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

Partial factor for prestressing Eurocode vs ACI

Partial factor for prestressing Eurocode vs ACI

Partial factor for prestressing Eurocode vs ACI

While according to Eurocde 2, section 5.10.8, at ULS, it is necessary partial factors for preload (being 1.2 and 0.8). In the ACI code partial factor for preload is equal to 1.0 (only it is equal to 1.2 in anchorage zones).

Why is there such a difference? Does it exist any other factor according to ACI that involves the uncertainties of the preloading?


RE: Partial factor for prestressing Eurocode vs ACI

Eurocode is more logical as there is definitely variability in the prestress force due to inconsistent friction and wobble effects etc as well as creep and shrinkage variability. Normally extensions are accepted within +- 5-10% of the calculated value. At 10%, the force at a dead end would be 20% from the expected.

As well, the effects of prestress secondary moments are dependent on the indeterminancy (is that a new word) of the structure. After plastic hinges form there is doubt that any secondary effects will remain.

Some codes suggest that the designer allow for a a range of loss values to account for this. Some codes suggest that secondary effects that help the design should be ignored as their effect under overload are doubtful.

RE: Partial factor for prestressing Eurocode vs ACI

Thank you.

It is really strange such a high difference between these normatives, right?

Applying or not those partial factor on preload force normally governs the design...

RE: Partial factor for prestressing Eurocode vs ACI

If you read the whole of the Eurocode note,

1 these are recommended values. Any member country can adopt their own values and I think some use 1.0.

2 The second sentence says if linear elastic analysis with un-cracked sections is used, the recommended value is 1.0.

And as I said, many design codes and guides suggest that you check for a range of values of prestress losses to account for the natural variability. And that would be in the order of 20 - 30%, so equivalent to about 1.3/.7

So, no it is nopt really strange. Some codes are requiring you to think for yourself!

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! Already a Member? Login


eBook - Integrating the Engineering Ecosystem
Aras Innovator provides multiple options for integrating data between systems, depending on the scenario. Utilizing the right approach to meet specific business requirements is vital. These needs range from authoring tools, federating data from various and dissimilar databases, and triggering processes and workflows. Download Now
White Paper - Industry 4.0 and the Future of Engineering Education
With industries becoming more automated, more tech-driven and more complex, engineers need to keep their skills and knowledge up to date in order to stay on top of this wave—and to be prepared for the Industry 4.0 future. The University of Cincinnati offers two online Master of Engineering degree programs designed specifically for practicing engineers. Download Now
White Paper - Comparing Multi-Patterning at 5nm: SADP, SAQP, and SALELE
Self-aligned multi-patterning techniques such as SADP, SAQP, and SALELE are increasingly popular at advanced nodes, but each process has its pros and cons. IMEC and Mentor, a Siemens business collaborated to identify potentially less-obvious process and design limitations and trade-offs between the three SAMP techniques. Learn more in this paper. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close