ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 107-S03

Effects of Increasing Allowable Compressive Stress

at Prestress Transfer
by David B. Birrcher, Oguzhan Bayrak, and Michael E. Kreger

The benefits and weaknesses of increasing the allowable compressive

stress at prestress transfer are presented in this paper. A historical
background of the allowable release stress in compression,
including a summary of several research studies that investigated
this stress limit, is provided. A simple design example is used to
quantify potential production and design benefits of increasing the
allowable stress. The applicability of these benefits is also
discussed. Finally, test results of 36 pretensioned beams that were
subjected to maximum compressive stresses at release ranging
from 0.46fci′ to 0.91fci′ are reported and analyzed. The experimental
results suggest that increasing the allowable release stress in
compression at midspan of a member to 0.65fci′ or 0.70fci′ is
possible. Premature flexural cracking was observed for members
subjected to midspan release stresses in excess of 0.70fci′.

Keywords: compressive stress; flexural cracking; prestress transfer.

INTRODUCTION
In ACI-318-08,1 the allowable compressive stress at
prestress transfer was increased from 0.60fci′ to 0.70fci′ near the
ends of prestressed concrete members. At other critical locations,
such as midspan or the hold-down points, the allowable stress is
still 0.60fci′. In the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications,2 the allowable
compressive stress at release is 0.60fci′ at all sections.
The maximum compressive stress at release can occur in
the end regions, near midspan, or at any other section of the
pretensioned beam depending primarily on the profile or the
debonding of the prestressing strands. If only straight, fully-
bonded strands are used, the maximum compressive stress at
release will always be at the transfer section near the ends of
the beam (Fig. 1(a)). If some of the straight strands are
debonded, the location of maximum stress can shift to the
section where all strands are bonded. If harped strands are
used in combination with straight strands, then the compressive
stress at the hold-down point and near the ends of the beam can
be very similar (Fig. 1(b)). For post-tensioning applications
in which strands are draped, the maximum compressive
stress at release can occur at practically any section along the
length of the member (Fig. 1(c)).
In this paper, benefits of increasing the release stress in
compression where the maximum stress occurs anywhere
along the member, are discussed. Afterward, the results of an
experimental research study are analyzed, in which a negative
outcome of increasing the release stress at midspan was observed.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Over the last decade, a substantial amount of research and
discussion have been published related to increasing the
allowable release stress in compression. None of the
previous investigations focused on the effect of increasing
the allowable stress on the flexural performance of the
Fig. 1—Prestressing strand profiles and potential locations
of maximum release stress.
member. Also, little information has been published that
quantifies potential benefits of increasing the compressive
stress at release. The information from this study will aid
code developers in appropriately weighing the benefits and
weaknesses of increasing this allowable stress.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The first U.S. code provisions for prestressed concrete
members were adopted by the American Association for
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in
1961 and by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in
1963.3,4 The code provisions in each standard were based on
the following two documents: the “Criteria for Prestressed
Concrete Bridges” published by the Bureau of Public Roads
in 1954 and the “Tentative Recommendations for
Prestressed Concrete” published by Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 323 in 1958 (later, ACI Committee 423).5,6 In
both documents, the recommended allowable release stress
in compression was 0.60f ci′ for pretensioned members and
0.55f ci′ for post-tensioned members. While the origin of
these values was not directly stated, two references allude to
their development. In a paper by E. L. Erickson, in which the
“Criteria for Prestressed Concrete Bridges” specification
was described, the opinions of several “authorities” on the
ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 1, January-February 2010.
MS No. S-2008-184 received June 6, 2008, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-December
2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2010.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010 21

ACI member David B. Birrcher is a PhD Candidate at the University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX. He received his BS in civil engineering from Tulane University,
New Orleans, LA, and his MS in structural engineering at the University of Texas at
Austin. His research interests include improving the design and construction of prestressed
and reinforced concrete structures.
ACI member Oguzhan Bayrak is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil,
Architectural, and Environmental Engineering and holds the Charles Elmer Rowe
Fellowship in Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. He serves as the
Director of the Phil M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory. He is a member of
ACI Committees 341, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges; E803, Faculty Network
Coordinating Committee; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 441, Reinforced Concrete
Columns, and 445, Shear and Torsion.
Michael E. Kreger, FACI, is a Professor in the School of Civil Engineering and is
also the Director of the Bowen Laboratory for Large-Scale Civil Engineering
Research at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. He is a member of the ACI Technical
Activities Committee; ACI Committees 215, Fatigue of Concrete; 318-C, Safety,
Serviceability, and Analysis (Structural Concrete Building Code); and 374, Performance-
Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 352,
Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures; and 441, Reinforced
Concrete Columns.
appropriate allowable release stress in compression was
provided (Table 1).5 It appears that the values listed in Table 1
were based on research by and experiences of each individual.
No references are given by Erickson, but the “Bibliography
of Prestressed Concrete” prepared by Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 323 lists several papers by the individuals listed
in Table 1.7 Another reference to the origin of the 0.60fci′
limit was given in the closing remarks of a published discussion
regarding the “Tentative Recommendations for Prestressed
Concrete.” The following excerpt is found
Here, production had preceded design recommendations,
and the stress of 0.60fci′ had already been widely established
in the pretensioning industry. No ill effect had been reported
in regard to strength and performance. Only camber
proved difficult to control for certain building members.8
Therefore, the 0.60fci′ limit was likely based on public
discussion, experimental research, and empirical practice. It
should be noted that prestressed concrete was being
implemented and researched in Europe for several decades
prior to the development of U.S. design recommendations. It
is highly likely that many of the U.S. specifications are based
on successful European practice and research.
The distinction between pretensioned and post-tensioned
members was dropped in the 2007 version of AASHTO
LRFD.2 The 0.60f ci′ limit remains for all pretensioned
members in AASHTO LRFD 2007.
The distinction between pretensioned and post-tensioned
members was never made in ACI 318. The allowable release
stress in compression was 0.60f ci′ for all members from 1963
to 2005. In ACI 318-08, an increase in the allowable release
stress in compression to 0.70f ci′ at the ends of pretensioned
members was approved.1 The allowable release stress at
other critical sections remains 0.60f ci′ . Research conducted
within the last decade provided the basis for the increase in
the allowable release stress at the member ends and is
summarized in this section.
In 1997, Russell and Pang9 tested several hundred cylinders
in compression that were previously loaded in compression to
various percentages of their 1-day strength.9 The authors
concluded that an increase of the allowable release stress in
compression to 0.70fci′was a possibility.
In 1997, Huo and Tadros10 conducted a simple analytical
study to illustrate the behavior of a concentrically prestessed
member subjected to release stresses in excess of 0.60f ci′ . It
22
Table 1—Recommended stress limit in
compression at prestress transfer (1957)5
Suggested by Initial stress Condition
Hajnal-Konyi (England) 0.45f ci′ —
Dobell (Preload Co.) 0.50f ci′ —
Holley (MIT) 0.60f ci′ – 0.40f ci′ 0.60f ci′ , only if reduced to 0.40f ci′
Simpson (MIT) 0.60f ci′ – 0.50f ci′ 0.60f ci′ , only if reduced to 0.50f ci′
Siess (U. of Illinois) < 0.60f ci′ —
Bureau of Public 0.60f ci′ pretensioning
Roads Criteria 0.55f ci′ post-tensioning
was determined that using a nonlinear analysis resulted in a
lower maximum stress on the section than a linear analysis
when the concrete is stressed into the inelastic range.
In 2001, Noppakunwijai et al.11 introduced a strength-
design approach for member design at prestress transfer. The
basis for the design approach was that the allowable release
stress is a strength limit that prevents crushing at transfer, not
a serviceability limit. Load factors were applied to the
prestressing force and to the self-weight moment. Resistance
factors were applied to the axial and bending moment capacities
of the section. Four equations were developed that relate the
appropriate equilibrium, compatibility, and constitutive
relationships of a pretensioned member. The strength-
design approach permitted compressive stresses at release
considerably higher than 0.60f ci′ . The magnitude of the
release stress was based on the section type and the specified
values of the load and resistance factors used in the analysis.
In addition, Noppakunwijai et al.11 designed and fabricated
two inverted T-specimens using their proposed approach. The
maximum compressive stresses at the ends of the two specimens
were 0.79f ci′ and 0.84f ci′ . The corresponding stress at midspan
was approximately 0.70f ci′ . No visual indications of damage
were detected. For approximately 100 days, the creep,
shrinkage, and camber performance of the two members
were evaluated and satisfactorily compared with traditional
prediction methods. As a result, the authors recommended
the adoption of their strength design approach and the subsequent
removal of the current allowable release stress in compression.
In 2004, Castro et al.12 investigated the impact of
increasing the allowable release stress in compression on the
short- and long-term camber of 30 pretensioned beams. The
maximum stress at release based on typical elastic design
calculations ranged from 0.46f ci′ to 0.91f ci′ . Measured
camber at 10 and 90 days was compared to several prediction
methods for all of the specimens. In general, the accuracy of
camber prediction was not affected by the increase in the
allowable release stress. The magnitude of camber, however,
increased with increasing compressive stress at release as
expected. The authors concluded that an increase in the
release stress was acceptable as long as long-term camber
was adequately predicted. At the conclusion of the study, the
authors recommended the examination of the live-load
performance of the highly-stressed girders before an
increase in the release stress was approved. 13 As a result,
the project described within this paper was initiated.
In 2006, Hale and Russell14 fabricated four pretensioned
girders and monitored their prestress loss for 1 year. The
purpose of the study was to assess “whether the losses indicate
that a damaged condition exists in the concrete due to excessive
compressive stresses at release.” The maximum compressive
stresses at release for the four beams were 0.57f ci′ , 0.65f ci′ ,
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
0.69f ci′ , and 0.82f ci′ . To account for the inelastic deformations of
the three specimens with a maximum compressive stress in
excess of 0.60f ci′ , an effective concrete modulus was used in
calculating the elastic shortening losses and the transformed
section properties. With this adjustment, the ratio of the
prestress loss to the release stress was approximately the
same for all four girders. As a result, the authors concluded
that the allowable release stress of 0.60f ci′ should be
increased to 0.70f ci′ .
In 2007, Dolan and Krohn15 conducted a survey of the
Prestressed Concrete Institute’s (PCI’s) professional and
producer members. Thirty of 44 respondents reported regularly,
using compressive stresses at release in excess of 0.60f ci′ . The
majority of respondents reported no difficulties with higher
release stresses. Some respondents, however, associated the
following problems with higher release stresses: excessive
camber, concrete splitting around the strand end, excessive
strand slip, minor cracks at the ends, and short horizontal
cracks at the top of the web. Also, the results of the survey
indicated that greater compression transfer stresses were
typically used in building products than in bridge products.
The authors recommended increasing the allowable stress in
ACI 318 to 0.70f ci′ . Also, they stated that refined camber and
prestress loss calculation methods may be needed as a result.
In summary, nearly all of the research and discussion over
the last decade has supported an increase in the allowable
release stress in compression. As a result, the allowable
compressive stress at the ends of prestressed concrete
members was increased to 0.70f ci′ in ACI 318-08.1 The
allowable compressive release stress everywhere else along
the member is still 0.60f ci′ . The experimental results
described in this paper will address the feasibility of increasing
the allowable release stress at the midspan of the member.
BENEFITS OF INCREASING ALLOWABLE
RELEASE STRESS
Several potential benefits of increasing the allowable
release stress in compression include:
• the reduction in cycle time of precast facilities, the
reduction of external curing costs, and the reduction of
overall cement content;
• the negation of increased cycle time from using low-
alkali cement or from replacing cement with other
cementitious materials;
• the reduction in the number of debonded or harped strands;
• the increase in span capabilities due to an increase in the
number of prestressing strands in a given section; and
• the increase in efficiency of prestressed concrete girders.
It should be noted that increasing the allowable release
stress in compression can affect production and design.
To quantify some of the aforementioned benefits, the
design at release of a Texas Department of Transporation
(TxDOT) Type C girder was performed using an allowable
release stress of 0.60f ci′ and 0.70f ci′ . For TxDOT standard
girders, the conditions at release typically provide the upper
limit of the prestressing force. The flexural capacity and
service-load stress checks are satisfied through transverse
girder spacing. For this example, the standard Type C girder
with an 8 ft (2.4 m) transverse girder spacing was selected.16
The standard design uses harped strands to control stresses at
the ends of the member. The comparison of the two designs
is depicted in Fig. 2. The required compressive strength at
release, f ci′ , was plotted versus the span length. The
corresponding number of strands was plotted with the span
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
Fig. 2—Design at release of TxDOT Type-C girder with σall
= 0.60fci′ and 0.70fci′ .
length due to their direct correlation. It is important to note
that the compressive release stresses at the transfer
section and at the hold-down point were within 5% of
each other for this section.
In Fig. 2, increasing the allowable release stress in
compression did not affect the design of the Type C girder
for span lengths less than 65 ft (19.8 m). At 65 ft (19.8 m), a
minimum required release strength of 4000 psi (27.6 MPa)
governed the design. At 60 ft (18.3 m) and below, the design
of the section was governed by the tensile stress limit,
75 f ci′ , at the transfer section.
Benefits of increasing the allowable release stress to
0.70f ci′ did exist for span lengths above 65 ft (19.8 m). For
instance, at a span length of 75 ft (22.9 m), the required
strength at release reduced from approximately 5300 to 4500 psi
(36.5 to 31.0 MPa) with an increase of the allowable release
stress from 0.60fci′ to 0.70f ci′ , respectively. Here, a benefit in
production exists in the form of reduced cycle time, curing
costs, or cement content. For these benefits to be realized,
however, the design of the girder cannot change with the
increase in the allowable release stress. Only the required
compressive strength at release can change.
Benefits in design are illustrated in Fig. 2 as well. At a
required strength at release of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa), the
girder designed with a 0.70f ci′ limit can have six additional
1/2 in. (12.7 mm) diameter strands and an increase in its span
length by approximately 10%. Presumably, the maximum
achievable span length of a given section can be increased in
this manner as well, provided that all long-term stress checks
are permissible. In these cases, the benefit of increasing the
allowable release stress is used in design. Production is not
significantly affected because a similar concrete strength at
release is required for girders designed under the 0.60f ci′ or
0.70f ci′ limit.
Another benefit of increasing the allowable release stress
in compression includes the reduction in the number of
unbonded or harped strands used to limit the high compressive
stresses at the ends of prestressed concrete girders. For this
benefit to be realized, the increase in the allowable release
stress must be used to reduce the number of harped or
unbonded strands—not to increase the span length or reduce
section size.
Some benefits of increasing the allowable release stress in
compression do exist. These benefits, however, are not
23
 Fig. 3—Cross sections of all test specimens.
always applicable. The release stress in compression must
govern the design of the girder. For a TxDOT Type C girder,
this requirement was restrictive for short-to-moderate span
lengths when the tensile stress limit at release governed the
design. Also, it should be emphasized that production benefits
and design benefits can contradict one another. Production
benefits of increasing the allowable release stress are maximized
when the section design and the span length are unchanged. It
seems plausible, at least in the long term, that the benefits of
increasing the allowable release stress will be used in the
design phase. In making a decision to alter the release stress
in compression, it is essential to weigh these benefits and
their applicability with any negative implications associated
with increasing the allowable stress.
In 2006, Spencer and Chen17 compared the designs of
several standard Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT) bridge girders using an allowable release stress
of 0.60f ci′ and 0.70f ci′ . Potential design benefits of increasing
the release stress were focused on in their study. For adjacent
and spread box beams and simply supported AASHTO I-
beams, few design advantages of using 0.70f ci′ were observed.
The design of these members was typically governed by
PennDOT’s strict tensile stress limit at release of 3 f ci ′ along
the member. As such, increasing the allowable release stress in
compression did little to improve their design. For
continuous I-beams and simply supported bulb-tees,
however, design benefits were noted. Additional strands
were placed in the continuous I-beam, permitting a reduction
of its cross section. Similarly, additional strands were added
to the bulb-tee girders, allowing an increase in their maximum
span length by approximately 5%. The results of this study
agreed favorably with the previous design example.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The experimental program consisted of two series of static
tests. In Series I, 24 scaled rectangular, T, and inverted-T girders
15 ft (4.6 m) in length were tested. In Series II, 12 full-scale
TxDOT Type A girders 40 ft (12.2 m) in length were tested.
The load due to first flexural cracking was experimentally
evaluated in each test. The measured cracking loads were
compared to cracking loads estimated with the use of two
24
prestress loss procedures present in the literature. The
comparison of the measured and estimated cracking loads
was used to evaluate the impact of increasing the allowable
compressive stress at release near midspan on the live-load
performance of pretensioned girders.
Materials
Five concrete mixture designs were used to fabricate the
specimens in the experimental program. Conventional materials
from Texas were used. Specific details of the concrete mixture
designs can be found elsewhere.18
The prestressing strand used in all of the test specimens
was 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) diameter 270 ksi (1862 MPa) low-
relaxation strand. All of the mild steel had a nominal yield
strength of 60 ksi (414 MPa).
Test specimens
The 24 Series I beams consisted of scaled rectangular, T,
and inverted-T sections designed to represent standard
TxDOT I, double-T, and U-girders, respectively.12 The
maximum nominal compressive stress at the ends of the
Series I beams ranged from 0.46f ci′ to 0.91f ci′ . Dimensions
of the scaled section types are illustrated in Fig. 3 and summa-
rized in Table 2. All of the beams were 15 ft (4.6 m) in length.
Series I beams were fabricated by Castro et al.12 at the
Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory at The University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. Prestressing strands were
stressed with a single-strand stressing jack in a straight
profile. The stress in the strand was inferred from electrical
strain gauges attached to the strand and was confirmed with
a pressure reading in the hydraulic ram. Concrete materials
were batched at the laboratory and placed in the formwork.
Match-curing technology was used to match the temperature of
4 x 8 in. (102 x 203 mm) concrete cylinders with the temperature
of the hydrating beams. Thermocouples in beams were
positioned near the geometric centroids of beam sections.
At release, the strands were flame-cut in a symmetric pattern.
A more detailed account of the design and fabrication of the
Series I beams can be found elsewhere.12
The 12 Series II beams consisted of full-scale TxDOT
Type A girders. The same nonstandard strand pattern was
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
Table 2—Section and material properties of Series I beams
Section properties Steel properties Concrete properties
Specimen designation Ag, in.2 Ig , in.4 h, in. yb , in. yt , in. Aps , in.2 e, in. fpi, ksi A s, in.2 fci′, psi fc′, psi
R1-52-1-T8 108 2916 18 9 9 0.92 3.25 181 0 5740 9660
R1-52-1-T7 108 2916 18 9 9 0.92 3.25 182 0 5740 9660
R1-50-1-T1 108 2916 18 9 9 0.92 3.25 181 0 6030 9660
R1-49-1-T2 108 2916 18 9 9 0.92 3.25 178 0 6030 9660
R1-46-1-T5 108 2916 18 9 9 0.92 3.25 177 0 6285 9660
R1-48-1-T6 108 2916 18 9 9 0.92 3.25 180 0 6285 9660
T1-68-2-T17 106 2280 15.5 10.3 5.17 0.46 5.53 191 0 4220 10,000
T1-62-2-T18 113 2470 15.5 10.1 5.36 0.46 6.09 185 0 4220 10,000
IT1-68-2-T20 153 4350 18.3 7.69 10.56 1.22 3.19 191 0 3820 10,000
IT1-73-2-T19 152 4320 18.3 7.57 10.68 1.22 3.82 192 0 3820 10,000
R3-75-3-T9 144 3888 18 9 9 1.22 3.5 181 0 4070 10,100
R3-78-3-T3 144 3888 18 9 9 1.22 4 178 0 4070 10,100
T2-79-3-T16 104 2251 15.5 10.27 5.23 0.61 4.52 182 0 3950 10,100
T2-86-3-T15 104 2251 15.5 10.27 5.23 0.61 5.27 181 0 3950 10,100
IT3-79-3-T21 156 4706 19 7.88 11.12 1.53 3.66 189 0.22 4070 10,100
IT2-76-3-T22 156 4706 19 7.88 11.12 1.53 3.66 188 0 4320 10,100
R3-78-4-T11 144 3888 18 9 9 1.22 3.5 180 0 3800 10,000
R3-83-4-T12 144 3888 18 9 9 1.22 4 180 0 3800 10,000
IT3-83-4-T24 156 4706 19 7.88 11.12 1.53 3.66 191 0.22 3800 10,000
R3-75-5-T10 144 3888 18 9 9 1.22 3.48 182 0 4050 7400
R3-80-5-T4 144 3888 18 9 9 1.22 3.97 182 0 4050 7400
T2-91-5-T14 104 2251 15.5 10.27 5.23 0.61 4.6 186 0 3470 7400
IT3-79-5-T23 156 4706 19 7.88 11.12 1.53 3.69 189 0.22 4050 7400
IT2-80-5-T13 156 4706 19 7.88 11.12 1.53 3.67 189 0 4050 7400
2 2
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa; 1 in. = 645.16 mm .

Table 3—Section and material properties of Series II beams

Section properties Steel properties Concrete properties

Specimen Ag, in.2 in.4

Ig, yb, in. yt, in. in.2
Aps, ecl, in. eend , in. fpi, ksi A s, in.2 fci′ , ksi fc′, ksi
designation (mm2) (mm4) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (mm2) (MPa) (MPa)
A55-T25 5.50 (37.9) 8.3 (57.2)
A60-T26 5.01 (34.5) 7.8 (53.8)
A63-T27 4.79 (33.0) 8.5 (58.6)
A66-T28 4.55 (31.4) 9.6 (66.2)
A67-T29 4.45 (30.7) 7.1 (49.0)
A66-T30 275.4 22,658 12.61 15.39 2.142 8.61 6.32 202.5 0.61 4.50 (31.0) 8.1 (55.8)
A69-T31 (1.78 × 105) (9.43 × 109) (320) (391) (1382) (219) (161) (1396) (394) 4.33 (29.9) 7.7 (53.1)
A68-T32 4.39 (30.3) 7.8 (53.8)
A67-T33 4.48 (30.9) 8.4 (57.9)
A73-T34 4.08 (28.1) 9.1 (62.7)
A71-T35 4.18 (28.8) 9.2 (63.4)
A75-T36 3.96 (27.3) 8.8 (60.7)
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa; 1 in.2 = 645.16 mm2.

used in all 12 specimens. Four of the 14 strands were harped
to meet tension stress limits at the ends of the girders. The
hold-down points were 5 ft (1.5 m) on either side of midspan.
The only variable controlling the maximum compressive
stress at transfer was the compressive strength of the concrete at
release, fci′ . The targeted concrete strength at transfer ranged
from 3900 to 5400 psi (26.9 to 37.2 MPa). The corresponding
maximum compressive stress at transfer ranged from 0.75fci′ to
0.55fci′ . Dimensions and section properties of the Series II
beams are illustrated in Fig. 3 and summarized in Table 3. All
of the Series II beams were 40 ft (12.2 m) in length.
Series II beams were fabricated at a Texas precast
manufacturing plant in a small stressing bed. One beam
was constructed at a time. To achieve a targeted concrete
strength at release, approximately twenty-four 4 x 8 in.
(102 x 203 mm) cylinders were cast with each beam. The
cylinders were cured next to the specimen beneath a tarp
until they were tested according to ASTM C39-04. After
initial set, two cylinders were tested every hour to map the
strength gain. When concrete strength was within 1000 psi
(6.9 MPa) of the targeted strength, two cylinders were tested
more frequently until the average strength was as close to the

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010 25

Fig. 4—Simple beam test setup for Series I beams.
Fig. 5—Simple beam test setup for Series II beams.
targeted value as possible. At this point, the strands were
flame-cut in a symmetric pattern.
Test procedure
The specimens were simply supported (Fig. 4 and 5) and
were subjected to two concentrated loads using a hydraulic
ram at midspan and a stiff spreader beam. The constant
moment region was approximately 5 ft (1.5 m) in length for
all test specimens. Simple supports were achieved by
sandwiching a round steel bar (ϕ = 2 in. [51 mm])
between two steel plates (6 x 8 x 1 in. [152 x 203 x 25 mm]).
The bar at one support was allowed to roll freely. The bar at
the other support was welded to the bottom plate. The load
was increased incrementally to a level approximately 30%
higher than the cracking load, or until failure occurred. At
each load step equal to or exceeding the cracking load, the
load was maintained, the beam was inspected, and the visible
cracks were mapped on the beam. The Series I beams were
tested at an age of approximately 3 years. The Series II
beams were tested at an age of approximately 28 days. All
beams were stored outdoors until they were tested.
26
A load cell and a pressure transducer were used to measure
the applied load. Both instruments provided consistent
results. Loads reported in this paper were measured at
midspan by the load cell. The midpsan deflection was
recorded over the course of each test using either a string
potentiometer or linear potentiometer. For the 24 Series I
specimens, four linear variable displacement transducers
(LVDTs) and an electrical strain gauge attached to each
prestressing strand measured applied midspan strains in the
section. For the 12 Series II specimens, only load and
midspan deflection were monitored.
In each test, the measured cracking load was obtained
through visual inspection and examination of load-deflection
and load-strain plots. The load at which a change in stiffness
was apparent in these plots was termed the measured
cracking load. In general, cracking loads determined with the
load-deflection or load-strain plots were equal to or slightly
less than those determined through visual inspection. In
some of the Series I beams, the roughened condition of the
concrete surface hindered the ability to detect first cracking.
The load at first cracking for these beams was obtained with
load-deflection and various load-strain plots. A sample load-
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
deflection plot for the Series I beams is provided in Fig. 6. For
the Series II beams, cracking loads determined through visual
inspection and with load-deflection plots were very consistent
due to the smooth finish of the concrete surface. The load-
deflection plot for a Series II test specimen is provided in Fig. 7.
Additional information regarding the experimental program can
be found elsewhere.18

ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
The loads required for first flexural cracking were
estimated using typical design methods. First, prestress
losses up to the time of the test were approximated with two
different prestress loss procedures. The two procedures
included the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Report 496 Detailed Prestress Loss
Method (2003) and the AASHTO LRFD Refined Loss of
Prestress Estimate (2005).19,20 AASHTO LRFD adopted the Fig. 6—Sample load-deflection plot for T2-91-5-T14.
recommendations of the NCHRP Report 496 in the 2005
specifications. As such, the two prestress loss procedures are
very similar. The main differences included the suggested
use of transformed section properties instead of gross section
properties and a different equation for the modulus of elasticity
of concrete in the NCHRP procedure. These procedures
were selected because they provide a loss estimate at any
time in the life of the girder, not just the total losses that
lump-sum methods provide. Because the Series II beams
were only 28 days old at the time of the test, this time-dependent
feature was required.
With the prestress loss estimates of each procedure, an
estimated cracking moment was calculated. To remain
consistent with each procedure, the same geometric properties
(gross or transformed) used in the loss calculations were also
used in the cracking moment calculations.
The estimated cracking moment, according to the
Fig. 7—Sample load-deflection plot for A73-T34.
AASHTO prestress loss procedure, is provided as Eq. (1).
The effective prestressing force is calculated as the initial
prestressing force minus losses due to elastic shortening,
Examples of the prestress loss calculations for each procedure
concrete creep, concrete shrinkage, and steel relaxation.
and the subsequent cracking moment estimate can be
Gross section properties are used throughout as is typically
found elsewhere.18
done by design engineers.
COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND
I g ⎞ ⎛ P eff P eff e p y bg M g y bg
M cr - -------- + ----------------------- – --------------- + f r⎞
= ⎛ ------- (1) EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
⎝ y bg ⎠ ⎝ A g Ig Ig ⎠ With the cracking moments from Eq. (1) and (2), the
corresponding midpsan load was calculated with statics.
The variables in Eq. (1) are defined in the Notation section This predicted cracking load was then compared to the
of this paper. measured cracking loads obtained from each beam test. To
The estimated cracking moment, according to the NCHRP facilitate the comparison, a percent difference formula was
prestress loss procedure, is provided as Eq. (2). Elastic shortening used to compare the two values (Eq. (3)). The estimated and
losses were automatically accounted for with the use of the measured cracking loads for all of the test specimens are
initial prestressing force and transformed section properties listed in Tables 4 and 5.
at release.19 Long-term losses due to creep, shrinkage, and
relaxation were accounted for with the net section properties, P measured – P predicted⎞
as per NCHRP Report 496. Accuracy CL = ⎛ -------------------------------------------------- × 100 (3)
⎝ P measured ⎠

I tt ⎛ P i ΔP LT P i e pti y bti ΔP LT e pnt y bnt where Pmeasured is the cracking load measured during static
M cr = ------- ------ – ------------ + ------------------------ – ------------------------------- –
y btt ⎝ A ti A nt I ti I nt test (kips or kN); and Ppredicted is the cracking load estimated
(2) analytically (kips or kN).
M g y bti
- + fr⎞
-------------- For each procedure, the value from Eq. (3) for all of the
I ti ⎠
test specimens was plotted versus the compressive stress at
release at the critical section (σb in Tables 4 and 5). The critical
The variables in Eq. (2) are defined in the Notation section section was defined as the location along the beam with the
of this paper. highest applied moment that was previously subjected to the

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010 27

Table 4—Measured and estimated cracking loads for Series I beams
Estimated cracking loads and accuracy

Measured cracking load, NCHRP Report 496 2003 AASHTO LRFD 2005
Specimen designation σb (x f ci′ )* kips (kN) kips (kN) % kips (kN) %
R1-52-1-T8 0.50 35 (156) 35.8 (159) –2.3 35.1 (156) –0.3
R1-52-1-T7 0.50 35 (156) 36.0 (160) –2.9 35.3 (157) –0.9
R1-50-1-T1 0.48 35 (156) 35.6 (158) –1.7 34.8 (155) 0.6
R1-49-1-T2 0.47 35 (156) 35.1 (156) –0.3 34.4 (153) 1.7
R1-46-1-T5 0.45 35 (156) 35.8 (159) –2.3 35.0 (156) 0.0
R1-48-1-T6 0.46 35 (156) 36.3 (161) –3.7 35.5 (158) –1.4
T1-68-2-T17 0.64 21 (93) 22.0 (98) –4.8 21.5 (96) –2.4
T1-62-2-T18 0.58 23 (102) 23.3 (104) –1.3 22.7 (101) 1.3
IT1-68-2-T20 0.66 55 (245) 53.8 (239) 2.2 53.0 (236) 3.6
IT1-73-2-T19 0.71 55 (245) 57.5 (256) –4.5 56.1 (250) –2.0
R3-75-3-T9 0.72 42 (187) 46.0 (205) –9.5 45.5 (202) –8.3
R3-78-3-T3 0.75 42 (187) 46.9 (209) –11.7 46.0 (205) –9.5
T2-79-3-T16 0.75 20 (89) 22.9 (102) –14.5 22.6 (101) –13.0
T2-86-3-T15 0.82 22 (98) 24.2 (108) –10.0 23.7 (105) –7.7
IT3-79-3-T21 0.77 63 (280) 67.4 (300) –7.0 65.5 (291) –4.0
IT2-76-3-T22 0.74 64 (285) 67.7 (301) –5.8 66.3 (295) –3.6
R3-78-4-T11 0.75 40 (178) 43.3 (193) –8.2 42.5 (189) –6.3
R3-83-4-T12 0.80 42 (187) 45.2 (201) –7.6 44.0 (196) –4.8
IT3-83-4-T24 0.81 58 (258) 63.9 (284) –10.2 61.3 (273) –5.7
R3-75-5-T10 0.72 40 (178) 44.9 (200) –12.3 43.7 (194) –9.3
R3-80-5-T4 0.77 42 (187) 46.4 (206) –10.5 44.9 (200) –6.9
T2-91-5-T14 0.87 20 (89) 22.0 (98) –10.0 21.4 (95) –7.0
IT3-79-5-T23 0.78 57 (254) 65.9 (293) –15.6 62.9 (280) –10.4
IT2-80-5-T13 0.77 58 (258) 65.3 (290) –12.6 62.9 (280) –8.4
*Linear-elastic stress calculation at prestress transfer at critical section.

Table 5—Measured and estimated cracking loads for Series II beams

Estimated cracking loads and accuracy

Measured cracking load, NCHRP Report 496 2003 AASHTO LRFD 2005
Specimen designation σb (x f ci′ )* kips (kN) kips (kN) % kips (kN) %
A55-T25 0.55 62 (276) 64.3 (286) –3.7 60.6 (270) 2.3
A60-T26 0.60 63 (280) 63.5 (282) –0.8 59.7 (266) 5.2
A63-T27 0.63 63 (280) 63.6 (283) –1.0 60.0 (267) 4.8
A66-T28 0.66 63 (280) 63.8 (284) –1.3 60.5 (269) 4.0
A67-T29 0.67 60 (267) 62.5 (278) –4.2 58.6 (261) 2.3
A66-T30 0.66 59 (262) 63.1 (281) –6.9 59.4 (264) –0.7
A69-T31 0.69 60 (267) 62.6 (278) –4.3 58.9 (262) 1.8
A68-T32 0.68 58 (258) 62.8 (279) –8.3 59.0 (262) –1.7
A67-T33 0.67 63 (280) 63.0 (280) 0.0 59.5 (265) 5.6
A73-T34 0.73 57 (254) 62.8 (279) –10.2 59.5 (265) –4.4
A71-T35 0.71 63 (280) 63.1 (281) –0.2 59.8 (266) 5.1
A75-T36 0.75 60 (267) 62.6 (278) –4.3 59.2 (263) 1.3
*
Linear-elastic stress calculation at prestress transfer at critical section.

highest compressive stress at prestress transfer. For all of the
test specimens, the critical section was located directly
beneath either of the two symmetric load points. Here, the
compressive stress at release was slightly higher than at
midspan of each specimen due to the effects of dead load.
Comparison plots with predicted data, according to the
NCHRP prestress loss method and AASHTO prestress loss
method, are given in Fig. 8 and 9, respectively.
The same general trend exists in Fig. 8 and 9. As the
compressive stress at release increased above a certain limit,
the beams cracked at lower loads than predicted. The major
difference between the two plots is the upward shift of the
data in the AASHTO plot with respect to the NCHRP plot.
This shift is primarily due to the use of gross section properties
in the cracking moment equation of the former.
DISCUSSION
Data presented in Fig. 8 and 9 were analyzed, assuming
that a cracking load prediction accuracy of ±5% was acceptable.
This level of accuracy seemed consistent with the techniques

28 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010

Fig. 8—Comparison of measured and estimated cracking
loads using NCHRP 496 losses.
used to measure first cracking loads and the assumptions
built into the prestress loss procedures. The lower bound of
the data intersects the –5% accuracy line at approximately
0.65f ci′ and 0.70f ci′ in Fig. 8 and 9, respectively. As such, for
the beams in this study, an increase in the allowable
compressive midspan stress at release to either 0.65f ci′ or
0.70f ci′ may be justified. Data in Fig. 8 and 9 do not support
an increase of the allowable limit in excess of 0.70fci′ . Above
this level, premature flexural cracking of the prestressed
girders was more prevalent.
Premature cracking of the beams subjected to release
stresses in excess of 0.70fci′ is linked to the nonlinear
behavior of the concrete in compression at prestress transfer.
As shown in Fig. 10, at prestress transfer of slender beams, a
linear strain profile is imposed onto the girder section. If the
material is elastic, as is assumed throughout conventional
prestress loss calculations, a linear stress profile also exists.
If the material is inelastic, as is the case for highly stressed
concrete, a nonlinear stress profile exists. For the highly-
stressed girders in this study, the extreme bottom-fiber stress
was overestimated by the linear-elastic prestress loss calculations.
In the calculation of the cracking moment, this stress must be
overcome—after losses are subtracted—to produce flexural
cracking. Therefore, through the use of conventional methods,
first cracking of the highly-stressed girders was overestimated.
It is possible to account for the nonlinear deformation of
the highly-stressed girders through the use of an effective
concrete modulus or an inelastic stress-strain curve for
concrete in compression as others have suggested.10,11,14
This alteration, however, adds additional complication to
already-complicated prestress loss calculations. Furthermore,
accounting for inelastic deformation does not mitigate the
presence of internal damage that is concurrent with the
departure of the stress-strain curve from the elastic region,
that is, the initial tangent.
As early as 1929, Richart et al.21 discovered that the
departure of the stress-strain curve of concrete loaded in
compression from the initial, elastic region was the result of
internal microcracking. More recently, this internal micro-
cracking was quantified in two material research studies. In
both studies, the tensile strength of concrete previously
loaded to high levels of compressive stress was
measured. Gettu et al.22 found that concrete cubes loaded to
80% of their strength and maintained at this level for 15 minutes
exhibited tensile strength reductions of approximately 12%. For
a similar stress level and load duration, Delibes Liniers23
reported a tensile strength loss of approximately 17%. While
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
Fig. 9—Comparison of measured and estimated cracking
loads using AASHTO losses.
Fig. 10—Section analysis at prestress transfer of midspan
cross section.
these tensile strength reductions only contribute a few
percentage points to the cracking moment calculations, they
quantify internal damage that can result from loading
concrete to high levels of compressive stress.
Nonlinear creep deformation could have contributed to
premature cracking of the beams subjected to release stresses
well in excess of 0.70fci′ . Material research studies have
investigated the creep proportionality limit, or the stress
limit of elastic creep deformation, for both normal- and high-
strength concrete (>9000 psi [62 MPa]). Because the equations
for prestress loss due to creep are based on elastic assumptions,
exceeding the creep proportionality limit could result in
additional creep losses not accounted for in loss calculations.
Ngab et al. 24,25 and Smadi et al. 26,27 determined the
creep proportionality limit for high-strength concrete to
be 0.70fc′ and 0.65fc′, respectively. For normal-strength
concrete, a creep proportionality limit ranging from 0.30fc′ to
0.50fc′ exists.25 While the results of these studies are not directly
applicable to prestressed concrete, they do provide guidance
because the specimens were loaded with sustained stress after
the concrete was at least 28 days old. Additionally, it
should be noted that prestress loss due to creep is a function
of the compressive stress at the location of the prestressing
strands. Depending on the stress gradient, these stresses may
be considerably less than those in the bottom fibers. With
these considerations, it is likely that nonlinear creep deformation
29
only contributed to the premature flexural cracking of the most
highly-stressed members at release.
The allowable compressive midspan stress at release is a
serviceability limit. It should ensure satisfactory performance of
the precompressed tensile zone of a prestressed concrete
member. For this reason, exposing this zone to inelastic
deformation (due to initial stresses or nonlinear creep) or
potential internal damage is not recommended. Therefore, an
increase in the allowable compressive midspan stress at
release in excess of 0.70fci′ is not justified. The results of this
study indicate, however, that an increase in this allowable stress
to a level between 0.60fci′ and 0.70fci′ is possible. In doing so,
it is essential that the potential benefits and weaknesses of
increasing the allowable release stress in compression are
appropriately weighed with the intended use of the
pretensioned member.
For members that are not intended to crack in service (such
as Class U beams in ACI 318 Chapter 18 or bridge girders
designed per AASHTO LRFD), increasing the allowable
release stress should be done prudently.1,2 Premature flexural
cracking can accelerate fatigue-related problems and can create
future durability concerns. Based on the results of this study,
an increase in the allowable stress at midspan to 0.65fci′ is
justified. The performance of the test specimens subjected to
this level of stress at release was comparable to those subjected
to the current allowable midspan stress of 0.60fci′ (Fig. 8 and 9).
In addition, a modest increase to 0.65fci′ will provide some
insurance to the condition of the precompressed tensile zone in
case the member is unintentionally overstressed at transfer.
For members that are allowed to crack in service (such as
Class C and T beams in ACI 318 Chapter 18), a higher allowable
stress at midspan of 0.70fci′ is justified.1 For these members,
premature flexural cracking is not as critical. In addition, the
minor design or production benefits illustrated previously
could offset negative implications to increasing the allowable
release stress.
Due to concerns regarding the limited number of full-scale
specimens in the study and the extreme variation in concrete
properties, additional full-scale specimens need to be tested
to further evaluate the findings of this study. At that time,
national code provisions can be modified accordingly.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this analytical and experimental
research study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. The compressive stress limit at prestress transfer must
govern the design of the pretensioned member to achieve
significant production or design benefits from increasing the
allowable stress.
2. Production and design benefits of increasing the allow-
able compressive stress at release cannot be maximized
simultaneously.
3. Increasing the allowable compressive midspan stress at
release in excess of 0.70fci′ is not recommended.
4. An increase in the allowable compressive midspan
stress at release to 0.65fci′ is justified for members designed
to be uncracked in service. For members allowed to crack in
service, an increase in the allowable stress to 0.70fci′ is justified.
Additional testing on commercially fabricated full-scale
specimens is recommended prior to making changes to
design codes. In this way, additional concrete mixture
designs and different fabrication practices can be considered.
30
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the Texas
Department of Transportation for the support of this research project. The tireless
involvement of J. Cotham in this research study was truly valued. The suggestions
of ACI Subcommittee 318-G were also greatly appreciated. Completion of this
project would not have been possible without the help of A. Castro, R.
Tuchscherer, and numerous helping hands at the Ferguson Structural
Engineering Laboratory.
NOTATION
Ag = area of gross section, in.2
Ant , Int , ybnt,
and epnt = net section properties at time of test
Ati, Iti , ybti,
and epti = transformed section properties at the time of release
ep = eccentricity of prestressing strands, in.
fc′ = compressive strength of concrete, psi
fr = tensile strength of concrete taken as 7.5/1000 f c ′ , ksi
Ig = moment of inertia of gross section, in.4
Itt and ybtt = transformed section properties at time of test
Mg = moment due to dead load, in.-kips
Peff = prestressing force after all losses, kips
Pi = initial prestressing force just prior to release, kips
ybg = distance from geometric centroid to extreme bottom
fiber, in.
ΔPLT = the long-term prestress losses, kips
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 465 pp.
2. AASHTO, “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2007.
3. AASHTO, “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,” eighth
edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC, 1961, 345 pp.
4. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-63),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 1963, 144 pp.
5. Erickson, E. L., “The Bureau of Public Roads ‘Criteria for Prestressed
Concrete Bridges’,” Proceedings, World Conference on Prestressed
Concrete, San Francisco, CA, July 1957, pp. A9-1 to A9-8.
6. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 323, “Tentative Recommendations for
Prestressed Concrete,” ACI J OURNAL, Proceedings V. 54, Jan. 1958,
pp. 545-578.
7. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 323, “Bibliography on Prestressed
Concrete,” first edition, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
Aug. 1954, 83 pp.
8. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 323, “Tentative Recommendations for
Prestressed Concrete—Committee Closure,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 54,
Part 2, Dec. 1958, pp. 1291-1299.
9. Russell, B. W., and Pang, J. P., “Investigation of Allowable Compressive
Stresses for High Strength, Prestressed Concrete,” Proceedings of the
PCI/FHWA International Symposium on High Performance Concrete,
New Orleans, LA, Oct. 1997, pp. 554-565.
10. Huo, X., and Tadros, M., “Allowable Compressive Strength of
Concrete at Prestress Release—Open Forum Problems and Solutions,” PCI
Journal, V. 42, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1997, pp. 95-99.
11. Noppakunwijai, P.; Tadros, M. K.; Ma, Z.; and Mast, R. F., “Strength
Design of Pretensioned Flexural Concrete Members at Prestress Transfer,”
PCI Journal, V. 46, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2001, pp. 34-52.
12. Castro, A.; Kreger, M. E.; Bayrak, O.; Breen, J. E.; and Wood, S. L.,
“Allowable Design Release Stresses for Pretensioned Concrete Beams,”
Research Report 0-4086-2, Center for Transportation Research, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, Aug. 2004, 142 pp.
13. Kreger, M. E., and Bayrak, O., “Project 0-4086: Allowable Design
Release Stresses for Pretensioned Concrete Beams,” Project Summary
Report 0-4086-S, Center for Transportation Research, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, July 2005, 4 pp.
14. Hale, W. M., and Russell, B. W., “Effect of Allowable Compressive
Stress at Release on Prestress Losses and on the Performance of Precast,
Prestressed Concrete Girders,” PCI Journal, V. 51, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2006,
pp. 14-25.
15. Dolan, C. W., and Krohn, J. J., “A Case for Increasing the Allowable
Compressive Release Stress for Prestressed Concrete,” PCI Journal, V. 52,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2007, pp. 102-105.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
 16. Texas Department of Transportation, Bridge Division Standard
Drawings, 2005. (www.dot.state.tx.us.)
17. Spencer, J. W., and Chen, Y., “Effects of Compressive Stress Limits
on Prestressed Concrete Girder Design,” Proceedings of PCI National
Bridge Conference, Grapevine, TX, Oct. 2006, 20 pp.
18. Birrcher, D., and Bayrak, O., “Effects of Increasing the Allowable
Compresssive Stress at Release of Prestressed Concrete Girders,” Research
Report 0-5197-1, Center for Transportation Research, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, Jan. 2007, 226 pp.
19. Tadros, M. K.; Al-Omaishi, N.; Seguirant, S. J.; and Gallt, J. G.,
“Prestress Losses in Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete Bridge Girders,”
NCHRP Report 496, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
2003, 73 pp.
20. AASHTO, “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” Interim 2005
Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC, 2005. 1334 pp.
21. Richart, F. E.; Brandtzaeg, A.; and Brown, R. L., “The Failure of
Plain and Spirally Reinforced Concrete in Compression,” Bulletin No. 190,
University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, IL,
Apr. 1929, pp. 1-74.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
22. Gettu, R.; Aguado, A.; and Oliveira, O. F., “Damage in High-
Strength Concrete Due to Monotonic and Cyclic Compression—A Study
Based on Splitting Tensile Strength,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 93, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 519-523.
23. Delibes Liniers, A., “Microcracking of Concrete under Compression
and its Influence on Tensile Strength,” Materials and Structures, V. 20, No. 116,
pp. 111-116.
24. Ngab, A. S.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., “Shrinkage and Creep of
High Strength Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 78, No. 4, July-
Aug. 1981, pp. 255-261.
25. Ngab, A. S.; Slate, F. O.; and Nilson, A. H., “Microcracking and
Time-Dependent Strains in High Strength Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 78, No. 4, July-Aug. 1981, pp. 262-268.
26. Smadi, M. M.; Slate, F. O.; and Nilson, A. H., “High-, Medium-, and
Low-Strength Concretes Subject to Sustained Overloads—Strains,
Strengths, and Failure Mechanisms,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 5,
Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp. 657-664.
27. Smadi, M. M.; Slate, F. O.; and Nilson, A. H., “Shrinkage and Creep
of High-, Medium-, and Low-Strength Concretes, Including Overloads,”
ACI Materials Journal, V. 84, No. 3, May-June 1987, pp. 224-234.
31