×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Post-tensioned pier cap

Post-tensioned pier cap

Post-tensioned pier cap

(OP)
I have a design question with a post-tensioned pier cap that I was hoping to get some help with.  We are designing a post-tensioned pier cap that has two supports.  My colleague and I have designed it two different ways as a matter of QA/QC and I wanted some other opinions on the methodology.

In the first option, we are going to make the supports as a pinned condition.  He did the design by using the "load balancing" method - the loads that he had on the cap were the dead loads, live loads, and the upward acting distributed force due to the post-tensioned force w=8*F*h/L^2.  (h is the drape of the tendon)  With these loads on the cap, he then computed stresses in the concrete cross section.

I did the design by just putting the dead and live loads on the cap.  I computed the stresses in the extreme fiber of the cross section due to these forces.  I then took the post-tensioning force and computed the stresses due to this force as:

stress = P/a +- P*e*y/I

I then added these stresses to the stresses from the external loads to get the final stresses in the cap.  For the simple support design, we got the same results, which made us feel pretty good.

However, if we fix one of the columns, the results that we got were quite different.  Is one of the two methods described above no longer valid for a fixed support?  He did not change his "load balancing" equation for the post-tensioned force.  He still is using w = 8*F*h/L^2. It seems to me that this might no longer be valid.

My method of looking at the external loads and internal loads separately and using superposition should still be valid.

Any thoughts that anyone could give me would be most appreciated.

RE: Post-tensioned pier cap

Broekie,

In determinant prestress members there are no secondary prestress reactions and moments induced. This was the first case. Both approaches are correct for this.

In indeterminant prestressed members, there are secondary prestress reactions and moments induced. Your method is ignoring this. The other method will be more correct if it is done properly. Unfortunately, load balancing cannot allow for any variation in prestress forces along the tendon so there will be some inaccuracy from that.

This is explained in the most basic prestressed concrete design texts.

RE: Post-tensioned pier cap

(OP)
Thanks for the reminder, rapt.  I forgot that when I fix one of the supports I am bascially making a "continuous" member and need to include those secondary moments.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources