 -982

LOAD STAGE 5 - ULTIMATE LOAD 0 PSF SERVICE DEAD LOAD= 286 PSF LIVE LOAD= SPAN= 31.50 FT 0 PLF EXCLUDING TOPPING 540 PLF

SERVICE LOAD MOMENTS MIDSPAN MDL= 160 MSDL= 0 MTOP= 68 IOTL= 228 MLL= 804 101L= 1032 K-IN K-1N K-1N K-IN K-1N K-1N 0.4L 154 K-IN 0 K-IN 65 K-IN 219 K-IN 772 K-1N 991 K-1N

76

Table Al (cont.). Typical computer output

STRESSES RELEASE END P/A PE/Z MDL/Z (MIP+MSDL)/Z MLL/L TOTAL 1964 ALLOWABLE 2100 F8 848 1117 FT 848 -1117 MIDSPAN FB FT 848 848 1117 -1117 -771 771 1193 2100 502 2100 CAMBER RELEASE 1.46 -.84 NET .62 MOLT 1.65 1.75 ERECTION 2.41 -1.47 .94 -.26 NET .68 MULT 2.20 2.50 1.75 NET SHEAR VC 409.3 349.5 190.0 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7 FINAL 3.22 -2.10 1.11 -.45 .66 -1.78 -1.11 SERVICE LOADS MIDSPAN 0.4L FB FT FB FT 754 754 754 754 992 -992 992 -992 -771 771 -740 740 -326 326 -313 313 -2874 2758 -2759 2647 -2225 3616 -2066 3462 -982 3015 -962 3015

-269 -177

PRESTRESS MEMBER WT SERVICE DL SERVICE LL

LOCATION 00 1.58 3.15 4.72 6.30 7,87 9.45 11.03 12.60 14.17 15.75

VU 408.6 367.8 326.9 286.0 245.2 204.3 163.5 122.6 81.7 40.9 .0

VU-VC -.6 18.3 136.9 122.3 81.5 40.6 -.3 -41.1 -82.0 -122.8 -163.7

(VU-VC)BW -4 110 821 734 489 244 -2 -247 -492 -737 -982

PCI Journal/March-April 1973

77