Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary

ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
1. N.Khosa R1.1.1 0 The equal sign (=) after section numbers is Formatting will be corrected for style and
barely visible as an exponent. consistency during production.
Recommendation as follows: Revise
R1.2.1= to R1.2.1=
2. N.Khosa R1.1.1 97 Add clarification on how the equal sign is Formatting will be corrected for style and
applied: consistency during production.
For ease of use, a provision in the Code
that is denoted with an equal sign (“=”)
is the same as the corresponding
provision in ACI 318. This sign may
apply to either the Scope or the
Commentary, or both.
3. N.Khosa R1.4.2 165 Recommend deleting the year designator Formatting will be corrected for style and
to stay consistent with other Code consistency during production.
references.
CODE-562-21
4. James A. 1.4.6 175 thru 183 Unless there were sound technical reasons or
Gillette The commentary directs the user to ACI industry practices that warranted an
360 for post-tensioned slabs on ground not immediate change, 320 has attempted to
on expansive soils. ACI 320 should direct remain aligned with 318 provisions.
the user to PTI DC10.5 since that is the Committee 320 agrees that this issue is
governing document for PT SOG built on important and will consider it in the next cycle
stable and expansive soils. of 320.

“The 2021 IBC requires design and New business.

construction of residential post-tensioned
slabs on expansive soils to be in accordance
with PTI DC10.5, which provides
requirements for slab-on-ground
foundations, soil investigation, design,

1 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
durability and analysis. Guidance for the
design and construction of post-tensioned
slabs-on-ground that are not on expansive
soils can also be found in PTI DC10.5.”
5. N.Khosa R1.4.6 177 The 2021 IBC Formatting will be corrected for style and
consistency during production.
6. David Sparks 1.4.6 177 -184 See response to comment on line 175.
Referring users to ACI360R for PTSOG is a
convoluted reference to PTI DC10.5
through the various
chapters of ACI360. The fact is that DC10.5
states it is for expansive and stable soils. It
would be
advantageous for ACI to acknowledge the
PTI DC10.5-19 for both soil types in the
commentary rather
than obfuscating the path.
“The 2021 IBC requires design and
construction of residential post-tensioned
slabs on expansive soils to
be in accordance with PTI DC10.5 which
provides requirements for slab-on-ground
foundations, soil
investigation, durability, design and
analysis. Guidance for the design and
construction of post-tensioned slabs-on-
ground that are not on expansive soils can
also be found in DC10.5.”
7. Sivakumar 1.4.6 184 thru 195 Language was duplicated in error and will be
Munuswamy These lines are a repetition of lines 175- deleted.

2 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
183- delete
8. James A. 1.4.6 185 thru 194 Language was duplicated in error and will be
Gillette The text is duplicated and should be deleted.
deleted.
9. David Sparks 1.4.6 185 thru 194 Language was duplicated in error and will be
Duplicated text that is not needed. deleted.
10. N.Khosa 1.4.6 186 thru 194 Language was duplicated in error and will be
Sections are duplicated deleted.
11. Sivakumar 1.4.8 195 thru 197 Unless there were sound technical reasons or
Munuswamy Since most of the PT SOG for multi-family industry practices that warranted an
residences (Apartments, for example) immediate change, 320 has attempted to
transfer both gravity and lateral loads, this remain aligned with 318 provisions.
code language should clearly state if PT Committee 320 agrees that this issue is
SOG are covered under this code or not. A important. As the commenter points out,
definition of the term PT SOG should be several provisions in Section 1.4 related to PT
included in the glossary of terms.
SOG will likely need adjustment and will be
considered in the next cycle of 320.

New business.
12. James A. 1.4.8 195 thru 205 Unless there were sound technical reasons or
Gillette It seems that the design of industrial PT industry practices that warranted an
SOG should also be directed to PTI DC10.5. immediate change, 320 has attempted to
remain aligned with 318 provisions.
Committee 320 agrees that this issue is
important. As the commenter points out,
several provisions in Section 1.4 related to PT
SOG will likely need adjustment and will be
considered in the next cycle of 320.

New business.

3 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
13. David Sparks 1.4.8 195 thru 205 Unless there were sound technical reasons or
Industrial floors can still reference ACI360R industry practices that warranted an
if needed, but why would a joint PTI/ACI immediate change, 320 has attempted to
code point to the ACI for a post-tensioned remain aligned with 318 provisions.
floor? I suggest that that PTI design Committee 320 agrees that this issue is
procedures could be referenced here as important. As the commenter points out,
well. Basically, that you exit the ACI in several provisions in Section 1.4 related to PT
either 1.4.6 or 1.4.8 for PTSOG. SOG will likely need adjustment and will be
considered in the next cycle of 320.

New business.
14. N.Khosa R1.5.5 232 (2021)) Formatting will be corrected for style and
consistency during production.
15. N.Khosa R1.5.5 233 (PTT TAB.3 2013) Formatting will be corrected for style and
consistency during production.
16. N.Khosa 1.5.6(f) 250 thru 251 Yes, this explanation is in the code (not
Is this necessary since it’s already explained commentary as in R1.1.1).
in R1.1.1?
17. N.Khosa R1.6.2 265 thru 266 Code 320 was developed by a joint ACI PTI
Is there a legal document in place to allow committee under the auspices of an MOU
PTI to modify ACI CODE? executed for this purpose.
18. Trey Hamilton, 2.2 406 Notation is missing from definition. Notation to be incorporated into definition as
ACI follows:

19. Sivakumar 2.3 612 Consider providing a definition of Committee 320 does not agree with this
Munuswamy GUTS/MUTS to distinguish from fpu. comment. These terms are not specifically
used in the Code. GUTS (guaranteed ultimate
tensile strength) is the force version of fpu.
And 320 does not think that it needs to be
distinguished from GUTS.
4 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name

No change
20. N.Khosa 2.3 612 Recommend adding definitions for the Committee 320 partially agrees with this
following from the PTT: comment and thinks that there is merit in
“eccentricity” (15 references) considering adding these definitions.
“effective prestress” (22 references) Considering that the PTT is currently
“elongation” (7 references) undergoing revision at PTI, however, 320
“friction loss” (13 references) thinks that this should be handled in the next
“prestress loss” (17 refences) cycle.
“strand” (45 references)
New business
21. N.Khosa 2.3 625 thru 638 Comment regards PTI document.
PTT has “Anchorage (assembly)” rather
than Anchorage Device. Covers 4 No change
definitions. Recommend changing the PTT
to “device”
22. N.Khosa 2.3 647 The commentary for “Anchorage Zone” Yes, these definitions were taken directly from
appears to be almost the same as the ACI 318-25.
definition.
No change.
23. Sivakumar 2.3 723 the definition of what is prestressed Committee 320 does not agree with this
Munuswamy concrete must distinguish between comment. Reinforced concrete can include
conventionally reinforced concrete and the either prestressed or nonprestressed
prestressed concrete, as it is essential to reinforcement, or both. The committee thinks
emphasize that prestressing reinforcement is that the current definitions provide sufficient
an “active reinforcement” compared to a distinction among the various types of
passive reinforcement in the conventionally reinforcement with the definitions already
reinforced concrete element.
included in terminology.

No change

5 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
24. N.Khosa 2.3 744 Does “of which one of more is precast” In some cases. Post-tensioned tendons are
apply to ACI320? used in precast concrete, thus the need to
retain this portion of the definition.

No change
25. Sivakumar 2.3 790 instead of defining "Uniformly spaced", Committee 320 does not agree with this
Munuswamy (line 790), it should be defined as comment. The word being defined is
"distributed", since the tendons are not often “distributed tendons." Definitions should not
times uniformly spaced (not equi-distant include the word being defined. Furthermore,
from each other). “distributed tendons is a commonly used
phrase that indicates those tendons that are
transverse to banded tendons.

No change
26. Trey Hamilton, 2.3 894 Definition includes precast frames, which Committee 320 does not agree with
ACI are outside the scope of 320. comment. Precast portion of the definition
was retained to allow use of post-tensioned,
precast frames.

No change
27. Trey Hamilton, 2.3 1017 Definition includes precast walls, which are Committee 320 does not agree with
ACI outside the scope of 320. comment. Precast portion of the definition
was retained to allow use of post-tensioned,
precast walls.

No change
28. Sivakumar 2.3 1044 thru 1047 Committee 320 does not agree with this
Munuswamy tendon, unbonded—This definition needs comment. The primary mechanism of force
to be revised, as the current definition is transfer is through the anchorage and the
only applicable to a non-profile tendon. The design is done based on this assumption. This

6 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
reason for the change is that in addition to is a common definition of unbonded tendon.
the transfer of PT forces at the anchors, a
profiled tendon with drape or harp would No change.
transfer force through their profile as well.
Instead of stating “permanently”, please
consider “predominantly”
29. N.Khosa 3.2.2 1071 Should article 4.2.3 be referenced? Committee 320 agrees with this comment.
The ACI 301 reference is for a specific section
(26.4.3.1(b)), which is not present in 320. 320
refers to 318 for all of 26.4.

Delete ACI 301 reference.

30. N.Khosa 3.2.2 1072 Should this be ACI-318-25 ? Eventually. 320 will ballot the changes to 318-
25 following public comment prior to
publication.

Change 318-19 to 318-25

31. Asit Baxi 7.6.4.2 1850 Baxi (2023) Please add reference Committee 320 agrees with this comment.
publication. It was a paper published in the Add the following commentary reference.
PTI Journal

32. Shih-Ho Chao R7.6.4.2 1858 The Commentary states: "For the Committee 320 partially agrees with this
calculation of stresses and the flexural comment.
design of monolithic post-tensioned T-
beams, an effective flange width greater Change Note 3 in Fig. R7.6.4.2 to the
7 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
than 8 times the slab thickness on each side following:
of the beam is permissible." However, Note 3: Maximum width of slab effective as a
Section 6.3.2.1 specifies that the smallest of T-beam flange (see 6.3.2.3 6.3.2.1).
8h, Sw/2, or ln/8 must be used, meaning
values exceeding 8h are not allowed. This Change Note in Fig. R7.7.6.3.2 to the
appears to conflict with the requirements following:
in Section 6.3.2.1. Could you please clarify? Note: Maximum width of slab effective as a T-
If the Committee allows for larger values as beam flange (see 6.3.2.3 6.3.2.1).
per Section R6.3.2.3, it would be helpful to
know the recommended maximum
33. Shih-Ho Chao R7.6.4.2 1890 Note 1 indicates that the slab between the Committee 320 partially agrees with this
two orange areas should have a minimum comment.
effective compressive stress of 100 psi.
However, what is the minimum Effective precompression in beam flanges is
compressive stress required for the slab covered by Note 2 (orange area).
within the orange areas?
Change Note 1 in Fig. R7.6.4.2 to the
Additionally, I recommend changing following:
"prestressing" to "average compressive Note 1: For shrinkage and temperature
stress." stresses, a minimum average compressive
stress of 100 psi prestressing is required…

For information:

34. Shih-Ho Chao R7.6.4.2 1903 Note 2 mentions that the compressive Committee 320 does not agree with this
stress due to service dead load is included comment.
in the calculation. However, since the
8 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
compressive stress varies across the height Section 24.4.4.1 indicates and average
of the slab under service loads, should the compressive stress, which addresses the
minimum or maximum value be variation of stresses over the height.
considered? Additionally, depending on the
position of the neutral axis, tensile stress Post-tensioned beams are typically not
might develop in the slab. Is it necessary to designed to have net tensile stresses occurring
increase the prestressing to ensure that all in the flange.
parts of the slab maintain an average
compressive stress of 100 psi? No change.
35. Shih-Ho Chao R7.6.4.2 1906 In Note 3: Suggest clarifying that the Committee 320 does not agree with this
maximum width is specifically for comment and thinks that the section heading
calculations related to shrinkage and (7.6.4 Minimum shrinkage and temperature
temperature reinforcement. reinforcement) along with the figure title
(shrinkage and temperature tendon
configuration...) and numerous mentions in
the commentary are sufficiently clear.
36. Asit Baxi 7.7.2.3 1944 I thought that there was a code change This item was not included in this cycle. This
proposal that passed 318-T to change Class was PTI TGP014, which did pass TAB awaiting
T members to 4h or 24”. I thought it made consideration by 320, but 320 elected to push
its way to ACI 320 since it did not pass 318 this item to the next cycle.
Main.
New business

37. N.Khosa 7.7.6.3.2 1989 To comply with 7.7.6.3.1. “If spacing of Committee 320 thinks that this is an
slab tendons exceeds is between 4.5 ft and unnecessary change since it provides the
6 ft,…” same limitation in two locations. The
If revised, then Fig R7.7.6.3.2 should proposed change would have no impact on a
change (deleted >4.5 ft). On a related design.
note, unequally-spaced tendons should

9 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
be acceptable within some limit. Committee 320 does agree, however, that a
note in the figure reminding the designer of
the limit (6 ft) in 7.7.6.3.1 would be helpful.
Adjust figure by including the following notes
and adjusting the figure appropriately.

Notes:
1. Maximum width of slab effective as a
T-beam flange (6.3.2.3 6.3.2.1)
2. Added shrinkage and temperature
deformed reinforcement where s > 4.5
ft. According to 7.7.6.3.1, tendon
spacing s is not to exceed 6 ft.

Revised figure:

10 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name

38. Sivakumar 8.7.5.5.2 2585 thru 2586 Yes. Note second paragraph of commentary
Munuswamy was this 6” requirement made based on that indicates the 6 in. code requirement is
experimental study? If so, did we consider longer than that used in the test specimens.
the size effects of the scaled model in the Please see the following for further details
experiment? Does this banded-banded and analysis:
system recommendation follow the
minimum number of tests (sample size) Ojo, Taye, and Roberts-Wollmann, Carin,
required for a statistical analysis
2022, “Comparison of Post-Tensioned Slabs
(Sensitivity)?
with Banded-Uniform and Banded-Banded
Tendon Arrangements,” ACI Structural
Journal, July, pp. 211-248.
11 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
39. N.Khosa R9.6.2.3 3200 Has any research been done since 1971 New business as suggested.
with modern concrete mixes, admixtures,
etc. to lower 0.004 ? Recommend New
Business for PTI TAB.
40. Trey Hamilton, 9.7.1.2 3293 TAC Comment. Committee 320 agrees with the comment.
ACI Delete “and post-tensioned” from provision
Consider striking out “post-tensioned” to since 25.4 does not address PT:
eliminate potential confusion, or change
“post-tensioned” to “prestressed” to keep
it general. Only pretensioned is explicitly
mentioned in ACI 318 Section 25.4 (see
25.4.8) with respect to prestressed.
However, there may be other items you
want to consider in the future such as
breakout strength.
41. N.Khosa 11.1 3595 Does ACI-320 cover any special design No. This is on the new business list for the
guidance/requirements for vertical PT in next cycle.
walls? I assume 10.7.3.1 is related to
vertical PT. Similarly, one could use large
transfer PT girders as walls. Recommend
New Business for PTI TAB.
42. Trey Hamilton, R12.5.1.4 3652 Is the TAB.1 guidance similar to the The related 320 Code provision (12.5.1.4,
ACI guidance removed from the commentary? which is identical to 318’s language) is rather
It is not clear without that reference if the loosely formulated and leaves much of the
recommended approach is the same. design decisions to the designer’s judgment.
Committee 320 thinks that the guidance
provided by the original 318 commentary
language was inadequate and does not reflect
typical practice in designing PT diaphragms.
The current 320 Code provision allows a good

12 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
deal of latitude, for which TAB.1-23 provides a
reasonable and more complete design
approach. Considering the lack of detail in the
code provision, however, 320 will examine
this issue in the next code cycle.

New business

43. Trey Hamilton, 18.14.3.2 3923 What is the reason for removing the d/2 Committee 320 balloted this change so that
ACI spacing limit? Can an explanation be provision 9.7.6.2.2 was used to limit stirrup
provided in the commentary for this spacing in lieu of d/2 requirement located in
difference relative to ACI 318? 18.14.3.2. This was done because of the
varying “d” values inherent in PT beams with
parabolic tendon profiles. Because the current
code expresses maximum seismic stirrup
spacing in terms of “d”, post-tensioned
members require an unusually large number
of stirrups in the areas of inflection points due
to gravity loads, where “d” is the smallest and
where hinging is not likely to be as severe
since it is away from the support. 320
recognizes, however, that this change could
result in hinge regions having less than the
intended transverse reinforcement in regions
that may be yielding.

To address both the issue of varying “d” and

the need for prescriptive transverse
reinforcement detailing in members that may
13 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
be yielding, the following change is made:

18.14.3.2 Where the induced moments and

shears do not exceed the design moment and
shear strength of the frame member, (a)
through (d) shall be satisfied:

(a) Post-tensioned beams shall satisfy

18.6.3.1. Transverse reinforcement satisfying
25.7 and 9.7.6.2.2 shall be provided
throughout the length of the beam at a
spacing not to exceed h/2. Where factored…

This item will also be evaluated during the

next code cycle as new business.
44. N.Khosa R20.3.2.1 4043 Recommend revising 28,500,000 to Unless there were sound technical reasons or
28,000,000 psi based on experience. industry practices that warranted a change,
320 has attempted to remain aligned with 318
provisions. The suggested changes are a
matter of style and can be taken up as new
business in the next cycle.

New business.
45. Antoine E. 20.3.2.4.1 4114 Table 20.3.2.4.1 recommends the use of an Committee 320 agrees partially with this
Naaman equation developed in 1971 and expanded comment. This issue and, in particular, the
in 1978; it suffers from serious limitations: “sharp discontinuous jump” at a span-to-
a) it does not include the effect of non- depth ratio of 35 has been a subject of
prestressed reinforcement; b) it does not discussion in Subcommittee 318T and
include the fact that tensile strain or Committee 320 as well as PTI TAB for some
deformation increment in a tendon is
14 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
averaged between its anchorages; c) it time. The current provisions, however, have
suffers from a sharp discontinuous jump been in use and have performed well for
when the span to depth ratio exceeds 35; many years. There are currently no compelling
and finally d) it provides very poor reasons, such as safety or economics, to make
correlation when predicted results are such an extensive change near the end of this
compared to 243 experimentally observed cycle. This issue will be considered in the next
values [Refs. 1, 2, 3 below]. cycle.

The majority of equations to predict f ps are New business.

based on essentially, predicting for an
unbonded tendon, the stress increment
above the effective prestress due to loading.
A rational and stable equation have been
developed based on a deflection
compatibility which predict the increase in
strain (thus stress) in the tendon; it
accommodates all the critical variables
including the span-to-depth ratio and the
eccentricity of the tendons; and it was
shown from a comprehensive statistical
analysis to be the best equation in predicting
results compared to 243 experimental test.
It is described in [Refs. 1, 2, 3] below; and a
one page image of it is attached.

Whichever equation is used, there is need to

include the fact that the “elongation
increment” observed in a tendon when one
span is loaded is distributed to the other
spans of a tendon. Thus, there is need to
multiply the increment of stress by an
appropriate factor such as:
15 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
f ps = f se + Δ f ps for a
single span member (beam, slab)

L
f ps = f se + ( Δ f ps ) 1
L2
when multiple spans exist

L1 = span length of member (or sum of

span lengths of members)
analyzed for the loading
considered
L2 = total length of prestressed tendon
between anchorages

Including the factor L1 / L2 has a

significant effect on decreasing the value of
f ps . That effect should be included in any
prediction equation used. In [Ref. 3] below,
ACI 423 Subcommittee on f ps for
unbonded tendons, recommends using the
ratio L1 / L2 but also suggested a lower
design limit to balance the possible effect of
L1 / L2 for members with multiple spans, as
follows:

Lower limit: f ps = f se + 7500 psi

The Committee responsible for ACI 320

16 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
has thus two options:

1. Recommend a rational equation

already documented in several
studies and shown to be significantly
better than the ACI equation [Refs.
1,2,3]; (This “discusser” could help
in articulating the modification if
asked).

2. Insists on keeping an obsolete

equation in Table 20.3.2.4.1;
however to accommodate the most
important factor pointed out above
they should modify the equation as
follows;
 f '
f ps = f se + 10000 + c
 100 ρ p

References:
1. Alqam, M., Alkhairi, F., and Naaman,
A.E., 2021. “Stress at Ultimate in
Prestressed Unbonded Tendons:
Assessment of Code Equations and
Recommendation,” ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 118, No. 5, September
2021, pp. 177-187.
2. Alqam, M., Alkhairi, F., and Naaman,
A.E., 2020. “An Improved
17 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
Methodology for the Prediction of the
Stress at Ultimate in Unbonded Internal
and External Steel Tendons” Arabian
Journal of Science and Engineering,
Springer, published online April 2020,
pp. 7915-7954, DOI 10.1007/s13369-
020-04475-w.
3. Naaman, A.E., Burns, N., French, K.,
Gamble, W., and Mattock, A., "Stresses
in Unbonded Tendons at Ultimate:
Recommendation," ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 99, No. 2, July-August,
2002, pp. 518-529.

46. Antoine E. 20.3.2.4.1 4114 The equation recommended in Refs. [1 to 3] See response to previous comment on line
Naaman is suggested below to replace the equation 4114.
in line 4118 of Table 20.3.2.4.1 in ACI 320.
 dp
f ps = f se + Δ f ps = f se + Ω u E pε cu  −1
 c
(1)
e  3.6 
Ω u = m  0.02 +  for
d p  L / d p 
single point loading (2)
e  6.48 
Ω u = m  0.029 +  for
d p  L / d p 
uniform or double points loading (3)
Where:
em = is the eccentricity of the

18 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
prestressed tendons at midspan or
the critical section analyzed
L1 = span length of member (or sum of
span lengths of members) being
analyzed for the loading
considered
L2 = total length of prestressed tendon
between anchorages

Note that the em / d p ratio in Eqs. (2 and 3)

typically leads to an increase in the value of
Ωu for T-sections. Thus a further
simplification of Eqs. 2 and 3 for code
purposes and rounding up some numbers,
can be pursued. The discusser would be
happy to help the committee in that task.

47. Trey Hamilton, 20.3.2.5.1 4132 Why has the 0.70 fpu limit that is in ACI 318 Committee 320 agrees with this comment.
ACI been removed? Can an explanation be Add the following explanation to the end of
provided in the commentary for this the current commentary R20.3.2.5.1:
difference relative to ACI 318?
The 0.7fpu limit in ACI 318 is not included in
the Code because the anchorage device and
couplers are required to develop at least 95
percent of fpu. Refer to 25.8.1.
48. Trey Hamilton, 20.3.2.5.1 4132 Change “(a) or (b)” to “(a) and (b)” so that Committee 320 agrees with the comment.
ACI both requirements are enforceable. Change the provision as follows:

19 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name

49. Chase M. R20.3.2.5.1 4143 thru 4146 Committee 320 agrees the comment. To
Slavin The commentary in this section mentions address the discrepancy, remove the last
“The margin between the maximum stress paragraph of R20.3.2.5.1:
during stressing and the maximum stress
immediately prior to force transfer”, but I The margin between the maximum stress
don’t see anything in the code about a during stressing and the maximum stress
maximum stress immediately prior to force immediately prior to force transfer allows the
transfer. Section 20.3.2.5.1 only lists manufacturer to stress the strands to
maximum stress during stressing. compensate for prestress losses accrued
between stressing and force transfer.

50. N.Khosa 20.3.2.6.1 4151 -4157 Unless there were sound technical reasons or
Recommend revising the order AND industry practices that warranted a change,
description of prestress losses to mirror 320 has attempted to remain aligned with 318
ACI423.10R and/or what happens at the provisions. The suggested changes are a
jobsite. (f), (e), (a), (b), (c), (d) matter of style and can be taken up as new
business in the next cycle.

New business.
51. N.Khosa Table 4267 Add commentary on what the difference is Committee 320 does not agree with the
20.5.1.3.2 between “cast against and permanently in comment. The concrete exposure noted in the
contact with ground” and “in contact with table have been in ACI 318 for many years and
ground”. Table 20.5.1.3.3 doesn’t make the committee thinks that the description
this distinction, but has a robust provided in the table is sufficient without
commentary. additional commentary.

20 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name

No change.
52. N.Khosa 20.5.3 4321 Since this the manufacturing of PT isn’t Unless there were sound technical reasons or
truly related to the design, would it be industry practices that warranted a change,
more efficient to reference ACI-423.7 for 320 has attempted to remain aligned with 318
these sections? provisions. The suggested changes will be
considered in the next cycle.

New business.
53. Chase M. R20.5.3.1 4322 and Committee 320 agrees with the comment.
Slavin R21.2.1 Add the following citation as an editorial
R25.9.4.3.1 correction to the commentary reference list:
R25.9.4.3.2
R25.9.4.4.6 Breen, J. E.; Burdet, O.; Roberts, C.; Sanders,
R25.9.4.5.3 D.; Wollmann, G.; and Falconer, B., 1994,
“Anchorage Zone Requirements for Post-
The commentary in these sections mention Tensioned Concrete Girders,” NCHRP Report
“Breen et al. (1994)”, but I don’t see this 356, Transportation Research Board, National
report in the references section. I assume Academy Press, Washington, DC. doi:
this reference is intended to point to this 10.14359/19236
document:
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nch
rp/nchrp_rpt_356.pdf
54. Shih-Ho Chao 22.5.5 4609 Equation (22.5.5.1.3) for the size effect Committee 320 partially agrees with the
modification factor has been removed. comment. While the application of size effect
However, this factor is still used in Table factor has adjusted in 318-25, it has not been
22.6.5.2 and Table 22.6.6.1 for calculating removed and is still applicable to two-way
the punching shear strength of post- shear strength. Committee 320, however,
tensioned two-way slabs. Therefore, this thinks this comment has merit and will
equation may need to be reinstated. consider this issue in the next cycle.

21 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name

New business.
55. Shih-Ho Chao 22.6.2.1 4887 & 22.6.2.2 Committee 320 does not agree with the
These provisions require d to be the comment. The committee doesn’t think this
average of the effective depths in the two calculation is cumbersome and it’s consistent
orthogonal directions and specify that d with flexural members.
need not be less than 0.8h. According to
Section 22.5.2.1, d is defined as: “……d shall No change
be taken as the distance from the extreme
compression fiber to the centroid of
prestressed and any nonprestressed
longitudinal reinforcement.” As a result,
calculating the average d can be quite
cumbersome. Therefore, it is suggested
that 0.8h be used as the effective depth
instead of calculating d and then comparing
it with 0.8h.
56. Shih-Ho Chao R22.6.4.1 4906 It would be helpful to clarify whether d Unless there were sound technical reasons or
should refer to the effective depth of the industry practices that warranted a change,
slab or the drop panel for the purposes of 320 has attempted to remain aligned with 318
22.6.4.1(b). provisions. Committee 320, however, thinks
that the suggestion merits consideration and
will be considered in the next cycle.

New business.
57. Asit Baxi 22.6.5.2 5054 The size effect factor must not apply to Committee 320 agrees partially with the
post-tensioned slabs. For thick slabs such as comment. 320 thinks that there is merit in the
podiums, which can vary from 12 inches to consideration of prestressing effect in
sometimes 30 inches, and for thick mat punching shear. This change, however,
foundations, the concrete contribution for represents a significant technical change from

22 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
two-way punching shear has been reduced the current 318 and 320 provisions, which
for “NO RHYME or REASON” at corner and requires serious technical consideration
edge columns. You will get more pre- beyond anecdotal successful use of slabs.
compression in the slab at these locations.
The cost burden to a project for New business.
the amount of concrete slab material can
increase by a factor of 30% or even more.
This is ridiculous and puts an unnecessary
burden on owners. If possible, the
Committee must address this in this code
cycle. I have done hundreds of thick
podium slabs covering millions of square
feet without a single issue. Why would
there be a code change punishing post-
tensioned slabs?
58. Sivakumar 22.6.6.2 5161 thru 5188 Committee 320 does not agree with the
Munuswamy line 5166 – “smooth headed shear stud” – comment and thinks that the current code
the stud heads generally have rough provisions and commentary adequately
surfaces, not smooth – however, I believe describe the intent of the codes. Note that the
the intent on this provision is to refer to the designer is given the choice of either (a) or (b),
“smooth shank”, not the head itself. The but not both. If (a) is chosen, then by
assumption for 22.6.6.2 (a) is that the definition deformed bars are typically used.
conventional stirrups are made of deformed
Furthermore, stirrups must be anchored at
(ribbed) rebar that provide better bond with
each end to provide sufficient anchorage to
concrete to provide sufficient anchorage for
bar development to yield. If smooth rebar is yield the bar, thus providing the intended
used to produce conventional stirrups, then behavior in shear.
the assumption for 22.6.6.2 (a) is void and
the size effect needs to be considered for Regarding “…invent a new type of…” 320
rebar as well. provides an avenue for innovative systems in
So, the language for both 22.6.6.2 (a) and Section 1.10.

23 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
22.6.6.2 (b) needs to be revised to be
specific to reflect on smooth rebar and
deformed reinforcement.
This revised definition on smooth and
deformed reinforcement would allow the
industry to invent a new type of shear studs
to eliminate this provision of piggybacking.
59. N.Khosa R22.6.6.2 5166 What is the experimental evidence to limit See R22.6.6.2:
stud heights to 10 inches (before
piggybacking)? “Until experimental evidence becomes
available, it is not permitted to use λs equal to
1.0 for slabs with d > 10 in. without headed
shear stud reinforcement with stud shaft
length not exceeding 10 in.”

Committee 320 will consider this in the next

cycle.

New business.
60. N.Khosa R25.8.3 5962 Is ACI 301( article 15.2.2) correct? There No. The chapter does not exist in ACI 301.
isn’t a Section 15 in 301. Make the following change:

“…are provided in ACI 423.3R (Section 4.1.3)

and ACI 301 (Section 15.2.2 9.1.5.1).”

Excerpt from ACI 301-20 for information

24 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name

61. N.Khosa 25.9 5968 Add commentary that the LDP should run Committee 320 does not agree with the
calcs for local and general zones and comment and thinks that the current code
determine the appropriate concrete provisions and commentary (Section 26.10)
member size to avoid blowouts. This adequately describe the design and
should not fall solely on the PT Supplier. compliance requirements to the extent
appropriate in a design code. The issues
mentioned in the comment are contractual
rather than code requirements.

No change.
62. N.Khosa 25.9.4.4.4 6241 Recommend adding commentary on design Committee 320 thinks that the suggestion has
parameters to calculate the size and merit and will consider in the next code cycle.
spacing of hairpins.
New business
63. Shih-Ho Chao R25.9.4.4.6 6268 “Research has shown that headed shear Reference added to commentary as follows:
stud reinforcement conforming to 20.4.1,
placed perpendicular to the plane of the Research (ACI 421.1R) has shown that headed
slab and with studs anchored as close as shear stud…
possible to the top and bottom of slabs, is
effective in resisting diagonal splitting
25 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
tension stresses due to punching shear.”

Please provide the reference for the

research cited.
64. Chase M. R25.9.4.4.6 6270 thru 6275 Reference added to commentary as follows:
Slavin The commentary in this section references
“research” but does not cite any specific Research (ACI 421.1R) has shown that headed
publications. Are there relevant shear stud…
publications that can be cited to help
readers understand the data behind this
code change?
65. Shih-Ho Chao R25.9.4.4.6 6288 The paper by Breen et al. cannot be found See response to comment on line 4322.
in the reference list on page 143.
66. Asit Baxi 25.9.4.4.6 6309 thru 6323 Committee 320 agrees with the comment.
In graphic ensure that the 3h/8 to h/2 is Dimension lines at hairpin bar will be changed
shown to the centerline of the hairpins or to centerline in three locations: Fig.
studs in all figures. R25.9.4.4.6a(b), Fig. R25.9.4.4.6a(c), and Fig.
R25.9.4.4.6b as indicated below:

26 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name

67. N.Khosa R26.1.1(c) 6459 ACI 311.7 provides guidance is a Unless there are sound technical reasons or
specification for inspection of concrete industry practices that warranted a change,
construction, and 320 has attempted to remain aligned with 318
provisions. The suggested changes are a
matter of style and can be taken up as new
business in the next cycle.

27 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
New business
68. N.Khosa R26.1.1(c) 6459 ACI 311.6 is a reference specification for Unless there are sound technical reasons or
testing services for ready-mixed concrete. industry practices that warranted a change,
320 has attempted to remain aligned with 318
provisions. The suggested changes are a
matter of style and can be taken up as new
business in the next cycle.

New business
69. N.Khosa 26.10.1 6484 add to (e) Sheathing repairs, if applicable Unless there are sound technical reasons or
industry practices that warranted a change,
320 has attempted to remain aligned with 318
provisions. The suggested changes are a
matter of style and can be taken up as new
business in the next cycle.

New business
70. N.Khosa 26.10.2 6550 Add the following to mirror ACI-301 Unless there are sound technical reasons or
(k) Length of strand tails after trimming industry practices that warranted a change,
(l) Installation of encapsulation caps 320 has attempted to remain aligned with 318
(m) Grouting of stressing pockets provisions. The suggested changes are a
(n) stage-stressing anchor pattern…new matter of style and can be taken up as new
business business in the next cycle.

New business
71. N.Khosa 26.13 6554 Are we really leaving this blank for PT? PT Unless there are sound technical reasons or
Inspections reports have some special reqs industry practices that warranted a change,
320 has attempted to remain aligned with 318
provisions. The suggested changes are a
matter of style and can be taken up as new

28 of 29
Document: CODE-320—Post-Tensioned Structural Concrete--Code Requirements and Commentary
ACI-PTI 320 responses to public comments Public Discussion Date: Sept. 1, 2024 – Oct. 16, 2024

No. Commenter Provision # Line # Public comment Committee response

Name
business in the next cycle.

New business

29 of 29