P. 1
Min Reinforcement -Nchrp w149

Min Reinforcement -Nchrp w149

|Views: 38|Likes:
Published by UpaliFernando

More info:

Published by: UpaliFernando on Jan 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/30/2013

pdf

text

original

Web-Only Document 149

:
Recommended LRFD Minimum
Flexural Reinforcement
Requirements
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Jay Holombo
PBS&J
San Diego, CA

Maher Tadros
PBS&J
Tampa, FL
Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 12-80
Submitted November 2009
NCHRP
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was sponsored by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with
the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is
administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the
National Academies.


COPYRIGHT PERMISSION

Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials
and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who
own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material
used herein.

Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to
reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit
purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the
material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FTA, Transit Development Corporation, or AOC
endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected
that those reproducing the material in this document for educational
and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the
source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the
material, request permission from CRP.


DISCLAIMER

The opinion and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are
those of the research agency. They are not necessarily those of the
TRB, the National Research Council, AASHTO, or the U.S.
Government.
This report has not been edited by TRB.

i
 
CONTENTS
Contents ............................................................................................................................................ i 
Author Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv 
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... v 
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 
Chapter 1 Introduction and Research Approach ............................................................................ 6 
1.1 Problem Statement............................................................................................................... 6 
1.2 Research Objectives ............................................................................................................ 8 
1.3 Research Tasks .................................................................................................................... 8 
1.4 Research Work Plan .......................................................................................................... 10 
1.4.1 Refine the Modified LRFD Method ........................................................................... 10 
1.4.2 Perform the Parametric Study .................................................................................... 10 
1.4.3 Evaluate the Statistical Parameters of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement ................. 10 
1.5   Key Definitions .................................................................................................................. 11 
Chapter 2   Findings ....................................................................................................................... 12 
2.1   Observed Response of Lightly Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Members 12 
2.2   Flexural Tensile Strength ................................................................................................... 16 
2.2.1   Direct Testing of Concrete Fracture in Tension ......................................................... 16 
2.2.2   Modulus of Rupture .................................................................................................... 17 
2.2.3   Size Effects on the Flexural Cracking Strength .......................................................... 19 
2.3 Statistical Analysis of Concrete Flexural Strength ............................................................ 22 
2.3.1 Analysis Methods ....................................................................................................... 22 
2.3.3 Modulus of Rupture .................................................................................................... 22 
2.3.3 Full-Size Member Cracking Strength ......................................................................... 24 
2.3.4 Prestressed Variability ................................................................................................ 25 
ii
 
2.3.5 Summary of Statistical Analysis of Flexural Cracking Strength ................................ 26 
2.4   Methods and Procedures for Developing Minimum Reinforcement ................................. 26 
2.4.1 AASHTO LRFD ......................................................................................................... 27 
2.4.2 AASHTO Segmental Guide Specifications ................................................................ 31 
2.4.3 ACI 318 ...................................................................................................................... 32 
2.4.4 Freyermuth and Aalami—CEB-FIP ........................................................................... 34 
2.4.5 International Practice .................................................................................................. 36 
2.4.6 Leonhardt’s Method ................................................................................................... 39 
2.4.7 Modified LRFD Method ............................................................................................. 42 
2.4.8   Comparison of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement Provisions ................................... 46 
Chapter 3   Interpretation, Appraisal and Application ................................................................... 48 
3.1 Parametric Study of Minimum Reinforcement Provisions ................................................ 48 
3.1.1 Concrete Structures Database ..................................................................................... 49 
3.1.2 Minimum Flexural Reinforcement ............................................................................. 56 
3.1.3 Cracking Moment (M
cr
) .............................................................................................. 61 
3.1.4   Nominal Moment at Overstrength (M
o
) ...................................................................... 61 
3.1.5   Parametric Study Results ............................................................................................ 61 
3.1.6   Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 63 
3.2   Proposed Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications .............................................. 64 
3.3 Design Examples ............................................................................................................... 68 
3.3.1 Multi-Span Precast Concrete Girder Made Continuous with Composite Deck ......... 68 
3.3.2 Cast-in-Place Concrete Box Girder ............................................................................ 69 
3.3.3 Span-by-Span Segmental Bridge with External Tendons .......................................... 71 
3.3.4 Balanced Cantilever Bridge with Internal Tendons .................................................... 73 
3.3.5 Cap Beam ................................................................................................................... 75 
Chapter 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research ......................................................................... 77 
iii
 
4.1   Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 77 
4.1.1 Conclusions on the Observed Response of Lightly Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete Members ................................................................................................................ 77 
4.1.2 Conclusions on the Review of US and International Practice .................................... 78 
4.1.3   Conclusions on the Parametric Study ......................................................................... 79 
4.2 Suggested Research ........................................................................................................... 79 
References ..................................................................................................................................... 80 
Appendix A Parametric Study Results
Appendix B Design Examples
iv
 
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research in this report was performed under NCHRP 12-80 by the Post, Buckley,
Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) research team.
Jay Holombo, PBS&J, San Diego, CA, was the principal investigator and lead author,
and Maher K. Tadros, University of Nebraska, Lincoln (UNL) and formerly with PBS&J, Tampa,
FL, was the coauthor of this report. Other research team members include: Paul Morel, PBS&J,
San Diego, CA, who developed Design Examples 1, 2, and 5 and performed the parametric study
design calculations; Sami Megally, PBS&J, San Diego, CA, who developed Design Examples 3
and 4; Andrzej Nowak, UNL, who assisted with the statistical analysis; Stephen Seguirant,
Concrete Technologies, Inc., Tacoma, WA, who provided vital input and feedback throughout the
project. Daniel Tassin, International Bridge Technologies, Inc., San Diego, CA; Morad Ghali
with PBS&J, Tampa, FL; and Artur Czarnecki of Grontmij, Dublin, Ireland (formerly with
PBS&J, Tampa, FL) also provided valuable input on the research efforts.
The research team also acknowledges Tyler Tesch, PBS&J, San Diego, CA, for his
substantial contribution related to data collection and the development of figures and tables, and
Glenn Espanto, PBS&J, San Diego, CA, for his assistance in the development of figures and
other items related to the research and the report.
v
 
ABSTRACT
This report documents and presents the results of a study of minimum reinforcement
requirements for the design of concrete bridge structures. This study included a review of U.S.
and international practice, test data and research findings related to minimum reinforcement
requirements and flexural cracking of concrete structures. A total of 4 representative methods of
specifying minimum reinforcement were evaluated and compared by performing design
calculations on a wide range of concrete bridge members. The findings of this study suggest that
in nearly all cases lightly reinforced concrete members can develop the nominal flexural strength
and have significant strength and ductility reserves after cracking has occurred. Also, the
modulus of rupture over estimates the flexural cracking stress of concrete bridge members. A
rational approach to the specification of minimum reinforcement is proposed, where variables are
appropriately factored and includes the maximum rather than nominal strength of the section as a
true measure of ductile versus brittle response.

1
 
SUMMARY
Introduction
Minimum flexural reinforcement is prescribed in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (also referred to as the “LRFD specifications”) for reinforced and prestressed
concrete members to reduce the probability of brittle failure (AASHTO, 2007). This minimum
reinforcement is based on providing flexural capacity greater than the moment at which cracking
of the concrete is anticipated to occur. The intent of providing this additional flexural capacity is
to prevent brittle failure without sufficient warning or redistribution of load.
It is recognized that there is significant variability in the cracking moment. Recently, the
flexural cracking strength has been increased from 0.24√f'c to 0.37√f'c (ksi) in the LRFD
specifications. This increase is to recognize increasing use of high strength concrete and of the
wide range of scatter in modulus of rupture tests. As a result of this recent increase, excessive
amounts of reinforcement and corresponding increased cost have been experienced, especially in
externally prestressed segmental concrete bridge girders. Design examples have demonstrated
that a prestressed concrete member may be considered over-reinforced, which is now defined as
compression-controlled in the LRFD specifications, and not satisfy the minimum flexural
reinforcement requirement.
The flexural cracking strength in the LRFD specifications is based on modulus of rupture
test data, which consists of small-scale flexure capacity tests, where units are 4 or 6 inches deep
and most are typically moist cured up to testing. Most of this data is not applicable to concrete
bridge members because curing methods to not reflect field conditions and member size effects
are not accurately represented. Therefore, test data on the cracking strength of full-size concrete
members and small-scale units cured under realistic conditions should form the basis of minimum
reinforcement specifications.
The objective of this research is, to develop recommended revisions to the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary for rational design of minimum reinforcement to
prevent brittle failure of concrete sections. This objective is achieved by evaluating the
effectiveness of minimum reinforcement provisions on a database of structures that are
represented in the LRFD Specifications. A summary of the research is as follows:
1. Review and synthesize U.S. and international practice and research on minimum flexural
reinforcement (MFR).
2
 
2. Evaluate minimum reinforcement models and select 4-candidates for parametric studies.
3. Develop a database of concrete bridge structures and components where minimum
reinforcement provisions apply.
4. Evaluate safety, reliability, and economy by applying minimum reinforcement candidate
provisions to the structures listed in the database.
5. Propose revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
6. Demonstrate proposed provisions with design examples.
Findings
Tests have shown that lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members have
significant strength and ductility capacity after cracking has occurred, where both the nominal
and ultimate flexure capacities (including the effects of strain hardening of the reinforcement, or
prestress) were achieved. These tests were conducted with devices that apply increasing
displacement increments regardless of whether the loads are increasing or decreasing, which may
not be representative of actual bridge loading. If these same tests were conducted by applying
increasing load increments without means of stopping displacements after loads decrease, a
number of these specimens would fail without warning because the ultimate strength is less than
the cracking strength. Therefore, minimum flexural reinforcement should be based on the
ultimate strength rather than the nominal strength. It should be noted that the flexural strength of
prestressed concrete members is based on the actual strength of the steel at ultimate in the LRFD
specifications.
The flexural cracking strength of concrete members is highly variable and is sensitive to
the curing methods and the size of concrete units tested. Most of the modulus of rupture test units
are moist-cured up to the time of testing and not allowed to surface dry. Results of modulus of
rupture tests have demonstrated significant sensitivity to curing, especially for high strength
concrete. Carrasquillo, et al. (1981) noted a 26 percent decrease in the 28-day modulus of
rupture in high strength concrete when units were allowed to dry after 7-days of moist curing over
units that were moist cured until testing. The flexural cracking stress of concrete members has
been shown to significantly reduce with increasing member depth. Shioya, et al. (1989) observed
that the flexural cracking strength is proportional to H
-0.25
, where H is the overall depth of the
flexural member. Based on this observation, a 36.0 in. deep girder should achieve a flexural
cracking stress that is 36 percent lower than a 6.0 in. deep modulus of rupture test specimen. The
combined result of both effects is that the flexural cracking stress of a concrete bridge member
3
 
should substantially lower than the flexural cracking stress from a modulus of rupture test made
from the same concrete.
A review of US and international practice on specifying minimum reinforcement has
shown that all methods investigated are based on a similar premise, which is providing flexural
strength in excess of the cracking strength of concrete by an acceptable margin. Some methods
further simplify the process, thereby allowing direct calculation of the minimum reinforcement.
The method specified in the Eurocode (2006), the Japanese Code (1998), the ACI Code regarding
reinforced concrete members and the method developed by Leonhardt are examples of this
simplified approach. The LRFD specifications, the ACI Code regarding prestressed concrete
members and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA, 2006) require the nominal
strength be greater than the cracking moment by a factor of safety. The amount of minimum
reinforcement specified varies significantly as reflected in the prescribed flexural cracking stress.
The highest cracking stress, for the purposes of checking minimum reinforcement, is specified in
the LRFD specifications at 0.37√f'c (ksi), and the lowest is in the Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code (CSA, 2006) at 0.15√f'c (ksi).
Based on the results of the review of practice and research on minimum reinforcement,
the NCHRP 12-80 project team developed a rational method of calculating minimum flexural
reinforcement. In this method (referred to as the “Modified LRFD method”), separate factors for
flexural cracking and for prestress are used to improve consistency, safety and economy. The
method utilizes the maximum strength of the section, which includes the strain hardening of the
reinforcement to help achieve consistent safety for all concrete members covered by the
provisions in the LRFD specifications.
To evaluate and compare methods of specifying minimum reinforcement, a parametric
study was performed on four representative methods investigated as part of this project. These
methods included the LRFD Specifications, the Eurocode, the procedure developed by Leonhardt,
and the Modified LRFD method. This study required the calculation of minimum reinforcement
for a wide variety of concrete member types. Results of the parametric study show that the
Modified LRFD method provides the level of safety for all concrete members should be based on
the strength at ultimate. This is largely due to the recognition that the ultimate strength of a
member, including the effects of strain hardening, is the true measure of whether or not the
section is ductile. Also, a rational method of specifying minimum reinforcement, where the
flexural cracking and prestress can be factored separately, does not significantly increase the
computational complexity from the method currently specified in the LRFD Specifications.
4
 
Conclusions
Specifying minimum flexure reinforcement should be based on a rational approach to
prevent brittle failures of concrete bridge members. This approach should recognize that lightly
reinforced and prestressed concrete members have significant strength and ductility in the post-
cracked state. Flexural capacity of concrete bridge sections designed to strength limit state
moment demand requirements will be able to resist these design moments in the post-cracked
state regardless of whether or not minimum reinforcement requirements are met. Further, lightly
reinforced members can achieve the full flexural capacity including the effects of strain
hardening. Therefore, specification of minimum reinforcement should be limited to statically
determinate bridge members and the positive bending of continuous bridge members if adequate
post-crack ductility is demonstrated at or near the supports, where positive bending is defined as
moments that cause tension along the bottom fiber at midspan.
The Resistance Factor (|), as defined in the LRFD specifications, is reduced in
compression-controlled or transition sections to reduce the probability brittle failure. Specifying
minimum reinforcement also increases strength to reduce the probability of brittle failure.
Therefore, for the purpose of specifying minimum reinforcement, | should not be reduced in
compression-controlled or transition regions because both requirements address the same
deficiency that is lack of ductility. Inverted T girders and continually prestressed spliced girders
and box sections have been shown to fall into the compression-controlled and or transition
regions and not meet minimum reinforcement requirements. Since minimum reinforcement
requirements are specified to reduce the probability of non-ductile failure, adding tension
reinforcement in these regions would only make the section less ductile. A more logical approach
is to increase compression reinforcement.
For the purposes of specifying minimum reinforcement, the flexural cracking strength of
concrete members should be based on test data represents actual service condition of concrete
bridges. Based on tests of small-scale units subject to realistic curing conditions and large-scale
units, the flexural cracking strength of 0.37√f'c (ksi) is a reasonable upper bound value with a low
probability of being exceeded, and 0.24√f'c (ksi) is an appropriate average value. For precast
segmental joints, 0.24√f'c (ksi) is an appropriate upper bound value. Prestress can be a
substantial component of the flexural cracking strength. However, the variability of prestress is
far less than variability of the flexural cracking stress, and should be factored accordingly. By
factoring prestress and the flexural cracking stress differently, more consistent levels of safety can
be prescribed.
5
 
Recommendations
The Modified LRFD method is recommended to replace the current minimum
reinforcement provisions in the LRFD specifications. This method:
- specifies flexural cracking strengths and appropriate factors that are based on small-
scale flexure tests specimens cured under conditions that represent actual concrete
bridge girder construction and large scale test specimens.
- factors flexural cracking strength and prestress separately to account for differences
in variability.
- recognizes post-cracking strength and ductility capacity of lightly reinforced concrete
members, thus, allowing for the elimination of minimum reinforcement provisions in
negative bending regions if sufficient ductility capacity is verified.
- eliminates the reduced resistance factor for compression-controlled or transition
sections for the purpose of evaluating and specifying minimum reinforcement.
If this method is implemented, specifying excessive reinforcement as a result of
minimum reinforcement provisions should be eliminated. In particular, segmental bridges will
see substantial reductions in the amount of prestress required to meet minimum reinforcement
provisions. The minimum reinforcement provisions in the Modified method provide a more
consistent level of safety for all concrete members than the LRFD specifications.
A general lack of understanding of the behavior of lightly reinforced and prestressed
concrete members could be the reason for the wide variation in the amounts of reinforcement
prescribed in practice. Presentations on the behavior of concrete members with relatively small
reinforcement or prestress content are recommended to be given through future technology
transfer seminars to reduce this lack of understanding.
6
 
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH APPROACH

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Minimum flexural reinforcement is prescribed in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (also referred to as the “LRFD specifications”) for reinforced and prestressed
concrete members to reduce the probability of brittle failure (AASHTO, 2007). This minimum
reinforcement is based on providing flexural capacity greater than the moment at which cracking
of the concrete is anticipated to occur. The intent of providing this additional flexural capacity is
to prevent brittle failure without sufficient warning or redistribution of load.
It is recognized that there is a wide variability in the cracking moment. Recently, the
flexural cracking strength has been increased from 0.24√f'c to 0.37√f'c (ksi) in the LRFD
specifications. This increase is to recognize increasing use of high strength concrete and of the
wide range of scatter in modulus-of-rupture tests, as shown in experiments by Mokhtarzadeh and
French (2000). This recent increase, combined previously incorporated safety factors, has
resulted in excessive amounts of reinforcement, especially in segmental concrete bridge box
girders. Design examples have demonstrated that a prestressed concrete member may have an
amount of reinforcement so large as to cause the member to fail in a compression-controlled
mode, while still not satisfying the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement. This anomaly
was obviously not intended by the LRFD specifications.
Tests have shown that lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members have
significant inelastic strength and ductility when tested with displacement-controlled application
devices, as shown in Section 2.1. Figure 1 shows a typical moment-rotation relationship of a
reinforced concrete member. If a displacement controlled testing is conducted in a laboratory
setting, the entire moment-rotation diagram can be generated. The load is introduced in the form
of controlled displacement increments and the hydraulic jacking pressure continues to be applied
regardless of whether the load drops at any point or not, which may not be representative of
actual bridge loading. However, if these same tests were conducted in load-control mode, a
number of these specimens would fail without warning if M
o
is smaller than M
cr
, where M
o
is the
moment corresponding to the ultimate (rather than yield) strength of the reinforcement and M
cr
is
the cracking moment. Based on this observation, minimum flexural reinforcement should be
based on the ultimate strength of the reinforcement rather than the yield strength, which
7
 
corresponds to M
n
in Figure 1. This observation also implies that minimum reinforcement
provisions in the current LRFD specifications applied inconsistently for reinforced compared to
prestressed concrete members. For reinforced concrete, M
n
is defined in terms of the yield
strength of the mild reinforcement, while for prestressed concrete it is defined in terms of the
ultimate strength of the prestressing steel.

Figure 1. Moment-rotation response of a lightly reinforced concrete member
Statically indeterminate structures deserve special considerations because of the ability to
internally redistribute loading effects from negative to positive bending. The LRFD specifications
restrictions on where redistribution is allowed are related to the net-tensile strain at ultimate,
which implies that the section ductility is inversely proportional to the amount of tensile
reinforcement.
As shown in Figure 2, cracking will typically occur under negative moment first and then
positive moment. Circumstances where it is permissible to forgo minimum reinforcement
requirements in the negative bending regions for continuous bridges is discussed in Section 2.4.7,
along with recommended detailing practice to achieve the required ductility capacity that allows
for satisfactory redistribution.
8
 

Figure 2. Load-displacement response of an interior span of a continuous member

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objective of this research is, to develop recommended revisions to the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary for rational design of minimum reinforcement to
prevent brittle failure of concrete sections. This objective is achieved by evaluating the
effectiveness of minimum reinforcement provisions on a database of structures that are
represented in the LRFD Specifications. A summary of the research is as follows:
1. Review and synthesize U.S. and international practice and research on minimum flexural
reinforcement (MFR).
2. Evaluate minimum reinforcement models and select 4 candidates for parametric studies.
3. Develop a database of concrete bridge structures and components where minimum
reinforcement provisions apply.
4. Evaluate safety, reliability, and economy by applying minimum reinforcement candidate
provisions to the structures listed in the database.
5. Propose revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
6. Demonstrate proposed provisions with design examples.
1.3 RESEARCH TASKS
To accomplish these objectives, the following research tasks were performed. These tasks are
quoted directly from the NCHRP 12-80 project request for proposals.
9
 
Task 1. Review U.S. and international practice, performance data, research findings,
specifications, and other information related to minimum reinforcement requirements and flexural
cracking of concrete structures. This information shall be assembled from technical literature and
from unpublished experiences of engineers, bridge owners, fabricators, and others. Records of
brittle flexural failures of laboratory or in-service elements are of particular interest.
Task 2. Identify and compare models to determine minimum flexural reinforcement. Models
should not be limited to those used in developing the LRFD specifications. The NCHRP will
select the models for use in Task 6.
Task 3. Assemble a database of concrete structures and components to which the LRFD
minimum flexural reinforcement (bonded and unbonded) requirements apply. The database shall
be populated with sufficient information to permit calculation of all appropriate cross-section
loads and resistances.
Task 4. Develop a detailed work plan to use the database structures and components to compare
the reinforcement requirements and reliability of not more than three minimum reinforcement
models selected by the NCHRP.
Task 5. Submit an interim report within four months of the contract start that documents the
findings of Tasks 1 through 4. Include a list of proposed design examples to be submitted in Task
7. The contractor will be expected to meet with the NCHRP approximately one month later.
Work may not proceed on subsequent tasks without NCHRP approval of the work plan.
Task 6. Perform the work plan as approved by the NCHRP.
Task 7. Develop specifications with supporting commentary for recommendation to the
AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures. Provide a minimum of five step-
by-step design examples illustrating the application of the specifications. Compare the designs to
those produced by the current AASHTO specifications.
Task 8. Revise the specifications, commentary, and design examples in accordance with NCHRP
review comments (Draft 2).
Task 9. Submit a final report that documents the entire research effort.

10
 
1.4 RESEARCH WORK PLAN
The work plan identified in Task 6 was developed to achieve the objectives of this project
after the data collection phase of this project. This work plan consisted of the following items:
1.4.1 Refine the Modified LRFD Method
A new approach to determine minimum reinforcement is proposed to meet the objectives
of the NCHRP 12-80 project. As the name suggests, the Modified LRFD method is based on the
minimum reinforcement procedure in the LRFD specifications. In this procedure, variables that
influence minimum reinforcement are factored separately to account for differences in variability.
Development of these factors is the subject of this task. For concrete flexural cracking, the data
presented in Section 2 is used determine a factor that is appropriate. The prestress variability
effect on the flexural cracking strength is relatively small regarding the flexural cracking strength.
Therefore, a reduced factor, compared to the current 1.2 factor, is warranted, as discussed in
Section 2.2.
Design methods such as strain compatibility analysis are utilized to develop flexural
strength of selected structures within the Concrete Bridge Member Database, to see if any
methods in the procedure can be simplified.
1.4.2 Perform the Parametric Study
To evaluate candidate minimum reinforcement methods, design calculations were
performed on the bridges within the Concrete Bridge Member Database, as described in Section
3.1.1. Design calculations were performed using state-of-the-practice design tools to develop
design forces, moments, and shears.
The preparation of tables of minimum reinforcement along with appropriate graphs
compare each method versus such variables as concrete compressive strength, spacing of girders,
depth of members and width and thickness of bottom and top flanges. As a result these methods
are easily and directly compared for quick evaluation.
1.4.3 Evaluate the Statistical Parameters of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement
To aid in interpretation of applicable test data, a statistical analysis is performed, as described in
Section 2.3. The focus of this analysis is on the flexural cracking strength of concrete bridge
members.
11
 
To evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical parameters, the cumulative distribution
function (CDF) of the modulus-of-rupture is plotted on the normal probability paper. Any normal
CDF on the normal probability paper is represented by a straight line. The methods used to
develop CDF plots are described in such references as Nowak and Collins (2000) and in TRB
Circular E-C079.
1.5 KEY DEFINITIONS
For convenience of the reader, the following definitions are given:
- f
pe
- strand stress due to effective prestress.
- f
ps
- strand stress at ultimate flexure.
- f
y
- stress in mild reinforcement at specified yield strain (0.0021 for grade 60 steel).
- f
u
- ultimate (peak) stress in mild reinforcement just before rupture.
- M
cr
- theoretical cracking moment.
- M
o
- nominal ultimate moment capacity including the effects of strain hardening, as
illustrated in Figure 1.
- M
n
- nominal flexural capacity as defined by the LRFD specifications, excluding strain
hardening for conventionally reinforced sections with mild steel reinforcement (see
Figure 1) and including strain hardening for sections reinforced with prestressing strands.
- M
u
- ultimate demand moment (or required strength) due to factored applied loads.
- ¸
3
– ratio of yield to ultimate steel stress for non-prestressed steel, (for example, 0.67 for
A615 and 0.75 for A706 Grade 60 reinforcement). Note that ¸
3
is taken =1.0 for
prestressing strands as the codes already utilize the full stress-strain relationship.
12
 
CHAPTER 2 FINDINGS

2.1 OBSERVED RESPONSE OF LIGHTLY REINFORCED CONCRETE AND
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE MEMBERS
Testing of a large number of lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete beams at the
University of Illinois demonstrated that significant inelastic displacements can be achieved, “…
and none of the beams tested failed without large warning deflections,” as presented in a journal
paper by Freyermuth and Aalami (1997). These experiments included lightly reinforced,
internally-prestressed and externally-prestressed concrete components.
Test set up consisted of 4-point loaded simply-supported concrete beams measuring 12
in. deep by 6 in. wide. The load-deflection plots of lightly reinforced concrete members, shown
in Figure 3(a), indicate that substantial strength and ductility was observed after cracking
occurred, and the ultimate strength reflects the strain-hardened resistance developed in the
reinforcement rather than yield. The response of lightly prestressed concrete members with
internal or bonded tendons in Figure 3(b) shows all units had significant post-cracking strength
and ductility. Each unit in this set had nearly identical dimensions and areas with different
amounts of prestress applied in each tendon. Although the initial cracking strength varied, all
units achieved similar strengths at a displacement between 2.0 and 2.5 inches. The response of
lightly prestressed units with external (or unbonded) tendons in Figure 3(c) shows that after a
drop in strength due to cracking, resistance increases due to stretching of the external tendon. All
units demonstrated significant post-cracking strength and ductility.
As discussed previously, these tests were conducted with a load-displacement regime
may not be representative of actual bridge loading. In this system, loads are introduced in the
form of controlled displacement increments, and the hydraulic jacking pressure continues to be
applied regardless of whether the load drops at any point or not. If these same experiments were
conducted by applying increasing loads without any means of stopping the displacements if the
strength drops, a number of the specimens would have failed without warning because the
ultimate strength (including the effects of strain hardening in the reinforcement) was less than the
cracking strength. Based on this observation, minimum reinforcement requirements should be
based on the ultimate strength instead of the yield strength of the reinforcement.
13
 

a.) Reinforced concrete members

b.) Prestressed concrete members (bonded)

c.) Prestressed concrete members (unbonded)
Figure 3. Load-deflection response of lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members from the University of
Illinois, (Freyermuth and Aalami, 1997), (Warwaruk, Sozen and Seiss, 1960)
14
 
Please note that the ultimate nominal flexural strength in this report refers to the flexural
strength of a cross section with the resistance factor taken as unity (thus the word nominal). The
corresponding symbol is M
o
. The yield nominal flexural strength is based on the yield strength of
mild reinforcement and is referred to in the LRFD specifications as M
n
. It should be noted that
the LRFD specifications refer to M
o
for prestressed section as M
n
.
For precast segmental construction, cracking generally starts at the joints between precast
segments. Research was conducted at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) on seismic
performance of precast segmental bridges. This experimental program was initiated by the
American Segmental Bridge Institute (ASBI) and Caltrans and was funded by Caltrans. The
experimental program consisted of three phases, in which performance of joints in positive
moment regions was investigated in Phase I. A prototype span-by-span structure was designed
and used as the basis for design of test units. Details about the experimental program can be
found in a research report (Megally et al., 2002) as well as journal paper (Megally et al., 2003).
In Phase I of the experimental program, four 2/3 scale specimens were tested under
reversed cyclic loading up to failure. The test variables included internal bonded tendons, external
tendons or combination of internal bonded and external tendons. Each test unit consisted of six
epoxy-bonded precast segments.
In these experiments, flexure cracks were consistently located immediately adjacent to the
match-cast surface, as shown in Figure 4. The researchers concluded that the main reason is the
formation of a weak layer of concrete, referred to as a “Laitance Layer”. This so called “Laitance
Layer” is composed of more cement and sand and probably few coarse aggregates as a result of
its proximity to the end surface of the segment. With few coarse aggregates, the concrete within
the laitance layer is weaker than concrete internal to the precast segment itself. As a result,
concrete of the laitance layer cracks at a lower flexural cracking stress than what would be
expected for concrete within the segments and away from the joints. Based on the experimental
values for cracking moment, section properties of test specimens and prestressing forces at time
of joint opening, the modulus of rupture was calculated. The calculated modulus of rupture values
varies from 3.0√f'c to 7.3√f'c (psi) indicating that a coefficient of 7.5 may be a reasonable upper
bound. Note that the depth of UCSD precast segmental test units is four feet and depth of precast
segmental superstructure used for span-by-span construction in the I-4 Crosstown Connector in
Tampa, Florida is nine feet.
15
 

Figure 4. Test unit with 100% external tendons (Photo by Sami Megally)


Figure 5. Load-displacement envelopes for segmental bridge specimens (Megally et al., 2003)

16
 
The test unit shown in Figure 4 had external tendons only, at the time when the maximum
displacement was reached. It clearly demonstrates very large displacement without rupture of the
tendon or total collapse, as would be guarded against with the minimum reinforcement limits
even when subject to fully reversed cyclic load and displacement cycles. Figure 5 shows the
envelope of the load-displacement response of all Phase I units. These tests confirm, as
mentioned previously, that in statically determinate bridge members, ultimate moment capacity in
excess of the cracking moment will prevent failures from occurring without warning.
2.2 FLEXURAL TENSILE STRENGTH
Flexural tensile strength of concrete bridge members is highly variable and is dependent
on many variables including mix design, aggregate size, curing methods, finish, and member
dimensions. Since concrete in tension is a brittle material, a small imperfection in the member
results in reduced strength. Therefore, increasing the amount of concrete subject to tension
increases the possibility of having a flaw that reduces the cracking strength.
Testing of flexural tension strength has been performed using methods such as direct
tensile testing on concrete cylinders, split cylinder testing and modulus of rupture tests. Since
these tests are somewhat complicated, directly correlating the flexural tensile strength with
specified compressive strength is preferred. However, as shown in the following sections, this
correlation with real-size concrete bridge members is dependent on many variables.
For evaluating serviceability, and limiting cracking during prestress transfer, a lower
bound estimate of the concrete flexural stress is of interest. However, for the purposes of
establishing minimum flexural reinforcement, a mean and upper bound estimate of flexural
cracking is of particular interest.
2.2.1 Direct Testing of Concrete Fracture in Tension
Testing of concrete in direct tension is challenging and requires specialized equipment,
and the results of which are subject to the influence of boundary conditions and accidental
eccentricity (Gonnerman and Shuman, 1928). This is largely due to the fact that the stress-strain
response of concrete in tension is linear until cracking occurs. Microcracks at the aggregate-paste
boundaries initiate at the weakest point and spread until the section is completely cracked making
this procedure very sensitive to specimen quality and testing methods.
Split cylinder testing is more commonly used to evaluate the tensile strength of concrete
than direct methods. In this procedure, a standard 6x12 cylinder is compressed transversely. The
17
 
entire section is not subject to tension, and the cylinder is relatively small, as compared to the
bottom flange of a bridge girder. However, split-cylinder tests consistently demonstrate concrete
tensile strengths that are typically 65% of the flexural tension measured in a modulus-of-rupture
test (Neville, 1981).
2.2.2 Modulus of Rupture
Modulus of rupture is measured using the ASTM Designation: C78 – Standard Method
for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading). As shown in
Figure 6, the test units are loaded at one-third of the support spacing, and the height of the units is
one-third of the beam length. Based on a plane-sections-remain-plane approximation, the
modulus-of-rupture is calculated using the following equation:
f
r
= PL/bd
2
(1)
where f
r
is the modulus of rupture, b is the member width, d is the specimen height, and P is the
load measured from the test machine.

Figure 6. Modulus of rupture loading schematic (ASTM, 2008)
This method has been used in the testing of concrete for the construction of concrete
slabs and pavements. Therefore, the specimen sizes are typically six inches deep, and in some
cases four inches deep.
18
 

a.) Moist-cured units

a.) Non-moist-cured units
Figure 7. Modulus of rupture test data from Warwaruk et al. (1960,) Mokhtarzadeh and
French (2000), Walker and Bloem (1960), Khan et al. (1996) and Carasquillo et al. (1981)

19
 
Correlation between the modulus-of-rupture and the compressive cylinder strength is
challenging because the mechanisms of failure are different. Kaplan (1959) observed a difference
of up to 40% in the modulus-of-rupture strength based on the type of aggregate used. This is
largely due to the bond between mortar and aggregate, and, therefore, an aggregate that produces
a high compressive strength may not give high strengths in tension or flexure.
Another significant factor in the flexural tension strength is methods of curing. Modulus-
of-rupture tests are sensitive to curing methods, and this is especially true for high-strength
concrete, which has a greater propensity to develop shrinkage cracks. Carrasquillo, et al. (1981),
noted a 26% reduction in the 28-day modulus-of-rupture if high-strength units were allowed to
dry after 7-days of moist curing over units that were moist cured until testing. These units were
4-inches deep with a 28-day compressive strength of 10,200 psi. Mokhtarzadeh and French noted
(2000) that the modulus-of-rupture of moist cured specimens was on average 30% higher than
their heat-cured counterparts. It was noted that the heat curing leads to differential shrinkage
strains that decrease the apparent flexural strain at rupture.
Based on the observed effect of curing the modulus-of-rupture test data shown in Figure
7 are separated into two separate categories. Moist cured units shown in Figure 7a, indicate that
the modulus of rupture can be substantially higher than 11.7\f'c (psi) [0.37\f'c (ksi)], as specified
in the LRFD specifications for the purpose of checking minimum reinforcement. For non-moist
cured units, the average is substantially lower, and more consistent with the f'
c
0.5
trend between
higher and lower strength concretes.
2.2.3 Size Effects on the Flexural Cracking Strength
It has been observed that increasing the volume of concrete subject to direct tension
lowers the cracking stress. Therefore with deeper beams, it is expected that more concrete is
subject to direct tension than with shallower beams immediately prior to cracking. Wright,
(1952) has illustrated this with a series of test between three to eight inches deep. These tests
indicate a clear drop in flexural cracking strength with depth. One explanation for this
phenomenon is that cracking in tension is initiated at imperfections at the aggregate-paste
interface, and the more volume of concrete subject to tension the higher the probability of
applying tension at an imperfection. In flexure, the highest tension is confined to the extreme
tension fiber. This is especially true for relatively shallow sections where, prior to cracking,
flexural tension stress is zero a short distance away at the neutral axis. For relatively deep
sections, tension stresses in the bottom flange are closer to being uniform prior to cracking.
20
 
Therefore, an imperfection that initiates cracking is more likely to be encountered in a deep
member because more area is subject to what can be approximated as uniform tension.
In a series of test conducted at the Shimizu Institute of Technology in Japan, similar
beams measuring from 6-inches deep to 10-feet deep were tested to evaluate the effect of size on
shear. The researchers noted that the flexural tension strength decreases with increasing depth,
and proposed the following relation:
F
b
= F(H
-1/4
) (2)
where F
b
is the flexural strength, F is the flexural strength at a reference depth of unity, and H is
the section depth. (Shioya, et al., 1989)
A plot of test results on larger-scale units with depths measuring 0.3 ft to 10 ft, including
those mentioned previously are shown in Figures 8 and 9. This data is from various experiments,
where flexural cracking was not the primary consideration and on a wide variety of shapes
including rectangular, T-beams, and AASHTO Standard shapes and Bulb-Tee girders, and in
some cases the top flange is subject to flexural tension. Figure 8 shows the flexural cracking
strength as a function of corresponding f'c. The trend indicates that the cracking stress increases
with f'
c
0.5
, as indicated with lines representing 7.5\f'c and 11.7\f'c (psi). As shown, none of the
recorded cracking strengths exceeded 11.7\f'c (psi). The flexure cracking strength is on average
lower than the modulus-of-rupture. The flexural cracking strength is plotted as a function of
depth in Figure 9. As shown, the trend is inversely proportional to the member depth.
It has been observed that increasing the volume of concrete subject to direct tension
lowers the cracking stress. Therefore with deeper beams, it is expected that more concrete is
subject to direct tension than with shallower beams immediately prior to cracking. Recorded
cracking strength of full-depth members is plotted in Figures 8 and 9. This data is from several
experiments, where flexural cracking was not the primary consideration, on a wide variety of
shapes including rectangular, T-beams, and AASHTO Standard shapes and Bulb-Tee girders.
The recorded flexural cracking stress of concrete members with depths ranging from 0.3
ft to 10 ft is shown in Figure 9 as a function of f'c. The trend indicates that the cracking stress
increases with f'
c
0.5
, as indicated with lines representing 7.5\f'c and 11.7\f'c (psi). As shown,
none of the recorded cracking strengths exceeded 11.7\f'c (psi). The cracking data in Figure 9 is
shown as a function of depth and f
r
/(f'
c
0.5
) representing the horizontal and the vertical axes,
respectively. As shown, the member cracking stress decreases with depth.
21
 

Figure 8. Observed cracking stress of full-depth concrete members versus f'
c


Figure 9. Observed f
r
/(f'c
0.5
) test data of full-depth concrete members versus depth
22
 
2.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE FLEXURAL STRENGTH
A statistical analysis of the flexural cracking strength of concrete members has been
performed to facilitate interpretation of experimental data. These results aid in evaluating the
level-of-safety provided by the minimum reinforcement provisions to prevent brittle flexural
response.
This analysis focuses on the flexural tension strength of concrete members, as this
parameter has by far the most variability and the most influence on the MFR provisions.
Modulus-of-rupture test data per ASTM C78 is abundant, and reporting of recent data from these
tests on high-strength concrete was the impetus for increasing the LRFD flexural cracking stress
to 0.37\f'c (ksi) from 0.24\f'c (ksi) in 2005. Since the applicability of this data to deep bridge
members is suspect because of the influence of member size on the flexural cracking stress,
available data on the observed cracking strength of full-depth bridge members is also analyzed.
Prestress can have a significant effect on the flexural cracking strength of concrete.
Therefore, variability of prestress is presented, where prestress losses provide the most significant
level of uncertainty. Evaluation of the moment carrying capacity is not a part of this study
because uncertainty in material strength and dimensional tolerances are captured in the Resistance
Factor (|).
2.3.1 Analysis Methods
To facilitate the interpretation of results, and determination of statistical parameters, the
Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of relevant data is plotted on normal probability paper.
Any normal CDF on normal probability paper is represented by a straight line. The methods for
construction and the use of normal probability paper are described in Nowak and Collins (2000)
and in TRB Circular E-C079. The intent is to identify trends in the distribution function and
determine if the normal distribution assumption is appropriate for the dataset. Based on this
distribution, parameters are developed to evaluate the consistency and safety of the minimum
reinforcement methods investigated in this research.
2.3.3 Modulus of Rupture
Correlation between the modulus of rupture and the compressive cylinder strength is
challenging because the mechanisms of failure are different. As discussed previously, the
modulus-of-rupture strength is largely due to the bond between mortar and aggregate, and,
therefore, an aggregate that produces a high compressive strength may not give high strengths in
23
 
tension or flexure. Further, modulus-of-rupture is highly sensitive to curing methods. Moist-cure
right up to the time of testing does not represent field conditions.
The Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) is plotted for the ratio of modulus of
rupture (f
r
) test data to the corresponding square root of f'c for the combined data in Section 2.2.2
in Figure 10. Moist cured units were excluded, because moist cure up to the time of testing is not
representative of field conditions. In this plot, the horizontal axis is the f
r
/(f'
c
0.5
) and the vertical
axis represents the number of standard deviations from the mean value. As mentioned
previously, normally distributed data will plot as a straight line, and data can be modeled
assuming normal distribution.

Figure 10. Cumulative distribution function plot of f
r
/(f'c
0.5
) test data in psi units (moist-cured
data excluded)
Based on the assumption of normal distribution, statistical parameters were developed for
all sets of modulus of rupture data presented in Section 2.2.2 for each source (Table 1a) and as a
combined dataset (Table 1b) for both most-cured and non moist-cured units. As shown, the data
indicates a higher average modulus of rupture for moist-cured units, especially for concrete
strengths exceeding 8.0 ksi. As mentioned previously, moist curing until testing does not
represent field conditions, where concrete is allowed dry after a short cure period. For the non-
moist-cured units, the value currently used in the LRFD Specifications of 11.7\f'c (psi) [0.37\f'c
(ksi)] is above two standard deviation value.


24
 
Table 1. Statistical parameters of f
r
/(f'
c
0.5
) (psi) assuming normal distribution
a.) Per reference
f
r
/(f'
c
0.5
) (psi) Carrasquillo
(1981)
Khan
(1996)
Mokhtarzadeh & French
(2000)
Walker
(1960)
Warwaruk
(1960)
Average 12.0 8.33 11.5 9.34 9.10 7.57
Std. Dev. 1.50 2.32 1.65 0.909 0.74 1.56
COV 0.125 0.278 0.143 0.097 0.081 0.21
Range f'
c
(ksi) 2.1-12.1 0.2-15.7 8.7-14.6 7.5-15.3 1.5-6.0 1.2-8.3
Size (in.) 4x4x14 4x4x16 6x6x24 6x6x24 6x6x36 6x6x24
Cure Method Moist Varies Moist Heat Moist Not stated

b.) Total for all Data Sets
f
r
/(f'
c
0.5
) (psi)
Moist cured Non-moist cured
Average 9.32 8.49
Standard deviation o 2.43 1.53
Ave. + 2(o) 14.2 11.6
COV 0.26 0.18
Average f’c (ksi) 6.83 7.58
 
2.3.3 Full-Size Member Cracking Strength
The (CDF) is plotted for the ratio of the full-depth member cracking stress test data
described in Section 2.2.3, to the corresponding square root of f'c in Figure 11. In this plot, the
horizontal axis is f
cr
/(f'
c
0.5
) and the vertical axis represents the number of standard deviations from
the mean value. The average depth for all members evaluated is 3.0 ft. As mentioned previously,
normally distributed data will plot as a straight line, and the plot is essentially straight, which
indicates that the data can be modeled assuming normal distribution.
A summary of the statistical parameters for the full-size test data based on a normal
distribution is shown in Table 2. The average flexural cracking strength is below 7.5√f'c (psi)
[0.24√f'c (ksi)], and two standard deviations above the average is well below 11.7√ f'c (psi)
[0.37√f'c (ksi)]. Incorporation of the depth of the member in specifying the flexural cracking
stress was considered in the research. As shown in Table 2, the coefficient of variation reduces
considerably with the addition of the parameter H
-0.2
. However, there is a tradeoff between ease-
of-use and accuracy when developing the strength of the section. Considering the variability of
25
 
the measured flexural cracking strength, parameter of depth in the minimum reinforcement
provisions should not be included.

Figure 11. Cumulative distribution function plot of f
cr
/(f'c
0.5
) test data of full-size units
Table 2. Statistical parameters of full-size concrete member flexural cracking stress
assuming normal distribution

f
cr
(psi)


5 . 0
c
cr
f
f
'
(psi)
2 . 0 5 . 0 ÷
' H f
f
c
cr
(psi, ft)
Average 610 7.02 8.07
Standard deviation o 190 1.65 1.35
Ave. + 2(o) 990 10.3 10.8
COV 0.31 0.24 0.17
2.3.4 Prestressed Variability
The level of prestress has a significant impact on the flexural cracking strength of
concrete members. Methods and research on anticipated prestress and the amount of prestress
loss that is anticipated to occur over the life of the bridge are covered in detail in the PCI Bridge
Manual (2005) for pretensioned members.
The variability of prestress losses in pretensioned members has been evaluated by
Steinberg (1995) and Gilbertson & Ahlborn (2004) and Tadros et al. (2003, 2009). Results of
these studies are based on the variability of parameters including jacking force, initial and final
concrete strengths, relative humidity, dimensional tolerances, time-of-jacking and others. In both
studies Monte Carlo Simulations were used to evaluate overall variability of prestress losses.
Gilbertson & Ahlborn (2005) demonstrated prestress losses deviate from nominal by less than 4%
26
 
within a confidence interval of 95% for a 70-inch I-girder using the AASHTO LRFD method for
calculating prestress losses.
Tadros, et al., demonstrated that long term prestress loss due to creep, shrinkage and
relaxation can vary by as much as 30% from the mean value. Considering that the loss is about
17% of the prestress force, the variation in the prestress force can be as much as 0.3*0.17 = 0.05.
2.3.5 Summary of Statistical Analysis of Flexural Cracking Strength
Statistical analysis of concrete member cracking strength demonstrates the following:
- Cumulative distribution function plots show that the ratio of the flexural cracking
strength to the square root of the compressive strength indicates that the normal
distribution assumption is appropriate for all datasets evaluated.
- The average modulus of rupture for units not subject to moist cure is 8.5\f'c (psi)
[0.27\f'c (ksi)] based on test data from test data evaluated in Section 2.2.2. Modulus of
rupture is sensitive to curing, and moist curing is not representative actual field
conditions.
- For the combined dataset of units not subject to moist cure, the modulus of rupture of
11.6\f'c (psi) [0.37\f'c (ksi)] is 2 standard deviations above the mean implying a 98
percent confidence interval.
- Full size concrete members crack at significantly lower flexural stresses than modulus of
rupture specimen, and the data suggests that the cracking stress is inversely
proportionality to the section depth.
- Average and plus-two standard deviation cracking stress for full-size members are 7.0\f'c
and 10.3\f'c (psi), respectively. Based on this dataset, the value 11.7\f'c (psi) 0.37\f'c
(ksi) is 2.85 standard deviations from the mean, which implies a 99.8 percent confidence
interval.

2.4 METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING MINIMUM
REINFORCEMENT
In the U.S., bridge members are generally governed by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, while building members are generally governed by ACI 318 Building Code
27
 
Requirements for Structural Concrete. The LRFD specifications have unified provisions for
reinforced, partially prestressed, and fully prestressed concrete (Section 5). ACI 318 has different
provisions for reinforced concrete (in Chapter 10) and prestressed concrete (in Chapter 18).
There are significant differences between the two documents. There may be justification for some
of the differences, primarily due to the different character of the applied loads. Otherwise, the
provisions should be very similar or even identical.
The applicability of the LRFD specifications to segmental bridges is a primary question in
this research. The reduced cracking strength at the segment joints should be somehow accounted
for. Also, external tendons are often used, especially in span-by-span construction, where very
low steel stress at the Strength Limit States is generally assumed in design. That stress can be far
below the stress that corresponds to rupture of the tendons. The European Code differs in the
approach to providing minimum reinforcement, featuring simplified prescriptive equations, which
are applicable to both reinforced and prestressed concrete bridge members.
2.4.1 AASHTO LRFD
Minimum flexural reinforcement is evaluated uniformly for all concrete sections with two
requirements. Fundamentally, these requirements are:
(a) The flexural design strength of the section being considered should be larger than
the cracking moment by an acceptable safety margin, and
(b) If one is assured that the member will be unlikely to crack under a magnified
factored load moment, then requirement (a) may be waived. The magnification
factor provides an additional safety margin beyond the margin provided by the
standard load factors
AASHTO Section 5.7.3.3.2 states that the amount of reinforcement shall be adequate to
satisfy at least one of the following conditions:
cr n
M 2 . 1 M > |
, or (3)
u n
M 33 . 1 M > |
(4)
where
n
M |
,
cr
M
and
u
M
are the design strength, cracking moment and required strength
(factored load moment). The resistance factor, |, in the LRFD Specifications is taken as 1.0 for
prestressed concrete and 0.9 for reinforced concrete when a member is designed as tension-
controlled, that is the strain in the extreme tension steel layer is not less than 0.005. The tension-
controlled resistance factor for segmental bridges is 0.95 for bonded systems and 0.90 for
unbonded systems. The cracking moment is derived from the formula:
28
 
r
c
nc cr
nc
nc
cpe
f
S
) M M (
S
M
f ÷ =
÷
÷ ÷
(5)
where
cpe
f
is the extreme (precompressed) tension fiber stress due to effective prestress,
(
nc nc
S / M
) is the stress due to forces applied before composite action from a concrete topping or
deck is affected, and
r
f
is the modulus of rupture. The formula as written in the Fourth Edition
(2007) of the Specifications is shown below:
( )
r c
nc
c
nc cpe r c cr
f S 1
S
S
M f f S M >
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷ ÷ + =

| | 1 2 . 3 . 3 . 7 . 5 ÷ AASHTO

In the AASHTO equation, the term
r c
f S
is a lower limit; interestingly, it had been
applied as an upper limit in preceding editions. The net effect is that the moment due to non-
composite loads, primarily the deck weight, is not allowed to exceed the effect of prestress on the
cracking moment. These two respective terms in the equation are:
( ) 1 S / S M
nc c dnc
÷ ÷

and
( )
cpe c
f S
.
It is not clear why setting a limit of
r c
f S
, whether as an upper or lower limit, is
necessary. Also, it is not clear why there are no explicit provisions for noncomposite members. It
is possible that noncomposite sections can suddenly rupture under load, whether that load is an
overload on the non-composite section in service or the wet weight of the deck during
construction. Provisions for non-composite sections can be included by simply specifying that S
nc

be substituted for S
c
in AASHTO Eq. 5.7.3.3.2-1.
Section 5.7.3.3.2 states that the requirements must be met “at any section of a flexural
component.” This implies that all sections of any given span must satisfy these requirements. As
shown in Figure 12, a pretensioned member with draped strands has to have significant strength
demands at sections other than midspan in order to meet the requirements stated previously.
29
 

Figure 12. Cracking moment versus factored load moment in a pretensioned member with
draped strands
It has been suggested to provide a loading capacity greater than the cracking load for a
given span rather than requiring flexural capacity greater than the cracking moment at “any”
(“every”) section in a span for convenience. However, to ensure that the load capacity is greater
than the cracking load, the load envelopes have to be characterized. A uniformly distributed load
could be used to represent moving point load envelopes for simple-spans. However, this
representation is inadequate for continuous structures and is not recommended.
2.4.1.1 Flexural Cracking Strength
For calculation of M
cr
in Section 5.7.3.3.2 of LRFD specifications, the modulus of rupture
is given as,
) ksi ( f 37 . 0
'
c
, or
) psi ( f 7 . 11
'
c
(6)
Equation 6 provides an upper bound value of the expected modulus of rupture that would lead to
more conservative design compared to earlier LRFD provisions (
) psi ( f 5 . 7
'
c
in 2005 and prior
versions of AASHTO). The higher limit was introduced to reflect research results for high
strength concrete as endorsed by ACI Committee 363 (ACI, 1992) on high strength concrete. It
30
 
has been shown that using the higher limit in segmental box girder bridges could result in a 20%
to 30% increase in required prestressing and in excessive cambers.
The applicability of the modulus of rupture specified in AASHTO to segmental bridges is
questionable because the test results discussed previously indicate that the concrete layer in
precast segments in vicinity of the segment-to-segment joint is relatively weak. As discussed in
Section 2.1, a value of 7.5√f'c (psi) [0.37√f'c (ksi)] should be an upper bound value for the
flexural cracking strength of segment to segment joints rather than an average or lower bound
value.
2.4.1.2 Flexural Capacity
In its simplest form, the flexural capacity is calculated as:
) 2 / a d ( f A M
y s n
÷ | = |
(7)
for reinforced concrete, and
) 2 / a d ( f A M
ps s n
÷ | = |
(8)
for prestressed concrete.
The resistance factor | varies between 0.75 and 1.00 for prestressed concrete and
between 0.75 and 0.90 for non-prestressed concrete. Because the issue of minimum reinforcement
should relate to members with very little amounts of reinforcement, the upper limits of 0.90 for
reinforced concrete and 1.00 for prestressed concrete is of primary concern. In segmental
construction an upper value of 0.95 is also used in some situations. In some segmental and
spliced I-girder applications, the reinforcement levels are so high as to enforce the compression
controlled | of 0.75 and give a false alarm that minimum reinforcement limits are not met.
Obviously, this is not the intent of the minimum reinforcement limits.
For the sake of the discussion that follows, assume that | = 1.00. The second variable to
discuss is the lever arm depth between the tensile reinforcement and the compression block. This
appears to be straight forward and not subject to much debate. The third and most important
variable is the steel stress at ultimate flexure. It has been a customary practice to use the yield
strength of mild reinforcement f
y
to represent that value, based on the justification that the stain
hardening and ultimate steel strength occur beyond the point in which the section is assumed to
have practically “failed.” The true flexural strength when the steel ruptures should correspond to
its ultimate strength f
su
. Freyermuth and Aalami (1997) show that the ratio f
su
/f
y
= 1.75 for grade
31
 
40 steel and 1.50 for grade 60 steel. It is possible to expand these ratios to cover steel strengths up
to Grade 270 low relaxation strands, which are known to have a yield strength = 0.9 of the
ultimate, or f
pu
/f
py
= 1.11.
In regard to the flexural strength equation for prestressed concrete, the value f
ps
is
determined on the basis of strain compatibility, following the stress strain diagrams for low
relaxation Grade 270 steel, up to a stress of 270 ksi. This is obviously inconsistent with the
treatment of conventionally reinforced concrete as has been pointed out by several authors,
including Ghosh (1987). Also, Jack Evans and Henry Bollman of FDOT made the same remarks
in AASHTO Committee T10 correspondence. This explains in part the call by Washington DOT
at T10 to increase the 1.33 factor applied to M
u
to a higher value for prestressed concrete in order
to have a consistent factor of safety as the 1.33 with reinforced concrete. Ghosh (1987) calls for a
factor of 1.6, while Washington DOT has called for a value of 2.0 in some of the early T10
correspondence (in 2004-2005). By considering the ultimate steel stress, rather than the yield
stress, for all steel grades in flexural capacity calculations, the discrepancy on this issue
disappears.
The calculation of the stress in unbonded and external post-tensioned tendons at ultimate
is more complex than in bonded and internal tendons. The LRFD specifications provide the
following equation.

py
i
s p
pe ps
f
l 2
) N 2 )( c d (
900 f f s
|
|
.
|

\
| + ÷
+ =
(9)
where f
pe
is effective prestress, c is neutral axis depth, d
p
is steel depth, N
s
is number of supports
between anchors, and l
i
is length between anchors. A first approximation of the stress f
ps
is the
effective prestress plus 15 ksi (or about 165-190 ksi). Although this stress is much lower than the
270 ksi it takes to rupture the tendon, experimental studies and detailed analysis have shown that
this equation is accurate, where concrete crushes prior to reaching tendon failure (Tassin, et al.,
1996).
2.4.2 AASHTO Segmental Guide Specifications
In the 1989 version of the AASHTO Segmental Guide Specifications, there were no requirements
for minimum flexural reinforcement. However, the commentary addressed the issue with the
following:
32
 
The minimum reinforcement provision of Section 9.18.2.1 of the AASHTO specification
was developed to avoid a brittle failure in grossly under-reinforced simple-span precast,
prestressed section. Application to segmental concrete bridges results in requirements of
more bonded reinforcement for bridges with more conservative (arbitrary) design tensile
stress levels, which is contrary to load requirements. Minimum reinforcement
requirements are adequately covered by the allowable stress and load factor
requirements of these specifications.
Minimum flexural reinforcement provisions were added to the 1999 edition of the Guide
Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges to be consistent with
the AASHTO specifications. However, this addition is also provided with commentary as
follows.
A comprehensive proposal for the revision of the ACI minimum reinforcement
requirements, including elimination of the 1.2 times the cracking moment provision, has
been published in the ACI Structural Journal.
This section in the commentary is referring to the paper by Freyermuth and Aalami. Clearly, the
commentary indicates concerns of the economic impact of specifying minimum flexural
reinforcement for segmental bridges.
2.4.3 ACI 318
The ACI 318 Building Code follows essentially the same requirements as followed by the
LRFD specifications, with the flexural strength required to be greater than the smaller of a
factored cracking moment, M
cr
, and a magnified factored moment, 1.33M
u
. However, there are
distinct differences between ACI and AASHTO in the factors and in the method of application of
these two requirements.
For reinforced concrete, ACI covers the minimum reinforcement requirements in Section
10.5. The “cracking moment” requirement is satisfied through a direct minimum steel area
formula, as follows:
d b
f
f 3
A
w
y
'
c
min , s
=
(psi) (10)
The quantity
'
c
f 3
may not be taken less than 200 psi to comply with requirements in older
versions of ACI. Equation 10 and the associated exceptions are intended by ACI to give similar
33
 
requirements to those given by Equation 3, but in a “simpler” form. Committee 318 has
attempted, since the 1963 introduction of the strength design method for conventionally
reinforced concrete members, to avoid design calculations involving section properties. In his
unpublished study, C. P. Siess recommended that for reinforced concrete, the flexural strength of
a section should simply be greater than or equal to the cracking moment. The margin between
cracking and failure is provided by strain hardening of the mild reinforcement (a 50% increase in
stress for Grade 60 reinforcement) and the strength reduction factor | = 0.90. Accordingly, ACI
318 performed a parametric study to derive Equation 10 by equating |M
n
with 1.0M
cr
, using f
r

=
'
c
f 5 . 7
, for a wide variety of section shapes and sizes.
The web width, b
w
, must be changed for T-sections with the flange in the tension zone, to
the lesser of 2b
w
or

the actual flange width. Apparently some judgment was used by Committee
318 to decide that an “effective” flange width of 2b
w
is adequate for minimum reinforcement
determination using the cracking moment criterion. However, Freyermuth and Aalami (1997)
have shown that when actual width is used the cracking moment is so large that this criterion will
almost always be superseded by the 1.33M
u
criteria.
ACI Chapter 18 covers provisions unique to prestressed concrete. This is the same strategy
followed by the LRFD specifications. The LRFD specifications have a unified treatment of
structural concrete, whether fully prestressed, partially prestressed, or conventionally reinforced,
similar to the practice in Europe.
Section 18.8 of ACI 318-05 states that “The total amount of prestressed and
nonprestressed reinforcement shall be adequate to develop a factored load at least 1.2 times the
cracking load computed on the basis of modulus of rupture f
r
specified in 9.2.3. This requirement
shall be permitted to be waived for: (a) two-way, unbonded post-tensioned slabs; and (b) flexural
members with shear and flexural strength at least twice that required by 9.2.”
One difference between ACI and AASHTO for prestressed concrete is in the value of |,
which is taken = 0.9 in ACI and is given different values in AASHTO depending on the type of
member. Other significant differences are: 1) the factored load limit is 1.33M
u
in AASHTO (at
any given section) and 2.0 × the factored load in any given span

in ACI, and 2) the modulus of
rupture is based on the older coefficient of 0.24 in ksi (7.5 in psi) in ACI as opposed to the larger
0.37 in ksi (11.7 in psi) coefficient in the LRFD specifications.
The 2.0 coefficient was adopted by ACI 318 as a conservative number even though the
unpublished study by Professor C.P. Siess recommended a coefficient of 1.67. Ghosh (1987)
34
 
explained that the 1.33 coefficient for reinforced concrete, when based on a yield strength of
grade 60 steel, is in reality a 1.33*(90)/(60) = 2.0 factor when the tensile strength of 90 ksi is used
rather than the yield strength of 60 ksi in calculating the flexural strength. Ghosh disagreed with
that value and explained that it should be only 1.6. This factor is determined as 1.33*(f
pu
/f
py
) =
1.33*(270)/(0.85*270) for stress relieved strands. Ghosh’s suggested modifications were not
accepted by ACI 318. They did not cover all types of prestressing reinforcement or the cases
where prestressing steel and mild steel existed in the same section. Stress relieved strand is no
longer in use by the great majority of users.
Note that for prestressed members ACI 318, unlike AASHTO, requires that the minimum
reinforcement criteria relate to loading on a member rather than satisfaction of the minimum
reinforcement in ALL sections of the member. That latter requirement is still enforced in Section
10.5 of ACI 318 for reinforced concrete, thus creating an inconsistency within the ACI Code.
Additional provisions are given in Section 18.9 for minimum bonded reinforcement in
unbonded post-tensioned members. Except for two-way slabs, the ACI 318-05 requires that
A
s,min
= 0.004A
ct
(11)
at both the positive and negative moment sections of continuous post-tensioned members, where
A
s,min
is the minimum additional bonded reinforcement and A
ct
is the area of the part of the
section between the center of gravity of the gross section and the tension face. For two-way slabs,
different minimum amounts are specified for positive and for negative moment sections,
depending on the bottom fiber stress at service load conditions. It should be noted that in the 2008
edition of ACI 318, minimum reinforcement is eliminated in unbonded systems.
2.4.4 Freyermuth and Aalami—CEB-FIP
Freyermuth and Aalami (1997) proposed a unified and simplified approach to the
requirements of minimum reinforcement in the ACI 318-95 Code. Their approach was a further
development of the provisions in the Third and Fourth editions of the European Code known as
CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures published in 1978 and 1990 respectively. The
CEB-FIP requirements as quoted by Freyermuth-Aalami follow:
“9.2.2-Beams
9.2.2.1-Longitudinal reinforcement: A minimum area of longitudinal bonded reinforcement
should be provided to avoid brittle failure in case of unforeseen loss of concrete tensile strength.
35
 
Commentary (Notes): If a specific study is not carried out in this respect, the area of longitudinal
tensile bonded reinforcement provided should be at least taken equal to:
0.0015b
t
d for steel grades S400 (58,000 psi) and S500 (72,500 psi)
0.0025b
t
d for steel grades S220 (31,900)
where b
t
is the average width of the concrete zone in tension. In a T-beam, if the neutral axis in
the ULS is located in the flange, the width of the latter is not taken into account in evaluating b
t.

Freyermuth and Aalami, in analyzing a large number of test specimens previously produced by
Warwaruk, Sozen, and Siess of the University of Illinois in 1957, 1960, and 1962, found the
CEB-FIP provisions to be deficient in some cases. Accordingly, they proposed a 1/3 increase to
the first formula which applies to steel grades commonly used in North America. Also, to
simplify, they proposed a change from an average width of the tension zone of the section to web
width. Thus
d b 002 . 0 A
w min , s
=
(12)
To include concrete and steel strength as variables, Freyermuth and Aalami, converted Equation
10 to two equations, one for use in reinforced concrete members and the other for prestressed
members:
d b
f
f 0 . 3
A
w
su
'
c
min , s
=
(13)
d b
f
f 0 . 9
A
w
pu
'
c
min , s
=
(14)
It is interesting to note that Equation 13 is almost identical to that in the ACI 318 Code for
reinforced concrete except that the ultimate steel strength rather than the yield strength is used.
For Grade 60 steel, the ratio is about 1.5. Thus, their formula gives 2/3rds of the ACI Code limit
for that grade. Using the ultimate as opposed to the yield strength of steel seems to make more
sense in calculating minimum reinforcement limits where steel is expected to go through strain
hardening and rupture at member capacity. They cited a previous study which had demonstrated
this to be true in cases where steel content was less than 25% of the balanced steel content.
The simplicity of this method is attractive. It may be possible to revert back to the simpler
Equation 13 for all cases and to replace the web width with an average width of the tension zone,
36
 
similar to what is being used at this time for shear design using the Modified Compression Field
Theory. The effect of prestressing might be included in a similar manner without significant loss
of simplicity.
2.4.5 International Practice
2.4.5.1 Canadian Code (CAN/CSA-S6-06)
The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CAN/CSA-S6-06) has similar provisions for
minimum reinforcement as those of the AASHTO LRFD provisions discussed in Section 2.4.1 of
this report. The amount of reinforcement shall be adequate so that the factored flexural resistance,
M
r
, is at least 1.20 times the cracking moment or 1.33 times the factored moment (see Equations
3 and 4).
A major difference between the Canadian Code and the AASHTO LRFD is in the
calculation of cracking moment. The Canadian Code adopted the term “cracking strength” instead
of “modulus of rupture” to define the stress level at which concrete cracking occurs. Instead
of | | | |) 7 . 11 ( 37 . 0
' '
psi f ksi f
c c
, as specified in the AASHTO LRFD, the Canadian Code
specifies a cracking strength of | | | |) 8 . 4 ( 15 . 0
' '
psi f ksi f
c c
. Thus, the cracking
moment according to the Canadian Code for a reinforced concrete section is only 41% percent of
the cracking moment calculated according to the AASHTO LRFD provisions.
Adoption of a relatively low value of the concrete cracking strength is based on research
results, which suggest that larger concrete sections exhibit more shrinkage cracking than smaller
sections and therefore their value of cracking strength is lower than the conventional value
of | | | |) 5 . 7 ( 24 . 0
' '
psi f ksi f
c c
that has been given in earlier Canadian Design Codes.
2.4.5.2 CEB-FIP
Provisions of the CEB-FIP MC90 have been discussed earlier in Section 2.4.4 (CEB-FIP –
Freyermuth and Aalami).
2.4.5.3 Eurocode
The Eurocode 2, Specifications for the Design of Concrete Structures, consists of two parts.
Part 1 has general specifications and design specifications for building structures. Part 2 contains
design and detailing rules pertaining to bridge structures. This second part is written as a
supplement to Part 1, and only specifications that differ from building structures are included.
37
 
The minimum longitudinal reinforcement in beams, A
s,min
according to Part 1 of the
Eurocode is given by:
d b d b
f
f
A
t t
y
cr
s
0013 . 0 26 . 0
min ,
> = (15)
Where f
cr
is the flexural cracking strength of concrete, f
y
is the elastic limit (yield strength) of
reinforcement, b
t
is the average width of concrete zone in tension and d is the depth measured
from the extreme compression fiber to centroid of tensile steel reinforcement. In a T-beam and
when the flange is in compression, the width b
t
shall be taken as width of the web.
The concrete tensile strength is determined from a table based on concrete class, or
concrete compressive strength. It is interesting to note that the tensile strength of concrete is
calculated as,
f
cr
= 0.3(f'
c
)
2/3
[MPa] = 1.58(f'
c
)
2/3
[psi] (16)
where f
ck
is the specified minimum compressive strength of concrete that is similar to f'
c
. The
limits are concrete strengths up to 50 MPa or 7,250 psi.
For concrete strengths exceeding 7,250 psi, the cracking strength is related to f'
c
by a
logarithmic function.
f
cr
= 2.12 ln (1 + f
cm
/10) [MPa] = 307 ln (1+f
cm
/1450) [psi] (17)
where f
cm
is the mean compressive strength given as follows:
f
cm
= f'
c
+ 8 [MPa] = f'
c
+ 1,160 [psi] (18)
For comparison purposes, the cracking strength for a specified compressive strength, f'
c
= 33 MPa
= 4785 psi is 500 psi (= 3.5 MPa). This is compared to a modulus of rupture value of 809 psi
(=5.6 MPa) according to the LRFD specifications. Thus, for a reinforced concrete with a 5,000
psi compressive strength, the cracking according to the Eurocode is approximately 47 percent of
cracking moment calculated based on the AASHTO LRFD specifications. It is interesting to note
that the Eurocode gives 5
th
and 95
th
percentile values of the cracking stress as 0.7 f
cr
and 1.3f
cr
,
respectively.
In Part 2 of the Eurocode the minimum reinforcement in prestressed concrete members is
addressed directly with the following:
A
s,min
f
y
+ A
ps
Δσ
p
≥ M
rep
/d
e
(19)
38
 
where M
rep
is the cracking strength of the concrete, assuming that no prestress is applied to the
section, d
e
is the lever arm to the tension steel and Δσ
p
is the smaller of 0.4f
pu
and 72.5 ksi. This
procedure is computationally simpler than the method specified in the LRFD because the
cracking moment does not depend on the amount of prestress. For precast segmental structures,
the Eurocode recommends that M
rep
be taken as zero at the joints.
2.4.5.4 Japan Specification for Highway Bridges
The Japan Road Association specifies the following regarding minimum flexural reinforcement.
The first requirement in reinforced concrete relates to preventing the propagation of cracks with
reinforcement in an amount not less than 0.15% of the cross-sectional area of the member. The
second requirement relates to providing a minimum reinforcement for flexural resistance to
prevent brittle failure.
… The cross sectional area of the main axial tensile reinforcement placed in a reinforced
concrete structure shall be determined in accordance with Equation 6.4.1
1) Girder: A
st
≥ 0.005b
w
d (20)
2) Members that are so thin in the direction of action of shear forces that diagonal tensile
reinforcement cannot be placed
A
st
≥ 0.01b
w
d (21)
A
st
: Cross sectional area of the main axial tensile reinforcement
b
w
: Web thickness of the girder
d: Effective height
However if, reinforcement in a girder is placed in an amount of not less than 4/3 times
the required cross sectional area, the provision of 1) need not be referred.
Requirement 2) is referring to slab construction, where no shear reinforcement is provided.
Commentary addresses these specifications with the following:
… a member with very little main axial tensile reinforcement could fail abruptly when
unexpected bending stress occurs. This clause is to prevent sudden failure of concrete
structures. However girders are provided with sufficient main axial reinforcement in
general, so it is not always appropriate to stipulate the minimum amount of steel in terms
of a ratio to the cross-sectional area of the member. Therefore, a separate exceptional
stipulation was established for girders in terms of a ratio to the amount of steel required
by stress calculation or the like.
39
 
For prestressed concrete, minimum reinforcement is not evaluated at the strength limit
state. Minimum reinforcement is only required when tensile stresses (below specified limits) are
expected under service conditions. In these regions, the amount of reinforcement must be
sufficient to balance the tension force equivalent to the respective concrete tension assumed in the
uncracked state. The code further suggests that for unbonded or externally prestressed members,
the live load be increased by 35% to limit cracking that could lead to reduced durability.
The maximum allowed stress in the reinforcement is 26 ksi. Prestressed strand can be
used to serve the same purpose, assuming that the gain in stress between the uncracked and
cracked states is below the allowable limit for mild reinforcement.
The commentary addresses the advantages of using service evaluation of the minimum
reinforcement in-lieu of the strength limit state as:
…calculation of the tension reinforcement is generally easier and moreover, is on the
safer side.
It is further mentioned that prestress members at strength limit states should be evaluated for
extreme events such as collision or earthquake loads.
2.4.6 Leonhardt’s Method
Fritz Leonhardt is one of the fathers of modern prestressed concrete. One of several
classical books he wrote was on fundamentals of design of prestressed concrete, which was
translated from German to English and published in the U.S. in 1964 (Leonhardt, 1964).
Leonhardt provides a method for calculation of minimum flexural reinforcement which is
described below, see Figure 13. The stress in the section just before it cracks is represented. The
stress f
ct
is the tensile capacity in the concrete. As a conservative approximation, a simplified
stress distribution as shown in Figure 13(c) is assumed, whereby the stress is assumed zero at the
centroid of the gross concrete section. According to this approach, the stress resultant F
ct
must be
resisted upon cracking with adequate reinforcement A
ps
.
40
 

Figure 13. Leonhardt’s Minimum Reinforcement Method

The stress in that reinforcement after cracking is assumed to be the incremental stress
from effective prestress f
pe
(existing just before cracking) to the stress f
ps
at ultimate flexure, or
(f
ps
-f
pe
). Thus,
ct w ct
f )
2
h
b
2
1
( F k =
(22)
) f f ( A F
pe ps ps ct
÷ =
(23)
The coefficient
k
is a function of the geometry of the tensioned area of the cross section. It is =1
for rectangular sections where b
w
=b.
The American Segmental Bridge Institute (ASBI) in a submittal to T10 in January of 2007,
proposed to adopt Leonhardt’s method with some modifications as follows:
Revise min. reinforcement formula to:
ct pe ps ps
F 2 . 1 ) f f ( A > ÷
(24)
for prestressed members, and to
ct y s
F 2 . 1 f A >
(25)
for conventionally reinforced members
41
 
For prestressed members with both mild reinforcement and prestressing tendons, an equivalent
prestressing steel area to the available mild reinforcement equal to
) f f /( f A
pe ps y s
÷
may be
assumed to contribute to the min. prestressing reinforcement.
Upper bound tensile strength of concrete =
) ksi ( f 23 . 0
'
c
, or
) psi ( f 3 . 7
'
c
is proposed. This
formula is shown by ASBI, based on research done by members of this team to better represent
tensile strength in large structural members, compared to the current formula which was based
primarily on lab testing of small, shallow specimens with steep stress gradients.
Waive minimum reinforcement requirements for externally (unbonded) post-tensioned members;
this is consistent with a recent decision by ACI 318 for the 2008 Edition.
For members with a combination of internal (bonded) and external (unbonded) tendons use the
majority type of the tendons for min. reinforcement criteria.
For deep members, use the strut and tie method to determine minimum reinforcement.
The elegance of the Leonhardt/ASBI approach is in its simplicity. It eliminates the need for using
effective prestress and cracking moments to determine minimum reinforcement and is similar to
the method specified in the Eurocode. The only complexity is in determining the F
t
value for non-
rectangular tension zones. Using the “tensile area of the section” and assuming it to be defined as
the area on the tension side of the centroidal axis is already an acceptable concept, used in the
shear provisions of AASHTO. This method is somewhat more rigorous than the CEB/FIP method
as it accounts for the type of steel and the tensile strength of the concrete. However, it seems to
ignore the compression side of the moment resistance in a flexural member. It appears to involve
two seemingly offsetting approximations in calculating the cracking resistance and the ultimate
resistance. For the cracking resistance, prestressing is a major effect and the cracking moment
should include the compression stress resultant and the lever arm between that resultant and the
prestressing reinforcement. For the ultimate resistance, the resistance is calculated in a manner
that is similar to the Eurocode (i.e., f
ps
-f
pe
). This is a simple method to obtain a uniform margin of
safety for the minimum reinforcement requirements, without engaging the designer in complex
calculations.
A Technical Advisory Committee was retained by ASBI to review this approach. It
consisted of leaders in the design/research community, including Breen, Combault, Dolan, Ganz,
Goodyear, and Seible. The majority of that committee’s reactions were positive and supportive.
42
 
2.4.7 Modified LRFD Method
To meet the objectives of the research project, the NCHRP 12-80 project team developed a
method for determining minimum reinforcement that is based on the current method specified in
the LRFD specifications. This method, referred to herein as the Modified LRFD Method, is
developed to be suitable for all structure types covered in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications and achieve appropriate and consistent safety. As mentioned previously, the each
component of the minimum reinforcement requirement is factored separately to account for
variability. The method is described as follows:
|M
n
≥ M
fcr
(26)
where M
fcr
is the factored cracking moment calculated as:
(
(
¸
(

¸

|
|
.
|

\
|
÷ ÷ + = 1 ) (
2 1 3
nc
c
dnc c cpe r fcr
S
S
M S f f M ¸ ¸ ¸ (27)
and the requirement can be waived if
u n
M M 33 . 1 > | (28)
where:
f
r
= the flexural cracking stress of concrete taken as 0.24√f'c (ksi).
f
cpe
= compressive stress in concrete due to effective prestress forces only (after
allowance for all prestress losses) at extreme fiber of section where tensile stress
is caused by externally applied loads (ksi).
M
dnc
= total unfactored dead load moment acting on the monolithic or noncomposite
section (k-ft).
S
c
= section modulus for the extreme fiber of the composite section where tensile
stress is caused by externally applied loads (in
3
).
S
nc
= section modulus for the extreme fiber of the monolithic or non-composite section
where tensile stress is caused by externally applied loads (in
3
).
The following factors account for variability in the flexural cracking strength of concrete,
variability of prestress and the ratio of nominal yield stress of reinforcement to ultimate.
¸
1
= flexural cracking variability factor (1.6 for concrete bridge members and 1.2 for
precast segmental structures).
43
 
¸
2
= Prestress variability factor (1.1 for internal [bonded] tendons and 1.0 for external
[un-bonded] tendons).
¸
3
= f
y
/f
u
(0.67 for A615 and 0.75 for A706 Grade 60 Reinforcement). For prestressed
concrete structures, use 1.0.
|= Resistance factor (1.0 for prestressed concrete, 0.9 for non-prestressed and
externally prestressed segmental bridge girders) constant for the purpose of
checking minimum reinforcement.
The true advantage of this method is that the sources of variability in computing the cracking
moment and the resistance are appropriately factored. In the case of the moment resistance the
maximum, or overstrength moment used, is the true measure of whether or not the section is
brittle when subject to force-control loads, as shown in Figure 1. The cracking stress factor is
applied to the modulus of rupture, which has a far greater variability than the amount of prestress
(f
cpe
) at the extreme fiber. This cracking stress factor will account for such things as concrete
strength gain with time and size effects mentioned previously.
The cracking stress factor of is based on providing a high probability that the factored
strength will be greater than actual flexure cracking strength. The value of γ
1
= 1.6 results in a
factored stress of 12.0√f'c (psi) [0.38√f'c (ksi)] that is greater than 2 standard deviations above the
average modulus of rupture (or a 98% probability of not being exceeded), when evaluating non-
moist cured units, as discussed in Section 2.3.2. When considering full-size member data, the
factored stress is 2.9 standard deviations above the mean.
For precast segmental structures, a reduced value of the flexure cracking strength factor is
justified due to the laitance layer effect discussed in Section 2.1. Based on this effect, it is
suggested that 7.5√f'c (psi) [0.24√f'c (ksi)] is an upper bound flexural cracking strength and the
flexural cracking strength factor (γ
1
) should be equal to 1.2 to be consistent with the LRFD
specifications (prior to the 2005 Interim Revisions).
An appropriate factor is applied to the prestress in the concrete (¸
2
) is 1.1 to account for the
possibility of concrete stresses due to prestress being higher than specified. This value appears to
be too conservative for pretensioned members, for which a value of the factor (¸
2
) of 1.05 may be
more appropriate, as discussed in Section 2.3.5. However, post-tensioned structures are subject to
losses due to friction and anchor set. This is especially true for draped tendons in long, cast-in-
place post-tensioned box girder bridge frames. Based on the range of friction coefficients stated
44
 
in Article 5.9.5.2.2 of the LRFD specification, which is from 0.15 to 0.25, the factor (¸
2
) of 1.1 is
appropriate.
External (un-bonded) tendons will remain essentially elastic in precast segmental bridge
girders loaded to the ultimate flexural strength, because the tendons are allowed to stretch along
the entire length after cracking has occurred, as demonstrated in laboratory experiments and
analytical studies (Megally 2003 and Tassin 1997). Based on this observation, the difference in
the tendon stress between its in-service working state and the ultimate state (f
s
– f
pe
) should
remain constant regardless of the initial prestress (f
pe
), within reasonable working limits. If the
prestress losses are underestimated, and the actual prestress is 10% higher than assumed, the
ultimate strength should increase essentially the same amount as the cracking moment, as shown
in Figure 14. Therefore, any unintended increase in prestress cancels out of the minimum
reinforcement check, and the prestress variability factor (γ
2
) should be 1.0 for externally
prestressed concrete bridge girders.

Figure 14. External and internal tendon stress-strain response illustration
Provided that sufficient ductility exists, minimum reinforcement requirements can be waived
for negative bending regions of continuous spans. The reason for this exemption is that negative
bending regions will crack prior to positive regions. As shown in Section 2.1, lightly reinforced
and/or prestressed sections have significant post-cracking strength and ductility. If minimum
flexural reinforcement provisions are met within the peak positive bending regions, the structure
will perform in a ductile manner and collapse will not occur without large warning deflections.
With exception to spans with hinges and cantilevered bridges during construction, negative
bending regions are not critical for minimum reinforcement assuming that adequate ductility in
45
 
the post-cracked state is provided. The LRFD specifications provide guidance on the implied
ductility of concrete members in Article 5.7.3.5. This section specifies the permission of moment
redistribution if the net tensile strain of the extreme tension reinforcement at ultimate exceeds
span then minimum reinforcement provisions need not be checked in the negative bending region.
Minimum reinforcement provisions should not apply to compression-controlled or transition
regions because sections in this category require greater strength with the variable Resistance
Factor (|) to account for reduced ductility, and an additional factor of safety is not required.
Conditions where minimum reinforcement provisions are not satisfied and the net-tensile strain
indicates that the section is over-reinforced are inverted t-beams and heavily prestressed box
girder sections. Under these conditions, it is more logical to add reinforcement to the
compression zone rather than the amount of tension reinforcement that would result in further
reduced ductility.
By specifying minimum reinforcement for tension controlled sections only, there is a lack of
consistency in the application of minimum reinforcement. A section with a slightly lower net
tensile strain ε
t
than is required to be tension controlled may have a slightly reduced | without
having to meet minimum reinforcement requirements. A remedy to this apparent lack of
consistency is to make the | constant regardless of the net tensile strain, as shown in Figure 15.
For all other strength limit states, | is reduced for compression controlled and transition regions.

Figure 15. Graphical representation of variable resistance factor

46
 
2.4.8 Comparison of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement Provisions
A summary of the minimum flexural reinforcing moment provisions are shown in Table
3. These provisions are shown with the pound-per-square-inch (psi) units for direct comparison.
In this table, qualitative remarks regarding applicability and ease-of-use are provided.
It should be noted that the methods investigated as part of this research fall into two
separate categories.
(1) Strength Methods: The LRFD specifications, the CSA, the ACI 318 (prestressed concrete
section) and the Modified LRFD methods are similar in that the minimum reinforcement
is specified by requiring that the flexural strength must be greater than cracking by an
acceptable safety margin. Minimum prestress in these methods are calculated through
trial-and-error.
(2) Prescribed Area Methods: The remaining methods are based on providing minimum
reinforcement and/or prestress that is greater than the cracking strength by an acceptable
safety margin, but the methods are further simplified so the amount of reinforcement
and/or prestress is calculated directly. These methods include Leonhardt, Eurocode, JRA
(Japan), and the reinforced concrete section of ACI code.
In regard to the strength methods, there is a wide variability in the calculation of flexural
cracking strength, which varies from 4.8√f'c (psi), in the CSA (Canadian), to 11.7√f'c (psi), in
the LRFD Specifications.
47
 
Table 3. Minimum flexural reinforcement provisions table
Method Sectional Requirements Flexural Cracking
Strength (psi)
Over-Demand
Requirements
Advantages/
Disadvantages
AASHTO LRFD |M
n
> 1.2M
cr
11.7\f’c |M
n
> 1.33M
u
Universal in application. Highest sectional
requirements. Computation of cracking moment is
complicated. Often controls negative bending.
ACI 318 A
s
> 3\f’
c
/f
y
b
t
d Reinforced

|M
n
>1.2M
cr
Prestress
7.5\f’c |M
n
> 2.0 M
u
For R/C Members – Ease of use. Unconservative
sectional requirements flanges in tension.
Same requirements as the AASHTO LRFD with lower
Modulus-of-rupture (MOR) values.
CSA
(Canadian)
|M
n
> 1.2M
cr
4.8\f’c |M
n
> 1.33M
u
Same as AASHTO LRFD with lower MOR.
CEB – FIP A
s
≥ 0.0015b
t
d (S400 and
S500)
A
s
> 0.0025b
t
d (S200)
N/A N/A Ease of use. May not applicable to bridge girders
with flanges in tension.
JRA A
st
> 0.005b
w
d
A
st
> 0.01b
w
d (slabs)
N/A M
r
> 1.33M
u
Applies to reinforced concrete. Minimum
reinforcement for P/S at service limit state only.
Leonhardt A
s
≥ 1.2F
ct
/f
y
Reinforced

A
s
> 1.2F
ct
/(f
ps
-f
pe
)
Prestressed
7.3\f’c N/A F
ct
is the strength at cracking of the tension zone
assuming a neutral axis depth at the centroid.

Ease of use.
Eurocode A
s
> 0.26 f
cr
/f
y
b
t
d
A
s
> .0013 b
t
d Reinforced
A
s
> M
rep
/(d
e
Ao
p
)
Prestressed
1.58 f'
c

2/3
(f'c ≥ 7,250
psi)
307ln(1+f
cm
/1450)
M
rep
is the cracking strength assuming no prestress.
d
e
is the lever arm to the tension steel.
Ao
p
is the smaller of 0.4 f
pu
and 72.5 ksi.
M
rep
is assumed zero at segmental joints.
Modified LRFD
Method
|M
n
> ¸
3

1
f
r

2
f
cpe
)S
¸
1
= 1.6 Cracking factor
¸
2
= 1.1 Prestress factor
¸
3
= f
y
/f
u
(1.0 prestress)
7.5\f’c |M
n
> 1.33 M
u
Compares ultimate instead of nominal moment
capacity.
Separate load factors for cracking and prestress
components to reduce “chasing your tail” effect.
 
48
CHAPTER 3 INTERPRETATION, APPRAISAL AND APPLICATION
To evaluate the methods of prescribing minimum reinforcement, a parametric study was
performed on four representative minimum reinforcement methods of the eight described in Section 2.4.
The criterion for this evaluation includes reliability, as defined as providing a consistent level-of-safety
for all concrete bridge members covered in the LRFD specifications, economy and ease-of-use, as
described in Section 3.1. Based on this evaluation, recommended changes to the LRFD specifications
are provided, which is the subject of Section 3.2. And to illustrate how the minimum reinforcement is
prescribed using the proposed modifications to the minimum reinforcement requirements, design
examples are presented in Section 3.3.
3.1 PARAMETRIC STUDY OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
Due to budget constraints, not all of the methods investigated in Section 2.4 were evaluated as
part of the parametric study, and only four representative methods were selected. Two of the methods are
considered Strength Methods – notably the LRFD specifications, and the Modified LRFD methods, and
two are Prescriptive Area Methods, including the Leonhardt and Eurocode methods.
For reference purposes, the parametric-study methods are listed in Table 3 and are described below.
- LRFD – AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (4
th
Edition) minimum reinforcement
provisions. While the requirements are simple, the interpretation can be complex, especially in
the negative bending regions of prestressed concrete members. However, the application of the
method is consistent for all types of concrete members and provides the highest level of
resistance in most cases.
- Leonhardt – ASBI proposed minimum reinforcement provisions to AASHTO T10 in January,
2007. Application of this method is relatively simple, and could provide the required safety.
Effects of the concrete member on the compression side of the neutral axis and prestress are not
considered.
- Eurocode – Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures, EN 1992-2-2, 2006. Similar to the
Leonhardt method in the calculation of prestress. Overall section is used to compute the
cracking force, whereas, the section below the neutral axis is used in Leonhardt.
- Modified LRFD – Modified minimum reinforcement provisions to the LRFD specifications,
2009. Developed to provide consistent safety without additional computational complexity that is
 
49
prescribed in the current LRFD specifications. Appropriate factors for flexural cracking and
prestress improve economy and consistency.
The parametric study includes computing the required minimum reinforcement and/or prestress
using the candidate methods, as listed previously on the members listed in the concrete member database.
The database includes both the reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete members. The procedure
used in the parametric study includes the following steps:
Step 1: Compute the required minimum reinforcement and/or prestress using candidate methods:
For each concrete member in the database, the minimum reinforcement methods are applied to find the
minimum area of reinforcement (A
s,min
) or the minimum area of prestress steel (A
ps,min
), as discussed in
Section 3.1.2
Step 2: Compute the theoretical cracking moment (M
cr
):
Based on the computed A
s,min
, or A
ps,min
, M
cr
is calculated using a single theoretical cracking stress, as
discussed in Section 3.1.3. Although M
cr
is the same for reinforced concrete members, prestress concrete
member differ because M
cr
is dependent on the amount of prestress.
Step 3: Compute the nominal moment at overstrength (M
o
):
Using A
s,min
,or A
ps,min
, for each of MFR provisions, M
o
is calculated using strain-compatibility, as
discussed in Section 3.1.3. The significance of M
o
is illustrated in Figure 1.
Step 4: Compare M
o
/M
cr
for each of the candidate provisions.
The M
o
/M
cr
ratio is used to determine how ductile or brittle a member is when subject to flexural loads
(i.e., M
o
/M
cr
< 1 is brittle), and the level of safety provided. Consistency is also compared between
methods for the full range of concrete members.
3.1.1 Concrete Structures Database
The concrete structures database is intended to represent the range of structures commonly used
for construction covered by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge design specifications. Of particular interest is
evaluating parameters that have a significant effect on the minimum flexural reinforcement provisions.
In developing this database of concrete structures, the range of spans, girder types, spacing, and
concrete strengths is based on recommended practice found in the PCI Bridge Design Manual and the
ASBI Segmental Box Girder Standards. Further, DOT guidelines including those from Florida (FDOT,
2008), California (Caltrans, 1998), Nebraska (NDOR, 2008) and Washington State (WSDOT, 2008) were
evaluated.
 
50
Table 4. Concrete member database structural dimension limits
Bridge Types Span – L (ft) Depth/Span Girder Spacing (ft)
No. Min Max Simple Cont Min Max
Cast-in-place Bridges
2 Slab 20 45 0.07L 0.06L
2 Reinforced concrete box 60 120 0.06L 0.055L 6.5 14
2 P/T Slab 40 70 0.03L 0.027L
2 P/T Conc. Box* 80 250 0.045L 0.040L 6 20

Precast Concrete Bridges
2 Slabs 20 50 0.03L 0.03L
2 Double Tees 30 60 0.05L 0.05L 4 4
2 Box beams 50 120 0.033L 0.030L 3 4
2 I-girders 70 200 0.045L 0.040L 6 12
2 U-beams 80 200 0.045L 0.04L 12 26

Segmental Bridges (precast)
2 Span x span 100 150 0.045L 0.040L 28 45
2 Balanced Cantilever ** 100 200 N/A 0.025L 28 45

Concrete Substructure Elements
2 Footings 12 35
2 Cap beams 20 60 0.045L 0.04L
26 Total
*Practical upper limit for prismatic members – haunched members up to 600 ft. **Upper limit noted in ASBI
Standards (ASBI, 2000)
Based on this review Table 4 was developed to capture the range of practical applicability
regarding structure dimensions. By using these guidelines, the structures database captures the upper and
lower bounds of each structure classification.
3.1.1.1 Cast-in-Place Concrete
- Conventionally Reinforced Slab
Conventionally reinforced slab bridges are commonly used for low and relatively short spans.
The California Department of Transportation has fully-designed and detailed slab bridge standards, and
the details for concrete slabs are directly from these standards for span lengths of 16 and 44 feet, the
upper and lower limits provided in Table 5, respectively.
 
51
It should be noted that the Caltrans permits the use of concrete compressive strength of 3,600 psi for
concrete slab bridges.
Table 5. Conventional slab structure dimensions
CRS1 CRS2 Units
No. of spans 2 2
Span length 16.0 44.0 ft.
Depth 10.5 21.5 in.
f'c 3.6 3.6 ksi
- Post-tensioned Slab
Post tensioned concrete slab bridges are typically limited to applications where the permanent structure
depth is limited, and the spans are below 70 feet. The minimum compressive strength is 4,000 psi, as
specified in the LRFD Specifications. The slab bridges parameters listed in Table 6 are selected to cover
the applicable range of application.
Table 6. Post-tensioned slab structure dimensions
CPS1 CPS2 Units
No. of spans 3 3
Span length (max) 40.0 70.0 ft.
Depth 12 24 in.
f'c 4.0 4.0 ksi
- Cast-in-place Box Girder (Caltrans type)
For cast-in-place box girder bridges, Caltrans standards are used to determine the concrete dimensions for
girder spacing and slab thicknesses. The upper and lower bound ranges are shown in the tables. It should
be noted that multiple span bridge will be used to develop design forces for comparison and design of
minimum flexural reinforcement. Symbols used to illustrate the dimensions listed in the Tables 7 and 8
are shown in Figure 16.
 
52
Table 7. Reinforced concrete box girder structure dimensions
BRC1 BRC2 Units
No. of spans 3 3
Span length (max) 60.0 120.0 ft.
Depth 3.2 6.6 ft.
S
G
6.4 13.0 ft.
T
d
7.1 9.5 in.
T
s
6.0 9.3 in.
T
w
8 8 in.
f'
c
3.6 3.6 ksi

Table 8. Prestressed concrete box girder structure dimensions
BPT1 BPT2 Units
No. of spans 3 3
Span length (max) 80 250 ft.
Depth 3.2 10 ft.
S
G
6.4 20 ft.
T
d
7.0 10.1 in.
T
s
6.0 10.1 in.
T
w
12 12 in.
f'
c
4.0 4.0 ksi


Figure 16. Dimension callouts for cast-in-place box girder examples


- Cap Beams
 
53
Cantilever cap-beams tend to be heavily reinforced, and as a result, minimum flexural reinforcement
provisions rarely control. For integral bridges in California, an additional two-foot of width is required to
confine the cap-beam to column joint region. In addition, the flange is also effective prior to cracking, and
should be included in calculating the cracking moment. Therefore, minimum reinforcement requirements
could control the flexural design of cap-beams in this region. Dimensions of the cap-beam studied are
listed in Table 9.
Table 9. Cap beam dimensions
CAP1 CAP2 Units
No. of spans 1 1
Span length (max) 20 40 ft.
Depth 4.0 10.0 ft.
Width 6.0 10.0 ft.
Top flange 7.5 10.0 in.
Bottom flange 12 12 in.
f'
c
4.0 4.0 ksi

- Footings
Minimum flexural reinforcement provisions typically do not control because these elements are never
deepened to meet requirements for architectural purposes. However, footings are covered in the
parametric study and the dimensions for these footings are listed in Table 10.
Table 10. Footing dimensions
F1 F2 Units
Width 14 30 ft.
Depth 5.0 10.0 ft.
Pile/Spread Spread Piles
f'c 4.0 4.0 ksi
3.1.1.2 Precast/Prestressed Concrete
- I-Girder
These bridges represented in this portion of the database are intended to represent the full range of
precast-pretensioned I-Girder bridge spans. Two separate shapes are utilized, and include an AASHTO
beam and an NU Beam.

 
54
Table 11. Precast prestressed I-girder dimensions
PCI1 PCI2 Units
No. of spans 3 3
Span length (max) 70 200 ft.
Girder depth 3.0 8.0 ft.
Girder spacing 6.0 10.0 ft.
Deck thickness 7.5 8.5 in.
f'c girder 5.0 10.0 ksi
f'c deck 4.0 5.5 ksi

- Bathtub, U-Beam
The weight of these units limits the length that can be hauled to the site at about 140 feet. Beyond these
limits, splicing is required either continuously over the cap beam or within each span with post-
tensioning.
Table 12. Precast prestressed U-beam dimensions
PUB1 PUB2 Units
No. of spans 3 3
Span length (max) 80 200 ft.
Girder depth 3.0 8.0 ft.
Girder spacing 10.0 16.0 ft.
Deck thickness 7.0 7.0 in.
f'c girder 7.0 10.0 ksi
f'c deck 4.0 5.5 ksi
- Box-Beam
The box-beam in this application includes a five inch thick pour-in-place topping, which provides a
uniform driving surface and allows for continuity reinforcement to be placed across continuous supports.
This system has been used effectively for bridges with limited temporary and permanent vertical
clearance constraints. However, the section is relatively heavy, which makes this section uneconomic for
longer spans.
 
55
Table 13. Precast prestressed box-beam dimensions
PBB1 PBB2 Units
No. of spans 3 3
Span length (max) 60 120 ft.
Girder depth 27 47 in.
Girder width 48 36 in.
CIP topping 5.0 5.0 in.
f'c girder 5.0 5.0 ksi
f'c deck 4.0 4.0 ksi
- Precast Slabs
Precast prestressed concrete deck slabs are utilized without a cast-in-place concrete topping, and asphalt
is applied to provide the uniform driving surface. It should be noted that the topping can be cast-in-place
concrete and the design procedure, as related to minimum reinforcement provisions would be similar to
the box beam described in this appendix. Design charts for this bridge type are listed in Caltrans, Bridge
Design Aids. (Caltrans, 1989)
Table 14. Precast prestressed slab dimensions
PPS1 PPS2 Units
No. of spans 3 3
Span length (max) 20 48 ft.
Girder depth 12 21.5 in.
Girder width 48 36 in.
f'c girder 4.0 4.0 ksi
3.1.1.3 Segmental Concrete Bridges
The segmental concrete bridge shapes used for this project are from the AASHTO-PCI-ASBI Segmental
Box Girder Standards (ASBI, 2000), and represent the upper and lower bounds of girder dimensions
provided in these standards. Overall dimensions for these sections are listed in Tables 15 and 16.
 
56
Table 15. Span-by-span segmental bridge girder dimensions
SBS1 SBS2 Units
No. of spans 1 1
Span length (max) 100 150 ft.
Girder depth 6.0 8.0 ft.
Girder width 28.0 45.0 ft
f'c girder 7.0 7.0 ksi

Table 16. Balanced cantilever bridge girder dimensions
SBC1 SBC2 Units
No. of spans 3 3
Span length (max) 100 200 ft.
Girder depth 6.0 10.0 ft.
Girder width 28.0 45.0 ft
f'c girder 7.0 7.0 ksi

3.1.2 Minimum Flexural Reinforcement
Minimum flexural reinforcement was calculated using the candidate provisions for all members in the
concrete database. The following is a discussion on the interpretation and assumptions used to determine
the minimum reinforcement. This is particularly true for prestress concrete members because the
cracking moment is directly related to the cracking moment and the post-cracking resistance.
3.1.2.1 Reinforced Concrete Members
In reinforced concrete members, MFR is calculated directly without iteration for all of the candidate
provisions. For rectangular beams and slabs, the calculations can be simplified for direct comparison.
This comparison is illustrated in Figure 16.
In developing this figure, the following assumptions were made:
1. The section is rectangular with A615 Grade 60 reinforcement.
2. The effective depth d is assumed to be 0.9H, where H is the overall depth of the member.
3. In calculating the moment capacity (|M
n
= |A
s
f
y
(d-a/2)), a/2 is equal to 0.05d.
4. The strength reduction factor | = 0.9. It should be noted that the Eurocode does not include a
resistance factor. Instead, the material strengths are factored.
 
57
5. For the Modified LRFD method, the ratio of the maximum strength to the nominal strength
M
o
/M
n
= f
u
/f
y
= 1/γ
3
= 1.5.
As shown in Figure 17, the Modified and Eurocode methods provide essentially equivalent levels of
reinforcement. However, the two methods diverge beyond f'c = 12 ksi. Also, the form of the equation
for minimum reinforcement is essentially the same for all with exception to the Eurocode because of the
different relation for the cracking stress. With these simplifying assumptions, Table 19 compares the
methods directly.

Figure 17. Minimum reinforcement requirements for rectangular reinforced concrete members
For non-rectangular sections, these simplifying assumptions are no longer valid because each
method requires a different approach. Both the LRFD and the Modified LRFD provisions are based on
calculating the cracking stress using the section modulus of the entire section. In the Leonhardt method,
an equivalent cracking force of the section below the neutral axis is resisted by reinforcement. For
members with flanges in tension, this is easily calculated by computing the average stress in flange and in
the web and multiplying this by the respective area. The Eurocode has a similar approach to the
Leonhardt minimum reinforcement provisions, where minimum reinforcement is based on the area of
concrete below the neutral axis. However, Eurocode minimum reinforcement provisions further simplify
the design computation by specifying uniform stress over this area.
 
58
Table 17. Minimum reinforcement ratios for rectangular reinforced concrete sections
Method µ
(min)
f
y
/\f'
c

LRFD 3.38
Leonhardt 2.43
Modified 1.88

3.1.2.2 Prestressed Concrete Members
The difficulty in calculating minimum reinforcement provisions for prestress sections is that the
cracking moment and the subsequent post-cracking resistance for the LRFD and Modified methods are
dependent on the amount of prestress. Therefore, these MFR methods require iteration.
The following assumptions were used to calculate MFR for all methods.
1. The cracking moment includes the use of composite, transformed section properties and a
cracking stress of 7.5\f'c (psi).
2. The cracking moment and minimum prestress was determined based on iteration with an assumed
prestress loss of 30 ksi to account for anchor set, friction, and long-term prestress losses.
3. For composite sections, an assumed non-composite moment of zero was used. Since the
parametric study is intended to represent a wide range of prestressed sections, the zero moment
assumption is considered conservative.
4. Nominal moment at overstrength M
o
includes strain hardening of the reinforcement
corresponding to either rupture of the prestress strand (c
su
= 0.04), or a peak compressive strain of
0.003.
5. Sections were analyzed under positive bending only, since negative bending regions will crack
prior to positive bending regions in most continuous spans, which allows for redistribution of
load. With exception to spans with hinges and cantilevered bridges during construction, negative
bending regions are not critical for minimum reinforcement.
6. Compression-controlled or transition sections are not considered as part of this study. Examples
of sections that are compression-controlled and do not meet the minimum reinforcement
requirements are negative bending regions of continually prestressed bridges with relatively wide
top flanges. Sections in this category require greater strength with the variable Resistance Factor
(|) to account for reduced ductility. Therefore, an additional factor-of-safety is not required.
 
59
7. For the Modified provisions, the minimum reinforcement is calculated based on the following: ¸
1

= 1.6 (assuming that f
cr
= 7.5\f'
c
(psi) for the cracking stress) and ¸
1
= 1.1 for the effective
prestressing. Development of these factors is presented in Section 2.4.7.
3.1.2.2.1 Internal (Bonded) Prestress Concrete Members
The iterative process of calculating MFR is illustrated in Figure 18, for one web and contributory
flange of a cast-in-place post-tensioned box girder structure with bonded tendons. In this diagram, the
moment capacity |M
n
is plotted with the required flexural strength using the LRFD and the Modified
methods as a function of the area of prestress strand A
ps
. The minimum reinforcement is found at the
intersection of the moment capacity curve and the required respective strength. As shown, the LRFD and
Modified methods appear to be similar. However, the amount of minimum reinforcement using the
Modified procedure (2.7 sq. in.) is substantially less than the LRFD procedure (4.2 sq. in).
It should be noted that both the Leonhardt and Eurocode procedures do not require iteration.
Both methods compare the reserve strength (f
su
– f
ps
)A
ps
in the tendon to the cracking strength of the
concrete without prestress. Therefore, the calculations are simplified, and the concern over lack-of-
convergence is eliminated.

Figure 18. Minimum reinforcement provisions for a prestressed concrete box girder BPT1
 
60
3.1.2.2.2 (External) Unbonded Prestress Concrete Members
Sections SBS1 and SBS2 feature unbonded tendons, and the moment capacity is based on the
AASHTO equations for tendon prestress at ultimate. Since the unbonded tendon stress cannot be
determined from a section analysis, either detailed finite-element analysis, or approximate code equations
are required. It has been shown that the AASHTO LRFD equations can adequately approximate the
tendon stress at ultimate. Therefore, these equations were used in calculating minimum reinforcement.
As shown in Figure 19, the moment capacity does not intersect the 1.2 M
cr
line (as required by the
LRFD minimum reinforcement provisions), making it impossible to satisfy without the addition of
bonded reinforcement. The capacity line crosses the strength requirements for the Modified procedure.
However, the required strength is not exceeded by a significant margin, which indicates convergence may
not be found on other members. Based on a low probability of achieving cracking strengths exceeding
7.5 \f'c (psi) at segment joints, a reduced ¸
1
= 1.2, as discussed in Section 2.4.7 for precast segmental
members, is justified.

Figure 19. Minimum reinforcement provisions for an unbonded prestressed concrete box girder SBS1
For the Leonhardt method, the amount of prestress is calculated directly, and the strength at
ultimate of the tendon is calculated using the AASHTO LRFD equations. The total area of reinforcement
is less than half required using the Modified procedure. For comparison purposes, the theoretical
cracking moment is plotted in Figure 19, assuming a cracking strength of 7.5 \f'c (psi).
 
61
3.1.3 Cracking Moment (M
cr
)
The cracking moment M
cr
is based on the computed minimum amount of reinforcement (or
prestress) and the cracking stress of 7.5\f’c (psi). Flexural cracking stress is related to the compressive
strength to the one-half power, and the member depth. Figure 9 shows the member flexural strength as a
function of member depth based on test results of a wide range of concrete member sizes. As shown in
this plot, the assumptions in the Modified and LRFD methods are conservative, especially for members
exceeding 3 ft in depth. Introducing another variable as part of the minimum reinforcement calculations is
feasible. However, considering the limited number of data points and wide scatter of measured cracking
strengths of large-scale specimen, including depth as an additional variable is not justified. In addition to
those stated previously in determining the minimum flexural reinforcement, prestress losses of 30 ksi
includes all long term and instantaneous losses.
3.1.4 Nominal Moment at Overstrength (M
o
)
With minimum amount of reinforcement or prestress, a strain compatibility analysis was
performed to evaluate the flexural strength of the concrete member. This analysis was used in-lieu of
code equations because the strength is evaluated with the effects of strain hardening. The moment-
curvature analysis using strain compatibility was performed using the analysis program “Response 2000”
(Bentz, 2005). The moment corresponding to a peak compressive strain of 0.003, or a peak reinforcement
strain of 0.15 is M
o
for reinforced concrete members. For bonded prestressed concrete, M
o
is the moment
corresponding to a peak concrete compressive strain of 0.003, or a tension strain in the prestress tendon of
0.04. The M
o
for unbonded members corresponds to the tendon force prescribed in the AASHTO LRFD.
3.1.5 Parametric Study Results
The data and calculations developed as part of the parametric study are listed in Appendix A.
This includes a ratio of M
o
/M
cr
, which is an indicator of the level of safety provided by each of the
methods for each concrete member. A description of the data in the tables is defined under the following
headings:
- Section - concrete structure from the database listed in the interim report
- Method - candidate MFR provision
- Required Area of Steel - area of flexural reinforcement required to meet the respective MFR
provision
- M
cr
- theoretical cracking moment based on an assumed cracking stress of 7.5\f'c (psi)
 
62
- M
o
– nominal moment at overstrength including the effects of strain hardening, as illustrated in
Figure 1.
- M
o
/M
cr
- ratio of the nominal moment at overstrength to the cracking moment
This last term is the effective factor of safety or brittleness ratio. This brittleness ratio allows for
evaluation of the minimum reinforcement methods regarding safety, ease-of-use and economy. The
average brittleness ratio (M
o
/M
cr
) results of the 26 concrete members evaluated are plotted in Figure 20.
Assuming normal distribution, the Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation (COV), which is the
ratio of the standard deviation and the average values, are presented in Table 20.

Figure 20. Parametric Study Mo/Mcr Ratios

Reinforced concrete members (total 8) and prestressed concrete members (total 18) are separated
in Table 18 to show the variation within each classification. The LRFD method has the highest average
M
o
/M
n
ratio of all the candidate provisions. Within each of the two categories, there is relatively low
variation in the results. Most of the variation is a result of the definition of the ultimate strength between
prestressed and reinforced concrete, as illustrated in Figure 20. For lightly reinforced concrete members,
the ultimate strength of the reinforcement can be achieved prior to reaching the crushing strength of the
concrete. Therefore, unless the section is an inverted tee, substantial reserve strength exists in reinforced
concrete. By contrast, the nominal strength is by definition based on the tendon strength at ultimate in
 
63
prestressed concrete members. Therefore, no reserve strength is available beyond the nominal capacity.
In this regard, the LRFD method does not provide a consistent level of safety.
Table 18. Combined brittleness ratio M
o
/M
cr
statistical results

LRFD Leonhardt Eurocode Modified
Reinforced Concrete
Average 2.67 2.02 1.31 1.60
Standard Deviation 0.09 0.15 0.31 0.04
COV 0.03 0.07 0.23 0.02
Prestressed Concrete*
Average 1.33 1.18 1.17 1.24
Standard Deviation 0.03 0.11 0.10 0.05
COV 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.04
Combined*
Average 1.82 1.49 1.23 1.37
Standard Deviation 0.66 0.43 0.20 0.18
COV 0.36 0.29 0.17 0.13
*Excludes Segmental Data
The results listed in Table 18, reveal similar results for the Leonhardt and Eurocode methods.
This similarity indicates that the differences in reserve safety provided by the nominal strength of
reinforcement have been taken into account. While the Eurocode provides separate methods for
prestressed and reinforced concrete members, the method is unconservative for box girder sections. The
Modified LRFD method provides a unified approach with the most consistent level of safety of all
methods investigated. Data from precast segmental girders is excluded from the statistical analysis
because, Eurocode does not require minimum reinforcement for this type of girder, and the convergence
was not obtained for the provisions specified in the LRFD specifications.
3.1.6 Recommendations
Based on the results of the parametric study and related documentation, it is recommended to
change the minimum reinforcement provisions in the LRFD specifications to the Modified LRFD
method, as discussed in Section 2.4.7, and in following section. This change is recommended because the
Modified LRFD method provides a consistent level of safety for all components in the database of
concrete structures. This consistency is largely due to the recognition that the maximum strength
including the effects of strain hardening should be considered when evaluating minimum reinforcement.
Also, each component of the minimum reinforcement evaluation is factored appropriately, resulting in
uniform reliability in achieving resistance against brittle failure. Finally, the Modified LRFD method
 
64
offers economy, where compression-controlled and transition-region sections are not subject to minimum
reinforcement requirements.
3.2 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO LRFD SPECIFICATIONS
The following are the changes the project team recommends regarding minimum flexural
reinforcement provisions in the LRFD specifications. As shown, the recommended code changes are
presented first, and then, changes to the commentary are provided.
Deletions are shown as a single strikethrough.
Additions are shown as underlined.
LRFD - 5.4.2.6 Modulus of Rupture
Unless determined by physical tests, the modulus of rupture, f
r
, in ksi, for specified concrete
strengths up to 15.0 ksi, may be taken as:
- For normal weight concrete: 0.24\f'c
o When used to calculate the cracking moment of a member in Articles 5.7.3.4 and 5.7.3.6.2
0.24\f'c
o When used to calculate the cracking moment of a member in Article 5.7.3.3.2
0.37\f'c
- For lightweight concrete:
o For sand-lightweight concrete 0.20\f'c
o For all lightweight concrete 0.17\f'c
When physical tests are used to determine modulus of rupture, the tests shall be performed in accordance
with AASHTO T97 and shall be performed on concrete using the same proportions and materials as
specified for the structure.
LRFD - C5.4.2.6
Data show that most modulus of rupture are between 0.24\f'c and 0.37\f'c (ACI 1992, Walker and Bloem
1960; Khan, Cook and Mitchell 1996). It is appropriate to use the lower bound when considering service
load cracking. The purpose of the minimum reinforcement in Article 5.7.3.3.2 is to assure that the
nominal moment capacity of the member is at least 20 percent greater than the cracking moment. Since
 
65
the actual modulus of rupture could be as much as 50% greater than 0.24\f'c, the 20 percent margin of
safety could be lost. Using an upper bound is more appropriate in this situation.
Most modulus of rupture test data on normal weight concrete is between 0.24\f'c and 0.37\f'c (ksi)
(Walker and Bloem 1960; Khan, Cook and Mitchell 1996). A value of 0.37√f'c has been recommended
for the prediction of the tensile strength of high-strength concrete (ACI 1992). However, the modulus of
rupture is sensitive to curing methods, and nearly all of the test units in the dataset mentioned previously
were moist cured until testing. Carrasquillo, et al. (1981), noted a 26-percent reduction in the 28-day
modulus of rupture if high strength units were allowed to dry after 7-days of moist curing over units that
were moist cured until testing.
The flexural cracking stress of concrete members has been shown to significantly reduce with increasing
member depth. Shioya, et al. (1989) observed that the flexural cracking strength is proportional to H
-0.25
,
where H is the overall depth of the flexural member. Based on this observation, a 36.0 in. deep girder
should achieve a flexural cracking stress that is 36 percent lower than a 6.0 in. deep modulus of rupture
test specimen.
Since modulus of rupture units are either 4 or 6 inches deep and moist cured up to the time of testing, the
modulus of rupture should be significantly greater than the flexural cracking strength of an average size
bridge member composed of the same concrete. Therefore, 0.24\f'c is appropriate for checking
minimum reinforcement in Section 5.7.3.3.2.
The properties of higher strength concretes are particularly sensitive to the constitutive materials. If test
results are to be used in design, it is imperative that tests be made using concrete with not only the same
mix proportions, but also the same materials as the concrete used in the structure.
The given values may be unconservative for tensile cracking caused by restrained shrinkage, anchor zone
splitting and other tensile forces caused by effects other than flexure. The direct tensile strength stress
should be used for these cases.
LRFD - 5.7.3.3.2 Minimum Reinforcement
Unless otherwise specified, at any section of a flexural component, the amount of prestressed and non-
prestressed tensile reinforcement shall be adequate to develop a factored flexural resistance, at least equal
to the lesser of
- The factored cracking moment 1.2 times the cracking moment, M
fcr
, determined on the basis of
elastic stress distribution and the modulus of rupture, f
r
, of the concrete specified in Article
5.4.2.6, where M
fcr
may be taken as:
 
66
r c
nc
c
dnc cpe r c cr
f S
S
S
M f f S M >
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷ ÷ + = 1 ) (
(5.7.3.3.2-1)
(
¸
(

¸

|
|
.
|

\
|
÷ ÷ + = 1 ) (
2 1 3
nc
c
dnc c cpe r fcr
S
S
M S f f M ¸ ¸ ¸ (5.7.3.3.2-1)
where:
f
r
= modulus of rupture of concrete specified in Article 5.4.2.6.
f
cpe
= compressive stress in concrete due to effective prestress forces only (after allowance for
all prestress losses) at extreme fiber of section where tensile stress is caused by externally
applied loads (ksi).
M
dnc
= total unfactored dead load moment acting on the monolithic or noncomposite section (k-
ft) (k-in).
S
c
= section modulus for the extreme fiber of the composite section where tensile stress is
caused by externally applied loads (in
3
).
S
nc
= section modulus for the extreme fiber of the monolithic or non-composite section where
tensile stress is caused by externally applied loads (in
3
).
Appropriate values for M
dnc
and S
nc
shall be used for any intermediate composite sections. Where
the beams are designated for the monolithic or noncomposite section to resist all loads, substitute
S
nc
for S
c
in the above equation for the calculation of M
cr
.
The following factors account for variability in the flexural cracking strength of concrete,
variability of prestress and the ratio of nominal yield stress of reinforcement to ultimate:
¸
1
= 1.6 accounts for the variability of concrete flexure cracking, which can be reduced to 1.2
for precast segmental structures.
¸
2
= 1.1 accounts for the variability of prestress losses.
¸
3
= f
y
/f
u
(0.67 for A615 Grade 60 and 0.75 for A706 Grade 60 reinforcement). For
prestressed concrete structures, use 1.0.
| = 1.0 for prestress concrete and 0.9 for non-prestressed concrete regardless of net tensile
strain for the purpose of specifying minimum reinforcement.
 
67
- 1.33 times the factored moment required by the applicable strength load combinations specified
in Table 3.4.1-1.
The provisions for Article 5.10.8 shall apply.
If adequate ductility is provided in continuous spans to allow for moment redistribution per Article
5.7.3.5, then minimum reinforcement provisions of this article need not apply for negative bending.
LRFD - C5.7.3.3.2
Minimum reinforcement provisions are intended to reduce the probability of brittle failure, by providing
flexural capacity greater than the cracking moment. Testing of a large number of lightly reinforced and
prestressed concrete members at the University of Illinois demonstrated that significant inelastic
displacements can be achieved, and none of the beams tested failed without large warning deflections
(Freyermuth & Aalami 1997). If these experiments were conducted in load control, a number of
specimens would have failed without warning because the ultimate strength (including the effects of
strain hardening) was less than the cracking strength. Based on this observation, the ultimate strength
should be used instead of the nominal strength as a true measure of brittle response. The ratio of steel
stress at yield to ultimate (¸
3
) sufficiently approximates the nominal to ultimate strength for lightly
reinforced concrete members. Since the ultimate strength of a prestress tendon is utilized in the
calculation of flexural capacity, γ
3
= 1.0 for internally prestressed concrete members.
The sources of variability in computing the cracking moment and resistance are appropriately factored
(Holombo and Tadros, 2009). The factor applied to the modulus of rupture (¸
1
) is greater than the factor
applied to the amount of prestress (¸
2
) to account for greater variability.
For precast segmental construction, cracking generally starts at the segment joints. Research at the
University of California, San Diego has shown that flexure cracks occur adjacent to the epoxy-bonded
match-cast face, where the accumulation of fines reduces the tensile strength (Megally et al., 2003).
Based on this observation, a reduced ¸
1
factor of 1.2 is justified. Experimental and analytical studies have
shown external prestress tendons are essentially elastic at the ultimate limit state (Tassin & Dodson 1997).
Therefore, an increase in prestress and associated cracking moment is offset by a corresponding increase
in post-cracking strength. Since the variability of prestress essentially has no effect on minimum
reinforcement, γ
2
can be reduced to 1.0 for prestress concrete members with external tendons.
Indeterminate structures typically have redundancy and ductility, inherent to lightly-reinforced concrete
members, which allows redistribution of moments. Both the AASHTO LRFD and ACI 318 (2008)
require a 50% increase in tension-controlled strain limit from 0.005 to 0.0075 in order to redistribute
 
68
negative moments. Increasing the quantity of reinforcement to meet minimum reinforcement provisions
can adversely affect this ductility. Minimum reinforcement provisions should be confined to positive
bending regions if adequate ductility is demonstrated in the negative bending regions.
Specifying minimum reinforcement and reducing the resistance factor (|) for sections that do not
qualify as tensioned controlled, as defined in Section 5.5.4.2, accomplish the same objective, that is to
provide additional strength to reduce the probability of brittle failure. Examples of sections that could be
compression controlled and do not meet minimum reinforcement requirements include negative bending
regions of continually prestressed bridges with relatively wide top flanges and inverted T beams.
Applying minimum reinforcement provisions to compression-controlled or transition regions is redundant
because additional strength is already required for the same deficiency of reduced ductility. Under these
conditions, it is more logical to add reinforcement to the compression zone rather than it is to increase the
amount tension reinforcement that would result in further reduced ductility.
3.3 DESIGN EXAMPLES
The design examples are intended to illustrate the use of minimum reinforcement provisions on
common bridge types that are encountered in practice where minimum flexural reinforcement should be
the controlling effect in the flexural design. This is commonly the case for multi-span bridges with widely
varying span lengths, where the depth of the bridge is constant for the full length. With exception to the
span-by-span segmental bridge example, all bridges have some form of continuity, which has been a
particular challenge for design engineers to implement minimum flexural reinforcement provisions.
The following is a brief description of the design examples to be developed using the
recommended minimum reinforcement provisions developed as part of the research.
3.3.1 Multi-Span Precast Concrete Girder Made Continuous with Composite Deck
This is one of the most common types of structures used for freeway bridges and overpasses. This
three-span precast/prestressed girder example features a single long span in the middle along with two
short side spans, as shown in Figure 21 and is the subject of Example B-1. A uniform depth is used to
reduce set-up costs and improve aesthetics. It is intended that the side spans are short enough so the
minimum flexural provisions control the design in the positive bending regions.
Seventy-two inch bulb-tee girders are featured in this example since the bottom flange tends to be
relatively narrow, thus limiting the amount of rotational ductility that can be sustained in the negative
bending region. Strength limit states were checked at 10
th
points within each span in addition to
minimum reinforcement provisions using the Modified LRFD method.
 
69
Minimum reinforcement controls the number of prestress strands at the point of maximum
positive moment in the side spans. It should be noted that it is not necessary to increase the jacking force,
and thus the cracking moment. In the negative bending region the net tensile strain exceeds 0.0075, and
the minimum reinforcement check is not required. However, the amount of reinforcement provided must
satisfy the flexural strength limit states at that section.

Figure 21. Precast concrete girder made continuous with composite deck example details
3.3.2 Cast-in-Place Concrete Box Girder
A three-span cast-in-place concrete box girder bridge that is commonly built in California and Nevada is
the subject of this design example. As with the first example, the side spans are far shorter than the end
spans while the depth of the bridge is constant along the entire length, as shown in Figure 22. Because
the bridge is monolithic, the bridge resists all loading continuously including any prestress forces. All
prestress consists of continuous post-tensioning that runs full length of the bridge. To control camber and
reduce friction losses, the post-tensioning tendon midspan eccentricity is reduced in the shorter spans
were flexural demands are reduced.
For this type of structure, it is more economical to design the post-tensioning cables for service loads, and
add mild reinforcement in localized areas as needed to resist strength limit state loads including minimum
 
70
reinforcement provisions (Caltrans, 1989). It is anticipated that minimum flexural reinforcement will
control the design of this mild reinforcement in these side spans.
The bridge is 42.0 ft wide and 6.5 ft deep. The girders are spaced at 11.0 ft on center and are flared from
12 in. to 18 in. at the abutments and the bents. The soffit is flared to 12 in. at the bents. The columns are
circular with a diameter of 6.0 ft. Caltrans has amended the LRFD specifications, so the allowable tension
stress is limited to zero tension under permanent loads and 0.19√f'c (ksi) under the sum of the permanent
and live loads. The jacking force is designed under the Service III limit state and is estimated with the
software CT Bridge to be 6,200 kips.

Figure 22. Cast-in-place box girder example details
Minimum flexural moments, Strength I moments, and nominal moment capacities (including the capacity
of the post-tensioning tendons only) are plotted in Appendix B. The minimum flexural reinforcement is
the controlling load case in Span 1 with the 1.33Mu controlling in the positive bending region. In the
negative bending region, the net tensile strain is 0.015, which exceeds the requirement for redistribution.
It should be noted that the negative bending capacity should be greater than the Strength limit states
assuming full continuity.
 
71
3.3.3 Span-by-Span Segmental Bridge with External Tendons
A two-span precast segmental bridge is the subject of this design example. The bridge is built
using the span-by-span construction method. The bridge chosen for this example is part of the I-4/Lee
Roy Selmon Expressway in Tampa, FL. Each of the two spans in this bridge is simply supported. Only
Span 2 of this bridge is the subject of this example. This represents a relatively large depth-to-span ratio
bridge in which the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement could control the design. For Span 2,
the cross section consists of a single-cell box section with long overhangs as shown in Figure 23. The
length of this span is approximately 115'-6" and the bridge is prestressed by means of external unbonded
tendons.
For precast segmental bridges with no bonded reinforcement or bonded tendons crossing the
joints, no tensile stresses are allowed at all segment-to-segment joints under service loads. Longitudinal
analysis and design of this bridge included concrete stresses under service loads, flexural capacity, shear
capacity, principal stresses in the box girder webs and minimum flexural reinforcement requirements.
Except for the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement, design is satisfactory with the use of four
external tendons on each side of the box section; three of these tendons are composed of 19-0.6" |
strands, and the fourth tendon is composed of 15-0.6" | strands. Thus, the total number of external
unbonded strands in this bridge is 144-0.6" | strands.
Figure 24 shows the bending moments along the length of the single span bridge (Span 2). The
figure shows the minimum design moments due to cracking according to the current LRFD specifications
and based on the proposed method (Modified LRFD). It is clear that the proposed provisions significantly
reduce the minimum required design per the LRFD specifications. The figure also indicates in the middle
third of the span length, the 1.33M
u
controls over the 1.20M
cr
(AASHTO LRFD Specifications) or the
cracking moment based on the proposed modified LRFD method. Thus, 1.33M
u
controls the MFR in this
case. Figure 24 also shows the factored flexural moment capacity, which is higher than the ultimate
moment, M
u
, at all sections. However, in the middle 80 ft of the span length, the minimum flexural
reinforcement requirement is not satisfied and the prestressing is controlled by the minimum
reinforcement requirement. It should be noted that depth of the box girder is 9 ft, whereas the span length
is about 115 ft only. Thus, the superstructure is relatively deep, which results in flexural design controlled
by minimum reinforcement requirements. To satisfy minimum reinforcement, as specified in the
Modified LRFD method, a total of 160 strands are required, in contrast to the 144 strands required to
satisfy all other strength limit states.
 
72

Figure 23. Span-by-span precast segmental bridge example details

Analysis of this bridge was done using LARSA 4D. Construction stages and time-dependent effects were
considered in the analysis. Hand calculations for the midspan section at of the bridge are included in
Appendix B.
 
73

Figure 24. Span-by-span precast segmental bridge strength moment profiles
3.3.4 Balanced Cantilever Bridge with Internal Tendons
A four-span precast segmental bridge using the cantilever construction method is the subject of
this design example. It is part of the I-4/Lee Roy Selmon Expressway in Tampa, FL. Elevation view of
the bridge is shown in Figure 25. The approximate lengths of spans are 147'-3", 186'-1", 186'-9" and 145'-
6" for Spans 1 through 4, respectively, with a total bridge length of 665'-7". The cross section consists of
the single-cell box section shown in Figure 25. The deck width is 30'-1" and is constant along the entire
length of the bridge.
For precast segmental bridges, no tensile stresses are allowed at all segment-to-segment joints
under service loads. Longitudinal analysis and design of this bridge included concrete stresses under
service loads, flexural capacity, shear capacity, principal stresses in the box girder webs and minimum
flexural reinforcement requirements. At the first segment-to-segment joint next to Pier 8-3 in Span 4
(most critical section for negative moment), there are a total of 254-0.6" | internal (bonded) strands and
114-0.6" | unbonded strands (external tendons). In the positive moment region in Span 4 (most critical
section for positive moment), the only prestressing is provided by the continuity external tendons and
total number of strands is 114.
 
74

Figure 25. Balanced cantilever precast segmental bridge example details
The bridge is almost symmetric about centerline of Pier 8-3. Moment demand and capacity profiles are
shown in Appendix B. These profiles show the factored cracking moments according to the current
AASHTO LRFD Specifications and based on the proposed (Modified LRFD) method. It is clear that the
 
75
proposed provisions considerably reduce the minimum required design moments (MFR). In this example,
the conditions for minimum reinforcement have not been met. Therefore, negative bending regions are
required to meet minimum reinforcement requirements. 1.33M
u
controls over the 1.20M
cr

(AASHTOLRFD Specifications) or the cracking moment based on the proposed Modified LRFD method.
Analysis of this bridge was done using LARSA 4D. Construction stages and time-dependent effects were
considered in the analysis. Calculations for the section at first segment-to-segment joint in Span 4 (joint
at Pier 8-4) as well as maximum positive moments are shown in detail in Appendix B.
3.3.5 Cap Beam
The cap beam selected for this example is typical for precast and steel girder type bridges, as shown in
Figure 26. Rectangular in cross-section, the cantilever portions of the cap are tapered. The center span is
approximately twice the length of the cantilevers.
Based on the design configuration, 1.33M
u
controls the center span, while the cantilever spans are
controlled by the Modified LRFD cracking moment demands. Moment demands and capacities are
plotted in Appendix B.
 
76

Figure 26. Concrete cap beam example details




 
77
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH

4.1 CONCLUSIONS
Recommended revisions to the LRFD specifications and commentary are proposed for the
rational design of minimum reinforcement to prevent brittle failure of concrete members. These revisions
are based on the research provided in this report including the observed response of lightly reinforced and
prestressed concrete members, and review of methods specified in US and international codes. A
parametric study conducted on four representative methods of determining minimum reinforcement
demonstrates that recommended revisions provide an appropriate and a consistent level of safety for all
structure types and materials covered by the specifications.
4.1.1 Conclusions on the Observed Response of Lightly Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete
Members
Based on the observed response of lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members, the
following conclusions are made:
1. Lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members can develop the full nominal moment after
cracking has occurred. Beams tested at the University of Illinois included reinforced concrete,
prestressed concrete and externally prestressed concrete members suggest that the full nominal
moment capacity is developed after cracking has occurred. An exception could be inverted t-
beam structures with relatively wide bottom flanges that can be categorized as both over-
reinforced and under-reinforced.
2. Lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members exhibit ductile response when subject to
displacement-controlled load regimes. In the post-cracked state, the neutral axis is relatively
close to the extreme compression fiber, and, therefore, significant inelastic rotation is required
before crushing strains develop. Although a single crack implies large inelastic strains in the
reinforcement, these strains spread into the concrete member adjacent to the crack through
localized debonding, also referred to as strain penetration.
3. Flexural cracking strength of the concrete is dependent on many variables including, curing
methods, aggregates, compressive strength and the overall member size. Modulus of rupture of
high strength concrete units is shown to be particularly sensitive to curing methods.
 
78
4. Modulus-of-rupture test units are 4 to 6 inches deep and moist cured until testing. Since curing
has a significant influence on the cracking strength of concrete, and it has been repeatedly shown
that the deep members crack at a lower stress than their small-scale counterparts, modulus of
rupture is an inaccurate representation of the flexural cracking strength of concrete members.
5. Precast segmental bridges exhibit lower flexural cracking strength than conventional concrete
structures, as discussed in Section 2.1. Flexural cracks in these structures are typically initiated
immediately adjacent to the match-cast joint where an accumulation of fines and course aggregate
reduce the tensile strength.
6. Reinforcement of lightly reinforced concrete members typically exhibit strains well into the strain
hardening region and the maximum strength is defined by the ultimate strength rather than yield.
4.1.2 Conclusions on the Review of US and International Practice
Based on the review of US and International practice of specifying minimum reinforcement, the
following conclusions are made:
The practice of specifying minimum reinforcement and prestress in concrete members fall into two
separate categories.
1. Strength Methods: The LRFD specifications, the CSA, the ACI 318 (prestressed concrete section)
and the Modified LRFD methods are similar in that the minimum reinforcement is specified by
requiring that the flexural strength must be greater by an acceptable safety margin. Minimum
prestress in these methods are calculated through trial-and-error.
2. Prescribed Area Methods: The remainder of the methods are based on providing minimum
reinforcement and/or prestress that is greater than the cracking strength by an acceptable safety
margin, but the methods are further simplified so the amount of reinforcement and or prestressed
is calculated directly. These methods include Leonhardt, Eurocode, JRA (Japan), and the
reinforced concrete section of ACI 318.
The variation in the amount of reinforcement specified is considerable. For the strength methods,
the flexural cracking strength varies from 0.15√f'c in the CSA (Canadian) code to 0.37√f'c in the LRFD
specifications. For prestressed concrete members, there is considerable variation in approaches from not
evaluating minimum reinforcement at the strength-limit-state in the JRA (Japan) code to the trial-and-
error methods implied in the ACI and LRFD specifications.
 
79
4.1.3 Conclusions on the Parametric Study
Of the four methods evaluated as part of this study two can be considered Strength methods and
the other two are Prescribed Area methods. These methods are based on providing nominal strength in
excess, by an acceptable margin, of the flexural cracking strength. In Prescribed Area methods, minimum
reinforcement is calculated based on simplified equations, as required to meet this basic approach. Based
on the parametric study, it has been shown that the Modified LRFD method provides the most consistent
level of safety provided for all concrete members in the database. This is largely due to the recognition
that the ultimate strength of the member, including the effects of strain hardening, is a true measure of
whether or not the section is ductile. Further, the method provides for economic design, and its
complexity is similar to the requirements currently prescribed in the LRFD specifications.
4.2 SUGGESTED RESEARCH
Minimum reinforcement provisions recommended in this report specify minimum levels of
flexural strength in the post-cracked state to exceed the cracking strength by an appropriate safety margin.
It has been shown that full-size members exhibit cracking strengths far below small-scale modulus-of-
rupture specimens. However, test data on large-scale flexural members is limited because the flexural
cracking strength is typically not the primary focus in laboratory experiments, and the data is highly
variable. Testing on both large and small-scale lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete units made
from identical concrete mixes could be beneficial to provide further data on influence of size on the
flexural cracking strength of concrete members. Further, testing of segmental bridge girders with
external prestressing could provide additional data on the strength and ductility of externally prestressed
sections and the cracking stress in the concrete layer adjacent to the match-cast joint.
A general lack of understanding on the behavior of lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete
members could be the reason for the wide variation in the amounts of minimum reinforcement prescribed
in practice. Presentations on behavior of concrete members with relatively small reinforcement content
given through future technology transfer seminars may be useful in reducing this lack of understanding.

 
80
REFERENCES
AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 2007.
ACI 318-05, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2005.
ACI 363-R92, “State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1992.
ASTM C-78-08, “Standard Method for Flexural Loading of Concrete,” ASTM International, W.
Conshohoken, PA, February 2008.
Breen, J.E., and Kashima, S., “Construction and Load Tests of a Segmental Precast Box Girder Bridge
Model,” Research Report 121-S, Center for Highway Research, University of Texas at Austin, February
1975.
Caltrans, “Bridge Design Aids,” California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, April 2005.
Caltrans, “California Amendments, v3.06.01 to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications-Third
Edition w/ 2005 & 2006 Interims.” California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, November
2007.
Caltrans, “Seismic Design Guidelines, Version 1.4,” California Department of Transportation, CA, June
2006.
CAN/CSA S6-06, Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, Canadian Standards Association, Ontario,
Canada, 2006.
Carrasquillo, R.L., Nilson, A.H., and Slate, F.O., “Properties of High Strength Concrete Subject to Short-
Term Loads,” ACI Journal, American Concrete Institute, V.78, No. 17, May-June 1981, pp. 171-177.
Collins, M.P., and Mitchell, D., Prestressed Concrete Structures, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1991,
pp. 766.
Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Part 2: Concrete Bridges – Design and Detailing Rules.”
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2005.
FDOT, “Structures Manual,” Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, January 2008.
Freyermuth, C.L., and Aalami, B.O., “Unified Minimum Flexural Reinforcement Requirements for
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 4, July-August 1997,
pp. 409-420.
Ghosh, S.K., “Minimum Reinforcement requirements to prevent Abrupt Flexural Failure of prestressed
Concrete Immediately Following Cracking,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 1, January-February
1987, pp. 40-43.
Gilbertson, C.G. and Ahlborn, T.M., “A Probabilistic Comparison of Prestress Loss Methods in
Prestressed Concrete Beams,” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute Journal, V. 49, No. 5, September-
October 2004, pp. 52-69.
Gonnerman, H. F., and Shuman, E. C., “Compression, Flexural and Tension Tests of Plain Concrete,”
Proceedings, ASTM, V. 28, Part II, 1928, pp. 527-564.
 
81
Kaplan, M.F., “Flexural and Compressive Concrete Strengths as Affected by the Properties of Course
Aggregates,” ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 55, No. 11, May 1959.
Khan, A.A., Cook, W.D., and Mitchell, D., “Tensile Strength of Low, Medium, and High-Strength
Concrete at Early Ages”, ACI Materials Journal, American Concrete Institute, V.93, No. 5, September-
October 1996, pp. 487-493.
Leonhardt, Fritz, “Prestressed Concrete Design and Construction,” second, fully revised addition,
Wilhelm, Ernst and Sohn, Berlin, Munich, English translation by Amerongon, C. (1964).
MacGregor, R.J.G., Kreger, M.E., and Breen, J.E., “Strength and Ductility of a Three-Span Externally
Post-Tensioned Box Girder Bridge Model,” Research Report 365-3F, Center for Transportation Research,
University of Texas at Austin, January 1989.
MacGregor, R.J.G., Kreger, M.E., and Breen, J.E., “Strength and Ductility of a Three-Span Externally
Post-Tensioned Segmental Box Girder Bridge Model”, ACI Special Publication SP120, American
Concrete Institute, 1990, pp. 315-338.
Megally, S., Seible, F., and Dowell, R.K., “Seismic Performance of Precast Segmental Bridges: Segment-
to-Segment Joints Subjected to High Flexural Moments and Low Shears,” Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Institute Journal, V. 48, No. 2, March-April 2003, pp. 80-96.
Megally, S.H., Garg, M., Seible, F., and Dowell, R.K., Seismic Performance of Precast Segmental Bridge
Superstructures, Research Report No. SSRP-2001/24, Department of Structural Engineering, University
of California, San Diego, California, May 2002, pp. 317.
Mokhtarzadeh, Alireza, and French, Catherine, “Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Concrete with
Consideration for Precast Applications” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 97, No. 2, March-April 2000.
NDOR, “Bridge Operations, Policies and Procedures,” Nebraska Department of Roads,” Lincoln,
Nebraska, 2005.
Neville, A.M., “Properties of Concrete,” 3rd Edition, Longman Scientific and Technical, Co published in
the United States with John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Priestly, M.J. Migel, Sritharan, S., Couley, James R. and Pampanin, Stefano, “Preliminary Results and
Conclusions from the PRESS Five-Story Precast Concrete Test Building,” PCI Journal, Vol. 44, No. 6,
November/December 1999.
Seguirant, S.J., Brice, R., and Khaleghi, B., “Making Sense of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement
Requirements: Part 1 – Reinforced Concrete Members,” Submitted to the PCI Journal for Publication,
May, 2008.
Seible, Frieder and Megally, Sami, “Segmental Seismic Tests at the University of California at San
Diego,” University of California at San Diego, 2002.
Shafer, Greg, “Bang Na-Bang Pli, Bang Pakong Expressway Project, Typical D6 Test Span (44.4m),” J.
Muller International, June 1997.
Shioya, T. Iguro, M., Nojiri, Y., Akiyama, H., and Okada, T., “Shear Strength of Large Reinforced
Concrete Beams,” Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete, SP118, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1989, 309pp.
Steinberg, E.P., “Probabilistic Assessment of Prestress Loss in Pretensioned Concrete Beams,”
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute Journal, V. 40, No. 6, November-December, 1995, pp. 76-85.
Tassin, Dan and Dodson, Brian, “Computer Analysis and Full Scale Test of the Ultimate Capacity of a
Precase Segmental Box Girder Bridge with Dry Joints and External Tendons,” American Segmental
Bridge Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, 1997.
 
82
Tuchscherer, Robin G., “Investigation of the Cracking Problems of Short Type V Girders,” Thesis, the
University of Texas at Austin, 2006.
Tadros, Maher K., N. Al-Omaishi, S. P. Seguirant, and J. G. Galt. 2003, Prestress Losses in Pretensioned
High-Strength Concrete Bridge Girders. NCHRP Report 496, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Walker, S. and Bloem, D.L., “Effects of Aggregate Size on Properties of Concrete,” Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, American Concrete Institute, V.57, No. 13, September 1960, pp. 283-298.
Warwaruk, J., Sozen, M. and Siess, C.P., “Strength and Behavior in Flexure of Prestressed Concrete
Beams, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1960.
Wright, P. J. F., and Garwood F., “The Effect of the Method of Test on the Flexural Strength of
Concrete,” Magazine of Concrete Research, October 1952, pp. 67-76.
WS DOT, “Bridge Design Manual,” Washington State Department of Transportation,” Olympia,
Washington, May 2008.
Yamazaki, Jun, Kattula, Basile T., and Mattock, Alan H., “A Comparison of the Behavior of Post-
Tensioned Prestressed Concrete Beams, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1960.



Appendix A Parametric Study Results 
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
SUMMARY - REINFORCED CONCRETE SECTIONS
Section Method Required area of steel (in
2
)
M
cr
(kip-ft) M
o
(kip-ft) M
o
/ M
cr
Notes
AASHTO 0.44 8.6 21.6 2.52
LEONHARDT 0.27 8.5 16.7 1.97
EUROCODE 0.16 8.4 11.6 1.38
MODIFIED 0.25 8.4 14.2 1.68
AASHTO 0.78 36.9 104.6 2.83
LEONHARDT 0.56 36.3 80.2 2.21
EUROCODE 0.37 35.7 54.2 1.52
MODIFIED 0.44 35.8 58.3 1.63
AASHTO 5.96 545.2 1447.5 2.65
LEONHARDT 3.76 531.0 973.4 1.83
EUROCODE 1.67 515.8 458 0.89
MODIFIED 3.37 526.8 832.8 1.58
AASHTO 19.40 3857.3 10345.2 2.68
LEONHARDT 12.01 3732.5 6655.1 1.78
EUROCODE 5.27 3607.3 2795.9 0.78
MODIFIED 11.00 3705.4 5803.2 1.57
AASHTO 16.04 1829.4 4945.9 2.70
LEONHARDT 11.65 1794.7 3651.7 2.03
EUROCODE 7.66 1763.5 2460.6 1.40
MODIFIED 9.03 1773.4 2831.4 1.60
CRS2
CRS1
Calculation of M
cr
uses
transformed section properties
Calculation of M
cr
uses
transformed section properties
Calculation of M
cr
uses
transformed section properties
CAP1
Calculation of M
cr
uses
transformed section properties
Calculation of M
cr
uses
transformed section properties
BRC1
BRC2
MODIFIED 9.03 1773.4 2831.4 1.60
AASHTO 56.70 16925.6 45203.9 2.67
LEONHARDT 42.33 16608.8 34255.4 2.06
EUROCODE 28.46 16298.4 23400.3 1.44
MODIFIED 32.12 16366.3 25751 1.57
AASHTO 30.26 4258.6 11226.4 2.64
LEONHARDT 23.18 4200.9 9093.2 2.16
EUROCODE 16.50 4133.9 6436.4 1.56
MODIFIED 17.06 4137.1 6594.8 1.59
AASHTO 129.18 36533.4 96038.2 2.63
LEONHARDT 99.36 35977.9 75412.4 2.10
EUROCODE 70.91 35458.3 55156 1.56
MODIFIED 72.91 35479.9 56003.9 1.58
F1
F2
Calculation of M
cr
uses
transformed section properties
CAP2
Calculation of M
cr
uses
transformed section properties
Calculation of M
cr
uses
transformed section properties
A-1
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
SUMMARY - PRESTRESSED SECTIONS
Section Method Required area of steel (in
2
)
M
cr
(kip-ft) M
o
(kip-ft) M
o
/ M
cr
Notes
AASHTO 0.26 53.5 72.9 1.36
LEONHARDT 0.25 51.7 70.3 1.36
EUROCODE 0.20 43.3 57.3 1.32
MODIFIED 0.19 42.3 55.6 1.32
AASHTO 0.42 139.1 187.9 1.35
LEONHARDT 0.41 136.3 184 1.35
EUROCODE 0.33 113.8 150.6 1.32
MODIFIED 0.31 108.3 141.9 1.31
AASHTO 4.17 2161.3 2952 1.37
LEONHARDT 2.54 1532.5 1844 1.20
EUROCODE 2.45 1498.0 1782.1 1.19
MODIFIED 2.85 1653.7 2066.5 1.25
AASHTO 27.95 47400.9 62391.1 1.32
LEONHARDT 13.98 28983.0 31956.3 1.10
EUROCODE 14.87 30176.7 33940.5 1.12
MODIFIED 18.88 35472.5 42746.4 1.21
AASHTO 2.61 1644.0 2137.8 1.30
LEONHARDT 1.13 901.2 949.9 1.05
EUROCODE 1.07 872.7 900.8 1.03
MODIFIED 1.59 1113 4 1326.5 1.19
PCI1
Tendon prestrain is 6 ms; girder
concrete prestrain is -0.423 ms at
bottom and 0.123 ms at top
BPT2
Tendon prestrain is (0.75*270-30)
/ 28500 = 0.006
CPS1
Tendon prestrain is (0.75*270-30)
/ 28500 = 0.006
CPS2
Tendon prestrain is (0.75*270-30)
/ 28500 = 0.006
BPT1
Tendon prestrain is (0.75*270-30)
/ 28500 = 0.006
MODIFIED 1.59 1113.4 1326.5 1.19
AASHTO 9.09 13876.8 18096.7 1.30
LEONHARDT 4.76 8787.8 9565.9 1.09
EUROCODE 4.99 9055.7 10018.4 1.11
MODIFIED 6.20 10375.3 12409.7 1.20
AASHTO 8.77 5012.5 6796.8 1.36
LEONHARDT 3.40 2529.3 2782.1 1.10
EUROCODE 3.58 2609.2 2924.1 1.12
MODIFIED 4.53 2991.0 3673.1 1.23
AASHTO 12.68 19146.1 24867.1 1.30
LEONHARDT 7.04 12760.4 13983.9 1.10
EUROCODE 7.21 12945.6 14308.1 1.11
MODIFIED 8.78 14506.7 17296 1.19
PUB2
Tendon prestrain is 6 ms; girder
concrete prestrain is -0.324 ms at
bottom and 0.095 ms at top
PUB1
Tendon prestrain is 6 ms; girder
concrete prestrain is -0.347 ms at
bottom and 0.093 ms at top
PCI2
Tendon prestrain is 6 ms; girder
concrete prestrain is -0.333 ms at
bottom and 0.059 ms at top
A-2
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
Section Method Required area of steel (in
2
)
M
cr
(kip-ft) M
o
(kip-ft) M
o
/ M
cr
Notes
AASHTO 2.90 1034.7 1368.4 1.32
LEONHARDT 1.41 633.2 716.9 1.13
EUROCODE 1.37 622.7 698 1.12
MODIFIED 1.86 739.4 927.5 1.25
AASHTO 3.07 1851.9 2572.9 1.39
LEONHARDT 1.49 1116.2 1330.1 1.19
EUROCODE 1.46 1103.0 1304.9 1.18
MODIFIED 1.68 1183.0 1487.9 1.26
AASHTO 0.84 139.8 186.1 1.33
LEONHARDT 0.81 136.0 181.2 1.33
EUROCODE 0.65 112.6 147.9 1.31
MODIFIED 0.62 107.8 140.9 1.31
AASHTO 1.20 340.9 472.1 1.39
LEONHARDT 0.91 279.0 367.3 1.32
EUROCODE 0.82 261.6 333.4 1.27
MODIFIED 0.85 267.5 345.2 1.29
AASHTO 5.91 6852.4 8917.5 1.30
LEONHARDT 3.16 4400.7 4843.7 1.10
EUROCODE 3.32 4541.0 5081.7 1.12
MODIFIED 3.95 5039.3 6034.3 1.20
AASHTO 10.28 28819.4 37016.5 1.28
LEONHARDT 6.21 20349 8 22480.2 1.10
PPS1
Tendon prestrain is (0.75*270-30)
/ 28500 = 0.006
PBB1
Tendon prestrain is 6 ms; girder
concrete prestrain is -0.331 ms at
bottom and 0.112 ms at top
PBB2
Tendon prestrain is 6 ms; girder
concrete prestrain is -0.268 ms at
bottom and 0.091 ms at top
PSP1
Tendon prestrain is 6 ms; girder
concrete prestrain is -0.338 ms at
bottom and 0.062 ms at top
PSP2
Tendon prestrain is 6 ms; girder
t t i i 0 306 t
Tendon prestrain is (0.75*270-30)
/ 28500 = 0.006
PPS2
LEONHARDT 6.21 20349.8 22480.2 1.10
EUROCODE 6.27 20473.6 22716.6 1.11
MODIFIED 7.29 22307.8 26403.6 1.18
AASHTO No convergence
LEONHARDT 26.54 26448.9 29248.1 1.11
EUROCODE 67.09 59269.5 71748.1 1.21
MODIFIED 24.59 24496.0 28373.9 1.16
AASHTO No convergence
LEONHARDT 39.30 52643.2 58620.6 1.11
EUROCODE 90.80 111731.3 131159.4 1.17
MODIFIED 39.37 51845.0 59697.7 1.15
AASHTO 29.32 29012.7 39740.4 1.37
LEONHARDT 15.31 18146.1 21039.4 1.16
EUROCODE 16.62 19159.3 22764.5 1.19
MODIFIED 14.78 17727.9 20346 1.15
AASHTO 43.39 73562.0 99053.4 1.35
LEONHARDT 22.55 45663.2 51986 1.14
EUROCODE 24.70 48554.0 56838.2 1.17
MODIFIED 22.40 45450.3 51666.7 1.14
SBC1
Tendon prestrain is (0.75*270-30)
/ 28500 = 0.006
SBS1
SBS2
PSP2 concrete prestrain is -0.306 ms at
bottom and 0.075 ms at top
SBC2
Tendon prestrain is (0.75*270-30)
/ 28500 = 0.006
A-3
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - CONVENTIONAL SLAB CRS1
h = 10.50 in
b = 12.00 in
A = 126.00 in2
I = 1157.63 in4
y
b
= 5.25 in
f'
c
= 3.6 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
Clearance clr = 2 in
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.702 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 220.5 in3
M
cr
= S
c
x f
r
= 154.8 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.75 in assuming #6 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 8.13 in
Solve for A
s
= 0.44 in2 -> provide 1-#6 bar
2) LEONHARDT
A
s
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ f
y
f = 0 23 x f'
0.5
= 0 436 ksi f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.436 ksi
F
ct
= f
ct
x y
b
x b / 2 = 14 kips
A
s
= 0.27 in2 -> provide 1-#5 bar
3) EUROCODE
A
s
≥ 0.26 x f
ctm
/ f
y
x b
t
x d (Eq 1) and A
s
≥ 0.0013 x b
t
x d (Eq 2)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 3.6 ksi = 25 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.6 Mpa = 0.372 ksi
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.50 in assuming #4 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 8.25 in
(Eq 1) A
s
= 0.16 in2
(Eq 2) A
s
= 0.13 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 0.67 x 1.6 f
r
x S
c with Ø = 0.9
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.450 ksi
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b)
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.63 in assuming #5 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 8.19 in
Solve for A
s
= 0.25 in2
As = 0.16 in2 -> provide 1-#4 bar
A-4
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - CONVENTIONAL SLAB CRS2
h = 21.50 in
b = 12.00 in
A = 258.00 in2
I = 9938.38 in4
y
b
=
10.75 in
f'
c
= 3.6 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
Clearance clr = 2 in
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.702 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 924.5 in3
M
cr
= S
c
x f
r
= 649.0 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.75 in assuming #6 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 19.13 in
Solve for A
s
= 0.78 in2 -> provide 2-#6 bars
2) LEONHARDT
A
s
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ f
y
f = 0 23 x f'
0.5
= 0 436 ksi f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.436 ksi
F
ct
= f
ct
x y
b
x b / 2 = 28 kips
A
s
= 0.56 in2 -> provide 2-#5 bars
3) EUROCODE
A
s
≥ 0.26 x f
ctm
/ f
y
x b
t
x d (Eq 1) and A
s
≥ 0.0013 x b
t
x d (Eq 2)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 3.6 ksi = 25 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.6 Mpa = 0.372 ksi
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.50 in assuming #4 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 19.25 in
(Eq 1) A
s
= 0.37 in2
(Eq 2) A
s
= 0.30 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 0.67 x 1.6 f
r
x S
c with Ø = 0.9
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.450 ksi
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b)
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.75 in assuming #6 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 19.13 in
Solve for A
s
= 0.44 in2
-> provide 2-#4 bars As = 0.37 in2
A-5
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - POST-TENSIONED SLAB CPS1
h = 15.00 in
b = 12.00 in
A = 180.00 in2
I = 3375.00 in4
y
b
= 7.50 in
f'
c
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 13.50 in
Assume min A
ps
= 0.26 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 45.3 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 0.855 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.740 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 450.0 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 861 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 1.96 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 259 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 861 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.460 ksi
F
ct
= f
ct
x y
b
x b / 2 = 21 kips
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 0.25 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 4.0 ksi = 28 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.8 Mpa = 0.401 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 180.5 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 12.15 in
A
p
= 0.20 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
= 0.19 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 33.5 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 0.632 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.474 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 654 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 1.46 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 261.8 ksi
A-6
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - POST-TENSIONED SLAB CPS2
h = 24.00 in
b = 12.00 in
A = 288.00 in2
I = 13824.00 in4
y
b
= 12.00 in
f'
c
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 21.60 in
Assume min A
ps
= 0.42 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 72.5 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 0.855 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.740 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 1152.0 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 2205 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 3.14 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 259 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 2205 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.460 ksi
F
ct
= f
ct
x y
b
x b / 2 = 33 kips
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses pe pu g
A
ps
= 0.41 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 4.0 ksi = 28 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.8 Mpa = 0.401 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 462.2 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 19.44 in
A
p
= 0.33 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
= 0.31 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 53.6 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 0.632 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.474 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 1675 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 2.34 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 261.8 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 1675 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-7
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BRC1
h = 38.40 in
b
f
= 76.80 in
b
w
= 8.00 in
t
d
= 7.10 in
t
s
= 6.00 in
A = 1208.48 in2
I = 268255.86 in4
y
b
=
19.96 in
f'
c
= 3.6 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
Clearance clr = 2 in
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr
with Ø = 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.702 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 13438.0 in3
M
cr
= S
c
x f
r
= 9433.8 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b
f
) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.88 in assuming #7 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 35.96 in
Solve for A
s
= 5.96 in2 -> provide 10-#7 bars
2) LEONHARDT
A
s
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ f
y
f = 0 23 x f'
0.5
= 0 436 ksi f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.436 ksi
F
ct
= f
ct
x ((y
b
- t
s
)
2
x b
w
/ (2 x y
b
) + (2 x y
b
- t
s
) x t
s
x b
f
/ (2 x y
b
)) = 188 kips
A
s
= 3.76 in2 -> provide 9-#6 bars
3) EUROCODE
A
s
≥ 0.26 x f
ctm
/ f
y
x b
t
x d (Eq 1) and A
s
≥ 0.0013 x b
t
x d (Eq 2)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 3.6 ksi = 25 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.6 Mpa = 0.372 ksi
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.50 in assuming #4 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 36.15 in
b
t
= ((y
b
- t
s
) x b
w
+ t
s
x b
f
) / y
b
= 28.7 in
(Eq 1) A
s
= 1.67 in2
(Eq 2) A
s
= 1.35 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 0.67 x 1.6 f
r
x S
c
with Ø = 0.9
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.450 ksi
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b)
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.75 in assuming #6 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 36.03 in
Solve for A
s
= 3.37 in2
As = 1.67 in2 -> provide 9-#4 bars
A-8
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BRC2
h = 79.20 in
b
f
= 156.00 in
b
w
= 8.00 in
t
d
= 9.50 in
t
s
= 9.30 in
A = 3416.00 in2
I = 3740350.86 in4
y
b
=
39.89 in
f'
c
= 3.6 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
Clearance clr = 2 in
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr
with Ø = 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.702 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y = 93772.5 in3
M
cr
= S
c
x f
r
= 65830.7 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b
f
) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
Bar diameter d
b
= 1.13 in assuming #9 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 76.64 in
Solve for A
s
= 19.40 in2 -> provide 20-#9 bars
2) LEONHARDT
A
s
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ f
y
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.436 ksi
ct c
F
ct
= f
ct
x ((y
b
- t
s
)
2
x b
w
/ (2 x y
b
) + (2 x y
b
- t
s
) x t
s
x b
f
/ (2 x y
b
)) = 600 kips
A
s
= 12.01 in2 -> provide 21-#7 bars
3) EUROCODE
A
s
≥ 0.26 x f
ctm
/ f
y
x b
t
x d (Eq 1) and A
s
≥ 0.0013 x b
t
x d (Eq 2)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 3.6 ksi = 25 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.6 Mpa = 0.372 ksi
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.63 in assuming #5 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 76.89 in
b
t
= ((y
b
- t
s
) x b
w
+ t
s
x b
f
) / y
b
= 42.5 in
(Eq 1) A
s
= 5.27 in2
(Eq 2) A
s
= 4.25 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 0.67 x 1.6 f
r
x S
c
with Ø = 0.9
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.450 ksi
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b)
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.88 in assuming #7 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 76.76 in
Solve for A
s
= 11.00 in2
-> provide 17-#5 bars As = 5.27 in2
A-9
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BPT1
h = 38.40 in
b
f
= 76.80 in
b
w
= 12.00 in
t
d
= 7.00 in
t
s
= 6.00 in
A = 1303.20 in2
I = 272966.55 in4
y
b
= 19.84 in
f'
c
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 34.56 in
Assume min A
ps
= 4.17 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 719.9 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.389 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.740 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 13760.1 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 35160 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 4.88 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 259 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 35160 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.460 ksi
2
F
ct
= f
ct
x ((y
b
- t
s
)
2
x b
w
/ (2 x y
b
) + (2 x y
b
- t
s
) x t
s
x b
f
/ (2 x y
b
)) = 207 kips
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 2.54 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 4.0 ksi = 28 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.8 Mpa = 0.401 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 5520.8 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 31.10 in
A
p
= 2.45 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
= 2.85 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 491.7 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 0.949 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.474 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 24799 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 3.37 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 262.6 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 24799 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-10
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BPT2
h = 120.00 in
b
f
= 240.00 in
b
w
= 12.00 in
t
d
= 10.10 in
t
s
= 10.10 in
A = 6045.60 in2
I = 15673772.18 in4
y
b
= 60.00 in
f'
c
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 108.00 in
Assume min A
ps
= 27.95 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 4822.0 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.684 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.740 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 261229.5 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 759754 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 10.58 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 263 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 759754 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.460 ksi
2
F
ct
= f
ct
x ((y
b
- t
s
)
2
x b
w
/ (2 x y
b
) + (2 x y
b
- t
s
) x t
s
x b
f
/ (2 x y
b
)) = 1136 kips
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 13.98 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 4.0 ksi = 28 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.8 Mpa = 0.401 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 104810.2 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 97.20 in
A
p
= 14.87 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
= 18.88 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 3256.0 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.137 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.474 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 524796 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 7.21 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 265.0 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 524796 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-11
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - CAP BEAM CAP1
h = 48.00 in
b
f
= 120.00 in
b
w
= 72.00 in
t
d
= 7.50 in
t
s
= 12.00 in
A = 4392.00 in2
I = 1004240.88 in4
y
b
=
23.30 in
f'
c
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
Clearance clr = 2 in
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr
with Ø = 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.740 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y = 43100.5 in3
M
cr
= S
c
x f
r
= 31894.3 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b
f
) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
Bar diameter d
b
= 1.27 in assuming #10 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 45.37 in
Solve for A
s
= 16.04 in2 -> provide 13-#10 bars
2) LEONHARDT
A
s
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ f
y
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.460 ksi
ct c
F
ct
= f
ct
x ((y
b
- t
s
)
2
x b
w
/ (2 x y
b
) + (2 x y
b
- t
s
) x t
s
x b
f
/ (2 x y
b
)) = 583 kips
A
s
= 11.65 in2 -> provide 15-#8 bars
3) EUROCODE
A
s
≥ 0.26 x f
ctm
/ f
y
x b
t
x d (Eq 1) and A
s
≥ 0.0013 x b
t
x d (Eq 2)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 4.0 ksi = 28 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.8 Mpa = 0.401 ksi
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.88 in assuming #7 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 45.56 in
b
t
= ((y
b
- t
s
) x b
w
+ t
s
x b
f
) / y
b
= 96.7 in
(Eq 1) A
s
= 7.66 in2
(Eq 2) A
s
= 5.73 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 0.67 x 1.6 f
r
x S
c
with Ø = 0.9
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.474 ksi
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b)
Bar diameter d
b
= 0.88 in assuming #7 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 45.56 in
Solve for A
s
= 9.03 in2
As = 7.66 in2 -> provide 13-#7 bars
A-12
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - CAP BEAM CAP2
h = 120.00 in
b
f
= 216.00 in
b
w
= 120.00 in
t
d
= 10.00 in
t
s
= 12.00 in
A = 16512.00 in2
I = 23559695.63 in4
y
b
=
59.43 in
f'
c
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
Clearance clr = 2 in
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr
with Ø = 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.740 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y = 396427.7 in3
M
cr
= S
c
x f
r
= 293356.5 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b
f
) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
Bar diameter d
b
= 1.41 in assuming #11 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 117.30 in
Solve for A
s
= 56.70 in2 -> provide 37-#11 bars
2) LEONHARDT
A
s
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ f
y
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.460 ksi
ct c
F
ct
= f
ct
x ((y
b
- t
s
)
2
x b
w
/ (2 x y
b
) + (2 x y
b
- t
s
) x t
s
x b
f
/ (2 x y
b
)) = 2117 kips
A
s
= 42.33 in2 -> provide 34-#10 bars
3) EUROCODE
A
s
≥ 0.26 x f
ctm
/ f
y
x b
t
x d (Eq 1) and A
s
≥ 0.0013 x b
t
x d (Eq 2)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 4.0 ksi = 28 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.8 Mpa = 0.401 ksi
Bar diameter d
b
= 1.13 in assuming #9 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 117.44 in
b
t
= ((y
b
- t
s
) x b
w
+ t
s
x b
f
) / y
b
= 139.4 in
(Eq 1) A
s
= 28.46 in2
(Eq 2) A
s
= 21.28 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 0.67 x 1.6 f
r
x S
c
with Ø = 0.9
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.474 ksi
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b)
Bar diameter d
b
= 1.13 in assuming #9 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 117.44 in
Solve for A
s
= 32.12 in2
-> provide 29-#9 bars As = 28.46 in2
A-13
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - FOOTING F1
h = 60.00 in
b = 168.00 in
A = 10080.00 in2
I = 3024000 in4
y
b
= 30.00 in
f'
c
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
Clearance clr = 3 in
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr
with Ø = 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.740 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 100800.0 in3
M
cr
= S
c
x f
r
= 74592.0 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
Bar diameter d
b
= 1.27 in assuming #10 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 56.37 in
Solve for A
s
= 30.26 in2 -> provide 24-#10 bars
2) LEONHARDT
A
s
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ f
y
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.460 ksi
F f b / 2 1159 ki F
ct
= f
ct
x y
b
x b / 2 = 1159 kips
A
s
= 23.18 in2 -> provide 24-#9 bars
3) EUROCODE
A
s
≥ 0.26 x f
ctm
/ f
y
x b
t
x d (Eq 1) and A
s
≥ 0.0013 x b
t
x d (Eq 2)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 4.0 ksi = 28 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.8 Mpa = 0.401 ksi
Bar diameter d
b
= 1.00 in assuming #8 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 56.50 in
(Eq 1) A
s
= 16.50 in2
(Eq 2) A
s
= 12.34 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 0.67 x 1.6 f
r
x S
c
with Ø = 0.9
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.474 ksi
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b)
Bar diameter d
b
= 1.00 in assuming #8 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 56.50 in
Solve for A
s
= 17.06 in2
-> provide 21-#8 bars As = 16.50 in2
A-14
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - FOOTING F2
h = 120.00 in
b = 360.00 in
A = 43200.00 in2
I = 51840000 in4
y
b
= 60.00 in
f'
c
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
Clearance clr = 6 in
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.740 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 864000.0 in3
M
cr
= S
c
x f
r
= 639360.0 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
Bar diameter d
b
= 1.69 in assuming #14 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 113.15 in
Solve for A
s
= 129.18 in2 -> provide 58-#14 bars
2) LEONHARDT
A
s
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ f
y
f = 0 23 x f'
0.5
= 0 460 ksi f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.460 ksi
F
ct
= f
ct
x y
b
x b / 2 = 4968 kips
A
s
= 99.36 in2 -> provide 64-#11 bars
3) EUROCODE
A
s
≥ 0.26 x f
ctm
/ f
y
x b
t
x d (Eq 1) and A
s
≥ 0.0013 x b
t
x d (Eq 2)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 4.0 ksi = 28 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.8 Mpa = 0.401 ksi
Bar diameter d
b
= 1.41 in assuming #11 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 113.30 in
(Eq 1) A
s
= 70.91 in2
(Eq 2) A
s
= 53.02 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 0.67 x 1.6 f
r
x S
c with Ø = 0.9
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.474 ksi
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A
s
x f
y
x (d - A
s
x f
y
/ 2 / 0.85 / f'
c
/ b)
Bar diameter d
b
= 1.41 in assuming #11 bar
d = h - clr - d
b
/ 2 = 113.30 in
Solve for A
s
= 72.91 in2
As = 70.91 in2 -> provide 46-#11 bars
A-15
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRECAST PRESTRESSED I-GIRDER PCI1
h = 43.50 in
b
f
= 64.40 in
t
d
= 7.50 in
A = 852.00 in2
I = 172939.74 in4
y
b
= 29.39 in
f'
c
g
= 5.0 ksi
f'
c
d
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 39.15 in
Assume min A
ps
= 2.61 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 450.7 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 2.828 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.827 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 5884.3 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 25813 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 3.69 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 263 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 25813 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.514 ksi
F
ct
= 91.5 kips (see hand calculations)
f 0 75 f 30 k i 172 5 k i i 30 k i l f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 1.13 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
g
= 5.0 ksi = 35 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 3.2 Mpa = 0.466 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 2739.6 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 35.24 in
A
p
= 1.07 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
=
1.59 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 274.4 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.722 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.530 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 16135 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 2.27 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 265.6 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 16135 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-16
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRECAST PRESTRESSED I-GIRDER PCI2
h = 104.50 in
b
f
= 88.99 in
t
d
= 8.50 in
A = 1953.70 in2
I = 3000090.93 in4
y
b
= 65.52 in
f'
c
g
= 10.0 ksi
f'
c
d
= 5.5 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 94.05 in
Assume min A
ps
=
9.09 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 1567.8 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 2.811 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 1.170 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 45788.9 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 218758 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.775 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 7.44 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 264 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 218758 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.727 ksi
F
ct
= 387.1 kips (see hand calculations)
f = 0 75 x f - 30 ksi = 172 5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 4.76 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
g
= 10.0 ksi = 70 Mpa
f
ctm
= 2.12 x ln(1 + (f
ck
+ 8) / 10) = 4.6 Mpa = 0.669 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 30619.2 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 84.65 in
A
p
= 4.99 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
=
6.20 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 1070.3 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.919 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.749 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 151576 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.775 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 5.12 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 265.9 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 151576 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-17
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRECAST PRESTRESSED U-BEAM PUB1
h = 43.00 in
b
f
= 90.71 in
t
d
= 7.00 in
A = 1667.03 in2
I = 377841.47 in4
y
b
= 24.65 in
f'
c
g
= 7.0 ksi
f'
c
d
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
b
w
= 33.46 in
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 38.70 in
Assume min A
ps
=
8.77 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 1512.8 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 3.232 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.979 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 15328.3 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 77462 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
- 0.85 x f'
c
x (b - b
w
) x h
f
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.85 x b
w
+ 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 8.83 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 253 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 77462 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.609 ksi
F
ct
= 276.5 kips (see hand calculations)
f 0 75 f 30 k i 172 5 k i i 30 k i l f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 3.40 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
g
= 7.0 ksi = 50 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 4.1 Mpa = 0.591 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 9052.1 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 34.83 in
A
p
= 3.58 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
=
4.53 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 782.1 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.671 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.627 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 43555 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 4.52 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 261.2 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 43555 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-18
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRECAST PRESTRESSED U-BEAM PUB2
h = 103.00 in
b
f
= 142.39 in
t
d
= 7.00 in
A = 3002.75 in2
I = 4081912.23 in4
y
b
= 62.58 in
f'
c
g
= 10.0 ksi
f'
c
d
= 5.5 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 92.70 in
Assume min A
ps
=
12.68 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 2187.4 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 2.697 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 1.170 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 65227.1 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 302689 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.775 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 6.51 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 265 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 302689 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.727 ksi
F
ct
= 572.2 kips (see hand calculations)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses f
pe
0.75 x f
pu
30 ksi 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 7.04 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
g
= 10.0 ksi = 70 Mpa
f
ctm
= 2.12 x ln(1 + (f
ck
+ 8) / 10) = 4.6 Mpa = 0.669 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 43617.6 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 83.43 in
A
p
= 7.21 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
=
8.78 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 1513.7 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.866 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.749 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 212126 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.775 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 4.53 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 266.3 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 212126 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-19
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRECAST PRESTRESSED BOX-BEAM PBB1
h = 27.00 in
b
f
= 42.93 in
t
d
= 5.00 in
A = 633.04 in2
I = 60659.69 in4
y
b
= 12.99 in
f'
c
g
= 5.0 ksi
f'
c
d
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
b
w
= 15.26 in
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 24.30 in
Assume min A
ps
=
2.90 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 500.3 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 2.099 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.827 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 4669.7 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 16399 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
- 0.85 x f'
c
x (b - b
w
) x h
f
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.85 x b
w
+ 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 5.88 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 252 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 15912 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.514 ksi
F
ct
= 114.6 kips (see hand calculations)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses f
pe
0.75 x f
pu
30 ksi 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 1.41 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
g
= 5.0 ksi = 35 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 3.2 Mpa = 0.466 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 2174.1 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 21.87 in
A
p
= 1.37 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
=
1.86 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 321.4 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.349 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.530 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 10887 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 3.87 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 258.0 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 10887 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-20
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRECAST PRESTRESSED BOX-BEAM PBB2
h = 47.00 in
b
f
= 32.20 in
t
d
= 5.00 in
A = 719.39 in2
I = 196297.71 in4
y
b
= 22.75 in
f'
c
g
= 5.0 ksi
f'
c
d
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
b
w
= 15.26 in
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 42.30 in
Assume min A
ps
=
3.07 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 529.6 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.999 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.827 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 8628.5 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 29268 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
- 0.85 x f'
c
x (b - b
w
) x h
f
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.85 x b
w
+ 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 10.91 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 251 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 28965 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.514 ksi
F
ct
= 121.3 kips (see hand calculations)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses f
pe
0.75 x f
pu
30 ksi 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 1.49 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
g
= 5.0 ksi = 35 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 3.2 Mpa = 0.466 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 4017.2 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 38.07 in
A
p
= 1.46 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
=
1.68 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 289.5 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.093 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.530 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 17691 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 4.72 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 261.6 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 17691 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-21
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRECAST PRESTRESSED SLAB PPS1
h = 12.00 in
b = 48.00 in
A = 567.14 in2
I = 6852.25 in4
y
b
= 5.98 in
f'
c
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 10.80 in
Assume min A
ps
= 0.84 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 144.0 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 0.855 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.740 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 1145.9 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 2193 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 1.56 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 259 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 2193 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.460 ksi
F
ct
= 65.8 kips (see hand calculations)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 0.81 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 4.0 ksi = 28 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.8 Mpa = 0.401 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 459.7 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 9.72 in
A
p
= 0.65 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
= 0.62 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 106.4 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 0.632 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.474 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 1665 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 1.16 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 261.8 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 1665 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-22
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRECAST PRESTRESSED SLAB PPS2
h = 21.50 in
b = 36.00 in
A = 531.82 in2
I = 27433.25 in4
y
b
= 10.67 in
f'
c
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 19.35 in
Assume min A
ps
= 1.20 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 206.2 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.071 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.740 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 2571.1 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 5588 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 2.97 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 258 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 5588 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.460 ksi
F
ct
= 73.9 kips (see hand calculations)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A = 0 91 in2 A
ps
= 0.91 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 4.0 ksi = 28 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 2.8 Mpa = 0.401 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 1031.6 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 17.42 in
A
p
= 0.82 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
= 0.85 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 146.8 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 0.762 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.474 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 4106 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 2.14 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 261.6 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 4106 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-23
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - SPLICED PRECAST PRESTRESSED GIRDER PSP1
h = 79.50 in
b
f
= 90.71 in
t
d
= 7.50 in
A = 1737.88 in2
I = 1365254.77 in4
y
b
= 52.03 in
f'
c
g
= 7.0 ksi
f'
c
d
= 4.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 71.55 in
Assume min A
ps
=
5.91 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 1019.1 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 2.436 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.979 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 26239.8 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 107540 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 5.94 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 264 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 107540 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.609 ksi
F
ct
= 256.6 kips (see hand calculations)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses f
pe
0.75 x f
pu
30 ksi 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 3.16 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
g
= 7.0 ksi = 50 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 4.1 Mpa = 0.591 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 15495.9 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 64.40 in
A
p
= 3.32 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
=
3.95 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 681.9 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.630 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.627 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 73379 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 4.01 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 265.8 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 73379 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-24
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - SPLICED PRECAST PRESTRESSED GIRDER PSP2
h = 188.50 in
b
f
= 88.99 in
t
d
= 8.50 in
A = 2664.36 in2
I = 12160103.94 in4
y
b
= 117.21 in
f'
c
g
= 10.0 ksi
f'
c
d
= 5.5 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
Given d
p
= 169.65 in
Assume min A
ps
=
10.28 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 1772.7 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 2.486 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 1.170 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 103746.3 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 455129 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.775 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 8.48 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 266 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 455129 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.727 ksi
F
ct
= 504.4 kips (see hand calculations)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses f
pe
0.75 x f
pu
30 ksi 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A
ps
= 6.21 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
g
= 10.0 ksi = 70 Mpa
f
ctm
= 2.12 x ln(1 + (f
ck
+ 8) / 10) = 4.6 Mpa = 0.669 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 69375.5 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 152.69 in
A
p
= 6.27 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 1.0
Assume min A
ps
= 7.29 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 1258.1 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.764 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
g 0.5
= 0.749 ksi
1.0 x (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 325739 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
d
x 0.775 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 6.05 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 267.3 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 325739 kip-in matches (1.6 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-25
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - SPAN-BY-SPAN SEGMENTAL BRIDGE GIRDER SBS1
h = 72.00 in
b
f
= 336.00 in
A = 6259.16 in2
I = 4565870.34 in4
y
b
= 45.94 in
f'
c
= 7.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.2)
Given d
p
= 64.80 in
Assume min A
ps
= 80.00 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 13800.0 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 7.584 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.979 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 99387.7 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 1021239 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi
l
i
= 1200 in
N
s
= 0
l
e
= 2 l
i
/ (2 + N
s
) = 1200 in
Assume f
ps
= 212.0 ksi
c = (A
ps
x f
ps
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.70 x b) = 12.12 in
f
ps
= Min(f
pe
+ 900 x (d
p
- c) / l
e
; 243.5) = 212.0 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 924408 kip-in NO CONVERGENCE ACHIEVED
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
ps
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.609 ksi
F
t
= 1006 2 kips (see hand calculations) F
ct
= 1006.2 kips (see hand calculations)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
Assume f
ps
= 218.0 ksi (for trial and error purpose)
A
ps
= 26.54 in2
c = (A
ps
x f
ps
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.70 x b) = 4.13 in
f
ps
= Min(f
pe
+ 900 x (d
p
- c) / l
e
; 243.5) = 218.0 ksi matches assumed f
ps
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 7.0 ksi = 50 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 4.1 Mpa = 0.591 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 58693.3 kip-in
Δσ
p
= 15.0 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 58.32 in
A
p
= 67.09 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.2 f
r
+ 1.0 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 0.9
Assume min A
ps
= 24.59 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 4241.3 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 2.331 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.627 ksi
1.0 x (1.2 f
r
+ 1.0 f
pe
) x S
c
= 306438 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
Assume f
ps
= 218.2 ksi
c = (A
ps
x f
ps
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.70 x b) = 3.83 in
f
ps
= Min(f
pe
+ 900 x (d
p
- c) / l
e
; 243.5) = 218.2 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 306438 kip-in matches (1.2 f
r
+ 1.0 f
pe
) x S
c
A-26
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - SPAN-BY-SPAN SEGMENTAL BRIDGE GIRDER SBS2
h = 96.00 in
b
f
= 540.00 in
A = 9354.51 in2
I = 11744489.52 in4
y
b
= 65.49 in
f'
c
= 7.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.2)
Given d
p
= 86.40 in
Assume min A
ps
= 140.00 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 24150.0 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 10.108 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.979 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 179332.6 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 2385924 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi
l
i
= 1800 in
N
s
= 0
l
e
= 2 l
i
/ (2 + N
s
) = 1800 in
Assume f
ps
= 209.2 ksi
c = (A
ps
x f
ps
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.70 x b) = 13.02 in
f
ps
= Min(f
pe
+ 900 x (d
p
- c) / l
e
; 243.5) = 209.2 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 2157183 kip-in NO CONVERGENCE ACHIEVED
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
ps
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.609 ksi
F
t
= 1352 7 kips (see hand calculations) F
ct
= 1352.7 kips (see hand calculations)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
Assume f
ps
= 213.8 ksi (for trial and error purpose)
A
ps
= 39.30 in2
c = (A
ps
x f
ps
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.70 x b) = 3.74 in
f
ps
= Min(f
pe
+ 900 x (d
p
- c) / l
e
; 243.5) = 213.8 ksi matches assumed f
ps
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 7.0 ksi = 50 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 4.1 Mpa = 0.591 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 105904.6 kip-in
Δσ
p
= 15.0 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 77.76 in
A
p
= 90.80 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.2 f
r
+ 1.0 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 0.9
Assume min A
ps
= 39.37 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 6791.8 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 2.843 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.627 ksi
1.0 x (1.2 f
r
+ 1.0 f
pe
) x S
c
= 644736 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
Assume f
ps
= 213.8 ksi
c = (A
ps
x f
ps
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.70 x b) = 3.74 in
f
ps
= Min(f
pe
+ 900 x (d
p
- c) / l
e
; 243.5) = 213.8 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 644736 kip-in matches (1.2 f
r
+ 1.0 f
pe
) x S
c
A-27
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - BALANCED CANTILEVER BRIDGE GIRDER SBC1
h = 72.00 in
b
f
= 336.00 in
A = 7471.00 in2
I = 5269583.65 in4
y
b
= 44.29 in
f'
c
= 7.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 0.95 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.2)
Given d
p
= 64.80 in
Assume min A
ps
= 29.32 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 5058.2 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 2.254 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.979 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 118979.1 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 461563 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.70 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 5.52 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 264 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 461563 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.609 ksi
F
ct
= 1244.2 kips (see hand calculations)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A 15 31 i 2 A
ps
= 15.31 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 7.0 ksi = 50 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 4.1 Mpa = 0.591 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 70262.9 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 58.32 in
A
p
= 16.62 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.2 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 0.95
Assume min A
ps
= 14.78 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 2550.2 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.136 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.627 ksi
1.0 x (1.2 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 238244 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.70 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 2.82 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 266.7 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 238244 kip-in matches (1.2 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-28
PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: SHEET NO.: OF:
CHECKED: DATE: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 JOB NO.:
CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - BALANCED CANTILEVER BRIDGE GIRDER SBC2
h = 120.00 in
b
f
= 540.00 in
A = 12020.08 in2
I = 23216472.58 in4
y
b
= 78.78 in
f'
c
= 7.0 ksi
f
y
= 60 ksi
f
pu
= 270 ksi
1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2
Ø M
n
≥ 1.2 M
cr with Ø = 0.95 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.2)
Given d
p
= 108.00 in
Assume min A
ps
= 43.39 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 7484.2 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
cpe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 2.319 ksi
f
r
= 0.37 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.979 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
S
c
= I / y
b
= 294700.1 in3
1.2 M
cr
= 1.2 x S
c
x (f
r
+ f
cpe
) = 1166130 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.70 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 5.14 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 266 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 1166130 kip-in matches 1.2 M
cr
2) LEONHARDT
A
ps
≥ 1.2 F
ct
/ (f
pu
- f
pe
)
f
ct
= 0.23 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.609 ksi
F
ct
= 1832.4 kips (see hand calculations)
f
pe
= 0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi = 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses
A 22 55 i 2 A
ps
= 22.55 in2
3) EUROCODE
A
p
≥ M
rep
/ (z x Δσ
p
)
f
ck
= f'
c
= 7.0 ksi = 50 Mpa
f
ctm
= 0.30 x f
ck
2/3
= 4.1 Mpa = 0.591 ksi
M
rep
= S
c
x f
ctm
= 174034.8 kip-in
Δσ
p
= Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = 72.5 ksi
z = 0.9 x d = 97.20 in
A
p
= 24.70 in2
4) PROPOSED METHOD
Ø M
n
≥ 1.0 x (1.2 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c with Ø = 0.95
Assume min A
ps
= 22.40 in2 (for trial and error purpose)
P
f
= A
ps
x (0.75 x f
pu
- 30 ksi) = 3864.8 kips assuming 30 ksi losses
f
pe
= P
f
/ A + P
f
x (d
p
- y
t
) x y
b
/ I = 1.197 ksi
f
r
= 0.237 x f'
c
0.5
= 0.627 ksi
1.0 x (1.2 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
= 609881 kip-in
Ø M
n
= Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2)
c = (A
ps
x f
pu
) / (0.85 x f'
c
x 0.70 x b + 0.28 x A
ps
x f
pu
/ d
p
) = 2.67 in
f
ps
= f
pu
x (1 - 0.28 x c / d
p
) = 268.1 ksi
Ø x A
ps
x f
ps
x (d
p
- a / 2) = 609881 kip-in matches (1.2 f
r
+ 1.1 f
pe
) x S
c
A-29

Appendix B Design Examples
B-1
 
B.1 MULTI-SPAN PRECAST CONCRETE GIRDER MADE CONTINUOUS WITH
COMPOSITE DECK
This is one of the most common types of structures used for freeway bridges and
overpasses. This three-span precast/prestressed girder example features a single long span in the
middle along with two short side spans, as shown in Figure B-1. A uniform depth is used to
reduce set-up costs and improve aesthetics. It is intended that the side spans are short enough so
the minimum flexural provisions control the design in the positive bending regions.
Seventy-two inch bulb-tee girders are featured in this example since the bottom flange
tends to be relatively narrow, thus limiting the amount of rotational ductility that can be
sustained in the negative bending region.
 
 
Figure B-1. Precast Concrete Girder Made Continuous with a Composite Deck
B.1.1 Description of Bridge
Bridge dimensions

The bridge is 42.0 ft wide and 6.83 ft deep at the supports. The 6.0 ft deep bulb-tee
girders are spaced at 9.0 ft on center. The deck is 8.0 in. thick. The columns are circular with a
diameter of 5.5 ft.
B-2
 
Material properties

ksi f
c
5 . 7 ' = (girders)
ksi f
ci
5 . 5 ' = (girders)
ksi f
c
5 . 4 ' = (deck)
ksi f
y
60 =
ksi E
s
000 , 29 =
ksi f
pu
270 =
ksi E
ps
500 , 28 =

Prestress force

The working prestressing force is designed with the software Conspan and is estimated to be 325
kips for an interior girder in Spans 1 and 3 and 1,146 kips for an interior girder in Span 2.

B.1.2 Minimum Flexural Reinforcement – Modified LRFD Method
 
At the outside face of support (negative moment):
 
Design moments (per interior girder):
 
ft k M
SW
÷ = 0
ft k M
PC DL
÷ =
÷
0
ft k M
deck
÷ = 0
ft k M
DC ADL
÷ ÷ =
÷
248
ft k M
DW ADL
÷ ÷ =
÷
387
ft k M
HL
÷ ÷ =
÷
694 , 1
93


93
75 . 1 5 . 1 25 . 1
÷ ÷ ÷
+ + =
HL DW ADL DC ADL
StrengthI
u
M M M M
) 694 , 1 ( 75 . 1 ) 387 ( 50 . 1 ) 248 ( 25 . 1 ÷ × + ÷ × + ÷ × =
StrengthI
u
M
ft k M
StrengthI
u
÷ ÷ = 855 , 3

Section properties:

in ft h
nc
72 6 = = (non-composite section)
in ft h
c
5 . 80 71 . 6 = = (composite section)
in b
f
26 = (girder bottom flange width)
B-3
 
in h
f
6 = (compression flange)
4
33 . 26 ft I
nc
= (non-composite section)
4
16 . 54 ft I
c
= (composite section)
2
33 . 5 ft A
nc
= (non-composite section)
2
09 . 10 ft A
c
= (composite section)
in y
nc
b
6 . 36 = (distance from section CG to bottom fiber – non-composite section)
in y
c
b
38 . 55 = (distance from section CG to bottom fiber – composite section)

Required flexural reinforcement:

The prestressing capacity is neglected for the negative moment capacity.
)
' 85 . 0 2
( )
2
(
b f
f A
d f A
a
d f A M
c
y s
y s y s n
×
÷ = ÷ = | | |

The section is tension-controlled and 90 . 0 = |
in d 80 . 76 = assuming #11 mild steel reinforcement
)
26 5 . 7 85 . 0 2
60
80 . 76 ( 60 90 . 0 12 855 , 3
× × ×
×
÷ × × × = ×
s
s
A
A
Solve the quadratic equation for
2
46 . 11 in A
s
= .

The net tensile strain is:
|
.
|

\
| ÷
=
c
c d
s
003 . 0 c where in
b f
f A
c
c
y s
88 . 4
26 5 . 7 85 . 0
60 46 . 11
85 . 0
2
= |
.
|

\
|
× ×
×
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
'
=
|

Therefore, 044 . 0
88 . 4
88 . 4 8 . 76
003 . 0 = |
.
|

\
| ÷
=
s
c
The net tensile strain is greater than 0.0075, which satisfies Article 5.7.3.5 for redistribution.
Therefore, per the proposed revised Article 5.7.3.3.2, minimum reinforcement is not required for
negative bending.

Summary:
kip P
f
325 =
2
46 . 11 in A
s
= mild steel reinforcement in deck.


At 0.5 Span 1 (positive moment):

Design moments (per interior girder):

ft k M
SW
÷ = 354
B-4
 
ft k M
PC DL
÷ =
÷
27
ft k M
deck
÷ = 408
ft k M
DC ADL
÷ ÷ =
÷
38
ft k M
DW ADL
÷ ÷ =
÷
60
ft k M
HL
÷ =
÷
036 , 1
93

93
75 . 1 65 . 0 9 . 0 ) ( 25 . 1
÷ ÷ ÷ ÷
+ + + + + =
HL DW ADL DC ADL deck PC DL SW
StrengthI
u
M M M M M M M
036 , 1 75 . 1 ) 60 ( 65 . 0 ) 38 ( 9 . 0 ) 408 27 354 ( 25 . 1 × + ÷ × + ÷ × + + + × =
StrengthI
u
M
ft k M
StrengthI
u
÷ = 724 , 2

Section properties:

in ft h
nc
72 6 = = (non-composite section)
in ft h
c
5 . 80 71 . 6 = = (composite section)
ft b
f
9 = (deck effective width for an interior girder)
in h
f
8 = (compression flange)
4
33 . 26 ft I
nc
= (non-composite section)
4
16 . 54 ft I
c
= (composite section)
2
33 . 5 ft A
nc
= (non-composite section)
2
09 . 10 ft A
c
= (composite section)
in y
nc
b
6 . 36 = (distance from section CG to bottom fiber – non-composite section)
in y
c
b
38 . 55 = (distance from section CG to bottom fiber – composite section)

Minimum reinforcement by the proposed method:

fcr n
M M > | where
(
¸
(

¸

÷ ÷ + = ) 1 ( ) (
2 1 3
nc
c
dnc c cpe r fcr
S
S
M S f f M ¸ ¸ ¸ and
u n
M M 33 . 1 > |
0 . 1
3
= ¸ for prestressed structures
6 . 1
1
= ¸
ksi f f
c r
649 . 0 5 . 7 237 . 0 ' 237 . 0 = × = =
1 . 1
2
= ¸
in d
p
78 = (distance from P/S CG to top deck)
in d h y e
p c
nc
b nc
10 . 34 ) 78 5 . 80 ( 6 . 36 ) ( = ÷ ÷ = ÷ ÷ = (prestressing eccentricity)
kips P
f
325 = (prestressing force after all losses per Conspan analysis)

B-5
 
ksi
I
y e P
A
P
f
nc
nc
b nc f
nc
f
cpe
166 . 1
12 33 . 26
6 . 36 10 . 34 325
12 33 . 5
325
4 2
=
×
× ×
+
×
= + =
3
4
279 , 20
38 . 55
12 16 . 54
in
y
I
S
c
b
c
c
=
×
= =
ft k M M M M
deck PC DL SW ndc
÷ = + + = + + =
÷
789 408 27 354
3
4
917 , 14
6 . 36
12 33 . 26
in
y
I
S
nc
b
nc
nc
=
×
= =
ft k M
fcr
÷ = ÷ × ÷ × × + × × = 638 , 3 ) 1
917 , 14
279 , 20
( 789
12
279 , 20
) 166 . 1 1 . 1 649 . 0 6 . 1 ( 0 . 1
ft k M ft k M
StrengthI
u fcr
÷ = > ÷ = 724 , 2 638 , 3
ft k M ft k M
StrengthI
u fcr
÷ = × = > ÷ = 623 , 3 724 , 2 33 . 1 33 . 1 638 , 3 so
ft k M
StrengthI
u
÷ = 623 , 3 33 . 1 controls the design.

Calculation of
ps
n
M | from prestressing:

Calculate
ps
n
M | per the simplified method.
2
736 . 1
270 75 . 0
5 . 351
75 . 0
in
f
P
A
pu
i
ps
=
×
=
×
= (8-0.6in | strands)
825 . 0 ) 4 5 . 4 ( 05 . 0 85 . 0 ) 4 ' ( 05 . 0 85 . 0
1
= ÷ × ÷ = ÷ × ÷ =
c
f |
28 . 0 = k

Assume rectangular section behavior:
in
d
f
kA b f
f A
c
p
pu
ps f c
pu ps
37 . 1
78
270
736 . 1 28 . 0 12 9 825 . 0 5 . 4 85 . 0
270 736 . 1
' 85 . 0
1
=
× × + × × × ×
×
=
+
=
|

in h in c a
f
8 13 . 1 37 . 1 825 . 0
1
= s = × = = |
Therefore, the section behavior is rectangular.
ksi
d
c
k f f
p
pu ps
7 . 268 )
78
37 . 1
28 . 0 1 ( 270 ) 1 ( = × ÷ × = ÷ =
Check the force equilibrium:
Flange force kip ab f C
f c f
8 . 466 12 9 13 . 1 5 . 4 85 . 0 ' 85 . 0 = × × × × = =
Prestressing force kip f A T
ps ps ps
5 . 466 7 . 268 736 . 1 = × = = within 0.07% of
f
C ÷
equilibrium is satisfied.

B-6
 
ft k
b a f
d f A M
f c
p ps ps
ps
n
÷ = ÷
× × × ×
÷ × × = ÷ = 010 , 3 12 )
2
12 9 13 . 1 5 . 4 85 . 0
78 7 . 268 736 . 1 (
2
' 85 . 0
2
2
The section is tension-controlled and 00 . 1 = |
ft k M
ps
n
÷ = × = 010 , 3 010 , 3 00 . 1 |
ft k M ft k M
StrengthI
u
ps
n
÷ = s ÷ = 623 , 3 33 . 1 010 , 3 | so additional strands are required.
Try 2 additional strands with the same eccentricity at mid-span.
2
17 . 2 217 . 0 2 736 . 1 in A
ps
= × + = (10-0.6in | strands)
kip P
f
406
736 . 1
17 . 2
325 = × ~ (prestressing force after all losses)
Since
StrengthI
u
M 33 . 1 controls the design, increasing the amount of prestressing strands
does not increase the minimum reinforcement demand.

Assume a rectangular section behavior:
in
d
f
kA b f
f A
c
p
pu
ps f c
pu ps
71 . 1
78
270
17 . 2 28 . 0 12 9 825 . 0 5 . 4 85 . 0
270 17 . 2
' 85 . 0
1
=
× × + × × × ×
×
=
+
=
|

in h in c a
f
8 41 . 1 71 . 1 825 . 0
1
= s = × = = | therefore the section behavior is rectangular.
ksi
d
c
k f f
p
pu ps
4 . 268 )
78
71 . 1
28 . 0 1 ( 270 ) 1 ( = × ÷ × = ÷ =
Check the force equilibrium:
Flange force kip ab f C
f c f
5 . 582 12 9 41 . 1 5 . 4 85 . 0 ' 85 . 0 = × × × × = =
Prestressing force kip f A T
ps ps ps
5 . 582 4 . 268 17 . 2 = × = = equal to
f
C ÷ equilibrium is
satisfied.
ft k
b a f
d f A M
f c
p ps ps
ps
n
÷ = ÷
× × × ×
÷ × × = ÷ = 751 , 3 12 )
2
12 9 41 . 1 5 . 4 85 . 0
78 4 . 268 17 . 2 (
2
' 85 . 0
2
2
The section is tension-controlled and 00 . 1 = |
ftt k M ft k M
StrengthI
u
ps
n
÷ = > ÷ = × = 623 , 3 33 . 1 751 , 3 751 , 3 00 . 1 |

Summary:
kip P
f
325 =
2
434 . 0 217 . 0 2 in A
ps
= × = of additional prestress strand area required to meet the
Modified Method Minimum Reinforcement provisions.


B-7
 
 
Figure B-2. Moment Profiles for the Precast Girder Example

B-8
 
B-9
 
B.2 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE BOX GIRDER
A three-span cast-in-place concrete box girder bridge that is commonly built in California
and Nevada is the subject of this design example. As with the first example, the side spans are far
shorter than the end spans while the depth of the bridge is constant for along the entire length.
Because the bridge is monolithic, the bridge resists all loading continuously including any
prestress forces. All prestress consists of continuous post-tensioning that runs full length of the
bridge. To control camber and reduce friction losses, the post-tensioning tendon midspan
eccentricity is reduced in the shorter spans were flexural demands are reduced.
For this type of structure, it is more economical to design the post-tensioning cables for
service loads, and add mild reinforcement in localized areas as needed to resist strength limit
state loads including minimum reinforcement provisions. It is anticipated that minimum flexural
reinforcement will control the design of this mild reinforcement in these side spans.
 
 
Figure D-3. Cast-in-Place Box Girder
B 2.1 Bridge Layout

The bridge is 42.0 ft wide and 6.5 ft deep. The girders are spaced at 11.0 ft on center and are
flared from 12 in. to 18 in. at the abutments and the bents. The soffit is flared to 12 in. at the
bents. The columns are circular with a diameter of 6.0 ft.

Material Properties

B-10
 
ksi f
c
4 ' =
ksi E
c
644 , 3 =
ksi f
y
60 =
ksi E
s
000 , 29 =
ksi f
pu
270 =
ksi E
ps
500 , 28 =

Prestress Forces

The allowable tension stress is limited to 0 under permanent loads and 0.19 c f ' (ksi) under the
sum of the permanent and live loads. The jacking force is designed under the Service III limit
state and is estimated with the software CT Bridge to be 6,200 kips.

B2.2 Minimum Flexural Reinforcement – Modified LRFD Method

At the outside face of support (negative moment):
 
Design moments:

ft k M
DC
÷ ÷ = 653 , 15
ft k M
DW
÷ ÷ = 821 , 1
ft k M
S SecP
÷ ÷ = 568
/

ft k M
HL
÷ ÷ =
÷
836 , 8
93

ft k M
P
÷ ÷ =
÷
529 , 15
15


93 /
75 . 1 00 . 1 50 . 1 25 . 1
÷
+ + + =
HL S SecP DW DC
StrengthI
u
M M M M M
) 836 , 8 ( 75 . 1 ) 568 ( 00 . 1 ) 821 , 1 ( 50 . 1 ) 653 , 15 ( 25 . 1 ÷ × + ÷ × + ÷ × + ÷ × =
StrengthI
u
M
ft k M
StrengthI
u
÷ ÷ = 329 , 38

15 /
35 . 1 00 . 1 50 . 1 25 . 1
÷
+ + + =
P S SecP DW DC
StrengthII
u
M M M M M
) 529 , 15 ( 35 . 1 ) 568 ( 00 . 1 ) 821 , 1 ( 50 . 1 ) 653 , 15 ( 25 . 1 ÷ × + ÷ × + ÷ × + ÷ × =
StrengthII
u
M
ft k M
StrengthII
u
÷ ÷ = 830 , 43 controls the design.

Section properties:

in ft h 78 5 . 6 = =
in h
f
12 = (compression flange)
in ft b
f
342 5 . 28 = = (compression flange)
B-11
 
in b
w
72 =
4
03 . 538 ft I =
2
78 . 90 ft A =

in y
b
96 . 40 = (distance from section CG to bottom fiber)
in y
t
04 . 37 = (distance from section CG to top fiber)

Calculation of
ps
n
M | from prestressing:

The calculation of
ps
n
M | per the strain-compatibility method is an iterative process.
2
62 . 30
270 75 . 0
200 , 6
75 . 0
in
f
P
A
pu
jack
ps
=
×
=
×
=
in d
p
90 . 62 = (distance from P/S CG to bottom fiber)
in y d e
b p
94 . 21 96 . 40 90 . 62 = ÷ = ÷ = (prestressing eccentricity)
kips P
f
9 . 031 , 5 = (prestressing force after all losses per CT Bridge analysis)
85 . 0
1
= |

Assume in c 30 . 8 =
in h in c a
f
12 05 . 7 30 . 8 85 . 0
1
= s = × = = | therefore the section behavior is rectangular.
The strain of the prestress tendons consists of the following:
Effective prestress at service load: 00576 . 0
62 . 30 500 , 28
9 . 031 , 5
1
=
×
= =
ps ps
f
ps
A E
P
c
At decompression: 00017 . 0 )
)
12 78 . 90
12 03 . 538
(
94 . 21
1 (
12 78 . 90 644 , 3
9 . 031 , 5
) 1 (
2
4
2
2 2
2
2
=
×
×
+
× ×
= + =
r
e
A E
P
c c
f
ps
c
At limit state:
01973 . 0
30 . 8
) 30 . 8 90 . 62 (
003 . 0
) (
3
=
÷
× =
÷
=
c
c d
p
c ps
c c

Thus 0086 . 0 0257 . 0 01973 . 0 00017 . 0 00576 . 0
3 2 1
> = + + = + + =
ps ps ps ps
c c c c
ksi f f
ps
pu ps
9 . 267
007 . 0 0257 . 0
04 . 0
270
007 . 0
04 . 0
=
÷
÷ =
÷
÷ =
c


Check the force equilibrium:
Flange force kip ab f C
f c f
5 . 203 , 8 342 05 . 7 4 85 . 0 ' 85 . 0 = × × × = =
Prestressing force kip f A T
ps ps ps
1 . 203 , 8 9 . 267 62 . 30 = × = = equal to
f
C ÷ equilibrium is
satisfied.
 
B-12
 
ft k
b a f
d f A M
f c
p ps ps
ps
n
÷ = ÷
× × ×
÷ × × = ÷ = 586 , 40 12 )
2
342 05 . 7 4 85 . 0
90 . 62 9 . 267 62 . 30 (
2
' 85 . 0
2
2
005 . 0 01973 . 0
3
> =
ps
c ÷ the section is tension-controlled and 95 . 0 = |

ft k M ft k M
StrengthII
u
ps
n
÷ = s ÷ = × = 830 , 43 557 , 38 586 , 40 95 . 0 | so mild steel is required.

Required flexural reinforcement:

The calculation of
n
M | is an iterative process.
in d
s
68 . 74 = assuming #6 mild steel reinforcement
Try
2
67 . 16 in A
s
= and assume in c 30 . 9 =
in h in c a
f
12 91 . 7 30 . 9 85 . 0
1
= s = × = = | therefore the section behavior is rectangular.
The strain of the prestress tendons consists of the following:
Effective prestress at service load: 00576 . 0
1
=
ps
c
At decompression: 00017 . 0
2
=
ps
c
At limit state:
0173 . 0
30 . 9
) 30 . 9 90 . 62 (
003 . 0
) (
3
=
÷
× =
÷
=
c
c d
p
c ps
c c

Thus 0086 . 0 0232 . 0 0173 . 0 00017 . 0 00576 . 0
3 2 1
> = + + = + + =
ps ps ps ps
c c c c
ksi f f
ps
pu ps
5 . 267
007 . 0 0232 . 0
04 . 0
270
007 . 0
04 . 0
=
÷
÷ =
÷
÷ =
c

00207 . 0
000 , 29
60
0211 . 0
30 . 9
) 30 . 9 68 . 74 (
003 . 0
) (
= = > =
÷
× =
÷
=
s
y
s
c t
E
f
c
c d
c c so ksi f f
y s
60 = =
 
Check the force equilibrium:
Flange force kip ab f C
f c f
9 . 191 , 9 342 91 . 7 4 85 . 0 ' 85 . 0 = × × × = =
Prestressing force kip f A T
ps ps ps
9 . 191 , 8 5 . 267 62 . 30 = × = =
Mild steel force kip f A T
y s mild
2 . 000 , 1 60 67 . 16 = × = =
Tension kip T T
mild ps
1 . 192 , 9 2 . 000 , 1 9 . 191 , 8 = + = + within 0.002% of compression
f
C ÷
equilibrium is satisfied.
ft k M
b a f
d f A d f A M
n
f c
s y s p ps ps n
÷ = ÷
× × ×
÷ × × + × × =
÷ + =
137 , 46 12 )
2
342 91 . 7 4 85 . 0
68 . 74 60 67 . 16 90 . 62 5 . 267 62 . 30 (
2
' 85 . 0
2
2
005 . 0 0211 . 0 > =
t
c ÷ the section is tension-controlled and 95 . 0 = |
B-13
 
Also, the net tensile strain is greater than 0.0075, which satisfies Article 5.7.3.5 for
redistribution. Therefore, per the proposed revised Article 5.7.3.3.2, minimum reinforcement is
not required to be checked for negative bending.
ft k M
n
÷ = × = 830 , 43 137 , 46 95 . 0 | matches
StrengthII
u
M

Summary:
kip P
jack
200 , 6 =
2
67 . 16 in A
s
= mild steel reinforcement


At 0.7 Span 1 (positive moment):

Design moments:

ft k M
DC
÷ ÷ = 148 , 6
ft k M
DW
÷ ÷ = 730
ft k M
S SecP
÷ = 25
/

ft k M
HL
÷ =
÷
916 , 3
93

ft k M
P
÷ =
÷
242 , 5
15


93 /
75 . 1 00 . 1 65 . 0 9 . 0
÷
+ + + =
HL S SecP DW DC
StrengthI
u
M M M M M
916 , 3 75 . 1 25 00 . 1 ) 730 ( 65 . 0 ) 148 , 6 ( 9 . 0 × + × + ÷ × + ÷ × =
StrengthI
u
M
ft k M
StrengthI
u
÷ = 871

15 /
35 . 1 00 . 1 65 . 0 9 . 0
÷
+ + + =
P S SecP DW DC
StrengthII
u
M M M M M
242 , 5 35 . 1 25 00 . 1 ) 730 ( 65 . 0 ) 148 , 6 ( 9 . 0 × + × + ÷ × + ÷ × =
StrengthII
u
M
ft k M
StrengthII
u
÷ = 094 , 1

Section properties:

in ft h 78 5 . 6 = =
in h
f
63 . 8 = (compression flange)
in ft b
f
504 42 = = (compression flange)
in b
w
48 =
4
45 . 446 ft I =
2
24 . 71 ft A =

in y
b
11 . 45 = (distance from section CG to bottom fiber)
B-14
 
in y
t
89 . 32 = (distance from section CG to top fiber)
Minimum reinforcement by the Modified LRFD Method:

fcr n
M M > | where | | S f f M
cpe r fcr
) (
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸ + = and
u n
M M 33 . 1 > |
0 . 1
3
= ¸ for prestressed structures
6 . 1
1
= ¸
ksi f f
c r
474 . 0 4 237 . 0 ' 237 . 0 = × = =
1 . 1
2
= ¸
in d
p
15 . 28 = (distance from P/S CG to top fiber)
in y d e
t p
74 . 4 89 . 32 15 . 28 ÷ = ÷ = ÷ = (prestressing eccentricity)

kips P
f
9 . 932 , 4 = (prestressing force after all losses per CT Bridge analysis)
ksi
I
y M e P
A
P
f
b S SecP f f
cpe
365 . 0
12 45 . 446
11 . 45 ) 12 25 ) 74 . 4 ( 9 . 932 , 4 (
12 24 . 71
9 . 932 , 4
) (
4 2
/
=
×
× × ÷ ÷ ×
+
×
=
÷
+ =

3
4
223 , 205
11 . 45
12 45 . 446
in
y
I
S
b
=
×
= =
ft k M ft k M
StrengthII
u fcr
÷ = > ÷ = × × + × × = 094 , 1 836 , 19
12
223 , 205
) 365 . 0 1 . 1 474 . 0 6 . 1 ( 0 . 1
ft k M ft k M
StrengthII
u fcr
÷ = × = > ÷ = 455 , 1 094 , 1 33 . 1 33 . 1 836 , 19 so
ft k M
StrengthII
u
÷ = 455 , 1 33 . 1 controls the design.

Calculation of
ps
n
M | from prestressing:

The calculation of
ps
n
M | per the strain-compatibility method is an iterative process.
2
62 . 30
270 75 . 0
200 , 6
75 . 0
in
f
P
A
pu
jack
ps
=
×
=
×
=
85 . 0
1
= |

Assume in c 60 . 5 =
in h in c a
f
63 . 8 76 . 4 60 . 5 85 . 0
1
= s = × = = | therefore the section behavior is rectangular.
The strain of the prestress tendons consists of the following:
Effective prestress at service load: 00565 . 0
62 . 30 500 , 28
9 . 932 , 4
1
=
×
= =
ps ps
f
ps
A E
P
c
B-15
 
At decompression:
00014 . 0 )
)
12 24 . 71
12 45 . 446
(
) 74 . 4 (
1 (
12 24 . 71 644 , 3
9 . 932 , 4
) 1 (
2
4
2
2 2
2
2
=
×
×
÷
+
× ×
= + =
r
e
A E
P
c c
f
ps
c
At limit state:
01208 . 0
60 . 5
) 60 . 5 15 . 28 (
003 . 0
) (
3
=
÷
× =
÷
=
c
c d
p
c ps
c c

Thus 0086 . 0 0179 . 0 01208 . 0 00014 . 0 00565 . 0
3 2 1
> = + + = + + =
ps ps ps ps
c c c c
ksi f f
ps
pu ps
3 . 266
007 . 0 0179 . 0
04 . 0
270
007 . 0
04 . 0
=
÷
÷ =
÷
÷ =
c


Check the force equilibrium:
Flange force kip ab f C
f c f
3 . 155 , 8 504 76 . 4 4 85 . 0 ' 85 . 0 = × × × = =
Prestressing force kip f A T
ps ps ps
7 . 154 , 8 3 . 266 62 . 30 = × = = within 0.007% of
f
C ÷
equilibrium is satisfied.

ft k
b a f
d f A M
f c
p ps ps
ps
n
÷ = ÷
× × ×
÷ × × = ÷ = 512 , 17 12 )
2
504 76 . 4 4 85 . 0
15 . 28 3 . 266 62 . 30 (
2
' 85 . 0
2
2
005 . 0 01208 . 0
3
> =
ps
c ÷ the section is tension-controlled and 95 . 0 = | .

ft k M ft k M
StrengthII
u
ps
n
÷ = > ÷ = × = 455 , 1 33 . 1 637 , 16 512 , 17 95 . 0 | so no additional mild
steel reinforcement is required.
B-16
 
 
Figure B-4. CIP Box Girder Moment Profiles

B-17
 
B.3 SPAN-BY-SPAN SEGMENTAL BRIDGE WITH EXTERNAL TENDONS
INTRODUCTION

A two-span precast segmental bridge is the subject of this design example. The bridge is built
using the span-by-span construction method. The bridge chosen for this example is part of the I-
4/Lee Roy Selmon Expressway in Tampa, FL.

Each of the two spans in this bridge is simply supported. Only Span 2 of this bridge is the subject
of this example. This represents a relatively large depth-to-span ratio bridge in which the
minimum flexural reinforcement requirement could control the design. An elevation view of this
bridge is shown in Figure B-5.

Figure B-5. Precast Segmental Span-By-Span Bridge Design Example

For Span 2, the cross section consists of a single-cell box section with long overhangs as shown
in Figure B-6. The deck width is variable as indicated in Figure B-5. The length of Span 2 is
approximately 115'-6" and the bridge is prestressed by means of external unbonded tendons as
shown in the tendon layout in Figure B-7.
B-18
 

Figure B-6. Cross section (Span 2)




Figure B-7. Prestressing Tendon Layout (Span 2)


SPECIFICATIONS

This example is designed based on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 4
th
Edition,
2007.


MATERIAL PROPERTIES

ksi f
c
5 . 6 ' =
ksi E
c
888 , 4 =
B-19
 
ksi f
y
60 =
ksi E
s
000 , 29 =
ksi f
pu
270 =
ksi E
ps
500 , 28 =


PRESTRESS DESIGN

For precast segmental bridges with no bonded reinforcement or bonded tendons crossing the
joints, no tensile stresses are allowed at all segment-to-segment joints under service loads.
Longitudinal analysis and design of this bridge included concrete stresses under service loads,
flexural capacity, shear capacity, principal stresses in the box girder webs and minimum flexural
reinforcement requirements. Except for the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement, design
is satisfactory with the use of four external tendons on each side of the box section; three of these
tendons are composed of 19-0.6" | strands and the fourth tendon is composed of 15-0.6" |
strands. Thus, the total number of external unbonded strands in this bridge is 144-0.6" |.


MOMENT DIAGRAMS

Figure B-8 shows the bending moments along the length of the single span bridge (Span 2). The
figure shows the minimum design moments due to cracking according to the current AASHTO
LRFD Specifications and based on the proposed method (Modified LRFD). It is clear that the
proposed provisions significantly reduce the minimum required design moments (MFR). The
figure also indicates that along the entire span length, the 1.33M
u
controls over the 1.20M
cr

(AASHTO LRFD Specifications). However, in the middle third of the span length, the cracking
moment based on the proposed modified LRFD method controls over 1.33M
u
.

Figure B-8 also shows the factored flexural moment capacity, which is higher than the factored
moment, M
u
, at all sections. However, in the middle 80 ft of the span length, the minimum
flexural reinforcement requirement is not satisfied and the prestressing will be controlled by the
MFR requirement. It should be noted that depth of the box girder is 9 ft, whereas the span length
is about 115 ft only. Thus, the superstructure is relatively deep, which could result in the flexural
design being controlled by the MFR requirement. Alternative design to satisfy the MFR
requirement will be discussed in the following sections.




B-20
 

Figure B-8. Cracking Moment, Factored Moment and Flexural Capacity of a Precast
Segmental Span-By-Span Bridge Example


Analysis of this bridge was done using LARSA 4D. Construction stages and time-dependent
effects were considered in the analysis. Below are hand calculations for the midspan section of
the bridge.

Design moments:

Sign convention is positive for moment resulting in tensile stress at bottom surface (opposite to
the sign shown in Figure B-8).
ft k M
DC
÷ = 677 , 24 Self wt, ½" sacrificial wearing surface, diaphragms & barriers
ft k M
DW
÷ = 0 No utilities or future wearing surface
ft k M
S SecP
÷ = 0
/
No secondary effects from prestressing for a single span bridge
ft k M
TU
÷ = 0 No moments from uniform temperature rise for a single span bridge
ft k M
TG
÷ = 0 No moments from temperature gradient for a single span bridge
ft k M
I HL
÷ =
+ ÷
560 , 8
93


B-21
 
TG TU I HL S SecP DW DC
StrengthI
u u
M M M M M M M M 50 . 0 50 . 0 75 . 1 00 . 1 50 . 1 25 . 1
93 /
+ + + + + = =
+ ÷

) 0 ( 50 . 0 ) 0 ( 50 . 0 ) 560 , 8 ( 75 . 1 ) 0 ( 00 . 1 ) 0 ( 50 . 1 ) 677 , 24 ( 25 . 1 × + × + × + × + × + × =
u
M
ft k M
u
÷ = 826 , 45


Section properties:

in ft h 108 9 = = The sacrificial surface is included as external load only
in h
f
5 . 9 = (minimum thickness of compression flange)
in ft b
f
5 . 703 625 . 58 = = (compression flange width)
in b
w
30 =
4 4
898 , 002 , 17 97 . 819 in ft I = =
2 2
88 . 106 , 13 02 . 91 in ft A = =

in y
b
84 . 78 = (distance from section CG to bottom fiber)
in y
t
16 . 29 = (distance from section CG to top fiber)


Calculation of
n
M | from prestressing:

In Figure B-8, the moment capacity is calculated using LARSA 4D. At the midspan section, the
factored flexural moment capacity is 47,631 kip-ft. The flexural capacity for the midspan section
is calculated below using the AASHTO LRFD equations, which may result in slightly different
values from those calculated by LARSA 4D.
2 2
248 . 31 217 . 0 144 in in A
ps
= × = Total of 144-0.6" | strands (external unbonded)
in d
p
75 . 94 = (distance from P/S CG to top fiber)
in y d e
t p
59 . 65 16 . 29 75 . 94 = ÷ = ÷ = (tendon eccentricity)
725 . 0 ) 4 ( 05 . 0 85 . 0
'
1
= ÷ ÷ =
c
f |

Effective prestressing force in external tendons (from LARSA 4D):
kips P
f
247 , 5 =
ksi
in
kips
A
P
f
ps
f
pe
9 . 167
248 . 31
247 , 5
2
= = =
Length of external tendon (approximate): ft l
i
83 . 114 =
Number of support hinges crossed by external tendons (single span): 0 =
i
N
Effective length of external tendons:
ft
N
l
l
i
i
e
83 . 114
) 2 (
2 =
+
=
B-22
 
Depth of compression zone: Assume ksi f ksi f
py ps
243 228 = < =
in
b f
f A
c
f c
ps ps
53 . 2
85 . 0
1
'
= =
|

Depth of neutral axis is smaller than deck thickness. Thus, use of equations for rectangular
sections is justified.

Stress in external tendons at ultimate moment:
ksi f ksi
l
c d
f f
py
e
p
pe ps
243 228
) (
900 = < =
÷
+ =
This stress is the same as assumed above. Thus, no iterations are needed.

Tensile force at ultimate moment: kips f A T
ps ps
5 . 124 , 7 = =
Depth of equivalent rectangular stress block: in c a 83 . 1
1
= = |
Resistance factor: 90 . 0 = | (segmental bridges with unbonded tendons)
Factored flexural moment capacity:
ft kip
a
d f A M
p ps ps n
÷ = ÷ = 139 , 50 )
2
( | |
LARSA 4D calculated the factored moment capacity as 47,633 kip-ft (about 5% difference). It
should be noted that the above-calculated factored moment capacity does not take into account
the reduction in moment arm of the external tendons due to deflection of the superstructure.
Thus, the predicted flexural capacity will be less than 50,139 kip-ft.


Minimum reinforcement by the proposed method (Modified LRFD):

fcr n
M M > |    or   
u n
M M 33 . 1 > |  ; where   S f f M
cpe cr fcr
) (
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸ + =  
20 . 1
1
= ¸ (proposed for precast segmental bridges) 
ksi f f
c cr
612 . 0 5 . 6 24 . 0 ' 24 . 0 = × = =
00 . 1
2
= ¸    (proposed for bridges with only unbounded tendons)
00 . 1
3
= ¸ (tensile resistance is provided by prestressing steel)

Concrete compressive stress at bottom fiber due to prestressing (after losses):
ksi
I
y e P
A
P
f
b f f
cpe
000 . 2
898 , 002 , 17
84 . 78 59 . 65 247 , 5
88 . 106 , 13
247 , 5
=
× ×
+ = + =
3
663 , 215
84 . 78
898 , 002 , 17
in
y
I
S
b
= = =
B-23
 
ft k M ft k x S f f
u cpe cr
÷ = > ÷ = × + × × = + 826 , 45 142 , 49
12
663 , 215
) 000 . 2 1 . 1 612 . 0 20 . 1 ( 0 . 1 ) (
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸  
ft k M ft k S f f
u cpe cr
÷ = × = < ÷ = + 949 , 60 826 , 45 33 . 1 33 . 1 142 , 49 ) (
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸
ft k S f f
cpe cr
÷ = + 142 , 49 ) (
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸  controls the design. 
S f f M
cpe cr n
) (
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸ | + >      MFR Requirement
ft k S f f ft k M
cpe cr n
÷ = + < ÷ = 142 , 49 ) ( 633 , 47
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸ |
The factored flexural moment capacity calculated by LARSA 4D (used for the plot in Figure B-
8) is smaller than the 50,139 kip-ft factored moment capacity calculated above. However, the
actual factored moment capacity should be less than 50,139 k-ft as a result of the reduction in the
internal moment arm of the section due to vertical downward deflection of the girder at midspan.
The flexural moment capacity calculated by LARSA 4D is used in this example. Thus, the
minimum flexural reinforcement requirement is not satisfied. However, the factored flexural
moment capacity is about 3 percent below the flexural capacity required by the proposed MFR
requirements.


Re-Design of Prestressing Steel:

Figure B-9 shows variation of cracking moment, factored moment and factored moment capacity
for the midspan section of this bridge as a function of the number of strands in the external
tendons. The moment capacities represented in Figure B-9 are based on LARSA 4D calculations.
The figure indicates that with increasing the number of 0.6" | strands from 144 to 160, the
proposed MRF requirements will be satisfied.

B-24
 

Figure B-9. Variation of Cracking Moment, Factored Moment and Moment Capacity with
Number of Strands in External Tendons

It is interesting to note that with the current AASHTO LRFD MFR requirements, the curve
representing minimum design moment in Figure B-9 does not intersect with the curve
representing the moment capacity, which indicates that no convergence may be obtained to
satisfy the MFR by increasing the number of strands (unless 1.33M
u
controls the MFR
requirement). Figure B-9 indicates that such convergence is possible with the use of the proposed
equation.

B-25
 
B.4 BALANCED CANTILEVER BRIDGE WITH INTERNAL TENDONS


INTRODUCTION

A four-span precast segmental bridge is the subject of this design example. The bridge is built
using the cantilever construction method. The bridge chosen for this example is part of the I-
4/Lee Roy Selmon Expressway in Tampa, FL. Elevation view of the bridge is shown in Figure
B-10. The approximate lengths of spans are 147'-3", 186'-1", 186'-9" and 145'-6" for Spans 1
through 4, respectively, with a total bridge length of 665'-7".

B-10. Precast Segmental Cantilever Bridge Design Example

The cross section consists of the single-cell box section shown in Figure B-11. The deck width is
30'-1" and is constant along the entire length of the bridge.
B-26
 

Figure B-11. Cross section (Span 2)

The prestressing steel consists of typical internal (bonded) tendons in the deck slab. Continuity
prestressing steel consists of external (unbounded) tendons as shown in Figures B-12 and B-13.
There are a total of three external tendons next to each of the two webs (Tendons T3, T4 & T5 in
Figures B-12 and B-13).
 
Figure B-12. Tendon Layout for the Precast Segmental Cantilever Bridge Design Example
B-27
 
Figure B-13. Tendon Layout for the Precast Segmental Cantilever Bridge Design Example


SPECIFICATIONS

This example is designed based on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 4
th
Edition,
2007.


MATERIAL PROPERTIES

ksi f
c
5 . 8 ' =
ksi E
c
589 , 5 =
ksi f
y
60 =
ksi E
s
000 , 29 =
ksi f
pu
270 =
ksi E
ps
500 , 28 =


PRESTRESS DESIGN

For precast segmental bridges, no tensile stresses are allowed at all segment-to-segment joints
under service loads. Longitudinal analysis and design of this bridge included concrete stresses
under service loads, flexural capacity, shear capacity, principal stresses in the box girder webs
B-28
 
and minimum flexural reinforcement requirements. At the first segment-to-segment joint next to
Pier 8-3 in Span 4 (most critical section for negative moment), there are a total of 254-0.6" |
internal (bonded) strands and 114"-0.6 | unbonded strands (external tendons). In the positive
moment region in Span 4 (most critical section for positive moment), the only prestressing is
provided by the continuity external tendons and the total number of strands is 114.


MOMENT DIAGRAMS

The bridge is almost symmetric about centerline of Pier 8-3. Figure B-14 shows the negative
bending moments along the length of Spans 3 & 4 (from Pier 8-3 to End Bent 8-5). Negative
moment results in tensile stresses at top surface of the superstructure. The figure shows the
minimum design moments due to cracking according to the current AASHTO LRFD
Specifications and based on the proposed method (Modified LRFD). It is clear that the proposed
provisions considerably reduce the minimum required design moments (MFR). The figure also
indicates that the 1.33M
u
controls over the 1.20M
cr
(AASHTO LRFD Specifications) or the
cracking moment based on the proposed Modified LRFD method. Thus, 1.33M
u
controls the
MFR in this case. Figure B-14 also shows the factored flexural moment capacity, which is higher
than 1.33M
u
at all sections.

Figure B-14. Cracking Moment, Factored Moment and Flexural Capacity of a Precast
Segmental Cantilever Bridge Example (Negative Moments)

Figure B-15 is similar to Figure B-14, but it shows variation of the positive bending moments
(bending moments resulting in tensile stresses at bottom surface of the superstructure). Again,
B-29
 
use of the Modified LRFD method significantly reduces the required MFR design moment
compared to the current AASHTO LRFD provisions. For sections away from the supports, the
minimum design moment according to the Modified LRFD method controls over 1.33M
u
,
whereas 1.33M
u
controls MFR for sections near the supports. In all sections, the factored flexural
moment capacities exceed the demand moment including the MFR requirements.
 
Figure B-15. Cracking Moment, Factored Moment and Flexural Capacity of a Precast
Segmental Cantilever Bridge Example (Positive Moments)


Analysis of this bridge was done using LARSA 4D. Construction stages and time-dependent
effects were considered in the analysis. Below are hand calculations for the section at first
segment-to-segment joint in Span 4 (joint at Pier 8-4) as well as maximum positive moment
section in Span 4 of the bridge.

Design moments:

Sign convention is positive for moment resulting in tensile stress at bottom surface (opposite to
the sign shown in Figures B-14 and B-15).

Section A: Section at First Joint (Pier Segment) in Span 4:

ft k M
DC
÷ ÷ = 167 , 53 Self wt, ½" sacrificial wearing surface, diaphragms & barriers
ft k M
DW
÷ = 0 No utilities or future wearing surface
B-30
 
ft k M
LT
÷ = 842 , 1 Long-term effects (concrete creep & shrinkage and relaxation of
prestressing steel)
ft k M
S SecP
÷ = 000 , 25
/
Secondary effects from prestressing
ft k M
TU
÷ ÷ = 2 Uniform temperature rise
ft k M
TG
÷ ÷ = 628 , 1 Temperature gradient
ft k M
I HL
÷ ÷ =
+ ÷
727 , 7
93


TG TU
I HL S SecP LT DW DC
StrengthI
u u
M M
M M M M M M M
50 . 0 50 . 0
75 . 1 00 . 1 50 . 0 50 . 1 25 . 1
93 /
+ +
+ + + + = =
+ ÷


) 628 , 1 ( 50 . 0 ) 2 ( 50 . 0
) 727 , 7 ( 75 . 1 ) 000 , 25 ( 00 . 1 ) 842 , 1 ( 50 . 0 ) 0 ( 50 . 1 ) 167 , 53 ( 25 . 1
÷ × + ÷ × +
÷ × + × + × + × + ÷ × =
u
M


ft k M
u
÷ = 875 , 54

Section B: Section at Location of Maximum Positive Moment in Span 4:

ft k M
DC
÷ = 792 , 6 Self wt, ½" sacrificial wearing surface, diaphragms & barriers
ft k M
DW
÷ = 0 No utilities or future wearing surface
ft k M
LT
÷ = 628 Long-term effects (concrete creep & shrinkage and relaxation of
prestressing steel)
ft k M
S SecP
÷ = 667 , 8
/
Secondary effects from prestressing
ft k M
TU
÷ ÷ = 1 Uniform temperature rise
ft k M
TG
÷ = 842 , 1 Temperature gradient
ft k M
I HL
÷ =
+ ÷
209 , 7
93


TG TU
I HL S SecP LT DW DC
StrengthI
u u
M M
M M M M M M M
50 . 0 50 . 0
75 . 1 00 . 1 50 . 0 50 . 1 25 . 1
93 /
+ +
+ + + + = =
+ ÷


) 842 , 1 ( 50 . 0 ) 1 ( 50 . 0
) 209 , 7 ( 75 . 1 ) 667 , 8 ( 00 . 1 ) 628 ( 50 . 0 ) 0 ( 50 . 1 ) 792 , 6 ( 25 . 1
× + ÷ × +
× + × + × + × + × =
u
M


ft k M
u
÷ = 008 , 31


Section properties:

Section properties for both Sections A & B are similar.
B-31
 
in ft h 108 9 = = The sacrificial surface is included as external load only
in h
f
0 . 9 = (minimum thickness of compression flange for negative moment section)
in h
f
5 . 9 = (minimum thickness of compression flange for positive moment section)
in ft b
f
166 833 . 13 = = (compression flange width for negative moment section)
in ft b
f
361 083 . 30 = = (compression flange width for positive moment section)
in b
w
30 =
4 4
571 , 187 , 14 20 . 684 in ft I = =
2 2
52 . 119 , 9 33 . 63 in ft A = =

in y
b
96 . 69 = (distance from section CG to bottom fiber)
in y
t
04 . 38 = (distance from section CG to top fiber)


Calculation of
n
M | from prestressing:

In Figure B-14 & Figure B-15, the moment capacity is calculated using LARSA 4D. The
factored flexural moment capacities are 101,729 kip-ft and 37,958 kip-ft at Sections A & B,
respectively. The flexural capacities for both sections are calculated below using the AASHTO
LRFD equations, which may result in slightly different values from those calculated by LARSA
4D.

Section A: Section at First Joint (Pier Segment) in Span 4:

2 2
1
118 . 55 217 . 0 254 in in A
ps
= × = Total of 254-0.6" | strands (internal bonded)
2 2
2
738 . 24 217 . 0 114 in in A
ps
= × = Total of 114-0.6" | strands (external unbonded)
2 2
74 . 4 58 . 1 3 in in A
s
= × = 3-1.58" | strands high-strength bars in the deck slab
Yield strength for high-strength bars: ksi f
y
120 =
in d
p
50 . 100
1
= (distance from bottom fiber to C.G. of cantilever tendons)
in d
p
83 . 66
2
= (distance from bottom fiber to C.G. of external tendons)
in d
s
102 = (distance from bottom fiber to C.G. of high strength bars)
625 . 0 ) 4 ( 05 . 0 85 . 0
'
1
= ÷ ÷ =
c
f |

Effective prestressing force in external tendons (from LARSA 4D):
kips P
f
427 , 4
2
=
ksi
in
kips
A
P
f
ps
f
pe
9 . 178
738 . 24
427 , 4
2
2
2
2
= = =
Length of external tendon (approximate): ft l
i
50 . 150 =
Number of support hinges crossed by external tendons (end span): 1 =
i
N
B-32
 
Effective length of external tendons:
ft
N
l
l
i
i
e
33 . 100
) 2 (
2 =
+
=
Depth of compression zone: Assume ksi f ksi f
py ps
243 182 = < =
in
d
f
A k b f
f A f A f A
c
p
pu
ps f c
y s ps ps pu ps
22 . 25
85 . 0
1
1 1
'
2 2 1
=
+
+ +
=
|
(k = 0.28 for low-relaxation strands)
Depth of neutral axis is greater than deck thickness. Thus, use of equations for flanged sections
should be used.
in
d
f
A k b f
h b b f f A f A f A
c
p
pu
ps w c
f w f c y s ps ps pu ps
79 . 62
85 . 0
) ( 85 . 0
1
1 1
'
'
2 2 1
=
+
÷ ÷ + +
=
|

Stress in bonded tendons at ultimate moment:
ksi
d
c
k f f
p
pu ps
223 ) 1 (
1
1
= ÷ =
Stress in external tendons at ultimate moment:
ksi f ksi
l
c d
f f
py
e
p
pe ps
243 182
) (
900
2
= < =
÷
+ =
This stress is the same as assumed above. Thus, no iterations are needed.

Tensile force at ultimate moment: kips f A f A f A T
y s ps ps ps ps
4 . 362 , 17
2 2 1 1
= + + =
Depth of equivalent rectangular stress block: in c a 24 . 39
1
= = |
Resistance factor: 95 . 0 = |
(segmental bridges with bonded tendons providing most of the prestressing)

Factored flexural moment capacity:
ft kip
a
d f A
a
d f A
a
d f A M
s y s p ps ps p ps ps n
÷ = ÷ + ÷ + ÷ = 238 , 99 )
2
( )
2
( )
2
(
2 2 2 1 1 1
| | | |
The factored moment capacity calculated by LARSA 4D is 101,729 kip-ft (less than 3%
difference).

The factored moment capacity is significantly larger than 1.33Mu (= 72,984 kip-ft). Also, Figure
B-14 clearly shows that the factored moment capacity is much larger than 1.33Mu (which
controls the MFR requirements for this section). Thus, hand calculations demonstrating the
proposed MFR procedure will not be shown for this section, but it will be shown for the positive
moment section (Section B).




B-33
 
Section B: Section at Maximum Positive Moment in Span 4:

Prestressing tendons at this section is composed of external (unbonded) tendons only.
2 2
738 . 24 217 . 0 114 in in A
ps
= × = Total of 114-0.6" | strands (external unbonded)
in d
p
49 . 86 = (distance from P/S CG to top fiber)
in y d e
t p
45 . 48 04 . 38 49 . 86 = ÷ = ÷ = (tendon eccentricity)
625 . 0 ) 4 ( 05 . 0 85 . 0
'
1
= ÷ ÷ =
c
f |

Effective prestressing force in external tendons (from LARSA 4D):
kips P
f
427 , 4 =
ksi
in
kips
A
P
f
ps
f
pe
9 . 178
738 . 24
427 , 4
2
= = =
Length of external tendon (approximate): ft l
i
50 . 150 =
Number of support hinges crossed by external tendons (end span): 1 =
i
N
Effective length of external tendons:
ft
N
l
l
i
i
e
33 . 100
) 2 (
2 =
+
=
Depth of compression zone: Assume ksi f f
py ps
243 = =
in
b f
f A
c
f c
ps ps
69 . 3
85 . 0
1
'
= =
|

Depth of neutral axis is smaller than deck thickness. Thus, use of equations for rectangular
sections is justified.

Stress in external tendons at ultimate moment:
ksi f ksi
l
c d
f f
py
e
p
pe ps
243 241
) (
900 = > =
÷
+ = Use ksi f
ps
243 =
This stress is the same as assumed above. Thus, no iterations are needed.

Tensile force at ultimate moment: kips f A T
ps ps
3 . 011 , 6 = =
Depth of equivalent rectangular stress block: in c a 31 . 2
1
= = |
Resistance factor: 90 . 0 = | Segmental bridges with unbonded tendons
Factored flexural moment capacity:
ft kip
a
d f A M
p ps ps n
÷ = ÷ = 473 , 38 )
2
( | |
LARSA 4D calculated the factored moment capacity as 37,958 kip-ft (less than 2% difference).
It should be noted that the above-calculated factored moment capacity does not take into account
the reduction in moment arm of the external tendons due to deflection of the superstructure.
Thus, the predicted flexural capacity will be slightly less than 38,473 kip-ft.

B-34
 

Minimum reinforcement by the proposed method (Modified LRFD):

Section B: Section at Maximum Positive Moment in Span 4:
 
fcr n
M M > | or
u n
M M 33 . 1 > | ; where S f f M
cpe cr fcr
) (
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸ + =
20 . 1
1
= ¸ (proposed for precast segmental bridges)
ksi f f
c cr
700 . 0 5 . 8 24 . 0 ' 24 . 0 = × = =
00 . 1
2
= ¸ (proposed for bridges with only unbounded tendons; positive moment capacity at
Section B is provided by only unbounded tendons)
00 . 1
3
= ¸ (tensile resistance is provided by prestressing steel)

Secondary moment from prestressing:
ft k M
S SecP
÷ = 667 , 8
/

Concrete compressive stress at bottom fiber due to prestressing (after losses):
ksi
I
y e P
A
P
f
b f f
cpe
968 . 0
571 , 187 , 14
96 . 69 12 667 , 8
571 , 187 , 14
96 . 69 45 . 48 247 , 4
52 . 119 , 9
247 , 4
=
× ×
÷
× ×
+ = + =
3
795 , 202
96 . 69
571 , 187 , 14
in
y
I
S
b
= = =
ft k M ft k S f f
u cpe cr
÷ = > ÷ = × × + × × = + 008 , 31 554 , 30
12
795 , 202
) 968 . 0 00 . 1 700 . 0 20 . 1 ( 0 . 1 ) (
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸
ft k M ft k S f f
u cpe cr
÷ = × = s ÷ = + 241 , 41 008 , 31 33 . 1 33 . 1 554 , 30 ) (
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸
ft k S f f
cpe cr
÷ = + 554 , 30 ) (
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸    controls the design.

S f f M
cpe cr n
) (
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸ | + > MFR Requirement
ft k S f f ft k M
cpe cr n
÷ = + > ÷ = 554 , 30 ) ( 473 , 38
2 1 3
¸ ¸ ¸ |
Thus, the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement is satisfied.
B-35
 
B.5 CAP BEAM
DESCRIPTION OF CAP

The cap beam has a main span of 23 ft and 2 cantilever spans of 12.5 ft each. The cap is 6.5 ft
wide and 6 ft deep. The columns are square 6 ft x 6 ft.


Figure B-16. Cap Beam Design Example Schematics

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

ksi f
c
4 ' =
B-36
 
ksi E
c
644 , 3 =
ksi f
y
60 =
ksi E
s
000 , 29 =

MOMENT DIAGRAMS

Figure B-17. Cap Beam Design Example Strength limit bending moments


At the inside face of support (negative moment):
Design moments:

ft k M
DC
÷ ÷ = 381 , 1
ft k M
DW
÷ ÷ = 183
ft k M
HL
÷ ÷ =
÷
093 , 1
93


93
75 . 1 50 . 1 25 . 1
÷
+ + =
HL DW DC
StrengthI
u
M M M M
) 093 , 1 ( 75 . 1 ) 183 ( 50 . 1 ) 381 , 1 ( 25 . 1 ÷ × + ÷ × + ÷ × =
StrengthI
u
M
ft k M
StrengthI
u
÷ ÷ = 914 , 3
B-37
 

Section properties:

in ft h 72 6 = =
in ft b 78 5 . 6 = =
4
117 ft I =
2
39 ft A =
in y
t
36 = (distance from section CG to top fiber)

Required flexural reinforcement:
)
' 85 . 0 2
( )
2
(
b f
f A
d f A
a
d f A M
c
y s
y s y s n
×
÷ = ÷ = | | |

The section is tension-controlled and 90 . 0 = |
in d 7 . 68 = assuming #11 mild steel reinforcement
)
78 4 85 . 0 2
60
7 . 68 ( 60 90 . 0 12 914 , 3
× × ×
×
÷ × × × = ×
s
s
A
A
Solve the quadratic equation for
2
94 . 12 in A
s
= .

The net tensile strain is:
|
.
|

\
| ÷
=
c
c d
s
003 . 0 c where in
b f
f A
c
c
y s
44 . 3
78 4 85 . 0
60 94 . 12
85 . 0
2
= |
.
|

\
|
× ×
×
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
'
=
|

Therefore, 057 . 0
44 . 3
44 . 3 7 . 68
003 . 0 = |
.
|

\
| ÷
=
s
c , which is greater than 0.0075. Hence, requirements
of Section 5.7.3.5 are met for redistribution, and minimum flexure reinforcement per proposed
revised Article 5.7.3.3.2 is not required for negative bending between the columns.

Summary:
2
94 . 12 in A
s
= mild steel reinforcement is required at the top of cap.


At 0.5 Span 2 (positive moment):

Design moments:

ft k M
DC
÷ ÷ = 59
ft k M
DW
÷ ÷ = 20
ft k M
HL
÷ =
÷
138 , 1
93


B-38
 
93
75 . 1 65 . 0 9 . 0
÷
+ + =
HL DW DC
StrengthI
u
M M M M
) 138 , 1 ( 75 . 1 ) 20 ( 65 . 0 ) 59 ( 9 . 0 ÷ × + ÷ × + ÷ × =
StrengthI
u
M
ft k M
StrengthI
u
÷ = 925 , 1
Section properties:

The section properties are similar to the ones at the face of support.

Minimum reinforcement by the proposed method:

fcr n
M M > | where S f M
r fcr 1 3
¸ ¸ = and
u n
M M 33 . 1 > |
75 . 0
3
= ¸ for A706 Grade 60 reinforcement, assumed for this example.
6 . 1
1
= ¸
ksi f f
c r
474 . 0 4 237 . 0 ' 237 . 0 = × = =
3
4
392 , 67
36
12 117
in
y
I
S
b
=
×
= =
ft k M ft k M
StrengthI
u fcr
÷ = > ÷ = × × × = 925 , 1 194 , 3
12
392 , 67
474 . 0 6 . 1 75 . 0
ft k M ft k M
StrengthI
u fcr
÷ = × = > ÷ = 560 , 2 925 , 1 33 . 1 33 . 1 194 , 3 so
ft k M
StrengthI
u
÷ = 560 , 2 33 . 1 controls the design.
)
' 85 . 0 2
( )
2
(
b f
f A
d f A
a
d f A M
c
y s
y s y s n
×
÷ = ÷ = | | |
The section is tension-controlled and 90 . 0 = |
in d 7 . 68 = assuming #11 mild steel reinforcement
)
78 4 85 . 0 2
60
7 . 68 ( 60 90 . 0 12 560 , 2
× × ×
×
÷ × × × = ×
s
s
A
A
Solve the quadratic equation for
2
40 . 8 in A
s
= .

Summary:
2
40 . 8 in A
s
= mild steel reinforcement is required at mid-span.


At 0.50 Span 1 (negative moment):

Design moments:

ft k M
DC
÷ ÷ = 651
ft k M
DW
÷ ÷ = 83
ft k M
HL
÷ ÷ =
÷
395
93

B-39
 

93
75 . 1 50 . 1 25 . 1
÷
+ + =
HL DW DC
StrengthI
u
M M M M
) 395 ( 75 . 1 ) 83 ( 50 . 1 ) 651 ( 25 . 1 ÷ × + ÷ × + ÷ × =
StrengthI
u
M
ft k M
StrengthI
u
÷ ÷ = 630 , 1
Section properties:

in ft h 7 . 59 97 . 4 = =
in ft b 78 5 . 6 = =
4
50 . 66 ft I =
2
31 . 32 ft A =
in y
t
85 . 29 = (distance from section CG to top fiber)

Minimum reinforcement by the proposed method:

fcr n
M M > | where S f M
r fcr 1 3
¸ ¸ = and
u n
M M 33 . 1 > |
75 . 0
3
= ¸ for A706 Grade 60 reinforcement, assumed for this example.
6 . 1
1
= ¸
ksi f f
c r
474 . 0 4 237 . 0 ' 237 . 0 = × = =
3
4
196 , 46
85 . 29
12 50 . 66
in
y
I
S
t
=
×
= =
ft k M ft k M
StrengthI
u fcr
÷ = > ÷ = × × × = 630 , 1 190 , 2
12
196 , 46
474 . 0 6 . 1 75 . 0
ft k M ft k M
StrengthI
u fcr
÷ = × = > ÷ = 168 , 2 630 , 1 33 . 1 33 . 1 190 , 2 so
ft k M
StrengthI
u
÷ = 168 , 2 33 . 1 controls the design.
)
' 85 . 0 2
( )
2
(
b f
f A
d f A
a
d f A M
c
y s
y s y s n
×
÷ = ÷ = | | |
The section is tension-controlled and 90 . 0 = |
in d 4 . 56 = assuming #11 mild steel reinforcement
)
78 4 85 . 0 2
60
4 . 56 ( 60 90 . 0 12 168 , 2
× × ×
×
÷ × × × = ×
s
s
A
A
Solve the quadratic equation for
2
69 . 8 in A
s
= .

Summary:
2
69 . 8 in A
s
= mild steel reinforcement is required in the cantilever span.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies.

COPYRIGHT PERMISSION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, Transit Development Corporation, or AOC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.

DISCLAIMER The opinion and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the research agency. They are not necessarily those of the TRB, the National Research Council, AASHTO, or the U.S. Government. This report has not been edited by TRB.

.3   Size Effects on the Flexural Cracking Strength ........................................ 24  2...................... 11  Chapter 2   Findings................................................... v  Summary .......................................................... 22  2............... 25  i   .............................................2............................................................................................ 6  1..4 Research Work Plan .................................................. iv  Abstract ......................... 22  2........................................................................................2. 22  2...................3..........4 Prestressed Variability ................... 10  1................................... 1  Chapter 1 Introduction and Research Approach.......3..........4..............1   Observed Response of Lightly Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Members 12  2.. 12  2................................ 10  1.....................................................3 Modulus of Rupture...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Evaluate the Statistical Parameters of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement.............1 Analysis Methods ................................................................................1 Refine the Modified LRFD Method ...................... 16  2............................................................3............4.......3 Research Tasks .....................................................................................3 Statistical Analysis of Concrete Flexural Strength .................................................2   Flexural Tensile Strength ............................... 10  1...........................4...1 Problem Statement.......................2   Modulus of Rupture ..................................................................................................................2 Perform the Parametric Study ..............................2...................................................................................................................................... 16  2...................CONTENTS Contents ...................................................................................... i  Author Acknowledgements ............................................. 6  1......... 10  1.................................................................................................................... 8  1.................3 Full-Size Member Cracking Strength ................................................. 17  2................................2 Research Objectives .. 8  1..........1   Direct Testing of Concrete Fracture in Tension ....................................................5   Key Definitions ..................................3.. 19  2........................................................

......................................................................................1...............................5 Cap Beam ..................................................................................2 AASHTO Segmental Guide Specifications .... 48  3.............................5   Parametric Study Results ....................................4. 61  3............... 77  ii   ..............................4   Nominal Moment at Overstrength (Mo) ............... 48  3.............................. 68  3......2   Proposed Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications ........................1....................................... 61  3.....................................................................................................6 Leonhardt’s Method .....................3........................2..... 32  2............................................ 75  Chapter 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research ................ 26  2..........................4 Freyermuth and Aalami—CEB-FIP ..............3 Span-by-Span Segmental Bridge with External Tendons .....................................................................................................................2 Minimum Flexural Reinforcement .. 36  2...............................................................................................1....................................... 34  2................................8   Comparison of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement Provisions ...........................4..3........ 27  2. 63  3......................................5 International Practice . 46  Chapter 3   Interpretation..... 39  2.....1.........................4   Methods and Procedures for Developing Minimum Reinforcement ..............................................7 Modified LRFD Method....................4.............................................1 AASHTO LRFD............................... 69  3............ 42  2......................................................................................................4.......................................................................... 31  2.......... Appraisal and Application ................... 61  3..............4............2 Cast-in-Place Concrete Box Girder ...................................3...........3..... 26  2.........................6   Recommendations................................................4......................4 Balanced Cantilever Bridge with Internal Tendons........3 Design Examples ............. 49  3............1......................... 68  3...............................................5 Summary of Statistical Analysis of Flexural Cracking Strength ...... 71  3.......1 Multi-Span Precast Concrete Girder Made Continuous with Composite Deck ....1...........................3..............3 ACI 318 ............................................................... 64  3.............. 73  3......3 Cracking Moment (Mcr) ................................................1 Concrete Structures Database ............4...........3. 56  3.4....................1 Parametric Study of Minimum Reinforcement Provisions ............

..................1......1 Conclusions on the Observed Response of Lightly Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Members ....................................... 79  4......... 80  Appendix A Parametric Study Results Appendix B Design Examples iii   .................................1   Conclusions.... 77  4..................................................... 77  4.........................................................4......................................................................... 79  References .....................................................1............................................................1..........3   Conclusions on the Parametric Study ........... 78  4.........................................................................2 Conclusions on the Review of US and International Practice ..................2 Suggested Research .........................................................................

. PBS&J. PBS&J. and Maher K. (PBS&J) research team. Other research team members include: Paul Morel. Inc. CA. PBS&J. CA. Inc. PBS&J. and Glenn Espanto. WA. Morad Ghali with PBS&J. FL) also provided valuable input on the research efforts. University of Nebraska. CA. CA. San Diego. CA. Tampa. who developed Design Examples 1. Lincoln (UNL) and formerly with PBS&J.AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research in this report was performed under NCHRP 12-80 by the Post. San Diego. Buckley. PBS&J. San Diego. iv   . Dublin. San Diego. San Diego. Jay Holombo. FL. Ireland (formerly with PBS&J. for his assistance in the development of figures and other items related to the research and the report.. who developed Design Examples 3 and 4. who provided vital input and feedback throughout the project. was the principal investigator and lead author. Concrete Technologies. Inc. Andrzej Nowak. for his substantial contribution related to data collection and the development of figures and tables. Tampa. and Artur Czarnecki of Grontmij. CA. who assisted with the statistical analysis. Stephen Seguirant. Tacoma. and 5 and performed the parametric study design calculations. Daniel Tassin. UNL. Sami Megally. FL. The research team also acknowledges Tyler Tesch. Schuh and Jernigan. 2. Tadros. International Bridge Technologies. Tampa. was the coauthor of this report. San Diego.

ABSTRACT This report documents and presents the results of a study of minimum reinforcement requirements for the design of concrete bridge structures. where variables are appropriately factored and includes the maximum rather than nominal strength of the section as a true measure of ductile versus brittle response. The findings of this study suggest that in nearly all cases lightly reinforced concrete members can develop the nominal flexural strength and have significant strength and ductility reserves after cracking has occurred. test data and research findings related to minimum reinforcement requirements and flexural cracking of concrete structures.S. Also. and international practice. A rational approach to the specification of minimum reinforcement is proposed. v   . This study included a review of U. the modulus of rupture over estimates the flexural cracking stress of concrete bridge members. A total of 4 representative methods of specifying minimum reinforcement were evaluated and compared by performing design calculations on a wide range of concrete bridge members.

Design examples have demonstrated that a prestressed concrete member may be considered over-reinforced. The flexural cracking strength in the LRFD specifications is based on modulus of rupture test data. The intent of providing this additional flexural capacity is to prevent brittle failure without sufficient warning or redistribution of load. The objective of this research is. 2007). As a result of this recent increase. which consists of small-scale flexure capacity tests. and international practice and research on minimum flexural reinforcement (MFR). where units are 4 or 6 inches deep and most are typically moist cured up to testing. to develop recommended revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary for rational design of minimum reinforcement to prevent brittle failure of concrete sections. which is now defined as compression-controlled in the LRFD specifications. Recently. This minimum reinforcement is based on providing flexural capacity greater than the moment at which cracking of the concrete is anticipated to occur.24√f'c to 0. and not satisfy the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement. especially in externally prestressed segmental concrete bridge girders. test data on the cracking strength of full-size concrete members and small-scale units cured under realistic conditions should form the basis of minimum reinforcement specifications. It is recognized that there is significant variability in the cracking moment. excessive amounts of reinforcement and corresponding increased cost have been experienced.S. This increase is to recognize increasing use of high strength concrete and of the wide range of scatter in modulus of rupture tests. Review and synthesize U. Most of this data is not applicable to concrete bridge members because curing methods to not reflect field conditions and member size effects are not accurately represented. 1   . A summary of the research is as follows: 1. This objective is achieved by evaluating the effectiveness of minimum reinforcement provisions on a database of structures that are represented in the LRFD Specifications.SUMMARY Introduction Minimum flexural reinforcement is prescribed in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (also referred to as the “LRFD specifications”) for reinforced and prestressed concrete members to reduce the probability of brittle failure (AASHTO. the flexural cracking strength has been increased from 0.37√f'c (ksi) in the LRFD specifications. Therefore.

The flexural cracking stress of concrete members has been shown to significantly reduce with increasing member depth. The combined result of both effects is that the flexural cracking stress of a concrete bridge member 2   . Findings Tests have shown that lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members have significant strength and ductility capacity after cracking has occurred. a 36. deep modulus of rupture test specimen. Most of the modulus of rupture test units are moist-cured up to the time of testing and not allowed to surface dry.25. minimum flexural reinforcement should be based on the ultimate strength rather than the nominal strength. Based on this observation. deep girder should achieve a flexural cracking stress that is 36 percent lower than a 6. Demonstrate proposed provisions with design examples. These tests were conducted with devices that apply increasing displacement increments regardless of whether the loads are increasing or decreasing. Carrasquillo. where both the nominal and ultimate flexure capacities (including the effects of strain hardening of the reinforcement. where H is the overall depth of the flexural member. et al. It should be noted that the flexural strength of prestressed concrete members is based on the actual strength of the steel at ultimate in the LRFD specifications. Evaluate safety. 4. Results of modulus of rupture tests have demonstrated significant sensitivity to curing. or prestress) were achieved.2. Shioya. 6. 5. Develop a database of concrete bridge structures and components where minimum reinforcement provisions apply. If these same tests were conducted by applying increasing load increments without means of stopping displacements after loads decrease. which may not be representative of actual bridge loading. Evaluate minimum reinforcement models and select 4-candidates for parametric studies. Propose revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. and economy by applying minimum reinforcement candidate provisions to the structures listed in the database.0 in. reliability. et al. 3. a number of these specimens would fail without warning because the ultimate strength is less than the cracking strength. especially for high strength concrete.0 in. (1981) noted a 26 percent decrease in the 28-day modulus of rupture in high strength concrete when units were allowed to dry after 7-days of moist curing over units that were moist cured until testing. The flexural cracking strength of concrete members is highly variable and is sensitive to the curing methods and the size of concrete units tested. Therefore. (1989) observed that the flexural cracking strength is proportional to H-0.

The method specified in the Eurocode (2006). To evaluate and compare methods of specifying minimum reinforcement. including the effects of strain hardening. Some methods further simplify the process. 2006) require the nominal strength be greater than the cracking moment by a factor of safety. the Japanese Code (1998). is specified in the LRFD specifications at 0. thereby allowing direct calculation of the minimum reinforcement. the ACI Code regarding prestressed concrete members and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA. In this method (referred to as the “Modified LRFD method”). These methods included the LRFD Specifications. The LRFD specifications. This is largely due to the recognition that the ultimate strength of a member. The method utilizes the maximum strength of the section.15√f'c (ksi). the Eurocode. Results of the parametric study show that the Modified LRFD method provides the level of safety for all concrete members should be based on the strength at ultimate. The amount of minimum reinforcement specified varies significantly as reflected in the prescribed flexural cracking stress. This study required the calculation of minimum reinforcement for a wide variety of concrete member types. a parametric study was performed on four representative methods investigated as part of this project. 2006) at 0. The highest cracking stress. and the lowest is in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA. where the flexural cracking and prestress can be factored separately. Based on the results of the review of practice and research on minimum reinforcement. the procedure developed by Leonhardt. 3   .37√f'c (ksi). which is providing flexural strength in excess of the cracking strength of concrete by an acceptable margin. which includes the strain hardening of the reinforcement to help achieve consistent safety for all concrete members covered by the provisions in the LRFD specifications. the NCHRP 12-80 project team developed a rational method of calculating minimum flexural reinforcement. a rational method of specifying minimum reinforcement. and the Modified LRFD method. the ACI Code regarding reinforced concrete members and the method developed by Leonhardt are examples of this simplified approach. for the purposes of checking minimum reinforcement. safety and economy.should substantially lower than the flexural cracking stress from a modulus of rupture test made from the same concrete. does not significantly increase the computational complexity from the method currently specified in the LRFD Specifications. Also. is the true measure of whether or not the section is ductile. separate factors for flexural cracking and for prestress are used to improve consistency. A review of US and international practice on specifying minimum reinforcement has shown that all methods investigated are based on a similar premise.

the flexural cracking strength of concrete members should be based on test data represents actual service condition of concrete bridges. adding tension reinforcement in these regions would only make the section less ductile. Flexural capacity of concrete bridge sections designed to strength limit state moment demand requirements will be able to resist these design moments in the post-cracked state regardless of whether or not minimum reinforcement requirements are met. The Resistance Factor (). Therefore.37√f'c (ksi) is a reasonable upper bound value with a low probability of being exceeded. the flexural cracking strength of 0. the variability of prestress is far less than variability of the flexural cracking stress. Therefore. Inverted T girders and continually prestressed spliced girders and box sections have been shown to fall into the compression-controlled and or transition regions and not meet minimum reinforcement requirements. and 0. Based on tests of small-scale units subject to realistic curing conditions and large-scale units. A more logical approach is to increase compression reinforcement.  should not be reduced in compression-controlled or transition regions because both requirements address the same deficiency that is lack of ductility. Further. However.24√f'c (ksi) is an appropriate average value. Specifying minimum reinforcement also increases strength to reduce the probability of brittle failure. is reduced in compression-controlled or transition sections to reduce the probability brittle failure. and should be factored accordingly.Conclusions Specifying minimum flexure reinforcement should be based on a rational approach to prevent brittle failures of concrete bridge members. lightly reinforced members can achieve the full flexural capacity including the effects of strain hardening. This approach should recognize that lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members have significant strength and ductility in the postcracked state. 0. for the purpose of specifying minimum reinforcement. Prestress can be a substantial component of the flexural cracking strength. as defined in the LRFD specifications. For precast segmental joints. where positive bending is defined as moments that cause tension along the bottom fiber at midspan. Since minimum reinforcement requirements are specified to reduce the probability of non-ductile failure. specification of minimum reinforcement should be limited to statically determinate bridge members and the positive bending of continuous bridge members if adequate post-crack ductility is demonstrated at or near the supports. 4   .24√f'c (ksi) is an appropriate upper bound value. For the purposes of specifying minimum reinforcement. more consistent levels of safety can be prescribed. By factoring prestress and the flexural cracking stress differently.

Recommendations The Modified LRFD method is recommended to replace the current minimum reinforcement provisions in the LRFD specifications.  eliminates the reduced resistance factor for compression-controlled or transition sections for the purpose of evaluating and specifying minimum reinforcement.  recognizes post-cracking strength and ductility capacity of lightly reinforced concrete members. If this method is implemented. The minimum reinforcement provisions in the Modified method provide a more consistent level of safety for all concrete members than the LRFD specifications. A general lack of understanding of the behavior of lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members could be the reason for the wide variation in the amounts of reinforcement prescribed in practice. Presentations on the behavior of concrete members with relatively small reinforcement or prestress content are recommended to be given through future technology transfer seminars to reduce this lack of understanding.  factors flexural cracking strength and prestress separately to account for differences in variability. thus. segmental bridges will see substantial reductions in the amount of prestress required to meet minimum reinforcement provisions. In particular. specifying excessive reinforcement as a result of minimum reinforcement provisions should be eliminated. 5   . This method:  specifies flexural cracking strengths and appropriate factors that are based on smallscale flexure tests specimens cured under conditions that represent actual concrete bridge girder construction and large scale test specimens. allowing for the elimination of minimum reinforcement provisions in negative bending regions if sufficient ductility capacity is verified.

if these same tests were conducted in load-control mode. minimum flexural reinforcement should be based on the ultimate strength of the reinforcement rather than the yield strength. Tests have shown that lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members have significant inelastic strength and ductility when tested with displacement-controlled application devices. This anomaly was obviously not intended by the LRFD specifications.37√f'c (ksi) in the LRFD specifications. which 6   . as shown in experiments by Mokhtarzadeh and French (2000). 2007). the flexural cracking strength has been increased from 0. This minimum reinforcement is based on providing flexural capacity greater than the moment at which cracking of the concrete is anticipated to occur.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT Minimum flexural reinforcement is prescribed in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (also referred to as the “LRFD specifications”) for reinforced and prestressed concrete members to reduce the probability of brittle failure (AASHTO. Recently. especially in segmental concrete bridge box girders. has resulted in excessive amounts of reinforcement. However. The intent of providing this additional flexural capacity is to prevent brittle failure without sufficient warning or redistribution of load. Based on this observation. combined previously incorporated safety factors.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH APPROACH 1.24√f'c to 0. This recent increase. which may not be representative of actual bridge loading. Design examples have demonstrated that a prestressed concrete member may have an amount of reinforcement so large as to cause the member to fail in a compression-controlled mode. If a displacement controlled testing is conducted in a laboratory setting.1. This increase is to recognize increasing use of high strength concrete and of the wide range of scatter in modulus-of-rupture tests. as shown in Section 2. a number of these specimens would fail without warning if Mo is smaller than Mcr. where Mo is the moment corresponding to the ultimate (rather than yield) strength of the reinforcement and Mcr is the cracking moment. while still not satisfying the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement. Figure 1 shows a typical moment-rotation relationship of a reinforced concrete member. It is recognized that there is a wide variability in the cracking moment. The load is introduced in the form of controlled displacement increments and the hydraulic jacking pressure continues to be applied regardless of whether the load drops at any point or not. the entire moment-rotation diagram can be generated.

7. Circumstances where it is permissible to forgo minimum reinforcement requirements in the negative bending regions for continuous bridges is discussed in Section 2. cracking will typically occur under negative moment first and then positive moment.4. For reinforced concrete. This observation also implies that minimum reinforcement provisions in the current LRFD specifications applied inconsistently for reinforced compared to prestressed concrete members. 7   . while for prestressed concrete it is defined in terms of the ultimate strength of the prestressing steel. Moment-rotation response of a lightly reinforced concrete member Statically indeterminate structures deserve special considerations because of the ability to internally redistribute loading effects from negative to positive bending. As shown in Figure 2. along with recommended detailing practice to achieve the required ductility capacity that allows for satisfactory redistribution. which implies that the section ductility is inversely proportional to the amount of tensile reinforcement.corresponds to Mn in Figure 1. The LRFD specifications restrictions on where redistribution is allowed are related to the net-tensile strain at ultimate. Mn is defined in terms of the yield strength of the mild reinforcement. Figure 1.

Evaluate minimum reinforcement models and select 4 candidates for parametric studies. 2. and economy by applying minimum reinforcement candidate provisions to the structures listed in the database. Load-displacement response of an interior span of a continuous member 1. 6. 1. Demonstrate proposed provisions with design examples. 4.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The objective of this research is. Develop a database of concrete bridge structures and components where minimum reinforcement provisions apply. This objective is achieved by evaluating the effectiveness of minimum reinforcement provisions on a database of structures that are represented in the LRFD Specifications. 5. Evaluate safety. 8   . Propose revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. These tasks are quoted directly from the NCHRP 12-80 project request for proposals.3 RESEARCH TASKS To accomplish these objectives. A summary of the research is as follows: 1. Review and synthesize U. reliability. to develop recommended revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary for rational design of minimum reinforcement to prevent brittle failure of concrete sections. the following research tasks were performed.S.Figure 2. 3. and international practice and research on minimum flexural reinforcement (MFR).

Include a list of proposed design examples to be submitted in Task 7. Review U. Task 7. and other information related to minimum reinforcement requirements and flexural cracking of concrete structures.Task 1. and design examples in accordance with NCHRP review comments (Draft 2). bridge owners. and international practice. Assemble a database of concrete structures and components to which the LRFD minimum flexural reinforcement (bonded and unbonded) requirements apply. specifications. Provide a minimum of five stepby-step design examples illustrating the application of the specifications. Task 4. Task 5. Develop specifications with supporting commentary for recommendation to the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures. Task 3. Submit a final report that documents the entire research effort. research findings. Compare the designs to those produced by the current AASHTO specifications. 9   . Develop a detailed work plan to use the database structures and components to compare the reinforcement requirements and reliability of not more than three minimum reinforcement models selected by the NCHRP. Task 6. The NCHRP will select the models for use in Task 6. Perform the work plan as approved by the NCHRP. Models should not be limited to those used in developing the LRFD specifications. This information shall be assembled from technical literature and from unpublished experiences of engineers. Identify and compare models to determine minimum flexural reinforcement.S. Work may not proceed on subsequent tasks without NCHRP approval of the work plan. and others. Submit an interim report within four months of the contract start that documents the findings of Tasks 1 through 4. commentary. The database shall be populated with sufficient information to permit calculation of all appropriate cross-section loads and resistances. Task 8. performance data. Task 2. fabricators. Revise the specifications. Task 9. Records of brittle flexural failures of laboratory or in-service elements are of particular interest. The contractor will be expected to meet with the NCHRP approximately one month later.

as discussed in Section 2.1. is warranted. 10   . The focus of this analysis is on the flexural cracking strength of concrete bridge members.1 Refine the Modified LRFD Method A new approach to determine minimum reinforcement is proposed to meet the objectives of the NCHRP 12-80 project.1. compared to the current 1. Design calculations were performed using state-of-the-practice design tools to develop design forces. to see if any methods in the procedure can be simplified. 1.1. For concrete flexural cracking.4. As a result these methods are easily and directly compared for quick evaluation. as described in Section 2. a statistical analysis is performed.4 RESEARCH WORK PLAN The work plan identified in Task 6 was developed to achieve the objectives of this project after the data collection phase of this project. and shears.3. 1.2 Perform the Parametric Study To evaluate candidate minimum reinforcement methods.4. As the name suggests.3 Evaluate the Statistical Parameters of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement To aid in interpretation of applicable test data. as described in Section 3. In this procedure. the Modified LRFD method is based on the minimum reinforcement procedure in the LRFD specifications. The preparation of tables of minimum reinforcement along with appropriate graphs compare each method versus such variables as concrete compressive strength. Development of these factors is the subject of this task. design calculations were performed on the bridges within the Concrete Bridge Member Database. depth of members and width and thickness of bottom and top flanges. variables that influence minimum reinforcement are factored separately to account for differences in variability. spacing of girders. This work plan consisted of the following items: 1.4. Therefore. The prestress variability effect on the flexural cracking strength is relatively small regarding the flexural cracking strength.2. the data presented in Section 2 is used determine a factor that is appropriate. moments.2 factor. Design methods such as strain compatibility analysis are utilized to develop flexural strength of selected structures within the Concrete Bridge Member Database. a reduced factor.

Note that 3 is taken =1. Mcr .0 for prestressing strands as the codes already utilize the full stress-strain relationship. (for example. as illustrated in Figure 1.0021 for grade 60 steel).   Mu.67 for A615 and 0.stress in mild reinforcement at specified yield strain (0. the following definitions are given:       fpe .strand stress due to effective prestress. 0.ultimate (peak) stress in mild reinforcement just before rupture.strand stress at ultimate flexure.  Mn . fu . excluding strain hardening for conventionally reinforced sections with mild steel reinforcement (see Figure 1) and including strain hardening for sections reinforced with prestressing strands. Any normal CDF on the normal probability paper is represented by a straight line. The methods used to develop CDF plots are described in such references as Nowak and Collins (2000) and in TRB Circular E-C079. 11   .75 for A706 Grade 60 reinforcement). fps . 1. Mo .To evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical parameters.nominal ultimate moment capacity including the effects of strain hardening.theoretical cracking moment.5 KEY DEFINITIONS For convenience of the reader. fy .ultimate demand moment (or required strength) due to factored applied loads.nominal flexural capacity as defined by the LRFD specifications. the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the modulus-of-rupture is plotted on the normal probability paper. 3 – ratio of yield to ultimate steel stress for non-prestressed steel.

The response of lightly prestressed concrete members with internal or bonded tendons in Figure 3(b) shows all units had significant post-cracking strength and ductility. these tests were conducted with a load-displacement regime may not be representative of actual bridge loading. internally-prestressed and externally-prestressed concrete components. wide. “… and none of the beams tested failed without large warning deflections. and the hydraulic jacking pressure continues to be applied regardless of whether the load drops at any point or not.5 inches. All units demonstrated significant post-cracking strength and ductility. These experiments included lightly reinforced. Based on this observation. The load-deflection plots of lightly reinforced concrete members. Although the initial cracking strength varied. a number of the specimens would have failed without warning because the ultimate strength (including the effects of strain hardening in the reinforcement) was less than the cracking strength. loads are introduced in the form of controlled displacement increments. shown in Figure 3(a). Each unit in this set had nearly identical dimensions and areas with different amounts of prestress applied in each tendon. resistance increases due to stretching of the external tendon. As discussed previously. 12   . deep by 6 in. all units achieved similar strengths at a displacement between 2. and the ultimate strength reflects the strain-hardened resistance developed in the reinforcement rather than yield. Test set up consisted of 4-point loaded simply-supported concrete beams measuring 12 in. In this system.1 OBSERVED RESPONSE OF LIGHTLY REINFORCED CONCRETE AND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE MEMBERS Testing of a large number of lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete beams at the University of Illinois demonstrated that significant inelastic displacements can be achieved. The response of lightly prestressed units with external (or unbonded) tendons in Figure 3(c) shows that after a drop in strength due to cracking.CHAPTER 2 FINDINGS 2.0 and 2. If these same experiments were conducted by applying increasing loads without any means of stopping the displacements if the strength drops.” as presented in a journal paper by Freyermuth and Aalami (1997). minimum reinforcement requirements should be based on the ultimate strength instead of the yield strength of the reinforcement. indicate that substantial strength and ductility was observed after cracking occurred.

(Freyermuth and Aalami. 1997). (Warwaruk.) Prestressed concrete members (bonded) c. Load-deflection response of lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members from the University of Illinois. 1960) 13   . Sozen and Seiss.) Prestressed concrete members (unbonded) Figure 3.) Reinforced concrete members b.a.

. The experimental program consisted of three phases. four 2/3 scale specimens were tested under reversed cyclic loading up to failure. The researchers concluded that the main reason is the formation of a weak layer of concrete. The corresponding symbol is Mo.. the modulus of rupture was calculated. This so called “Laitance Layer” is composed of more cement and sand and probably few coarse aggregates as a result of its proximity to the end surface of the segment. Details about the experimental program can be found in a research report (Megally et al.3√f'c (psi) indicating that a coefficient of 7. The yield nominal flexural strength is based on the yield strength of mild reinforcement and is referred to in the LRFD specifications as Mn. in which performance of joints in positive moment regions was investigated in Phase I. the concrete within the laitance layer is weaker than concrete internal to the precast segment itself. As a result. 2003). Research was conducted at the University of California.0√f'c to 7. With few coarse aggregates. The calculated modulus of rupture values varies from 3. section properties of test specimens and prestressing forces at time of joint opening. In Phase I of the experimental program. A prototype span-by-span structure was designed and used as the basis for design of test units. Each test unit consisted of six epoxy-bonded precast segments. 14   . It should be noted that the LRFD specifications refer to Mo for prestressed section as Mn. referred to as a “Laitance Layer”. The test variables included internal bonded tendons. Note that the depth of UCSD precast segmental test units is four feet and depth of precast segmental superstructure used for span-by-span construction in the I-4 Crosstown Connector in Tampa. as shown in Figure 4. San Diego (UCSD) on seismic performance of precast segmental bridges.5 may be a reasonable upper bound. Based on the experimental values for cracking moment. flexure cracks were consistently located immediately adjacent to the match-cast surface. concrete of the laitance layer cracks at a lower flexural cracking stress than what would be expected for concrete within the segments and away from the joints.Please note that the ultimate nominal flexural strength in this report refers to the flexural strength of a cross section with the resistance factor taken as unity (thus the word nominal). external tendons or combination of internal bonded and external tendons. This experimental program was initiated by the American Segmental Bridge Institute (ASBI) and Caltrans and was funded by Caltrans. 2002) as well as journal paper (Megally et al. In these experiments. For precast segmental construction. cracking generally starts at the joints between precast segments. Florida is nine feet.

2003) 15   .. Test unit with 100% external tendons (Photo by Sami Megally) Figure 5. Load-displacement envelopes for segmental bridge specimens (Megally et al.Figure 4.

a lower bound estimate of the concrete flexural stress is of interest. a mean and upper bound estimate of flexural cracking is of particular interest. However. Since these tests are somewhat complicated. 1928). Testing of flexural tension strength has been performed using methods such as direct tensile testing on concrete cylinders.The test unit shown in Figure 4 had external tendons only. 2. It clearly demonstrates very large displacement without rupture of the tendon or total collapse. In this procedure.1 Direct Testing of Concrete Fracture in Tension Testing of concrete in direct tension is challenging and requires specialized equipment. For evaluating serviceability. directly correlating the flexural tensile strength with specified compressive strength is preferred.2. The 16   . this correlation with real-size concrete bridge members is dependent on many variables. curing methods.2 FLEXURAL TENSILE STRENGTH Flexural tensile strength of concrete bridge members is highly variable and is dependent on many variables including mix design. aggregate size. Microcracks at the aggregate-paste boundaries initiate at the weakest point and spread until the section is completely cracked making this procedure very sensitive to specimen quality and testing methods. increasing the amount of concrete subject to tension increases the possibility of having a flaw that reduces the cracking strength. Figure 5 shows the envelope of the load-displacement response of all Phase I units. and limiting cracking during prestress transfer. Since concrete in tension is a brittle material. split cylinder testing and modulus of rupture tests. and the results of which are subject to the influence of boundary conditions and accidental eccentricity (Gonnerman and Shuman. as shown in the following sections. that in statically determinate bridge members. as would be guarded against with the minimum reinforcement limits even when subject to fully reversed cyclic load and displacement cycles. and member dimensions. for the purposes of establishing minimum flexural reinforcement. These tests confirm. a small imperfection in the member results in reduced strength. finish. 2. as mentioned previously. at the time when the maximum displacement was reached. a standard 6x12 cylinder is compressed transversely. However. ultimate moment capacity in excess of the cracking moment will prevent failures from occurring without warning. This is largely due to the fact that the stress-strain response of concrete in tension is linear until cracking occurs. Split cylinder testing is more commonly used to evaluate the tensile strength of concrete than direct methods. Therefore.

and the height of the units is one-third of the beam length.2. Modulus of rupture loading schematic (ASTM.entire section is not subject to tension. b is the member width. as compared to the bottom flange of a bridge girder. 17   . 2008) This method has been used in the testing of concrete for the construction of concrete slabs and pavements. and the cylinder is relatively small. and P is the load measured from the test machine. the specimen sizes are typically six inches deep. the modulus-of-rupture is calculated using the following equation: fr = PL/bd2 (1) where fr is the modulus of rupture. split-cylinder tests consistently demonstrate concrete tensile strengths that are typically 65% of the flexural tension measured in a modulus-of-rupture test (Neville. d is the specimen height.2 Modulus of Rupture Modulus of rupture is measured using the ASTM Designation: C78 – Standard Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading). Therefore. the test units are loaded at one-third of the support spacing. Based on a plane-sections-remain-plane approximation. 1981). As shown in Figure 6. and in some cases four inches deep. Figure 6. However. 2.

(1960. (1996) and Carasquillo et al.a.) Mokhtarzadeh and French (2000). (1981) 18   .) Moist-cured units a. Walker and Bloem (1960). Khan et al. Modulus of rupture test data from Warwaruk et al.) Non-moist-cured units Figure 7.

One explanation for this phenomenon is that cracking in tension is initiated at imperfections at the aggregate-paste interface. For relatively deep sections.7f'c (psi) [0. noted a 26% reduction in the 28-day modulus-of-rupture if high-strength units were allowed to dry after 7-days of moist curing over units that were moist cured until testing.37f'c (ksi)]. an aggregate that produces a high compressive strength may not give high strengths in tension or flexure. It was noted that the heat curing leads to differential shrinkage strains that decrease the apparent flexural strain at rupture. and this is especially true for high-strength concrete. (1981). the average is substantially lower. as specified in the LRFD specifications for the purpose of checking minimum reinforcement. Kaplan (1959) observed a difference of up to 40% in the modulus-of-rupture strength based on the type of aggregate used.5 trend between higher and lower strength concretes. This is largely due to the bond between mortar and aggregate. 19   . For non-moist cured units. (1952) has illustrated this with a series of test between three to eight inches deep.Correlation between the modulus-of-rupture and the compressive cylinder strength is challenging because the mechanisms of failure are different. and more consistent with the f'c0. tension stresses in the bottom flange are closer to being uniform prior to cracking. Mokhtarzadeh and French noted (2000) that the modulus-of-rupture of moist cured specimens was on average 30% higher than their heat-cured counterparts. et al. which has a greater propensity to develop shrinkage cracks. Therefore with deeper beams. flexural tension stress is zero a short distance away at the neutral axis. and.3 Size Effects on the Flexural Cracking Strength It has been observed that increasing the volume of concrete subject to direct tension lowers the cracking stress. Carrasquillo. These tests indicate a clear drop in flexural cracking strength with depth. therefore. prior to cracking. Modulusof-rupture tests are sensitive to curing methods.200 psi. 2.2. Moist cured units shown in Figure 7a. it is expected that more concrete is subject to direct tension than with shallower beams immediately prior to cracking. indicate that the modulus of rupture can be substantially higher than 11. This is especially true for relatively shallow sections where. Wright. and the more volume of concrete subject to tension the higher the probability of applying tension at an imperfection. In flexure. These units were 4-inches deep with a 28-day compressive strength of 10. Based on the observed effect of curing the modulus-of-rupture test data shown in Figure 7 are separated into two separate categories. the highest tension is confined to the extreme tension fiber. Another significant factor in the flexural tension strength is methods of curing.

including those mentioned previously are shown in Figures 8 and 9. and in some cases the top flange is subject to flexural tension. the trend is inversely proportional to the member depth.5.Therefore. The cracking data in Figure 9 is shown as a function of depth and fr/(f'c0.3 ft to 10 ft is shown in Figure 9 as a function of f'c. none of the recorded cracking strengths exceeded 11. The flexure cracking strength is on average lower than the modulus-of-rupture. Recorded cracking strength of full-depth members is plotted in Figures 8 and 9. This data is from several experiments. as indicated with lines representing 7. The recorded flexural cracking stress of concrete members with depths ranging from 0.5. it is expected that more concrete is subject to direct tension than with shallower beams immediately prior to cracking. As shown. et al. 20   .7f'c (psi). In a series of test conducted at the Shimizu Institute of Technology in Japan. and proposed the following relation: Fb = F(H-1/4) (2) where Fb is the flexural strength. respectively. It has been observed that increasing the volume of concrete subject to direct tension lowers the cracking stress. As shown. the member cracking stress decreases with depth. As shown. The trend indicates that the cracking stress increases with f'c0. none of the recorded cracking strengths exceeded 11. T-beams.5f'c and 11.5) representing the horizontal and the vertical axes. where flexural cracking was not the primary consideration. and AASHTO Standard shapes and Bulb-Tee girders. on a wide variety of shapes including rectangular.7f'c (psi). The trend indicates that the cracking stress increases with f'c0. and AASHTO Standard shapes and Bulb-Tee girders. an imperfection that initiates cracking is more likely to be encountered in a deep member because more area is subject to what can be approximated as uniform tension. 1989) A plot of test results on larger-scale units with depths measuring 0. where flexural cracking was not the primary consideration and on a wide variety of shapes including rectangular.. (Shioya. Figure 8 shows the flexural cracking strength as a function of corresponding f'c.7f'c (psi). The researchers noted that the flexural tension strength decreases with increasing depth. and H is the section depth. This data is from various experiments. As shown.7f'c (psi). Therefore with deeper beams. T-beams.3 ft to 10 ft. similar beams measuring from 6-inches deep to 10-feet deep were tested to evaluate the effect of size on shear.5f'c and 11. F is the flexural strength at a reference depth of unity. as indicated with lines representing 7. The flexural cracking strength is plotted as a function of depth in Figure 9.

5) test data of full-depth concrete members versus depth 21   . Observed fr/(f'c0. Observed cracking stress of full-depth concrete members versus f'c Figure 9.Figure 8.

24f'c (ksi) in 2005. Since the applicability of this data to deep bridge members is suspect because of the influence of member size on the flexural cracking stress. where prestress losses provide the most significant level of uncertainty. and reporting of recent data from these tests on high-strength concrete was the impetus for increasing the LRFD flexural cracking stress to 0. as this parameter has by far the most variability and the most influence on the MFR provisions. therefore. Prestress can have a significant effect on the flexural cracking strength of concrete. These results aid in evaluating the level-of-safety provided by the minimum reinforcement provisions to prevent brittle flexural response. available data on the observed cracking strength of full-depth bridge members is also analyzed. The methods for construction and the use of normal probability paper are described in Nowak and Collins (2000) and in TRB Circular E-C079. Any normal CDF on normal probability paper is represented by a straight line. the modulus-of-rupture strength is largely due to the bond between mortar and aggregate. The intent is to identify trends in the distribution function and determine if the normal distribution assumption is appropriate for the dataset. 2.3. As discussed previously. and.2. Therefore.37f'c (ksi) from 0. and determination of statistical parameters. an aggregate that produces a high compressive strength may not give high strengths in 22   . the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of relevant data is plotted on normal probability paper.1 Analysis Methods To facilitate the interpretation of results.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE FLEXURAL STRENGTH A statistical analysis of the flexural cracking strength of concrete members has been performed to facilitate interpretation of experimental data. 2.3 Modulus of Rupture Correlation between the modulus of rupture and the compressive cylinder strength is challenging because the mechanisms of failure are different. Evaluation of the moment carrying capacity is not a part of this study because uncertainty in material strength and dimensional tolerances are captured in the Resistance Factor ().3. Based on this distribution. Modulus-of-rupture test data per ASTM C78 is abundant. parameters are developed to evaluate the consistency and safety of the minimum reinforcement methods investigated in this research. This analysis focuses on the flexural tension strength of concrete members. variability of prestress is presented.

tension or flexure.7f'c (psi) [0.5) test data in psi units (moist-cured data excluded) Based on the assumption of normal distribution. Cumulative distribution function plot of fr/(f'c0.37f'c 23   .5) and the vertical axis represents the number of standard deviations from the mean value. the horizontal axis is the fr/(f'c0. As shown. Moist-cure right up to the time of testing does not represent field conditions. the data indicates a higher average modulus of rupture for moist-cured units. Further. statistical parameters were developed for all sets of modulus of rupture data presented in Section 2. especially for concrete strengths exceeding 8.2 for each source (Table 1a) and as a combined dataset (Table 1b) for both most-cured and non moist-cured units. where concrete is allowed dry after a short cure period.0 ksi. Moist cured units were excluded. In this plot.2.2. As mentioned previously. normally distributed data will plot as a straight line. (ksi)] is above two standard deviation value. As mentioned previously. moist curing until testing does not represent field conditions. The Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) is plotted for the ratio of modulus of rupture (fr) test data to the corresponding square root of f'c for the combined data in Section 2.2 in Figure 10. and data can be modeled assuming normal distribution. Figure 10. modulus-of-rupture is highly sensitive to curing methods. the value currently used in the LRFD Specifications of 11. For the nonmoist-cured units. because moist cure up to the time of testing is not representative of field conditions.

A summary of the statistical parameters for the full-size test data based on a normal distribution is shown in Table 2.37√f'c (ksi)].) Cure Method b. Statistical parameters of fr/(f'c0.65 0.26 6.143 8.909 0.7√ f'c (psi) [0. to the corresponding square root of f'c in Figure 11. In this plot.5 fr/(f'c ) (psi) Carrasquillo (1981) 12.21 1. the horizontal axis is fcr/(f'c0.) Total for all Data Sets fr/(f'c ) (psi) Moist cured Average Standard deviation  Ave.125 2.2 0. Dev.0 6x6x36 Moist Warwaruk (1960) 7.5) and the vertical axis represents the number of standard deviations from the mean value. The average depth for all members evaluated is 3.1 4x4x14 Moist Khan (1996) 8.1-12.6 0.3 Full-Size Member Cracking Strength The (CDF) is plotted for the ratio of the full-depth member cracking stress test data described in Section 2.5) (psi) assuming normal distribution a.7 4x4x16 Varies Mokhtarzadeh & French (2000) 11.49 1.3.097 7.43 14.Table 1. The average flexural cracking strength is below 7.0 1.5 1.34 0.2.18 7. which indicates that the data can be modeled assuming normal distribution.0 ft.278 0. + 2() COV Average f’c (ksi) 9.53 11.57 1. and the plot is essentially straight.5√f'c (psi) [0. and two standard deviations above the average is well below 11.24√f'c (ksi)].5   2. there is a tradeoff between easeof-use and accuracy when developing the strength of the section.83 Non-moist cured 8.5-6.32 0. normally distributed data will plot as a straight line.2-15.10 0.50 0.33 2.3 6x6x24 Heat Walker (1960) 9. Considering the variability of 24   .2.3 6x6x24 Not stated Average Std.081 1.32 2.5-15.6 6x6x24 Moist 9.7-14. COV Range f'c (ksi) Size (in. However. As mentioned previously. the coefficient of variation reduces considerably with the addition of the parameter H-0. As shown in Table 2.2-8.58 0.74 0.56 0.3. Incorporation of the depth of the member in specifying the flexural cracking stress was considered in the research.) Per reference 0.

The variability of prestress losses in pretensioned members has been evaluated by Steinberg (1995) and Gilbertson & Ahlborn (2004) and Tadros et al.5) test data of full-size units Table 2. Statistical parameters of full-size concrete member flexural cracking stress assuming normal distribution fcr (psi) Average Standard deviation  Ave. Methods and research on anticipated prestress and the amount of prestress loss that is anticipated to occur over the life of the bridge are covered in detail in the PCI Bridge Manual (2005) for pretensioned members.5 (psi. Cumulative distribution function plot of fcr/(f'c0. 2009). initial and final concrete strengths. time-of-jacking and others.2 0.3. parameter of depth in the minimum reinforcement provisions should not be included. Gilbertson & Ahlborn (2005) demonstrated prestress losses deviate from nominal by less than 4% 25   .65 10. ft) 7. (2003.24 8.35 10.31 f cr f c0. relative humidity.8 0.17 2. + 2() COV 610 190 990 0. Figure 11.02 1.5 (psi) f cr f c H  0. In both studies Monte Carlo Simulations were used to evaluate overall variability of prestress losses.the measured flexural cracking strength.3 0. dimensional tolerances.07 1.4 Prestressed Variability The level of prestress has a significant impact on the flexural cracking strength of concrete members. Results of these studies are based on the variability of parameters including jacking force.

and the data suggests that the cracking stress is inversely proportionality to the section depth.5 Summary of Statistical Analysis of Flexural Cracking Strength Statistical analysis of concrete member cracking strength demonstrates the following:  Cumulative distribution function plots show that the ratio of the flexural cracking strength to the square root of the compressive strength indicates that the normal distribution assumption is appropriate for all datasets evaluated.. and moist curing is not representative actual field conditions.5f'c (psi) [0.3f'c (psi).37f'c (ksi)] is 2 standard deviations above the mean implying a 98 percent confidence interval.within a confidence interval of 95% for a 70-inch I-girder using the AASHTO LRFD method for calculating prestress losses. Based on this dataset. et al.3*0. 2. the value 11. Considering that the loss is about 17% of the prestress force.2. the modulus of rupture of 11.37f'c (ksi) is 2.S. 2.2. while building members are generally governed by ACI 318 Building Code 26   .  The average modulus of rupture for units not subject to moist cure is 8.  Full size concrete members crack at significantly lower flexural stresses than modulus of rupture specimen. respectively. which implies a 99. bridge members are generally governed by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.85 standard deviations from the mean.3. Modulus of rupture is sensitive to curing. demonstrated that long term prestress loss due to creep.7f'c (psi) 0.0f'c and 10.05. Tadros.. the variation in the prestress force can be as much as 0.6f'c (psi) [0.  Average and plus-two standard deviation cracking stress for full-size members are 7.4 METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT In the U.17 = 0.  For the combined dataset of units not subject to moist cure. shrinkage and relaxation can vary by as much as 30% from the mean value.27f'c (ksi)] based on test data from test data evaluated in Section 2.8 percent confidence interval.

2M cr .3. ACI 318 has different provisions for reinforced concrete (in Chapter 10) and prestressed concrete (in Chapter 18). external tendons are often used. Also. The European Code differs in the approach to providing minimum reinforcement. these requirements are: (a) (b) The flexural design strength of the section being considered should be larger than the cracking moment by an acceptable safety margin. The applicability of the LRFD specifications to segmental bridges is a primary question in this research. The LRFD specifications have unified provisions for reinforced. especially in span-by-span construction. The resistance factor. The cracking moment is derived from the formula: 27   . partially prestressed.2 states that the amount of reinforcement shall be adequate to satisfy at least one of the following conditions: M n  1. The reduced cracking strength at the segment joints should be somehow accounted for.7.Requirements for Structural Concrete.3.1 AASHTO LRFD Minimum flexural reinforcement is evaluated uniformly for all concrete sections with two requirements. that is the strain in the extreme tension steel layer is not less than 0. in the LRFD Specifications is taken as 1. cr and u are the design strength.33M u M M where M n . which are applicable to both reinforced and prestressed concrete bridge members.95 for bonded systems and 0. and If one is assured that the member will be unlikely to crack under a magnified factored load moment.005.9 for reinforced concrete when a member is designed as tension- (3) (4) controlled. then requirement (a) may be waived. That stress can be far below the stress that corresponds to rupture of the tendons.4. the provisions should be very similar or even identical. Otherwise. . cracking moment and required strength (factored load moment). or M n  1. The magnification factor provides an additional safety margin beyond the margin provided by the standard load factors AASHTO Section 5. There may be justification for some of the differences. featuring simplified prescriptive equations. primarily due to the different character of the applied loads. There are significant differences between the two documents. Fundamentally. where very low steel stress at the Strength Limit States is generally assumed in design. and fully prestressed concrete (Section 5).90 for unbonded systems. The tensioncontrolled resistance factor for segmental bridges is 0. 2.0 for prestressed concrete and 0.

Also. whether that load is an overload on the non-composite section in service or the wet weight of the deck during construction.7. 5.3. It is not clear why setting a limit of Sc f r . whether as an upper or lower limit.3.3.f cpe  M nc (M cr  M nc )   f r S nc Sc (5) where ( f cpe is the extreme (precompressed) tension fiber stress due to effective prestress. is not allowed to exceed the effect of prestress on the cracking moment. It is possible that noncomposite sections can suddenly rupture under load. interestingly. a pretensioned member with draped strands has to have significant strength demands at sections other than midspan in order to meet the requirements stated previously. As shown in Figure 12. primarily the deck weight.7. it is not clear why there are no explicit provisions for noncomposite members. The net effect is that the moment due to noncomposite loads. Provisions for non-composite sections can be included by simply specifying that Snc be substituted for Sc in AASHTO Eq.3.7.2-1.” This implies that all sections of any given span must satisfy these requirements.3. the term AASHTO 5.3. Section 5. These two respective terms in the equation are: and  M dnc Sc / Snc  1 Sc f cpe  . 28   . M nc / S nc ) is the stress due to forces applied before composite action from a concrete topping or deck is affected. The formula as written in the Fourth Edition (2007) of the Specifications is shown below: S  M cr  Sc f r  f cpe   M nc  c  1  Scf r S   nc  In the AASHTO equation.2 states that the requirements must be met “at any section of a flexural component. it had been applied as an upper limit in preceding editions. is necessary.2  1 Sc f r is a lower limit. and f r is the modulus of rupture.

37 f c (ksi) ' .2 of LRFD specifications. this representation is inadequate for continuous structures and is not recommended. 0. However.3.1. It 29   . However. the load envelopes have to be characterized. The higher limit was introduced to reflect research results for high strength concrete as endorsed by ACI Committee 363 (ACI. or 11.4.3.7 f c (psi) ' (6) Equation 6 provides an upper bound value of the expected modulus of rupture that would lead to more conservative design compared to earlier LRFD provisions ( 7. A uniformly distributed load could be used to represent moving point load envelopes for simple-spans. 2. Cracking moment versus factored load moment in a pretensioned member with draped strands It has been suggested to provide a loading capacity greater than the cracking load for a given span rather than requiring flexural capacity greater than the cracking moment at “any” (“every”) section in a span for convenience. the modulus of rupture is given as.Figure 12. to ensure that the load capacity is greater than the cracking load.7.1 Flexural Cracking Strength For calculation of Mcr in Section 5. 1992) on high strength concrete.5 f c (psi) ' in 2005 and prior versions of AASHTO).

90 for reinforced concrete and 1. The resistance factor  varies between 0. It has been a customary practice to use the yield strength of mild reinforcement fy to represent that value. Because the issue of minimum reinforcement should relate to members with very little amounts of reinforcement.has been shown that using the higher limit in segmental box girder bridges could result in a 20% to 30% increase in required prestressing and in excessive cambers.5√f'c (psi) [0.2 Flexural Capacity In its simplest form. In segmental construction an upper value of 0. the reinforcement levels are so high as to enforce the compression controlled  of 0.75 and 1.37√f'c (ksi)] should be an upper bound value for the flexural cracking strength of segment to segment joints rather than an average or lower bound value. As discussed in Section 2.1.” The true flexural strength when the steel ruptures should correspond to its ultimate strength fsu.90 for non-prestressed concrete.75 and give a false alarm that minimum reinforcement limits are not met. For the sake of the discussion that follows. The third and most important variable is the steel stress at ultimate flexure. this is not the intent of the minimum reinforcement limits. Obviously. the upper limits of 0.75 for grade 30   . The second variable to discuss is the lever arm depth between the tensile reinforcement and the compression block. This appears to be straight forward and not subject to much debate.95 is also used in some situations.1.4.00 for prestressed concrete and (8) between 0. In some segmental and spliced I-girder applications. 2.00. a value of 7. The applicability of the modulus of rupture specified in AASHTO to segmental bridges is questionable because the test results discussed previously indicate that the concrete layer in precast segments in vicinity of the segment-to-segment joint is relatively weak. the flexural capacity is calculated as: M n  A s f y (d  a / 2) for reinforced concrete. based on the justification that the stain hardening and ultimate steel strength occur beyond the point in which the section is assumed to have practically “failed.75 and 0.00 for prestressed concrete is of primary concern. and (7) M n  A s f ps (d  a / 2) for prestressed concrete. Freyermuth and Aalami (1997) show that the ratio fsu/fy = 1. assume that  = 1.

2. The LRFD specifications provide the following equation. In regard to the flexural strength equation for prestressed concrete. Although this stress is much lower than the 270 ksi it takes to rupture the tendon. 1996). for all steel grades in flexural capacity calculations. et al.2 AASHTO Segmental Guide Specifications In the 1989 version of the AASHTO Segmental Guide Specifications.  (d  c)(2  N s )    f py f ps  f pe  900 p   2li   (9) where fpe is effective prestress. including Ghosh (1987). there were no requirements for minimum flexural reinforcement. the discrepancy on this issue disappears. Ghosh (1987) calls for a factor of 1. which are known to have a yield strength = 0. rather than the yield stress. Also.33 with reinforced concrete. It is possible to expand these ratios to cover steel strengths up to Grade 270 low relaxation strands. Jack Evans and Henry Bollman of FDOT made the same remarks in AASHTO Committee T10 correspondence. or fpu/fpy= 1. This explains in part the call by Washington DOT at T10 to increase the 1. A first approximation of the stress fps is the effective prestress plus 15 ksi (or about 165-190 ksi). However. This is obviously inconsistent with the treatment of conventionally reinforced concrete as has been pointed out by several authors.6. Ns is number of supports between anchors. The calculation of the stress in unbonded and external post-tensioned tendons at ultimate is more complex than in bonded and internal tendons. experimental studies and detailed analysis have shown that this equation is accurate.. and li is length between anchors. following the stress strain diagrams for low relaxation Grade 270 steel. while Washington DOT has called for a value of 2. the commentary addressed the issue with the following: 31   .33 factor applied to Mu to a higher value for prestressed concrete in order to have a consistent factor of safety as the 1.40 steel and 1. the value fps is determined on the basis of strain compatibility. where concrete crushes prior to reaching tendon failure (Tassin. dp is steel depth. up to a stress of 270 ksi.0 in some of the early T10 correspondence (in 2004-2005). By considering the ultimate steel stress. c is neutral axis depth.50 for grade 60 steel.11.9 of the ultimate.4.

1 of the AASHTO specification was developed to avoid a brittle failure in grossly under-reinforced simple-span precast.The minimum reinforcement provision of Section 9.33Mu.18.2 times the cracking moment provision.min  3 f c' fy bwd (psi) 3 f c' (10) The quantity may not be taken less than 200 psi to comply with requirements in older versions of ACI. However. which is contrary to load requirements. this addition is also provided with commentary as follows. Equation 10 and the associated exceptions are intended by ACI to give similar 32   . The “cracking moment” requirement is satisfied through a direct minimum steel area formula.5. prestressed section.4. This section in the commentary is referring to the paper by Freyermuth and Aalami. and a magnified factored moment. including elimination of the 1. Minimum flexural reinforcement provisions were added to the 1999 edition of the Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges to be consistent with the AASHTO specifications. However. Application to segmental concrete bridges results in requirements of more bonded reinforcement for bridges with more conservative (arbitrary) design tensile stress levels. has been published in the ACI Structural Journal. Mcr. ACI covers the minimum reinforcement requirements in Section 10. A comprehensive proposal for the revision of the ACI minimum reinforcement requirements. 1. there are distinct differences between ACI and AASHTO in the factors and in the method of application of these two requirements. Minimum reinforcement requirements are adequately covered by the allowable stress and load factor requirements of these specifications. as follows: A s . Clearly. For reinforced concrete.2. with the flexural strength required to be greater than the smaller of a factored cracking moment. the commentary indicates concerns of the economic impact of specifying minimum flexural reinforcement for segmental bridges.3 ACI 318 The ACI 318 Building Code follows essentially the same requirements as followed by the LRFD specifications. 2.

Apparently some judgment was used by Committee 318 to decide that an “effective” flange width of 2bw is adequate for minimum reinforcement determination using the cracking moment criterion. This is the same strategy followed by the LRFD specifications. and (b) flexural members with shear and flexural strength at least twice that required by 9. similar to the practice in Europe. ACI Chapter 18 covers provisions unique to prestressed concrete.5 in psi) in ACI as opposed to the larger 0. In his unpublished study.0  the factored load in any given span in ACI.0 coefficient was adopted by ACI 318 as a conservative number even though the unpublished study by Professor C.” One difference between ACI and AASHTO for prestressed concrete is in the value of . partially prestressed. Siess recommended that for reinforced concrete. since the 1963 introduction of the strength design method for conventionally reinforced concrete members.2 times the cracking load computed on the basis of modulus of rupture fr specified in 9. ACI 318 performed a parametric study to derive Equation 10 by equating Mn with 1. or conventionally reinforced.8 of ACI 318-05 states that “The total amount of prestressed and nonprestressed reinforcement shall be adequate to develop a factored load at least 1.7 in psi) coefficient in the LRFD specifications. the flexural strength of a section should simply be greater than or equal to the cracking moment. must be changed for T-sections with the flange in the tension zone.67.33Mu in AASHTO (at any given section) and 2. unbonded post-tensioned slabs.3. This requirement shall be permitted to be waived for: (a) two-way. Ghosh (1987) 33   . C. The LRFD specifications have a unified treatment of structural concrete. to the lesser of 2bw or the actual flange width. However. Siess recommended a coefficient of 1. The 2. whether fully prestressed.2.requirements to those given by Equation 3. but in a “simpler” form. The margin between cracking and failure is provided by strain hardening of the mild reinforcement (a 50% increase in stress for Grade 60 reinforcement) and the strength reduction factor  = 0. to avoid design calculations involving section properties. for a wide variety of section shapes and sizes. using fr = 7.33Mu criteria. Other significant differences are: 1) the factored load limit is 1. Accordingly.5 f c' . Committee 318 has attempted.0Mcr. P.2. which is taken = 0. Freyermuth and Aalami (1997) have shown that when actual width is used the cracking moment is so large that this criterion will almost always be superseded by the 1. and 2) the modulus of rupture is based on the older coefficient of 0.90. Section 18.24 in ksi (7.P. bw.37 in ksi (11. The web width.9 in ACI and is given different values in AASHTO depending on the type of member.

2.2.33 coefficient for reinforced concrete.4 Freyermuth and Aalami—CEB-FIP Freyermuth and Aalami (1997) proposed a unified and simplified approach to the requirements of minimum reinforcement in the ACI 318-95 Code. It should be noted that in the 2008 edition of ACI 318. is in reality a 1.33*(90)/(60) = 2.2. where As. The CEB-FIP requirements as quoted by Freyermuth-Aalami follow: “9.9 for minimum bonded reinforcement in unbonded post-tensioned members. Note that for prestressed members ACI 318. depending on the bottom fiber stress at service load conditions.5 of ACI 318 for reinforced concrete. unlike AASHTO.min = 0. thus creating an inconsistency within the ACI Code. 2. That latter requirement is still enforced in Section 10. 34   . Ghosh disagreed with that value and explained that it should be only 1.2-Beams 9.33*(270)/(0. Additional provisions are given in Section 18.4.min is the minimum additional bonded reinforcement and Act is the area of the part of the section between the center of gravity of the gross section and the tension face.0 factor when the tensile strength of 90 ksi is used rather than the yield strength of 60 ksi in calculating the flexural strength.33*(fpu/fpy) = 1.1-Longitudinal reinforcement: A minimum area of longitudinal bonded reinforcement should be provided to avoid brittle failure in case of unforeseen loss of concrete tensile strength. when based on a yield strength of grade 60 steel. Ghosh’s suggested modifications were not accepted by ACI 318. They did not cover all types of prestressing reinforcement or the cases where prestressing steel and mild steel existed in the same section. Except for two-way slabs. minimum reinforcement is eliminated in unbonded systems.004Act (11) at both the positive and negative moment sections of continuous post-tensioned members. the ACI 318-05 requires that As.explained that the 1. This factor is determined as 1. requires that the minimum reinforcement criteria relate to loading on a member rather than satisfaction of the minimum reinforcement in ALL sections of the member. Their approach was a further development of the provisions in the Third and Fourth editions of the European Code known as CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures published in 1978 and 1990 respectively. different minimum amounts are specified for positive and for negative moment sections.6.85*270) for stress relieved strands. Stress relieved strand is no longer in use by the great majority of users. For two-way slabs.

0015btd for steel grades S400 (58.5.900) where bt is the average width of the concrete zone in tension. Thus. the ratio is about 1. their formula gives 2/3rds of the ACI Code limit for that grade.000 psi) and S500 (72.0 f c' f su 9.500 psi) 0. to simplify. one for use in reinforced concrete members and the other for prestressed members: A s . Accordingly.min  bwd (14) It is interesting to note that Equation 13 is almost identical to that in the ACI 318 Code for reinforced concrete except that the ultimate steel strength rather than the yield strength is used. Using the ultimate as opposed to the yield strength of steel seems to make more sense in calculating minimum reinforcement limits where steel is expected to go through strain hardening and rupture at member capacity. They cited a previous study which had demonstrated this to be true in cases where steel content was less than 25% of the balanced steel content. and 1962. It may be possible to revert back to the simpler Equation 13 for all cases and to replace the web width with an average width of the tension zone.0025btd for steel grades S220 (31. 35   . they proposed a change from an average width of the tension zone of the section to web width. The simplicity of this method is attractive. the area of longitudinal tensile bonded reinforcement provided should be at least taken equal to: 0. Also. if the neutral axis in the ULS is located in the flange. Thus A s . they proposed a 1/3 increase to the first formula which applies to steel grades commonly used in North America. 1960.0 f c' f pu bwd (13) A s . converted Equation 10 to two equations. the width of the latter is not taken into account in evaluating bt. Freyermuth and Aalami.” Freyermuth and Aalami. Sozen.Commentary (Notes): If a specific study is not carried out in this respect.min  3. in analyzing a large number of test specimens previously produced by Warwaruk.min  0. and Siess of the University of Illinois in 1957. In a T-beam. found the CEB-FIP provisions to be deficient in some cases. For Grade 60 steel.002b w d (12) To include concrete and steel strength as variables.

2. consists of two parts. Part 2 contains design and detailing rules pertaining to bridge structures.4. Part 1 has general specifications and design specifications for building structures.15 fc ' ksi (4.4 (CEB-FIP – Freyermuth and Aalami). is at least 1. 2.5.37 fc ' ksi (11. This second part is written as a supplement to Part 1.4.4.2 fc ' ksi (7.4.7 f c  psi ) . which suggest that larger concrete sections exhibit more shrinkage cracking than smaller sections and therefore their value of cracking strength is lower than the conventional value of 0. The effect of prestressing might be included in a similar manner without significant loss of simplicity. Mr. Instead of 0. The amount of reinforcement shall be adequate so that the factored flexural resistance.5 f c  psi ) that has been given in earlier Canadian Design Codes.4. Adoption of a relatively low value of the concrete cracking strength is based on research results. Specifications for the Design of Concrete Structures. as specified in the AASHTO LRFD.33 times the factored moment (see Equations 3 and 4).8 fc '  psi) . ' CEB-FIP Provisions of the CEB-FIP MC90 have been discussed earlier in Section 2. the cracking moment according to the Canadian Code for a reinforced concrete section is only 41% percent of the cracking moment calculated according to the AASHTO LRFD provisions.3 Eurocode The Eurocode 2. A major difference between the Canadian Code and the AASHTO LRFD is in the calculation of cracking moment. and only specifications that differ from building structures are included.20 times the cracking moment or 1.similar to what is being used at this time for shear design using the Modified Compression Field Theory.24 2.5. the Canadian Code ' specifies a cracking strength of 0. Thus.5.1 International Practice Canadian Code (CAN/CSA-S6-06) The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CAN/CSA-S6-06) has similar provisions for minimum reinforcement as those of the AASHTO LRFD provisions discussed in Section 2. The Canadian Code adopted the term “cracking strength” instead of “modulus of rupture” to define the stress level at which concrete cracking occurs. 36   .4.5 2.1 of this report.

3(f'c)2/3 [MPa] = 1. fcr = 2. fcr = 0. for a reinforced concrete with a 5.160 [psi] (18) (17) (16) For comparison purposes. As.12 ln (1 + fcm/10) [MPa] = 307 ln (1+fcm/1450) [psi] where fcm is the mean compressive strength given as follows: fcm = f'c + 8 [MPa] = f'c + 1.58(f'c)2/3 [psi] where fck is the specified minimum compressive strength of concrete that is similar to f'c. f'c = 33 MPa = 4785 psi is 500 psi (= 3.The minimum longitudinal reinforcement in beams.000 psi compressive strength.6 MPa) according to the LRFD specifications. the cracking according to the Eurocode is approximately 47 percent of cracking moment calculated based on the AASHTO LRFD specifications.7 fcr and 1. For concrete strengths exceeding 7. respectively. It is interesting to note that the Eurocode gives 5th and 95th percentile values of the cracking stress as 0.5 MPa). the cracking strength is related to f'c by a logarithmic function.26 f cr bt d fy  0.min according to Part 1 of the Eurocode is given by: As . bt is the average width of concrete zone in tension and d is the depth measured from the extreme compression fiber to centroid of tensile steel reinforcement.250 psi. the cracking strength for a specified compressive strength. fy is the elastic limit (yield strength) of reinforcement. In Part 2 of the Eurocode the minimum reinforcement in prestressed concrete members is addressed directly with the following: As. This is compared to a modulus of rupture value of 809 psi (=5.0013 bt d (15) Where fcr is the flexural cracking strength of concrete. The limits are concrete strengths up to 50 MPa or 7. Thus. or concrete compressive strength. It is interesting to note that the tensile strength of concrete is calculated as. The concrete tensile strength is determined from a table based on concrete class.3fcr.250 psi. min  0. In a T-beam and when the flange is in compression. the width bt shall be taken as width of the web.minfy + ApsΔσp ≥ Mrep/de (19) 37   .

This procedure is computationally simpler than the method specified in the LRFD because the cracking moment does not depend on the amount of prestress. Requirement 2) is referring to slab construction. Therefore. the Eurocode recommends that Mrep be taken as zero at the joints.15% of the cross-sectional area of the member.01bwd Ast: Cross sectional area of the main axial tensile reinforcement bw: Web thickness of the girder d: Effective height However if. The second requirement relates to providing a minimum reinforcement for flexural resistance to prevent brittle failure.005bw d (20) 2) Members that are so thin in the direction of action of shear forces that diagonal tensile reinforcement cannot be placed Ast ≥ 0. assuming that no prestress is applied to the section. 2. For precast segmental structures. This clause is to prevent sudden failure of concrete structures. so it is not always appropriate to stipulate the minimum amount of steel in terms of a ratio to the cross-sectional area of the member.where Mrep is the cracking strength of the concrete. the provision of 1) need not be referred. a separate exceptional stipulation was established for girders in terms of a ratio to the amount of steel required by stress calculation or the like. 38 (21)   . Commentary addresses these specifications with the following: … a member with very little main axial tensile reinforcement could fail abruptly when unexpected bending stress occurs. However girders are provided with sufficient main axial reinforcement in general. where no shear reinforcement is provided. de is the lever arm to the tension steel and Δσp is the smaller of 0.4. reinforcement in a girder is placed in an amount of not less than 4/3 times the required cross sectional area. … The cross sectional area of the main axial tensile reinforcement placed in a reinforced concrete structure shall be determined in accordance with Equation 6. The first requirement in reinforced concrete relates to preventing the propagation of cracks with reinforcement in an amount not less than 0.4.5 ksi.1 1) Girder: Ast ≥ 0.4 Japan Specification for Highway Bridges The Japan Road Association specifies the following regarding minimum flexural reinforcement.5.4fpu and 72.

4.For prestressed concrete. The commentary addresses the advantages of using service evaluation of the minimum reinforcement in-lieu of the strength limit state as: …calculation of the tension reinforcement is generally easier and moreover. The maximum allowed stress in the reinforcement is 26 ksi. see Figure 13. The stress fct is the tensile capacity in the concrete. Minimum reinforcement is only required when tensile stresses (below specified limits) are expected under service conditions. As a conservative approximation. One of several classical books he wrote was on fundamentals of design of prestressed concrete. which was translated from German to English and published in the U. the live load be increased by 35% to limit cracking that could lead to reduced durability. whereby the stress is assumed zero at the centroid of the gross concrete section. the amount of reinforcement must be sufficient to balance the tension force equivalent to the respective concrete tension assumed in the uncracked state. the stress resultant Fct must be resisted upon cracking with adequate reinforcement Aps. 2. 39   . In these regions. Prestressed strand can be used to serve the same purpose. The stress in the section just before it cracks is represented.6 Leonhardt’s Method Fritz Leonhardt is one of the fathers of modern prestressed concrete. in 1964 (Leonhardt. assuming that the gain in stress between the uncracked and cracked states is below the allowable limit for mild reinforcement. The code further suggests that for unbonded or externally prestressed members. Leonhardt provides a method for calculation of minimum flexural reinforcement which is described below. minimum reinforcement is not evaluated at the strength limit state.S. a simplified stress distribution as shown in Figure 13(c) is assumed. According to this approach. It is further mentioned that prestress members at strength limit states should be evaluated for extreme events such as collision or earthquake loads. is on the safer side. 1964).

2Fct for prestressed members. Thus. or (fps-fpe). and to (24) A s f y  1. reinforcement formula to: A ps (f ps  f pe )  1. Leonhardt’s Minimum Reinforcement Method The stress in that reinforcement after cracking is assumed to be the incremental stress from effective prestress fpe (existing just before cracking) to the stress fps at ultimate flexure.2Fct for conventionally reinforced members (25) 40   . 1 h Fct   ( b w )f ct 2 2 Fct  A ps (f ps  f pe ) (22) (23) The coefficient  is a function of the geometry of the tensioned area of the cross section. The American Segmental Bridge Institute (ASBI) in a submittal to T10 in January of 2007. It is =1 for rectangular sections where bw =b. proposed to adopt Leonhardt’s method with some modifications as follows: Revise min.Figure 13.

e. reinforcement criteria. the resistance is calculated in a manner that is similar to the Eurocode (i. For the ultimate resistance. This is a simple method to obtain a uniform margin of safety for the minimum reinforcement requirements. this is consistent with a recent decision by ACI 318 for the 2008 Edition. Using the “tensile area of the section” and assuming it to be defined as the area on the tension side of the centroidal axis is already an acceptable concept. including Breen. without engaging the designer in complex calculations. used in the shear provisions of AASHTO. Upper bound tensile strength of concrete = A s f y /(f ps  f pe ) may be 0. Waive minimum reinforcement requirements for externally (unbonded) post-tensioned members. shallow specimens with steep stress gradients. 41   . This method is somewhat more rigorous than the CEB/FIP method as it accounts for the type of steel and the tensile strength of the concrete. For members with a combination of internal (bonded) and external (unbonded) tendons use the majority type of the tendons for min. A Technical Advisory Committee was retained by ASBI to review this approach.3 f c' (psi) is proposed. prestressing reinforcement. use the strut and tie method to determine minimum reinforcement. prestressing is a major effect and the cracking moment should include the compression stress resultant and the lever arm between that resultant and the prestressing reinforcement. or 7. Ganz. It eliminates the need for using effective prestress and cracking moments to determine minimum reinforcement and is similar to the method specified in the Eurocode. and Seible. it seems to ignore the compression side of the moment resistance in a flexural member. For deep members. However. an equivalent prestressing steel area to the available mild reinforcement equal to assumed to contribute to the min. It consisted of leaders in the design/research community. compared to the current formula which was based primarily on lab testing of small. Combault. Dolan. The elegance of the Leonhardt/ASBI approach is in its simplicity. fps-fpe). It appears to involve two seemingly offsetting approximations in calculating the cracking resistance and the ultimate resistance.. The only complexity is in determining the Ft value for nonrectangular tension zones. The majority of that committee’s reactions were positive and supportive. This formula is shown by ASBI. Goodyear. based on research done by members of this team to better represent tensile strength in large structural members.23 f c' (ksi) .For prestressed members with both mild reinforcement and prestressing tendons. For the cracking resistance.

6 for concrete bridge members and 1. As mentioned previously.24√f'c (ksi). Mdnc = total unfactored dead load moment acting on the monolithic or noncomposite section (k-ft). This method.2 for precast segmental structures).2. The following factors account for variability in the flexural cracking strength of concrete. Sc = section modulus for the extreme fiber of the composite section where tensile stress is caused by externally applied loads (in3).33M u where: fr = fcpe = the flexural cracking stress of concrete taken as 0. the NCHRP 12-80 project team developed a method for determining minimum reinforcement that is based on the current method specified in the LRFD specifications. referred to herein as the Modified LRFD Method. the each component of the minimum reinforcement requirement is factored separately to account for variability. is developed to be suitable for all structure types covered in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and achieve appropriate and consistent safety. variability of prestress and the ratio of nominal yield stress of reinforcement to ultimate. 42   .7 Modified LRFD Method To meet the objectives of the research project.4. 1 = flexural cracking variability factor (1. Snc = section modulus for the extreme fiber of the monolithic or non-composite section where tensile stress is caused by externally applied loads (in3). compressive stress in concrete due to effective prestress forces only (after (28) allowance for all prestress losses) at extreme fiber of section where tensile stress is caused by externally applied loads (ksi). The method is described as follows: Mn ≥ Mfcr where Mfcr is the factored cracking moment calculated as: (26)  S  M fcr   3 ( 1 f r   2 f cpe ) Sc  M dnc  c  1 S    nc    and the requirement can be waived if (27) M n  1.

The cracking stress factor of is based on providing a high probability that the factored strength will be greater than actual flexure cracking strength. as shown in Figure 1. When considering full-size member data.67 for A615 and 0.0√f'c (psi) [0. the factored stress is 2. or overstrength moment used. The cracking stress factor is applied to the modulus of rupture.38√f'c (ksi)] that is greater than 2 standard deviations above the average modulus of rupture (or a 98% probability of not being exceeded).9 for non-prestressed and externally prestressed segmental bridge girders) constant for the purpose of checking minimum reinforcement. cast-inplace post-tensioned box girder bridge frames.9 standard deviations above the mean. it is suggested that 7.24√f'c (ksi)] is an upper bound flexural cracking strength and the flexural cracking strength factor (γ1) should be equal to 1.75 for A706 Grade 60 Reinforcement). Based on this effect. use 1. which has a far greater variability than the amount of prestress (fcpe) at the extreme fiber. when evaluating nonmoist cured units. 0.0. The value of γ1 = 1.1 for internal [bonded] tendons and 1.2 = Prestress variability factor (1. = Resistance factor (1. For precast segmental structures.1 to account for the possibility of concrete stresses due to prestress being higher than specified. However. In the case of the moment resistance the maximum.1.05 may be more appropriate.0 for prestressed concrete. as discussed in Section 2.3.5.2 to be consistent with the LRFD specifications (prior to the 2005 Interim Revisions). This cracking stress factor will account for such things as concrete strength gain with time and size effects mentioned previously. This value appears to be too conservative for pretensioned members. This is especially true for draped tendons in long. 3 = fy/fu (0. The true advantage of this method is that the sources of variability in computing the cracking moment and the resistance are appropriately factored.2. as discussed in Section 2.0 for external [un-bonded] tendons). for which a value of the factor (2) of 1. a reduced value of the flexure cracking strength factor is justified due to the laitance layer effect discussed in Section 2. Based on the range of friction coefficients stated 43   . For prestressed concrete structures. is the true measure of whether or not the section is brittle when subject to force-control loads.6 results in a factored stress of 12.5√f'c (psi) [0.3. post-tensioned structures are subject to losses due to friction and anchor set. An appropriate factor is applied to the prestress in the concrete (2) is 1.

The reason for this exemption is that negative bending regions will crack prior to positive regions. because the tendons are allowed to stretch along the entire length after cracking has occurred. as demonstrated in laboratory experiments and analytical studies (Megally 2003 and Tassin 1997).15 to 0. which is from 0. within reasonable working limits. lightly reinforced and/or prestressed sections have significant post-cracking strength and ductility. the structure will perform in a ductile manner and collapse will not occur without large warning deflections.1. Based on this observation. Figure 14. and the prestress variability factor (γ2) should be 1. As shown in Section 2. Therefore. minimum reinforcement requirements can be waived for negative bending regions of continuous spans. If minimum flexural reinforcement provisions are met within the peak positive bending regions.1 is appropriate.2 of the LRFD specification. With exception to spans with hinges and cantilevered bridges during construction.in Article 5. External and internal tendon stress-strain response illustration Provided that sufficient ductility exists. any unintended increase in prestress cancels out of the minimum reinforcement check. External (un-bonded) tendons will remain essentially elastic in precast segmental bridge girders loaded to the ultimate flexural strength.5. as shown in Figure 14.9. If the prestress losses are underestimated. the difference in the tendon stress between its in-service working state and the ultimate state (fs – fpe) should remain constant regardless of the initial prestress (fpe).25. the ultimate strength should increase essentially the same amount as the cracking moment. and the actual prestress is 10% higher than assumed.0 for externally prestressed concrete bridge girders.2. the factor (2) of 1. negative bending regions are not critical for minimum reinforcement assuming that adequate ductility in 44   .

Under these conditions. Figure 15.7. Minimum reinforcement provisions should not apply to compression-controlled or transition regions because sections in this category require greater strength with the variable Resistance Factor () to account for reduced ductility. Conditions where minimum reinforcement provisions are not satisfied and the net-tensile strain indicates that the section is over-reinforced are inverted t-beams and heavily prestressed box girder sections.  is reduced for compression controlled and transition regions. it is more logical to add reinforcement to the compression zone rather than the amount of tension reinforcement that would result in further reduced ductility. A remedy to this apparent lack of consistency is to make the  constant regardless of the net tensile strain. By specifying minimum reinforcement for tension controlled sections only.5. A section with a slightly lower net tensile strain εt than is required to be tension controlled may have a slightly reduced  without having to meet minimum reinforcement requirements. Graphical representation of variable resistance factor 45   . For all other strength limit states.3. The LRFD specifications provide guidance on the implied ductility of concrete members in Article 5. This section specifies the permission of moment redistribution if the net tensile strain of the extreme tension reinforcement at ultimate exceeds span then minimum reinforcement provisions need not be checked in the negative bending region. as shown in Figure 15. and an additional factor of safety is not required.the post-cracked state is provided. there is a lack of consistency in the application of minimum reinforcement.

4. In this table.7√f'c (psi). the CSA. (1) Strength Methods: The LRFD specifications. It should be noted that the methods investigated as part of this research fall into two separate categories. JRA (Japan). but the methods are further simplified so the amount of reinforcement and/or prestress is calculated directly. These methods include Leonhardt. in the CSA (Canadian). and the reinforced concrete section of ACI code. which varies from 4. In regard to the strength methods. These provisions are shown with the pound-per-square-inch (psi) units for direct comparison.2. in the LRFD Specifications. to 11. (2) Prescribed Area Methods: The remaining methods are based on providing minimum reinforcement and/or prestress that is greater than the cracking strength by an acceptable safety margin. Eurocode. Minimum prestress in these methods are calculated through trial-and-error. there is a wide variability in the calculation of flexural cracking strength.8√f'c (psi). the ACI 318 (prestressed concrete section) and the Modified LRFD methods are similar in that the minimum reinforcement is specified by requiring that the flexural strength must be greater than cracking by an acceptable safety margin.8 Comparison of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement Provisions A summary of the minimum flexural reinforcing moment provisions are shown in Table 3. 46   . qualitative remarks regarding applicability and ease-of-use are provided.

Ease of use. Mn  1.2Fct/fy Reinforced As  1. Separate load factors for cracking and prestress components to reduce “chasing your tail” effect.33Mu N/A JRA Leonhardt N/A 7.250 psi) 307ln(1+fcm/1450) 2/3 ACI 318 As  3f’c/fybtd Reinforced Mn1. Often controls negative bending. Modified LRFD Method Mn 3(1fr+2fcpe)S 1 = 1. May not applicable to bridge girders with flanges in tension. Mrep is assumed zero at segmental joints. Ease of use. Computation of cracking moment is complicated. Minimum flexural reinforcement provisions table Method AASHTO LRFD Sectional Requirements Mn  1.33Mu N/A Eurocode As  0.26 fcr/fy btd As  . p is the smaller of 0. 1.2Mcr Flexural Cracking Strength (psi) 11. Highest sectional requirements.0015btd (S400 and S500) As  0.5 ksi. Same as AASHTO LRFD with lower MOR.Table 3.3f’c Mr  1.1 Prestress factor 3 = fy/fu (1. Minimum reinforcement for P/S at service limit state only.7f’c Over-Demand Requirements Mn  1. For R/C Members – Ease of use.0 prestress) 7.58 f'c (f'c ≥ 7.0025btd (S200) Ast  0.4 fpu and 72.0013 btd Reinforced As  Mrep/(de p) Prestressed Mrep is the cracking strength assuming no prestress.5f’c 47   .8f’c N/A Mn  1.33 Mu Compares ultimate instead of nominal moment capacity.6 Cracking factor 2 = 1.33Mu Advantages/ Disadvantages Universal in application. Same requirements as the AASHTO LRFD with lower Modulus-of-rupture (MOR) values.01bwd (slabs) As ≥ 1.2Fct/(fps-fpe) Prestressed 4.0 Mu CSA (Canadian) CEB – FIP Mn  1.5f’c Mn  2.2Mcr Prestress 7.005bwd Ast  0. Fct is the strength at cracking of the tension zone assuming a neutral axis depth at the centroid. de is the lever arm to the tension steel.2Mcr As ≥ 0. Unconservative sectional requirements flanges in tension. Applies to reinforced concrete.

EN 1992-2-2.2.3. whereas. a parametric study was performed on four representative minimum reinforcement methods of the eight described in Section 2. the interpretation can be complex. and the Modified LRFD methods. Based on this evaluation. Overall section is used to compute the cracking force.  Leonhardt – ASBI proposed minimum reinforcement provisions to AASHTO T10 in January.1 PARAMETRIC STUDY OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT PROVISIONS Due to budget constraints. economy and ease-of-use. including the Leonhardt and Eurocode methods. recommended changes to the LRFD specifications are provided. Design of Concrete Structures. APPRAISAL AND APPLICATION To evaluate the methods of prescribing minimum reinforcement.4. Two of the methods are considered Strength Methods – notably the LRFD specifications. 2006.CHAPTER 3 INTERPRETATION.  Eurocode – Eurocode 2. However. Developed to provide consistent safety without additional computational complexity that is   48 . While the requirements are simple. 2007. The criterion for this evaluation includes reliability. Effects of the concrete member on the compression side of the neutral axis and prestress are not considered. And to illustrate how the minimum reinforcement is prescribed using the proposed modifications to the minimum reinforcement requirements. 3. and could provide the required safety. design examples are presented in Section 3. as described in Section 3. the section below the neutral axis is used in Leonhardt. and only four representative methods were selected.  Modified LRFD – Modified minimum reinforcement provisions to the LRFD specifications. the application of the method is consistent for all types of concrete members and provides the highest level of resistance in most cases. the parametric-study methods are listed in Table 3 and are described below. For reference purposes.1. especially in the negative bending regions of prestressed concrete members. which is the subject of Section 3. and two are Prescriptive Area Methods. Similar to the Leonhardt method in the calculation of prestress.4 were evaluated as part of the parametric study. Application of this method is relatively simple.  LRFD – AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (4th Edition) minimum reinforcement provisions. as defined as providing a consistent level-of-safety for all concrete bridge members covered in the LRFD specifications. not all of the methods investigated in Section 2. 2009.

2 Step 2: Compute the theoretical cracking moment (Mcr): Based on the computed As. 1998).prescribed in the current LRFD specifications. the minimum reinforcement methods are applied to find the minimum area of reinforcement (As.1 Concrete Structures Database The concrete structures database is intended to represent the range of structures commonly used for construction covered by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge design specifications. spacing. the range of spans.3. California (Caltrans. The procedure used in the parametric study includes the following steps: Step 1: Compute the required minimum reinforcement and/or prestress using candidate methods: For each concrete member in the database. Nebraska (NDOR.min. The database includes both the reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete members. for each of MFR provisions. and the level of safety provided. The Mo/Mcr ratio is used to determine how ductile or brittle a member is when subject to flexural loads (i.1. Mo/Mcr < 1 is brittle). as listed previously on the members listed in the concrete member database.. Further. Of particular interest is evaluating parameters that have a significant effect on the minimum flexural reinforcement provisions.1.min) or the minimum area of prestress steel (Aps. Consistency is also compared between methods for the full range of concrete members. prestress concrete member differ because Mcr is dependent on the amount of prestress. Although Mcr is the same for reinforced concrete members. 3. The significance of Mo is illustrated in Figure 1.1. 2008) were evaluated.min.3.1. as discussed in Section 3.min. 2008) and Washington State (WSDOT. as discussed in Section 3. Step 4: Compare Mo/Mcr for each of the candidate provisions. Appropriate factors for flexural cracking and prestress improve economy and consistency.min).min. Mcr is calculated using a single theoretical cracking stress. Mo is calculated using strain-compatibility. as discussed in Section 3. Step 3: Compute the nominal moment at overstrength (Mo): Using As.e. girder types.   49 . and concrete strengths is based on recommended practice found in the PCI Bridge Design Manual and the ASBI Segmental Box Girder Standards.or Aps. 2008). DOT guidelines including those from Florida (FDOT. In developing this database of concrete structures. The parametric study includes computing the required minimum reinforcement and/or prestress using the candidate methods. or Aps.

045L N/A 0.045L 0.Table 4. and the details for concrete slabs are directly from these standards for span lengths of 16 and 44 feet.025L 28 28 45 45 Concrete Substructure Elements 2 2 26 Footings Cap beams Total 12 20 35 60 0.5 14 Span – L (ft) Min Max Depth/Span Simple Cont Girder Spacing (ft) Min Max Precast Concrete Bridges 2 2 2 2 2 Slabs Double Tees Box beams I-girders U-beams 20 30 50 70 80 50 60 120 200 200 0.1.1 Cast-in-Place Concrete  Conventionally Reinforced Slab Conventionally reinforced slab bridges are commonly used for low and relatively short spans.045L 0.040L 0. 3.03L 0.030L 0.045L 0.   50 .055L 0.06L 0.05L 0.040L 6 20 6. Cast-in-place Bridges 2 2 2 2 Slab Reinforced concrete box P/T Slab P/T Conc. respectively. Box* 20 60 40 80 45 120 70 250 0.07L 0. Concrete member database structural dimension limits Bridge Types No.040L 0.06L 0.1.027L 0. The California Department of Transportation has fully-designed and detailed slab bridge standards.05L 0.03L 0. the upper and lower limits provided in Table 5.045L 0. **Upper limit noted in ASBI Standards (ASBI.04L 4 3 6 12 4 4 12 26 Segmental Bridges (precast) 2 2 Span x span Balanced Cantilever ** 100 100 150 200 0. By using these guidelines. the structures database captures the upper and lower bounds of each structure classification.03L 0.033L 0.04L *Practical upper limit for prismatic members – haunched members up to 600 ft. 2000) Based on this review Table 4 was developed to capture the range of practical applicability regarding structure dimensions.

Conventional slab structure dimensions CRS1 No. Table 5.6 ft. ksi Units  Cast-in-place Box Girder (Caltrans type) For cast-in-place box girder bridges. The slab bridges parameters listed in Table 6 are selected to cover the applicable range of application.000 psi. Table 6. of spans Span length Depth f'c 2 16.600 psi for concrete slab bridges.0 10.5 3.0 ft. as specified in the LRFD Specifications.6 CRS2 2 44. ksi Units  Post-tensioned Slab Post tensioned concrete slab bridges are typically limited to applications where the permanent structure depth is limited. It should be noted that multiple span bridge will be used to develop design forces for comparison and design of minimum flexural reinforcement.5 3. of spans Span length (max) Depth f'c 3 40.0 CPS2 3 70. in.0 12 4. in. Caltrans standards are used to determine the concrete dimensions for girder spacing and slab thicknesses. and the spans are below 70 feet.   51 .0 21. The minimum compressive strength is 4. The upper and lower bound ranges are shown in the tables. Post-tensioned slab structure dimensions CPS1 No.0 24 4.It should be noted that the Caltrans permits the use of concrete compressive strength of 3. Symbols used to illustrate the dimensions listed in the Tables 7 and 8 are shown in Figure 16.

0 3.1 6. of spans Span length (max) Depth SG Td Ts Tw f'c 3 80 3. in.1 12 4. in.0 12 4. ft. in. of spans Span length (max) Depth SG Td Ts Tw f'c 3 60.6 13. Prestressed concrete box girder structure dimensions BPT1 No.3 8 3.5 9.4 7.1 10.4 7. ft. ft.2 6.6 ft.0 6.0 6.0 9.0 ft. in. Dimension callouts for cast-in-place box girder examples    Cap Beams 52 .Table 7.2 6. in. ft.0 8 3. in. ksi Units Figure 16.0 BPT2 3 250 10 20 10.6 BRC2 3 120. Reinforced concrete box girder structure dimensions BRC1 No. ksi Units Table 8.

0 Spread 4.0 10.0 12 4.2 Precast/Prestressed Concrete  I-Girder These bridges represented in this portion of the database are intended to represent the full range of precast-pretensioned I-Girder bridge spans. Therefore. ft. Table 9.0 Piles 4.0 F2 30 10. In addition. and should be included in calculating the cracking moment. of spans Span length (max) Depth Width Top flange Bottom flange f'c 1 20 4. and as a result. 3.1. minimum flexural reinforcement provisions rarely control. and include an AASHTO beam and an NU Beam.Cantilever cap-beams tend to be heavily reinforced.0 CAP2 1 40 10. in. the flange is also effective prior to cracking. Two separate shapes are utilized.0 ksi Units ft. However. ksi Units  Footings Minimum flexural reinforcement provisions typically do not control because these elements are never deepened to meet requirements for architectural purposes. Footing dimensions F1 Width Depth Pile/Spread f'c 14 5.1.0 7. For integral bridges in California.5 12 4. ft.0 10. an additional two-foot of width is required to confine the cap-beam to column joint region. Table 10. in. Cap beam dimensions CAP1 No. footings are covered in the parametric study and the dimensions for these footings are listed in Table 10. ft. Dimensions of the cap-beam studied are listed in Table 9.0 ft. minimum reinforcement requirements could control the flexural design of cap-beams in this region.   53 .0 6.

0 5. Precast prestressed U-beam dimensions PUB1 No.0 8.5 ft. of spans Span length (max) Girder depth Girder spacing Deck thickness f'c girder f'c deck 3 70 3.0 4. in. ksi ksi Units  Box-Beam The box-beam in this application includes a five inch thick pour-in-place topping.0 PUB2 3 200 8. which provides a uniform driving surface and allows for continuity reinforcement to be placed across continuous supports. of spans Span length (max) Girder depth Girder spacing Deck thickness f'c girder f'c deck 3 80 3. Precast prestressed I-girder dimensions PCI1 No. ft.5 10.0 7.Table 11. This system has been used effectively for bridges with limited temporary and permanent vertical clearance constraints. Table 12.5 ft. U-Beam The weight of these units limits the length that can be hauled to the site at about 140 feet.0 7. in. However.0 10.0 10. the section is relatively heavy.0 10.0 6. which makes this section uneconomic for longer spans.0 16.0 PCI2 3 200 8.0 4.0 7.0 5. Beyond these limits. ft. ft.0 7. ksi ksi Units  Bathtub. splicing is required either continuously over the cap beam or within each span with posttensioning.5 5. ft.   54 .

  55 .0 PPS2 3 48 21.5 36 4.3 Segmental Concrete Bridges The segmental concrete bridge shapes used for this project are from the AASHTO-PCI-ASBI Segmental Box Girder Standards (ASBI. of spans Span length (max) Girder depth Girder width CIP topping f'c girder f'c deck 3 60 27 48 5. (Caltrans. ksi ksi Units  Precast Slabs Precast prestressed concrete deck slabs are utilized without a cast-in-place concrete topping. Design charts for this bridge type are listed in Caltrans. 1989) Table 14. in.0 ft.Table 13. Bridge Design Aids. in.1. and represent the upper and lower bounds of girder dimensions provided in these standards. ksi Units 3. Precast prestressed box-beam dimensions PBB1 No. 2000). as related to minimum reinforcement provisions would be similar to the box beam described in this appendix.0 5.0 ft.1.0 5. of spans Span length (max) Girder depth Girder width f'c girder 3 20 12 48 4. Precast prestressed slab dimensions PPS1 No. in.0 PBB2 3 120 47 36 5.0 4. in.0 4. It should be noted that the topping can be cast-in-place concrete and the design procedure. and asphalt is applied to provide the uniform driving surface. in. Overall dimensions for these sections are listed in Tables 15 and 16.

It should be noted that the Eurocode does not include a resistance factor. ft. the following assumptions were made: 1. This is particularly true for prestress concrete members because the cracking moment is directly related to the cracking moment and the post-cracking resistance.   56 . Balanced cantilever bridge girder dimensions SBC1 No. The effective depth d is assumed to be 0.0 7.9H. Span-by-span segmental bridge girder dimensions SBS1 No. ft ksi Units Table 16.0 ft. For rectangular beams and slabs. where H is the overall depth of the member. of spans Span length (max) Girder depth Girder width f'c girder 1 100 6. In developing this figure.0 28. This comparison is illustrated in Figure 16. ft ksi Units 3.0 28. 3.1. the calculations can be simplified for direct comparison. the material strengths are factored. 3. Instead.0 7.0 45. The strength reduction factor  = 0. The section is rectangular with A615 Grade 60 reinforcement. ft. MFR is calculated directly without iteration for all of the candidate provisions.2 Minimum Flexural Reinforcement Minimum flexural reinforcement was calculated using the candidate provisions for all members in the concrete database.Table 15. a/2 is equal to 0. 4. In calculating the moment capacity (Mn = Asfy(d-a/2)).0 ft.2. The following is a discussion on the interpretation and assumptions used to determine the minimum reinforcement.0 7.1 Reinforced Concrete Members In reinforced concrete members.0 45. 2. of spans Span length (max) Girder depth Girder width f'c girder 3 100 6.0 7.0 SBC2 3 200 10.05d.1.0 SBS2 1 150 8.9.

  57 . However. In the Leonhardt method. these simplifying assumptions are no longer valid because each method requires a different approach. As shown in Figure 17. Figure 17. this is easily calculated by computing the average stress in flange and in the web and multiplying this by the respective area. the Modified and Eurocode methods provide essentially equivalent levels of reinforcement. However. Minimum reinforcement requirements for rectangular reinforced concrete members For non-rectangular sections. an equivalent cracking force of the section below the neutral axis is resisted by reinforcement. Both the LRFD and the Modified LRFD provisions are based on calculating the cracking stress using the section modulus of the entire section. The Eurocode has a similar approach to the Leonhardt minimum reinforcement provisions.5. where minimum reinforcement is based on the area of concrete below the neutral axis. the two methods diverge beyond f'c = 12 ksi. For members with flanges in tension. the form of the equation for minimum reinforcement is essentially the same for all with exception to the Eurocode because of the different relation for the cracking stress. the ratio of the maximum strength to the nominal strength Mo/Mn = fu/fy = 1/γ3= 1.5. Table 19 compares the methods directly. For the Modified LRFD method. Eurocode minimum reinforcement provisions further simplify the design computation by specifying uniform stress over this area. Also. With these simplifying assumptions.

an additional factor-of-safety is not required. or a peak compressive strain of 0. With exception to spans with hinges and cantilevered bridges during construction. The cracking moment includes the use of composite. negative bending regions are not critical for minimum reinforcement.2 Prestressed Concrete Members The difficulty in calculating minimum reinforcement provisions for prestress sections is that the cracking moment and the subsequent post-cracking resistance for the LRFD and Modified methods are dependent on the amount of prestress.04). Sections in this category require greater strength with the variable Resistance Factor () to account for reduced ductility.Table 17. Therefore. and long-term prestress losses. Sections were analyzed under positive bending only. Since the parametric study is intended to represent a wide range of prestressed sections. the zero moment assumption is considered conservative.88 3.38 2. 1.2. 3. 2. friction.   58 . an assumed non-composite moment of zero was used. since negative bending regions will crack prior to positive bending regions in most continuous spans.43 1. For composite sections. which allows for redistribution of load. these MFR methods require iteration. The cracking moment and minimum prestress was determined based on iteration with an assumed prestress loss of 30 ksi to account for anchor set. Nominal moment at overstrength Mo includes strain hardening of the reinforcement corresponding to either rupture of the prestress strand (su = 0. 5. Examples of sections that are compression-controlled and do not meet the minimum reinforcement requirements are negative bending regions of continually prestressed bridges with relatively wide top flanges. 6. Minimum reinforcement ratios for rectangular reinforced concrete sections Method LRFD Leonhardt Modified (min) fy/f'c 3.1. Compression-controlled or transition sections are not considered as part of this study. Therefore.5f'c (psi). 4.003. The following assumptions were used to calculate MFR for all methods. transformed section properties and a cracking stress of 7.

1 for the effective prestressing.7. For the Modified provisions. However. 3. the minimum reinforcement is calculated based on the following: 1 = 1. the calculations are simplified.) is substantially less than the LRFD procedure (4. the LRFD and Modified methods appear to be similar.2.7 sq. It should be noted that both the Leonhardt and Eurocode procedures do not require iteration. in. As shown. Development of these factors is presented in Section 2. In this diagram. and the concern over lack-ofconvergence is eliminated.7. Both methods compare the reserve strength (fsu – fps)Aps in the tendon to the cracking strength of the concrete without prestress. Therefore.6 (assuming that fcr = 7.2. in). the amount of minimum reinforcement using the Modified procedure (2. Figure 18. for one web and contributory flange of a cast-in-place post-tensioned box girder structure with bonded tendons. the moment capacity Mn is plotted with the required flexural strength using the LRFD and the Modified methods as a function of the area of prestress strand Aps.4.5f'c (psi) for the cracking stress) and 1 = 1. The minimum reinforcement is found at the intersection of the moment capacity curve and the required respective strength.1 Internal (Bonded) Prestress Concrete Members The iterative process of calculating MFR is illustrated in Figure 18. Minimum reinforcement provisions for a prestressed concrete box girder BPT1   59 .1.2 sq.

2. these equations were used in calculating minimum reinforcement.2. the required strength is not exceeded by a significant margin. making it impossible to satisfy without the addition of bonded reinforcement.5 f'c (psi) at segment joints. is justified.3. Based on a low probability of achieving cracking strengths exceeding 7. either detailed finite-element analysis. and the moment capacity is based on the AASHTO equations for tendon prestress at ultimate. The capacity line crosses the strength requirements for the Modified procedure. However. Minimum reinforcement provisions for an unbonded prestressed concrete box girder SBS1 For the Leonhardt method. the amount of prestress is calculated directly. the theoretical cracking moment is plotted in Figure 19.1.7 for precast segmental members. Therefore.   60 . the moment capacity does not intersect the 1. Since the unbonded tendon stress cannot be determined from a section analysis.4. and the strength at ultimate of the tendon is calculated using the AASHTO LRFD equations. It has been shown that the AASHTO LRFD equations can adequately approximate the tendon stress at ultimate.2 (External) Unbonded Prestress Concrete Members Sections SBS1 and SBS2 feature unbonded tendons.2. assuming a cracking strength of 7. As shown in Figure 19.5 f'c (psi). which indicates convergence may not be found on other members. as discussed in Section 2. or approximate code equations are required. The total area of reinforcement is less than half required using the Modified procedure. Figure 19. For comparison purposes.2 Mcr line (as required by the LRFD minimum reinforcement provisions). a reduced 1 = 1.

The Mo for unbonded members corresponds to the tendon force prescribed in the AASHTO LRFD. This includes a ratio of Mo/Mcr.candidate MFR provision Required Area of Steel . A description of the data in the tables is defined under the following headings:    Section .5 Parametric Study Results The data and calculations developed as part of the parametric study are listed in Appendix A. The moment corresponding to a peak compressive strain of 0. The momentcurvature analysis using strain compatibility was performed using the analysis program “Response 2000” (Bentz.003. Flexural cracking stress is related to the compressive strength to the one-half power.theoretical cracking moment based on an assumed cracking stress of 7.04.concrete structure from the database listed in the interim report Method .003. the assumptions in the Modified and LRFD methods are conservative.5f’c (psi). In addition to those stated previously in determining the minimum flexural reinforcement.4 Nominal Moment at Overstrength (Mo) With minimum amount of reinforcement or prestress. As shown in this plot. or a peak reinforcement strain of 0. 3. especially for members exceeding 3 ft in depth.3 Cracking Moment (Mcr) The cracking moment Mcr is based on the computed minimum amount of reinforcement (or prestress) and the cracking stress of 7. Introducing another variable as part of the minimum reinforcement calculations is feasible.3. including depth as an additional variable is not justified. However.5f'c (psi)   61 . Mo is the moment corresponding to a peak concrete compressive strain of 0. 2005). a strain compatibility analysis was performed to evaluate the flexural strength of the concrete member. or a tension strain in the prestress tendon of 0.15 is Mo for reinforced concrete members. Figure 9 shows the member flexural strength as a function of member depth based on test results of a wide range of concrete member sizes.1. considering the limited number of data points and wide scatter of measured cracking strengths of large-scale specimen. This analysis was used in-lieu of code equations because the strength is evaluated with the effects of strain hardening. For bonded prestressed concrete. and the member depth. prestress losses of 30 ksi includes all long term and instantaneous losses.area of flexural reinforcement required to meet the respective MFR provision  Mcr .1.1. which is an indicator of the level of safety provided by each of the methods for each concrete member. 3.

Figure 20. substantial reserve strength exists in reinforced concrete. Mo – nominal moment at overstrength including the effects of strain hardening. unless the section is an inverted tee.ratio of the nominal moment at overstrength to the cracking moment This last term is the effective factor of safety or brittleness ratio. are presented in Table 20. as illustrated in Figure 20. The LRFD method has the highest average Mo/Mn ratio of all the candidate provisions.  Mo/Mcr . which is the ratio of the standard deviation and the average values. Assuming normal distribution. The average brittleness ratio (Mo/Mcr) results of the 26 concrete members evaluated are plotted in Figure 20. there is relatively low variation in the results. By contrast. Within each of the two categories. Therefore. as illustrated in Figure 1. the nominal strength is by definition based on the tendon strength at ultimate in   62 . the ultimate strength of the reinforcement can be achieved prior to reaching the crushing strength of the concrete. the Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation (COV). Parametric Study Mo/Mcr Ratios Reinforced concrete members (total 8) and prestressed concrete members (total 18) are separated in Table 18 to show the variation within each classification. Most of the variation is a result of the definition of the ultimate strength between prestressed and reinforced concrete. ease-of-use and economy. This brittleness ratio allows for evaluation of the minimum reinforcement methods regarding safety. For lightly reinforced concrete members.

each component of the minimum reinforcement evaluation is factored appropriately. Eurocode does not require minimum reinforcement for this type of girder.67 0.49 0.15 0. Combined brittleness ratio Mo/Mcr statistical results LRFD Reinforced Concrete Average Standard Deviation COV Prestressed Concrete* Average Standard Deviation COV Combined* Average Standard Deviation COV 1.4.07 1. 3.17 1. In this regard.04 2. Data from precast segmental girders is excluded from the statistical analysis because. and in following section.09 0.29 1.02 0.66 0.43 0.23 0.37 0. While the Eurocode provides separate methods for prestressed and reinforced concrete members. This change is recommended because the Modified LRFD method provides a consistent level of safety for all components in the database of concrete structures. The Modified LRFD method provides a unified approach with the most consistent level of safety of all methods investigated. the LRFD method does not provide a consistent level of safety. and the convergence was not obtained for the provisions specified in the LRFD specifications.24 0.17 0. Finally.03 0. the method is unconservative for box girder sections.prestressed concrete members.18 0. as discussed in Section 2. no reserve strength is available beyond the nominal capacity.10 0. the Modified LRFD method   63 .33 0. it is recommended to change the minimum reinforcement provisions in the LRFD specifications to the Modified LRFD method.20 0.1. This similarity indicates that the differences in reserve safety provided by the nominal strength of reinforcement have been taken into account.08 1.82 0. Therefore.36 1.60 0.7.03 1.09 1.11 0.31 0.31 0. Also.03 2.18 0.13 1. This consistency is largely due to the recognition that the maximum strength including the effects of strain hardening should be considered when evaluating minimum reinforcement.23 1.6 Recommendations Based on the results of the parametric study and related documentation. Table 18.04 0.02 Leonhardt Eurocode Modified *Excludes Segmental Data The results listed in Table 18. reveal similar results for the Leonhardt and Eurocode methods. resulting in uniform reliability in achieving resistance against brittle failure.05 0.

and then. 3.4 and 5. Cook and Mitchell 1996).2 0.2. the tests shall be performed in accordance with AASHTO T97 and shall be performed on concrete using the same proportions and materials as specified for the structure.24f'c When used to calculate the cracking moment of a member in Articles 5.3.20f'c 0. It is appropriate to use the lower bound when considering service load cracking. Khan. Deletions are shown as a single strikethrough. where compression-controlled and transition-region sections are not subject to minimum reinforcement requirements.24f'c o When used to calculate the cracking moment of a member in Article 5.3. Walker and Bloem 1960.6. changes to the commentary are provided.2 is to assure that the nominal moment capacity of the member is at least 20 percent greater than the cracking moment.37f'c  o o For lightweight concrete: For sand-lightweight concrete For all lightweight concrete 0. LRFD .7. As shown.24f'c and 0.C5.37f'c (ACI 1992. may be taken as:  o For normal weight concrete: 0. the modulus of rupture.6 Data show that most modulus of rupture are between 0. for specified concrete strengths up to 15. Additions are shown as underlined.2 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO LRFD SPECIFICATIONS The following are the changes the project team recommends regarding minimum flexural reinforcement provisions in the LRFD specifications. the recommended code changes are presented first. fr. Since   64 .5.2 0.7.2.7.0 ksi. in ksi.offers economy.7.3.3.4. LRFD .3. The purpose of the minimum reinforcement in Article 5.4.3.6 Modulus of Rupture Unless determined by physical tests.17f'c When physical tests are used to determine modulus of rupture.

4. where H is the overall depth of the flexural member.0 in. Therefore. (1981).3. at least equal to the lesser of  The factored cracking moment 1.24f'c and 0. the modulus of rupture is sensitive to curing methods.3. Most modulus of rupture test data on normal weight concrete is between 0. a 36. However.7. Cook and Mitchell 1996). the 20 percent margin of safety could be lost. deep modulus of rupture test specimen. where Mfcr may be taken as:   65 . et al. The flexural cracking stress of concrete members has been shown to significantly reduce with increasing member depth.5. at any section of a flexural component. Using an upper bound is more appropriate in this situation.3. but also the same materials as the concrete used in the structure.6.37√f'c has been recommended for the prediction of the tensile strength of high-strength concrete (ACI 1992). Mfcr.the actual modulus of rupture could be as much as 50% greater than 0.2.2 Minimum Reinforcement Unless otherwise specified. and nearly all of the test units in the dataset mentioned previously were moist cured until testing. anchor zone splitting and other tensile forces caused by effects other than flexure.24f'c.0 in. of the concrete specified in Article 5. Khan. The properties of higher strength concretes are particularly sensitive to the constitutive materials. The direct tensile strength stress should be used for these cases.24f'c is appropriate for checking minimum reinforcement in Section 5. If test results are to be used in design. Shioya. fr. the modulus of rupture should be significantly greater than the flexural cracking strength of an average size bridge member composed of the same concrete. Carrasquillo.37f'c (ksi) (Walker and Bloem 1960. (1989) observed that the flexural cracking strength is proportional to H-0. Based on this observation. it is imperative that tests be made using concrete with not only the same mix proportions. noted a 26-percent reduction in the 28-day modulus of rupture if high strength units were allowed to dry after 7-days of moist curing over units that were moist cured until testing. The given values may be unconservative for tensile cracking caused by restrained shrinkage.3. 0.7. A value of 0. Since modulus of rupture units are either 4 or 6 inches deep and moist cured up to the time of testing. LRFD . determined on the basis of elastic stress distribution and the modulus of rupture. deep girder should achieve a flexural cracking stress that is 36 percent lower than a 6. the amount of prestressed and nonprestressed tensile reinforcement shall be adequate to develop a factored flexural resistance.25.2 times the cracking moment. et al.2.

Snc = section modulus for the extreme fiber of the monolithic or non-composite section where tensile stress is caused by externally applied loads (in3). Sc = section modulus for the extreme fiber of the composite section where tensile stress is caused by externally applied loads (in3).S   M cr  S c ( f r  f cpe )  M dnc  c  1  S c f r   S nc  (5.0 for prestress concrete and 0.6. The following factors account for variability in the flexural cracking strength of concrete.3.3.4. substitute Snc for Sc in the above equation for the calculation of Mcr. fy/fu (0. = 1. Mdnc = total unfactored dead load moment acting on the monolithic or noncomposite section (kft) (k-in).7. Appropriate values for Mdnc and Snc shall be used for any intermediate composite sections. Where the beams are designated for the monolithic or noncomposite section to resist all loads. variability of prestress and the ratio of nominal yield stress of reinforcement to ultimate: 1 = 1.67 for A615 Grade 60 and 0.2.0. 2 = 3 = 1. use 1.2 for precast segmental structures.3. which can be reduced to 1.   66 .9 for non-prestressed concrete regardless of net tensile strain for the purpose of specifying minimum reinforcement.1 accounts for the variability of prestress losses.2-1) (5.2-1)  S  M fcr   3 ( 1 f r   2 f cpe ) Sc  M dnc  c  1 S   nc   where: fr = fcpe = modulus of rupture of concrete specified in Article 5.7.3.6 accounts for the variability of concrete flexure cracking.75 for A706 Grade 60 reinforcement). For prestressed concrete structures. compressive stress in concrete due to effective prestress forces only (after allowance for all prestress losses) at extreme fiber of section where tensile stress is caused by externally applied loads (ksi).

3. The ratio of steel stress at yield to ultimate (3) sufficiently approximates the nominal to ultimate strength for lightly reinforced concrete members. Based on this observation. cracking generally starts at the segment joints. γ3 = 1. where the accumulation of fines reduces the tensile strength (Megally et al.005 to 0. then minimum reinforcement provisions of this article need not apply for negative bending. an increase in prestress and associated cracking moment is offset by a corresponding increase in post-cracking strength. For precast segmental construction.C5.7. 1..4. Based on this observation. San Diego has shown that flexure cracks occur adjacent to the epoxy-bonded match-cast face.1-1. If these experiments were conducted in load control. Experimental and analytical studies have shown external prestress tendons are essentially elastic at the ultimate limit state (Tassin & Dodson 1997). γ2 can be reduced to 1.0 for prestress concrete members with external tendons. Since the ultimate strength of a prestress tendon is utilized in the calculation of flexural capacity. The provisions for Article 5. the ultimate strength should be used instead of the nominal strength as a true measure of brittle response. Indeterminate structures typically have redundancy and ductility. Since the variability of prestress essentially has no effect on minimum reinforcement.3.2 Minimum reinforcement provisions are intended to reduce the probability of brittle failure.0 for internally prestressed concrete members.2 is justified. and none of the beams tested failed without large warning deflections (Freyermuth & Aalami 1997). a reduced 1 factor of 1. Testing of a large number of lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members at the University of Illinois demonstrated that significant inelastic displacements can be achieved. LRFD .0075 in order to redistribute   67 . which allows redistribution of moments.8 shall apply. The factor applied to the modulus of rupture (1) is greater than the factor applied to the amount of prestress (2) to account for greater variability. If adequate ductility is provided in continuous spans to allow for moment redistribution per Article 5. a number of specimens would have failed without warning because the ultimate strength (including the effects of strain hardening) was less than the cracking strength. inherent to lightly-reinforced concrete members.10.3. Research at the University of California. The sources of variability in computing the cracking moment and resistance are appropriately factored (Holombo and Tadros. Therefore.33 times the factored moment required by the applicable strength load combinations specified in Table 3. 2003). by providing flexural capacity greater than the cracking moment. Both the AASHTO LRFD and ACI 318 (2008) require a 50% increase in tension-controlled strain limit from 0.5.7. 2009).

negative moments. Increasing the quantity of reinforcement to meet minimum reinforcement provisions can adversely affect this ductility. Minimum reinforcement provisions should be confined to positive bending regions if adequate ductility is demonstrated in the negative bending regions. Specifying minimum reinforcement and reducing the resistance factor () for sections that do not qualify as tensioned controlled, as defined in Section 5.5.4.2, accomplish the same objective, that is to provide additional strength to reduce the probability of brittle failure. Examples of sections that could be compression controlled and do not meet minimum reinforcement requirements include negative bending regions of continually prestressed bridges with relatively wide top flanges and inverted T beams. Applying minimum reinforcement provisions to compression-controlled or transition regions is redundant because additional strength is already required for the same deficiency of reduced ductility. amount tension reinforcement that would result in further reduced ductility. Under these conditions, it is more logical to add reinforcement to the compression zone rather than it is to increase the

3.3

DESIGN EXAMPLES
The design examples are intended to illustrate the use of minimum reinforcement provisions on

common bridge types that are encountered in practice where minimum flexural reinforcement should be the controlling effect in the flexural design. This is commonly the case for multi-span bridges with widely varying span lengths, where the depth of the bridge is constant for the full length. With exception to the span-by-span segmental bridge example, all bridges have some form of continuity, which has been a particular challenge for design engineers to implement minimum flexural reinforcement provisions. The following is a brief description of the design examples to be developed using the recommended minimum reinforcement provisions developed as part of the research. 3.3.1 Multi-Span Precast Concrete Girder Made Continuous with Composite Deck This is one of the most common types of structures used for freeway bridges and overpasses. This three-span precast/prestressed girder example features a single long span in the middle along with two short side spans, as shown in Figure 21 and is the subject of Example B-1. A uniform depth is used to reduce set-up costs and improve aesthetics. It is intended that the side spans are short enough so the minimum flexural provisions control the design in the positive bending regions. Seventy-two inch bulb-tee girders are featured in this example since the bottom flange tends to be relatively narrow, thus limiting the amount of rotational ductility that can be sustained in the negative bending region. Strength limit states were checked at 10th points within each span in addition to minimum reinforcement provisions using the Modified LRFD method.  
68

Minimum reinforcement controls the number of prestress strands at the point of maximum positive moment in the side spans. It should be noted that it is not necessary to increase the jacking force, and thus the cracking moment. In the negative bending region the net tensile strain exceeds 0.0075, and the minimum reinforcement check is not required. However, the amount of reinforcement provided must satisfy the flexural strength limit states at that section.

Figure 21. Precast concrete girder made continuous with composite deck example details 3.3.2 Cast-in-Place Concrete Box Girder

A three-span cast-in-place concrete box girder bridge that is commonly built in California and Nevada is the subject of this design example. As with the first example, the side spans are far shorter than the end spans while the depth of the bridge is constant along the entire length, as shown in Figure 22. Because the bridge is monolithic, the bridge resists all loading continuously including any prestress forces. All prestress consists of continuous post-tensioning that runs full length of the bridge. To control camber and reduce friction losses, the post-tensioning tendon midspan eccentricity is reduced in the shorter spans were flexural demands are reduced. For this type of structure, it is more economical to design the post-tensioning cables for service loads, and add mild reinforcement in localized areas as needed to resist strength limit state loads including minimum  
69

reinforcement provisions (Caltrans, 1989). It is anticipated that minimum flexural reinforcement will control the design of this mild reinforcement in these side spans. The bridge is 42.0 ft wide and 6.5 ft deep. The girders are spaced at 11.0 ft on center and are flared from 12 in. to 18 in. at the abutments and the bents. The soffit is flared to 12 in. at the bents. The columns are circular with a diameter of 6.0 ft. Caltrans has amended the LRFD specifications, so the allowable tension stress is limited to zero tension under permanent loads and 0.19√f'c (ksi) under the sum of the permanent and live loads. The jacking force is designed under the Service III limit state and is estimated with the software CT Bridge to be 6,200 kips.

Figure 22. Cast-in-place box girder example details Minimum flexural moments, Strength I moments, and nominal moment capacities (including the capacity of the post-tensioning tendons only) are plotted in Appendix B. The minimum flexural reinforcement is the controlling load case in Span 1 with the 1.33Mu controlling in the positive bending region. In the negative bending region, the net tensile strain is 0.015, which exceeds the requirement for redistribution. It should be noted that the negative bending capacity should be greater than the Strength limit states assuming full continuity.

 

70

Thus. The bridge is built using the span-by-span construction method. Figure 24 shows the bending moments along the length of the single span bridge (Span 2). FL. The figure shows the minimum design moments due to cracking according to the current LRFD specifications and based on the proposed method (Modified LRFD). three of these tendons are composed of 19-0. flexural capacity. the total number of external unbonded strands in this bridge is 144-0. a total of 160 strands are required. the cross section consists of a single-cell box section with long overhangs as shown in Figure 23.3.20Mcr (AASHTO LRFD Specifications) or the cracking moment based on the proposed modified LRFD method. Mu.33Mu controls the MFR in this case. Only Span 2 of this bridge is the subject of this example.6"  strands. For Span 2. in the middle 80 ft of the span length. as specified in the Modified LRFD method. The figure also indicates in the middle third of the span length.6"  strands. shear capacity. The bridge chosen for this example is part of the I-4/Lee Roy Selmon Expressway in Tampa. which results in flexural design controlled by minimum reinforcement requirements. at all sections. To satisfy minimum reinforcement. the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement is not satisfied and the prestressing is controlled by the minimum reinforcement requirement. the 1. It should be noted that depth of the box girder is 9 ft. in contrast to the 144 strands required to satisfy all other strength limit states. Each of the two spans in this bridge is simply supported.   71 . Figure 24 also shows the factored flexural moment capacity. whereas the span length is about 115 ft only. The length of this span is approximately 115'-6" and the bridge is prestressed by means of external unbonded tendons. principal stresses in the box girder webs and minimum flexural reinforcement requirements. Thus. For precast segmental bridges with no bonded reinforcement or bonded tendons crossing the joints. It is clear that the proposed provisions significantly reduce the minimum required design per the LRFD specifications. the superstructure is relatively deep. which is higher than the ultimate moment. This represents a relatively large depth-to-span ratio bridge in which the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement could control the design. Longitudinal analysis and design of this bridge included concrete stresses under service loads. However. design is satisfactory with the use of four external tendons on each side of the box section. no tensile stresses are allowed at all segment-to-segment joints under service loads. Thus.3. 1.3 Span-by-Span Segmental Bridge with External Tendons A two-span precast segmental bridge is the subject of this design example. Except for the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement.6"  strands. and the fourth tendon is composed of 15-0.33Mu controls over the 1.

Construction stages and time-dependent effects were considered in the analysis. Hand calculations for the midspan section at of the bridge are included in Appendix B.   72 .Figure 23. Span-by-span precast segmental bridge example details Analysis of this bridge was done using LARSA 4D.

3. In the positive moment region in Span 4 (most critical section for positive moment). FL. principal stresses in the box girder webs and minimum flexural reinforcement requirements. flexural capacity. with a total bridge length of 665'-7". Elevation view of the bridge is shown in Figure 25. It is part of the I-4/Lee Roy Selmon Expressway in Tampa. the only prestressing is provided by the continuity external tendons and total number of strands is 114. shear capacity.4 Balanced Cantilever Bridge with Internal Tendons A four-span precast segmental bridge using the cantilever construction method is the subject of this design example.6"  unbonded strands (external tendons). Longitudinal analysis and design of this bridge included concrete stresses under service loads.   73 .Figure 24. At the first segment-to-segment joint next to Pier 8-3 in Span 4 (most critical section for negative moment). Span-by-span precast segmental bridge strength moment profiles 3. there are a total of 254-0. The cross section consists of the single-cell box section shown in Figure 25. no tensile stresses are allowed at all segment-to-segment joints under service loads. 186'-9" and 145'6" for Spans 1 through 4. For precast segmental bridges. respectively. The deck width is 30'-1" and is constant along the entire length of the bridge.6"  internal (bonded) strands and 114-0. 186'-1". The approximate lengths of spans are 147'-3".

It is clear that the   74 .Figure 25. These profiles show the factored cracking moments according to the current AASHTO LRFD Specifications and based on the proposed (Modified LRFD) method. Balanced cantilever precast segmental bridge example details The bridge is almost symmetric about centerline of Pier 8-3. Moment demand and capacity profiles are shown in Appendix B.

1. 3. the cantilever portions of the cap are tapered. Rectangular in cross-section. as shown in Figure 26. Construction stages and time-dependent effects were considered in the analysis. the conditions for minimum reinforcement have not been met.proposed provisions considerably reduce the minimum required design moments (MFR).5 Cap Beam The cap beam selected for this example is typical for precast and steel girder type bridges.20Mcr (AASHTOLRFD Specifications) or the cracking moment based on the proposed Modified LRFD method.   75 . while the cantilever spans are controlled by the Modified LRFD cracking moment demands. Analysis of this bridge was done using LARSA 4D. Therefore. 1. negative bending regions are required to meet minimum reinforcement requirements. The center span is approximately twice the length of the cantilevers. Calculations for the section at first segment-to-segment joint in Span 4 (joint at Pier 8-4) as well as maximum positive moments are shown in detail in Appendix B.33Mu controls over the 1. Moment demands and capacities are plotted in Appendix B. In this example. Based on the design configuration.33Mu controls the center span.3.

Figure 26. Concrete cap beam example details   76 .

3.CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH 4. Although a single crack implies large inelastic strains in the reinforcement. Flexural cracking strength of the concrete is dependent on many variables including. 4. An exception could be inverted tbeam structures with relatively wide bottom flanges that can be categorized as both overreinforced and under-reinforced. the neutral axis is relatively close to the extreme compression fiber. significant inelastic rotation is required before crushing strains develop. curing methods. and. Lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members exhibit ductile response when subject to displacement-controlled load regimes. 2.1 Conclusions on the Observed Response of Lightly Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Members Based on the observed response of lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members. Modulus of rupture of high strength concrete units is shown to be particularly sensitive to curing methods. prestressed concrete and externally prestressed concrete members suggest that the full nominal moment capacity is developed after cracking has occurred. therefore.1 CONCLUSIONS Recommended revisions to the LRFD specifications and commentary are proposed for the rational design of minimum reinforcement to prevent brittle failure of concrete members. these strains spread into the concrete member adjacent to the crack through localized debonding.   77 . also referred to as strain penetration. Beams tested at the University of Illinois included reinforced concrete. A parametric study conducted on four representative methods of determining minimum reinforcement demonstrates that recommended revisions provide an appropriate and a consistent level of safety for all structure types and materials covered by the specifications. aggregates. These revisions are based on the research provided in this report including the observed response of lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members. Lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members can develop the full nominal moment after cracking has occurred. and review of methods specified in US and international codes. the following conclusions are made: 1.1. compressive strength and the overall member size. In the post-cracked state.

1. For prestressed concrete members. the following conclusions are made: The practice of specifying minimum reinforcement and prestress in concrete members fall into two separate categories. For the strength methods. Precast segmental bridges exhibit lower flexural cracking strength than conventional concrete structures. Strength Methods: The LRFD specifications. Modulus-of-rupture test units are 4 to 6 inches deep and moist cured until testing. Prescribed Area Methods: The remainder of the methods are based on providing minimum reinforcement and/or prestress that is greater than the cracking strength by an acceptable safety margin. the CSA. These methods include Leonhardt. modulus of rupture is an inaccurate representation of the flexural cracking strength of concrete members. 2.   78 . Eurocode. 4. 6. The variation in the amount of reinforcement specified is considerable. 5. and it has been repeatedly shown that the deep members crack at a lower stress than their small-scale counterparts.37√f'c in the LRFD specifications. Since curing has a significant influence on the cracking strength of concrete. as discussed in Section 2.1. there is considerable variation in approaches from not evaluating minimum reinforcement at the strength-limit-state in the JRA (Japan) code to the trial-anderror methods implied in the ACI and LRFD specifications.4.15√f'c in the CSA (Canadian) code to 0. JRA (Japan). 1. and the reinforced concrete section of ACI 318. Minimum prestress in these methods are calculated through trial-and-error. Reinforcement of lightly reinforced concrete members typically exhibit strains well into the strain hardening region and the maximum strength is defined by the ultimate strength rather than yield. the flexural cracking strength varies from 0. Flexural cracks in these structures are typically initiated immediately adjacent to the match-cast joint where an accumulation of fines and course aggregate reduce the tensile strength.2 Conclusions on the Review of US and International Practice Based on the review of US and International practice of specifying minimum reinforcement. the ACI 318 (prestressed concrete section) and the Modified LRFD methods are similar in that the minimum reinforcement is specified by requiring that the flexural strength must be greater by an acceptable safety margin. but the methods are further simplified so the amount of reinforcement and or prestressed is calculated directly.

including the effects of strain hardening. 4.2 SUGGESTED RESEARCH Minimum reinforcement provisions recommended in this report specify minimum levels of flexural strength in the post-cracked state to exceed the cracking strength by an appropriate safety margin. Based on the parametric study. the method provides for economic design. Further. In Prescribed Area methods. by an acceptable margin. and its complexity is similar to the requirements currently prescribed in the LRFD specifications. of the flexural cracking strength. However. it has been shown that the Modified LRFD method provides the most consistent level of safety provided for all concrete members in the database. Further. It has been shown that full-size members exhibit cracking strengths far below small-scale modulus-ofrupture specimens. These methods are based on providing nominal strength in excess. A general lack of understanding on the behavior of lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete members could be the reason for the wide variation in the amounts of minimum reinforcement prescribed in practice. minimum reinforcement is calculated based on simplified equations.1. is a true measure of whether or not the section is ductile.4.3 Conclusions on the Parametric Study Of the four methods evaluated as part of this study two can be considered Strength methods and the other two are Prescribed Area methods. This is largely due to the recognition that the ultimate strength of the member. and the data is highly variable. Testing on both large and small-scale lightly reinforced and prestressed concrete units made from identical concrete mixes could be beneficial to provide further data on influence of size on the flexural cracking strength of concrete members. testing of segmental bridge girders with external prestressing could provide additional data on the strength and ductility of externally prestressed sections and the cracking stress in the concrete layer adjacent to the match-cast joint. Presentations on behavior of concrete members with relatively small reinforcement content given through future technology transfer seminars may be useful in reducing this lack of understanding. test data on large-scale flexural members is limited because the flexural cracking strength is typically not the primary focus in laboratory experiments. as required to meet this basic approach.   79 .

May-June 1981.” ACI Journal. 5. and Aalami. F. 2005. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “Structures Manual. Center for Highway Research. No. PA. Flexural and Tension Tests of Plain Concrete. and Mitchell. V. MI.” Research Report 121-S. 40-43.” California Department of Transportation. “Seismic Design Guidelines. Breen. FDOT. “Construction and Load Tests of a Segmental Precast Box Girder Bridge Model.P.4. Canada. 52-69.L. Part II.06.L. pp.. Brussels. Nilson. No.. and Shuman.M... Sacramento. C. C. “Standard Method for Flexural Loading of Concrete. January 2008. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.01 to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications-Third Edition w/ 2005 & 2006 Interims. D. New Jersey. Caltrans.” ASTM International. 766. 49.E. 1. J.   80 . “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. 527-564. 4. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications..78. Inc. 2005. pp. February 2008. 94.REFERENCES AASHTO.” European Committee for Standardization. 1992. V. January-February 1987. Collins. July-August 1997. V. Ghosh.O. “Bridge Design Aids. “Compression.G. v3. Farmington Hills. CA. and Slate.” ACI Structural Journal. 1991. June 2006.. F.” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute Journal. S. MI. B. Prentice-Hall. ASTM. 2007. Freyermuth. ASTM C-78-08. November 2007.H. V. “A Probabilistic Comparison of Prestress Loss Methods in Prestressed Concrete Beams. February 1975. Version 1.. Sacramento. pp. R. Conshohoken... FL.” American Concrete Institute. No.” ACI Structural Journal. Ontario. No. and Kashima. Caltrans.. Gilbertson. 409-420. Farmington Hills. April 2005. SeptemberOctober 2004. “Unified Minimum Flexural Reinforcement Requirements for Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Members. “State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete” American Concrete Institute. 171-177. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Part 2: Concrete Bridges – Design and Detailing Rules.. Gonnerman... CA. 1928. Prestressed Concrete Structures. 84. 2006.K. University of Texas at Austin. A. CA. 17.” Proceedings.. pp. CAN/CSA S6-06. M. ACI 363-R92. 28.” California Department of Transportation. “Minimum Reinforcement requirements to prevent Abrupt Flexural Failure of prestressed Concrete Immediately Following Cracking. V. “California Amendments. Caltrans. “Properties of High Strength Concrete Subject to ShortTerm Loads. and Ahlborn.” Florida Department of Transportation. Canadian Standards Association. W. pp. Carrasquillo. T. H. C. E. S.O. American Concrete Institute.” California Department of Transportation. Tallahassee. ACI 318-05. pp.

pp. March-April 2003.. (1964)..J. American Concrete Institute. E. “Strength and Ductility of a Three-Span Externally Post-Tensioned Box Girder Bridge Model. March-April 2000. M.E. 2002. “Bang Na-Bang Pli. Berlin. W.M.” American Segmental Bridge Institute. 5. ACI Materials Journal.” ACI Journal. R.. No. Frieder and Megally. Arizona.. 44. H.” Submitted to the PCI Journal for Publication. Steinberg. C. Typical D6 Test Span (44.. Research Report No.” J. Nojiri. Seguirant. “Shear Strength of Large Reinforced Concrete Beams. M.. University of Texas at Austin. V. Kreger. “Strength and Ductility of a Three-Span Externally Post-Tensioned Segmental Box Girder Bridge Model”. and Dowell. Center for Transportation Research. Seismic Performance of Precast Segmental Bridge Superstructures. Cook. T. 97. 2005. S. D.” Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete. November/December 1999. 40. and Khaleghi. Neville. V. No..E.. “Bridge Operations. M. June 1997. pp..” Lincoln. No. R. November-December. May. “Making Sense of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement Requirements: Part 1 – Reinforced Concrete Members.J. Bang Pakong Expressway Project.A. Munich. 2008. Co published in the United States with John Wiley & Sons. Tassin. Dan and Dodson. 1997.   81 .” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute Journal. Megally. 317.. May 2002.. Mokhtarzadeh. Stefano. Ernst and Sohn. and Pampanin. J. S..4m). and Dowell. and French. “Flexural and Compressive Concrete Strengths as Affected by the Properties of Course Aggregates.Kaplan. Seible. Sami. 76-85. R. Megally. pp. 1990. University of California. Garg. 1995. No. Wilhelm. Muller International.. and Breen. Alireza. SeptemberOctober 1996. Shafer. MacGregor. 309pp. fully revised addition. 6. and Okada.” 3rd Edition. and Mitchell. Couley.. Brian.G. Proceedings V.E. Phoenix. “Properties of Concrete.. No. A. Khan. Sritharan... “Preliminary Results and Conclusions from the PRESS Five-Story Precast Concrete Test Building. Inc. American Concrete Institute. Medium. Leonhardt. Y. 1989.” Nebraska Department of Roads. California. No. M. NDOR. May 1959. “Segmental Seismic Tests at the University of California at San Diego.F..G. Longman Scientific and Technical. San Diego. M.. R. 48.E. and Breen. T. SP118. 80-96. SSRP-2001/24. American Concrete Institute. Nebraska.. “Probabilistic Assessment of Prestress Loss in Pretensioned Concrete Beams.J. January 1989.. Akiyama.” Research Report 365-3F. Seible. Priestly. “Tensile Strength of Low.” University of California at San Diego. S. pp. New York.. B. F.” PCI Journal. MacGregor. Iguro.93...K.H. Kreger. English translation by Amerongon. Catherine. “Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Concrete with Consideration for Precast Applications” ACI Materials Journal. J. Greg. ACI Special Publication SP120. and High-Strength Concrete at Early Ages”. “Prestressed Concrete Design and Construction.J. Department of Structural Engineering. Vol. M. Vol. R. Fritz..” second.” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute Journal.P.K. Brice. 11. 2.D. V... Shioya. 6. “Seismic Performance of Precast Segmental Bridges: Segmentto-Segment Joints Subjected to High Flexural Moments and Low Shears. S. Detroit. “Computer Analysis and Full Scale Test of the Ultimate Capacity of a Precase Segmental Box Girder Bridge with Dry Joints and External Tendons. 55. 2. A. 487-493. F. pp.. Seible. 315-338. James R. Policies and Procedures. Migel.

pp.. Yamazaki. G.. and Garwood F. N. Sozen. Robin G.” Olympia. Washington. 1960. M.. and J. S. Tadros. 2006. P.Tuchscherer. 1960. 13. pp. Wright. 67-76. Galt. “Investigation of the Cracking Problems of Short Type V Girders. NCHRP Report 496.” Journal of the American Concrete Institute. DC.. Jun. Al-Omaishi. Transportation Research Board.. Seguirant. C. American Concrete Institute. Warwaruk. Illinois. J. University of Illinois. V. Urbana. Illinois.P. September 1960. 283-298. Maher K. Walker. P. J. 2003..” Magazine of Concrete Research. “Strength and Behavior in Flexure of Prestressed Concrete Beams. Alan H. and Bloem.57. No.” Washington State Department of Transportation. S.. University of Illinois. the University of Texas at Austin. and Mattock..L.   82 . “Bridge Design Manual. “Effects of Aggregate Size on Properties of Concrete. F. WS DOT.” Thesis. Prestress Losses in Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete Bridge Girders. Kattula. “The Effect of the Method of Test on the Flexural Strength of Concrete. Basile T.. May 2008. D. Washington. “A Comparison of the Behavior of PostTensioned Prestressed Concrete Beams. October 1952. and Siess. Urbana.

Appendix A Parametric Study Results  .

67 3.2 6655.9 5803.46 32.89 1.03 56.4 8.8 10345.56 1.33 28.37 19.2 104.10 1.2 58.65 7.44 5.00 16.06 1.9 36.63 2.27 0.9 4133.6 14.7 35.97 1.21 1.8 3857.5 3607.18 16.16 0.3 3732.68 2.3 1447.76 1.26 23.91 72.4 35977.2 4945.9 34255.7 1763.3 4258.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.78 0.7 11.9 Mo / Mcr 2.1 2795.78 0.2 6436.40 12.9 4137.PBS&J Post.52 1.96 3.50 17.5 973.REINFORCED CONCRETE SECTIONS Section CRS1 Method AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED Required area of steel (in2) 0.3 3705.8 16298.0 515.03 1.9 3651.4 16366.9 Mo (kip-ft) 21.40 1.44 0.36 70.25 0.2 75412.06 129.60 2.56 0.57 2.6 8. Schuh and Jernigan.6 2831.70 42.3 35. Inc BY: P.4 1829.4 458 832.52 1.44 1.4 6594.5 8.4 45203.27 11.3 35479.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.2 54.38 1.83 2.9 35458.4 23400.6 16.6 80.8 96038.7 2460.91 Mcr (kip-ft) 8. Buckley.4 36.59 2.78 1.2 531.6 4200.1 36533.6 16608.4 16925.64 2.04 11.56 1.83 0.12 30.18 99.57 2.8 526.5 1773.70 2.67 2.8 545.16 1.: SUMMARY .4 9093.4 55156 56003.3 25751 11226.37 0.65 1.58 2.63 2.68 1.4 1794.66 9.01 5.58 Notes Calculation of Mcr uses transformed section properties Calculation of Mcr uses transformed section properties Calculation of Mcr uses transformed section properties Calculation of Mcr uses transformed section properties Calculation of Mcr uses transformed section properties Calculation of Mcr uses transformed section properties Calculation of Mcr uses transformed section properties Calculation of Mcr uses transformed section properties CRS2 BRC1 BRC2 CAP1 CAP2 F1 F2 A-1 .

59 9.87 18.9 28983.1 31956.99 6. girder concrete prestrain is -0.10 1. girder concrete prestrain is -0.7 47400.347 ms at bottom and 0.5 42746.8 949.5 1644.9 70.95 13.09 1.30 1.31 1.10 1.20 1.1 13983. girder concrete prestrain is -0.7 10375.03 1.61 1.333 ms at bottom and 0.5 1498.20 0.31 4.35 1.3 33940. Buckley.40 3.6 14506.4 2137.75*270-30) / 28500 = 0.54 2.12 1.7 43.006 BPT1 Tendon prestrain is (0.21 8.8 9055.85 27.42 0.5 2529.37 1. Inc BY: P.19 Notes Tendon prestrain is (0.: SUMMARY .41 0.3 42.6 141.9 2952 1844 1782.12 1.4 1113 4 13876.04 7.30 1.5 62391.13 1.9 14308.45 2.7 1113.3 5012.1 3673.07 1.9 184 150.3 139.3 2609.3 55.006 BPT2 Tendon prestrain is (0.68 7.006 Tendon prestrain is 6 ms.21 1.20 8.09 4.30 1.76 4.26 0.25 1.PBS&J Post.20 1.5 51.6 187.1 24867.0 19146.17 2.8 8787.3 1532.123 ms at top Tendon prestrain is 6 ms.006 CPS2 Tendon prestrain is (0.33 0.1 12760.98 14.1 2066.77 3.75*270-30) / 28500 = 0.32 1.1 136.095 ms at top PCI1 PCI2 PUB1 PUB2 A-2 .36 1. girder concrete prestrain is -0.35 1.093 ms at top Tendon prestrain is 6 ms.75*270-30) / 28500 = 0.324 ms at bottom and 0.10 1.11 1.8 108.1 2924.32 1.75*270-30) / 28500 = 0.3 57.36 1.32 1.2 2991.3 113.11 1.0 901.0 1653.78 Mcr (kip-ft) 53.3 2161.4 12945.7 6796.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.7 35472. Schuh and Jernigan.1 17296 Mo / Mcr 1.PRESTRESSED SECTIONS Section CPS1 Method AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED Required area of steel (in2) 0.059 ms at top Tendon prestrain is 6 ms.23 1.7 Mo (kip-ft) 72.88 2.9 900.32 1.19 0.4 12409.9 10018.2 872.8 2782.36 1.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.7 9565.05 1.58 4.423 ms at bottom and 0.8 1326.19 1.0 30176.25 0.53 12.19 1.5 18096.

5 22480.0 1183.2 48554.0 45450.306 ms at t t i i 0 306 t bottom and 0.78 43.17 1.2 1103.3 51845.2 111731.75*270-30) / 28500 = 0.3 17727.3 Mo (kip-ft) 1368.20 0.4 1851.9 59269.3 37016.9 1330.62 14. girder concrete prestrain is -0.30 1.18 1.10 1. girder concrete prestrain is -0.1 28373.32 15.15 1.7 633.84 0.37 1.3 28819.19 1.3 333.41 1.70 22.268 ms at bottom and 0.9 58620.2 51666.8 20349 8 20473. girder concrete prestrain is -0.1 181.46 1.6 107.5 24496.15 1.32 1.27 1.2 8917.9 1487.1 71748.11 1.0 52643.29 1.80 39.31 16.4 59697.32 3.55 24.37 1.6 267.0 5039.91 0.2 622.16 3.32 1.8 340.33 1.2 22716.09 24.PBS&J Post.40 Mcr (kip-ft) 1034.7 18146.59 No convergence 39.6 131159.18 1.33 1.4 4400.17 1.1 1304. Schuh and Jernigan.95 10.5 2572.006 Tendon prestrain is (0.12 1.5 20346 99053.11 1.10 1.4 51986 56838.65 0.31 1.21 6.006 Tendon prestrain is (0.4 22764.25 1.0 29012.75*270-30) / 28500 = 0.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.39 1.4 716. Inc BY: P.16 1.21 1.6 22307.7 4541.7 739.062 ms at top Tendon prestrain is 6 ms.1 367.0 261.19 1.14 Notes Tendon prestrain is 6 ms. Buckley.9 140.: Section PBB1 PBB2 PPS1 PPS2 PSP1 PSP2 SBS1 SBS2 SBC1 SBC2 Method AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED AASHTO LEONHARDT EUROCODE MODIFIED Required area of steel (in2) 2.11 1.26 1.9 279.331 ms at bottom and 0. girder concrete prestrain is -0.4 21039.006 A-3 .37 29.14 1.7 6034.28 6.338 ms at bottom and 0.9 472.8 26448.13 1.20 1.28 1.9 1116.4 345.7 39740.91 3.82 0.31 1.07 1.2 147.90 1.1 19159.7 5081.62 1.85 5.9 698 927.8 136.6 29248.112 ms at top Tendon prestrain is 6 ms.9 186.27 7.4 20349.75*270-30) / 28500 = 0.0 45663.0 112.5 6852.9 73562.39 1.30 90.49 1.006 Tendon prestrain is 6 ms.6 26403.16 1.075 ms at top Tendon prestrain is (0.12 1.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.5 4843.68 0.0 139.54 67.29 No convergence 26.35 1.091 ms at top Tendon prestrain is (0.7 Mo / Mcr 1.81 0.75*270-30) / 28500 = 0.39 22.86 3.

7.2.436 0 436 ksi 14 kips 0.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .clr .372 ksi assuming #4 bar 0.63 in 8.63 in4 yb = 5.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.37 x f' c0.50 in 8.5.CONVENTIONAL SLAB CRS1 h= 10.3.85 / f' c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h .2 M cr fr = 0.2.25 in 0.5 = Sc = I / y b = with Ø = 0.3.5 = 0.clr .5 in3 (AASHTO 5.44 in2 -> provide 1-#6 bar assuming #6 bar 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 0.2 Fct / f y fct = 0 23 x f' c0.16 in2 -> provide 1-#4 bar 25 Mpa 0.0013 x bt x d (Eq 2) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.00 in A = 126.67 x 1.d b / 2 = (Eq 1) As = (Eq 2) As = 3.4.6) Mcr = Sc x fr = 154.a / 2) = Ø x A s x fy x (d .19 in 0.9 (AASHTO 5.4.As x fy / 2 / 0.d b / 2 = Solve for A s = 0.clr .5 = 0.30 x f ck2/3 = Bar diameter db = d = h .6 Mpa = 0.27 in2 -> provide 1-#5 bar 0.50 in b= 12.8 kip-in Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .3.23 Fct = fct x yb x b / 2 = As = 3) EUROCODE As ≥ 0.237 x f' c0.6 ksi = 2.450 ksi Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .26 x f ctm / f y x bt x d (Eq 1) and A s ≥ 0.00 in2 I = 1157.d b / 2 = Solve for A s = 2) LEONHARDT As ≥ 1.2) 0.13 in 0.6 f r x Sc with Ø = 0.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.702 ksi 220.As x fy / 2 / 0.2.25 in f'c = 3.PBS&J Post.75 in 8.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.25 in2 assuming #5 bar A-4 .13 in2 As = 0. Buckley.1) (AASHTO 5.a / 2) = Ø x A s x fy x (d .16 in2 0.6 ksi fy = Clearance clr = 60 ksi 2 in 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7. Schuh and Jernigan. Inc BY: P.85 / f' c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h .9 fr = 0.

PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.:

CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - CONVENTIONAL SLAB CRS2 h= 21.50 in b= 12.00 in A = 258.00 in2 I = 9938.38 in4 yb = 10.75 in f'c = 3.6 ksi fy = 60 ksi 2 in Clearance clr =

1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.2 M cr fr = 0.37 x f' c0.5 = Sc = I / y b = with Ø = 0.702 ksi 924.5 in3 (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2) 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)

(AASHTO 5.4.2.6)

Mcr = Sc x fr = 649.0 kip-in Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A s x fy x (d - As x fy / 2 / 0.85 / f' c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h - clr - d b / 2 = Solve for A s = 2) LEONHARDT As ≥ 1.2 Fct / f y fct = 0 23 x f' c0.5 = 0.23 Fct = fct x yb x b / 2 = As = 3) EUROCODE As ≥ 0.26 x f ctm / f y x bt x d (Eq 1) and A s ≥ 0.0013 x bt x d (Eq 2) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.30 x f ck2/3 = Bar diameter db = d = h - clr - d b / 2 = (Eq 1) As = (Eq 2) As = 3.6 ksi = 2.6 Mpa = 0.50 in 19.25 in 0.37 in2 0.30 in2 As = 0.37 in2 -> provide 2-#4 bars 25 Mpa 0.372 ksi assuming #4 bar 0.436 0 436 ksi 28 kips 0.56 in2 -> provide 2-#5 bars 0.75 in 19.13 in 0.78 in2 -> provide 2-#6 bars assuming #6 bar

4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 0.67 x 1.6 f r x Sc with Ø = 0.9

fr = 0.237 x f' c0.5 = 0.450 ksi Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d - a / 2) = Ø x A s x fy x (d - As x fy / 2 / 0.85 / f' c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h - clr - d b / 2 = Solve for A s = 0.75 in 19.13 in 0.44 in2 assuming #6 bar

A-5

PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.:

CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - POST-TENSIONED SLAB CPS1 h= 15.00 in b= 12.00 in A = 180.00 in2 I = 3375.00 in4 yb = 7.50 in f'c = 4.0 ksi fy = fpu = 60 ksi 270 ksi

1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.2 Mcr Given dp = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 13.50 in (for trial and error purpose) 45.3 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 0.855 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6) 861 kip-in 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)

0.26 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp - yt) x yb / I = 450.0 in3 1.2 Mcr = 1.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = fr = 0.37 x f'c0.5 = Sc = I / yb = 0.740 ksi

Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2) c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.85 x f'c x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 - 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.2 Fct / (fpu - fpe) fct = 0.23 x f'c0.5 = Fct = fct x yb x b / 2 = fpe = 0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.30 x fck2/3 = 4.0 ksi = 2.8 Mpa = 28 Mpa 0.401 ksi 72.5 ksi 0.25 in2 0.460 ksi 21 kips 172.5 ksi 259 ksi 861 kip-in

1.96 in

matches 1.2 Mcr

assuming 30 ksi losses

Mrep = Sc x fctm = 180.5 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = z = 0.9 x d = Ap = 12.15 in 0.20 in2

4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.0 x (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 0.19 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp - yt) x yb / I = fr = 0.237 x f'c0.5 = 0.474 ksi 1.0 x (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.85 x f'c x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 - 0.28 x c / dp) = 261.8 ksi 1.46 in with Ø = 1.0

(for trial and error purpose) 33.5 kips 0.632 ksi 654 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses

A-6

PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.:

CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - POST-TENSIONED SLAB CPS2 h= 24.00 in b= 12.00 in A = 288.00 in2 I = 13824.00 in4 yb = 12.00 in f'c = 4.0 ksi fy = fpu = 60 ksi 270 ksi

1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.2 Mcr Given dp = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 21.60 in (for trial and error purpose) 72.5 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 0.855 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6) 2205 kip-in 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)

0.42 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp - yt) x yb / I = 1152.0 in3 1.2 Mcr = 1.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = fr = 0.37 x f'c0.5 = Sc = I / yb = 0.740 ksi

Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2) c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.85 x f'c x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 - 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.2 Fct / (fpu - fpe) fct = 0.23 x f'c0.5 = Fct = fct x yb x b / 2 = fpe = 0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.30 x fck2/3 = 4.0 ksi = 2.8 Mpa = 28 Mpa 0.401 ksi 72.5 ksi 0.41 in2 0.460 ksi 33 kips 172.5 ksi 259 ksi

3.14 in

2205 kip-in matches 1.2 Mcr

g assuming 30 ksi losses

Mrep = Sc x fctm = 462.2 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = z = 0.9 x d = Ap = 19.44 in 0.33 in2

4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.0 x (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 0.31 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp - yt) x yb / I = fr = 0.237 x f'c0.5 = 0.474 ksi 1.0 x (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.85 x f'c x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 - 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) = 261.8 ksi 1675 kip-in matches (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc 2.34 in with Ø = 1.0

(for trial and error purpose) 53.6 kips 0.632 ksi 1675 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses

A-7

Inc BY: P.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.6) Mcr = Sc x fr = 9433.REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BRC1 h= bf = bw = td = 38.PBS&J Post.80 in 8.2) 0.clr .00 in 7.3.4. Buckley.7.372 ksi assuming #4 bar 28.450 ksi fr = 0.9 0.48 in2 I = 268255.6 ksi = 2.db / 2 = Solve for As = 0.67 x 1.9 (AASHTO 5.237 x f'c = Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .30 x fck 2/3 (AASHTO 5.clr .40 in 76.00 in A = 1208.db / 2 = Solve for As = 2) LEONHARDT As ≥ 1.5.2 Mcr fr = 0.8 kip-in Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .ts)2 x bw / (2 x yb) + (2 x yb .2.5 = 0.50 in 25 Mpa 0.85 / f'c / bf) Bar diameter db = d = h .As x fy / 2 / 0.03 in 3.ts) x bw + ts x bf) / yb = 1.7 in As = 1.6 Mpa = 0.7.5 0.75 in 36.6 fr x Sc 36.ts) x ts x bf / (2 x yb)) = As = 3) EUROCODE As ≥ 0.2.2.26 x fctm / fy x bt x d (Eq 1) and As ≥ 0.4. Schuh and Jernigan.a / 2) = Ø x As x fy x (d .0 in3 0.86 in4 yb = 19.15 in bt = ((yb .88 in 35.0013 x bt x d (Eq 2) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.5 with Ø = 0.85 / f'c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h .702 ksi 13438.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = 0.436 0 436 ksi fct = 0 23 x f'c0.db / 2 = (Eq 1) As = (Eq 2) As = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 0.clr .67 in2 1.6 ksi fy = 60 ksi 2 in Clearance clr = 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.3.As x fy / 2 / 0.96 in f'c = 3.10 in ts = 6.35 in2 with Ø = 0.96 in2 assuming #7 bar -> provide 10-#7 bars 188 kips 3.37 in2 assuming #6 bar A-8 .M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .76 in2 -> provide 9-#6 bars 3.3.a / 2) = Ø x As x fy x (d .: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.96 in 5.67 in2 -> provide 9-#4 bars = Bar diameter db = d = h .2 Fct / fy 0.23 Fct = fct x ((yb .1) (AASHTO 5.

88 in 76.86 in4 yb = 39.5.01 in2 -> provide 21-#7 bars 600 kips 1.76 in 11.1) (AASHTO 5.As x fy / 2 / 0.2. Buckley.5 = Fct = fct x ((yb .0013 x bt x d (Eq 2) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.67 x 1.00 in2 assuming #7 bar A-9 .M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BRC2 h= bf = bw = td = 79.25 in2 with Ø = 0.db / 2 = Solve for As = 0.436 ksi fct = 0.ts) x ts x bf / (2 x yb)) = As = 3) EUROCODE As ≥ 0.450 ksi fr = 0.ts) x bw + ts x bf) / yb = (Eq 1) As = (Eq 2) As = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 0.db / 2 = 3.702 ksi 93772.7.13 in 76. Schuh and Jernigan.2) 0.6 Mpa = 0.4.00 in 8.5 = Sc = I / y = with Ø = 0.20 in 156.30 in A = 3416.50 in ts = 9.64 in 19.5 in As = 5.89 in bt = ((yb .2.2.85 / f'c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h .30 x fck2/3 = Bar diameter db = d = h .6 ksi = 2.7.6 fr x Sc 5.3.26 x fctm / fy x bt x d (Eq 1) and As ≥ 0.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .27 in2 4.27 in2 -> provide 17-#5 bars 12.a / 2) = Ø x As x fy x (d .237 x f'c0.clr .3.9 (AASHTO 5.23 x f'c0.clr .5 in3 (AASHTO 5. Inc BY: P.6 ksi fy = 60 ksi 2 in Clearance clr = 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.372 ksi assuming #5 bar 42.7 kip-in Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.PBS&J Post.6) Mcr = Sc x fr = 65830.2 Fct / fy 0.ts)2 x bw / (2 x yb) + (2 x yb .db / 2 = Solve for As = 2) LEONHARDT As ≥ 1.63 in 25 Mpa 0.9 0.00 in 9.37 x f'c0.85 / f'c / bf) Bar diameter db = d = h .a / 2) = Ø x As x fy x (d .40 in2 -> provide 20-#9 bars assuming #9 bar 76.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.clr .00 in2 I = 3740350.4.As x fy / 2 / 0.5 = Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .89 in f'c = 3.3.2 Mcr fr = 0.

1 fpe) x Sc 3.5 0.2 Mcr 1.85 x b + 0.2.00 in A = 1303.0 x (1. Inc BY: P.30 x fck 2/3 172.PBS&J Post.1) 4.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = 0.7.740 ksi c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.75 x fpu .2 Mcr = 1.80 in 12.55 in4 yb = 19.75 x fpu .5) = z = 0.6 fr + 1.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .84 in f'c = fy = fpu = 4.30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.3.ts) x ts x bf / (2 x yb)) = 207 kips fpe = 0.10 in 2.yt) x yb / I = 13760.5 ksi 2.0 (for trial and error purpose) 491.00 in 6.37 in A-10 .40 in 76.a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.401 ksi 72.85 x b + 0.6 ksi 24799 kip-in matches (1.5 0.949 ksi 24799 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .a / 2) fps = fpu x (1 .2) 4.474 ksi fr = 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 2.0 (AASHTO 5.0.30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .45 in2 with Ø = 1.8 Mpa = 28 Mpa 0. Schuh and Jernigan.PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BPT1 h= bf = bw = td = ts = 38.2 Fct / (fpu .ts)2 x bw / (2 x yb) + (2 x yb .3.75 x fpu .fpe) fr = 0.5 0.237 x f'c = 1.7.460 ksi fct = 0. 72.30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .20 in2 I = 272966.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .85 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.0 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.4 x 270.5 ksi = Mrep = Sc x fctm = 5520.54 in2 assuming 30 ksi losses 4.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.389 ksi (AASHTO 5.5.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = 0.56 in (for trial and error purpose) 719.4.a / 2) = 262.1 in3 1.17 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.yt) x yb / I = 0.7 kips 0.4.0 x (1.00 in 7.0.a / 2) c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.6) 35160 kip-in (AASHTO 5.3.23 x f'c = Fct = fct x ((yb .2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .2.6 fr + 1.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 34.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO. Buckley.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.85 x f'c x 0.1 fpe) x Sc = 31.88 in 259 ksi 35160 kip-in matches 1.0 ksi = 2.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.2.8 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.85 x f'c x 0.9 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 1.6 fr + 1.

30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .237 x f'c = 1.1 fpe) x Sc A-11 .98 in2 assuming 30 ksi losses 4.ts)2 x bw / (2 x yb) + (2 x yb .37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = 0.00 in 10.85 x b + 0.6 fr + 1. 72.0 (AASHTO 5.137 ksi 524796 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.00 in 12.a / 2) = 265.0 ksi 7.PBS&J Post.0 ksi = 2.85 x f'c x 0.00 in f'c = fy = fpu = 4.0 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.75 x fpu .20 in 14.30 x fck 2/3 172.6 fr + 1.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 18.4.0.5.88 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.0 x (1.30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.0 kips 1.5 ksi 13.6 fr + 1.5 in3 1.87 in2 with Ø = 1.6) 759754 kip-in (AASHTO 5.7.460 ksi fct = 0.58 in 263 ksi 759754 kip-in matches 1.4.8 Mpa = 28 Mpa 0.740 ksi c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.3.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .2 Mcr 1.60 in2 A= I = 15673772.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .2.4 x 270.5 0.0 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 1.401 ksi 72. Buckley.30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .474 ksi fr = 0.yt) x yb / I = 0.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.23 x f'c = Fct = fct x ((yb .: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.a / 2) fps = fpu x (1 .0 (for trial and error purpose) 3256.a / 2) 0.10 in 10.0.95 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.85 x b + 0.1) 27.fpe) fr = 0. Schuh and Jernigan.5 0.PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BPT2 h= bf = bw = td = ts = 120.00 in 240.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 108.5 97.7.21 in 524796 kip-in matches (1.10 in 6045.2) 10.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .yt) x yb / I = 261229.684 ksi (AASHTO 5.2.3.3.2.0 x (1.18 in4 yb = 60. Inc BY: P.85 x f'c x 0.5 ksi = Mrep = Sc x fctm = 104810.2 Fct / (fpu .2 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.5) = z = 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .2 Mcr = 1.75 x fpu .28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = 0.75 x fpu .1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .ts) x ts x bf / (2 x yb)) = 1136 kips fpe = 0.a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.00 in (for trial and error purpose) 4822.

3 kip-in Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .ts) x bw + ts x bf) / yb = (Eq 1) As = (Eq 2) As = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 0.0013 x bt x d (Eq 2) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.26 x fctm / fy x bt x d (Eq 1) and As ≥ 0. Buckley.5 in3 (AASHTO 5.As x fy / 2 / 0.PBS&J Post.8 Mpa = 0.88 in 45.00 in 4392.37 x f'c0.As x fy / 2 / 0.740 ksi 43100.00 in 120.7 in As = 7.CAP BEAM CAP1 h= bf = bw = td = 48.85 / f'c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h . Schuh and Jernigan.03 in2 assuming #7 bar A-12 .00 in 7.474 ksi fr = 0.00 in2 A= I = 1004240.ts)2 x bw / (2 x yb) + (2 x yb .7.2.a / 2) = Ø x As x fy x (d .66 in2 -> provide 13-#7 bars 11.6 fr x Sc 7.4.5 = Sc = I / y = with Ø = 0.5 = Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .00 in 72.56 in 9.5 = Fct = fct x ((yb .460 ksi fct = 0.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .23 x f'c0.2.2 Mcr fr = 0.37 in 16.88 in 28 Mpa 0. Inc BY: P.3.a / 2) = Ø x As x fy x (d .67 x 1.clr .401 ksi assuming #7 bar 96.5.30 x fck2/3 = Bar diameter db = d = h .30 in f'c = 4.1) (AASHTO 5.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.6) Mcr = Sc x fr = 31894.ts) x ts x bf / (2 x yb)) = As = 3) EUROCODE As ≥ 0.73 in2 with Ø = 0.04 in2 -> provide 13-#10 bars assuming #10 bar 45.db / 2 = Solve for As = 2) LEONHARDT As ≥ 1.clr .4.clr .: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.0 ksi fy = 60 ksi 2 in Clearance clr = 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.db / 2 = 4.9 0.3.237 x f'c0.3.27 in 45.db / 2 = Solve for As = 0.2 Fct / fy 0.65 in2 -> provide 15-#8 bars 583 kips 1.50 in ts = 12.7.56 in bt = ((yb .9 (AASHTO 5.2.85 / f'c / bf) Bar diameter db = d = h .88 in4 yb = 23.2) 0.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.66 in2 5.0 ksi = 2.

237 x f'c0.ts) x ts x bf / (2 x yb)) = As = 3) EUROCODE As ≥ 0.41 in 117.ts)2 x bw / (2 x yb) + (2 x yb .clr .4.00 in2 I = 23559695.63 in4 yb = 59.7.clr .9 (AASHTO 5.28 in2 with Ø = 0.00 in 10.5 = Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .0 ksi fy = 60 ksi 2 in Clearance clr = 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.37 x f'c0.As x fy / 2 / 0.00 in A = 16512.3.85 / f'c / bf) Bar diameter db = d = h .401 ksi assuming #9 bar 139.2.44 in 32.46 in2 -> provide 29-#9 bars 42.00 in ts = 12.db / 2 = Solve for As = 2) LEONHARDT As ≥ 1.33 in2 -> provide 34-#10 bars 2117 kips 1.a / 2) = Ø x As x fy x (d .: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .6 fr x Sc 28.43 in f'c = 4.5 = Sc = I / y = with Ø = 0.474 ksi fr = 0.db / 2 = Solve for As = 1.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.4 in As = 28.44 in bt = ((yb . Schuh and Jernigan.00 in 120.2 Mcr fr = 0.db / 2 = 4.30 x fck2/3 = Bar diameter db = d = h .: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.5 kip-in Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .67 x 1.6) Mcr = Sc x fr = 293356. Inc BY: P.5.26 x fctm / fy x bt x d (Eq 1) and As ≥ 0.9 0.CAP BEAM CAP2 h= bf = bw = td = 120.12 in2 assuming #9 bar A-13 .2.8 Mpa = 1.30 in 56.As x fy / 2 / 0.0013 x bt x d (Eq 2) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.3.7 in3 (AASHTO 5.46 in2 21.ts) x bw + ts x bf) / yb = (Eq 1) As = (Eq 2) As = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 0.2.4.13 in 117.70 in2 -> provide 37-#11 bars assuming #11 bar 117.clr .7.PBS&J Post.460 ksi fct = 0.23 x f'c0.2) 0.5 = Fct = fct x ((yb .740 ksi 396427.a / 2) = Ø x As x fy x (d . Buckley.1) (AASHTO 5.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.85 / f'c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h .3.13 in 28 Mpa 0.00 in 216.0 ksi = 2.2 Fct / fy 0.

3.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = 0.06 in2 assuming #8 bar A-14 .8 Mpa = 1. Inc BY: P.5.50 in 16.401 ksi assuming #8 bar = Bar diameter db = d = h .37 in 30.7.50 in 17.4.740 ksi 100800.3.67 x 1.460 ksi 1159 ki kips 23.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.3.0 in3 0. Buckley.2.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .clr .00 in 56.As x fy / 2 / 0.0 ksi = 2.0 kip-in Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .clr .23 x f'c = Fct = fct x yb x b / 2 = As = 3) EUROCODE As ≥ 0.50 in2 -> provide 21-#8 bars with Ø = 0.clr .5 0.db / 2 = Solve for As = 2) LEONHARDT As ≥ 1.db / 2 = Solve for As = 1.474 ksi fr = 0.26 x fctm / fy x bt x d (Eq 1) and As ≥ 0.a / 2) = Ø x As x fy x (d .00 in 10080.PBS&J Post.85 / f'c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h .6) Mcr = Sc x fr = 74592.50 in2 12.00 in 56.18 in2 -> provide 24-#9 bars 4. Schuh and Jernigan.4.a / 2) = Ø x As x fy x (d .00 in2 3024000 in4 30.db / 2 = (Eq 1) As = (Eq 2) As = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 0.0013 x bt x d (Eq 2) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.27 in 56.85 / f'c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h .2 Fct / fy fct = 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5 (AASHTO 5.00 in 168.30 x fck 2/3 0.237 x f'c = Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .34 in2 28 Mpa 0.As x fy / 2 / 0.5 with Ø = 0.2 Mcr fr = 0.2.FOOTING F1 h= b= A= I= yb = f'c = fy = Clearance clr = 60.00 in 4.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.7.0 ksi 60 ksi 3 in 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.6 fr x Sc As = 16.9 0.1) (AASHTO 5.2.26 in2 assuming #10 bar -> provide 24-#10 bars 0.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.2) 1.

00 in2 51840000 in4 60.740 ksi 864000.0013 x bt x d (Eq 2) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.clr .FOOTING F2 h= b= A= I= yb = f'c = fy = Clearance clr = 120.00 in 43200.a / 2) = Ø x A s x fy x (d .6) Mcr = Sc x fr = 639360.3.00 in 4.2.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.clr .4.41 in 113.91 in2 assuming #11 bar A-15 .36 in2 -> provide 64-#11 bars 1.9 4.3.6 f r x Sc with Ø = 0.91 in2 -> provide 46-#11 bars 28 Mpa 0.474 ksi fr = 0.As x fy / 2 / 0.460 0 460 ksi 4968 kips 99.7.9 (AASHTO 5.91 in2 53.clr .26 x f ctm / f y x bt x d (Eq 1) and A s ≥ 0.30 in 70.5 = Sc = I / y b = with Ø = 0.5.2 M cr fr = 0.237 x f' c0.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.d b / 2 = Solve for A s = 2) LEONHARDT As ≥ 1.7.85 / f' c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h .0 in3 (AASHTO 5.2.1) (AASHTO 5.0 ksi 60 ksi 6 in 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.4.PBS&J Post.67 x 1.0 kip-in Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .00 in 360.41 in 113. Inc BY: P.69 in 113.d b / 2 = Solve for A s = 1.30 in 72.15 in 129.3.02 in2 As = 70.As x fy / 2 / 0.2.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .18 in2 -> provide 58-#14 bars assuming #14 bar 0.0 ksi = 2. Buckley.5 = 0.85 / f' c / b) Bar diameter db = d = h .d b / 2 = (Eq 1) As = (Eq 2) As = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 0.30 x f ck2/3 = Bar diameter db = d = h .2) 0.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.2 Fct / f y fct = 0 23 x f' c0.a / 2) = Ø x A s x fy x (d .5 = Ø Mn = Ø x As x fy x (d .401 ksi assuming #11 bar 0.8 Mpa = 1.23 Fct = fct x yb x b / 2 = As = 3) EUROCODE As ≥ 0. Schuh and Jernigan.37 x f' c0.

9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.a / 2) c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.yt) x yb / I = g 0. Buckley.30 k i = 0.85 x f'c x 0.50 in 64.00 in2 I = 172939.6 ksi 16135 kip-in matches (1.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 1.4 kips 1.2.514 ksi 91.27 in A-16 .5 kips 1.0 x (1.5 = Fct = 0.530 ksi fr = 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .61 in2 (for trial and error purpose) 450.yt) x yb / I = 5884.5 ksi 172 5 k i assuming 30 k i l i ksi losses fpe = 0 75 x fpu .0.827 ksi c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.6) 25813 kip-in (AASHTO 5.2.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.3.0 (AASHTO 5.828 ksi (AASHTO 5. Inc BY: P.6 fr + 1.74 in4 yb = 29.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = g 0.85 x b + 0.0 ksi = 3.a / 2) = 265.6 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 39.75 ksi Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.30 x 2/3 fck g 5.466 ksi 72.30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .15 in 2.4.23 x f'c g 0.40 in td = 7.69 in 263 ksi 25813 kip-in matches 1.PRECAST PRESTRESSED I-GIRDER PCI1 h= bf = 43.7. Schuh and Jernigan.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .0 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.5 0.5 ksi = Mrep = Sc x fctm = 2739.75 x fpu .: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .5 0.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.5) = z = 0.4.6 fr + 1.24 in 1.3.a / 2) d fr = 0.13 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.PBS&J Post.2 Fct / (fpu .0 (for trial and error purpose) 274.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .722 ksi 16135 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .3.6 fr + 1.3 in3 1.0 x (1.4 x 270.1) Pf = Aps x (0.237 x f'c = 1.2 Mcr 1.2) 3.7.2 Mcr = 1.2.50 in A = 852. 72.2 Mpa = 35 Mpa 0.a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .07 in2 with Ø = 1.0 ksi 4.7 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 2.0.59 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu .85 x b + 0.5.1 fpe) x Sc d 2.1 fpe) x Sc = 35.fpe) fct = 0.85 x f'c x 0.39 in f'c = f'c = fy = fpu = d g 5.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.

PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.:

CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRECAST PRESTRESSED I-GIRDER PCI2 h= bf = 104.50 in 88.99 in

td = 8.50 in A = 1953.70 in2 I = 3000090.93 in4 yb = 65.52 in f'c = f'c = fy = fpu = 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 94.05 in 9.09 in2 (for trial and error purpose) 1567.8 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 2.811 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6) 218758 kip-in (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2) 7.44 in 264 ksi 218758 kip-in matches 1.2 Mcr 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
d g

10.0 ksi 5.5 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi

Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp - yt) x yb / I = 45788.9 in3 1.2 Mcr = 1.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2)
d

fr = 0.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb =

g 0.5

1.170 ksi

c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.85 x f'c x 0.775 x b + 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 - 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.2 Fct / (fpu - fpe) fct = 0.23 x f'c
g 0.5

= Fct =

0.727 ksi 387.1 kips 4.76 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.5 172 5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses

fpe = 0 75 x fpu - 30 ksi = 0.75 Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c =
g

10.0 ksi =

70 Mpa 4.6 Mpa = 72.5 ksi 0.669 ksi

fctm = 2.12 x ln(1 + (f ck + 8) / 10) = Mrep = Sc x fctm = 30619.2 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = z = 0.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.0 x (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 6.20 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp - yt) x yb / I = 0.749 ksi = fr = 0.237 x f'c 1.0 x (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2)
g 0.5

84.65 in 4.99 in2

with Ø =

1.0

(for trial and error purpose) 1070.3 kips 1.919 ksi 151576 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses

c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.85 x f'c x 0.775 x b + 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 - 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) = 265.9 ksi

d

5.12 in

151576 kip-in matches (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc

A-17

PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.:

CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRECAST PRESTRESSED U-BEAM PUB1 h= bf = 43.00 in 90.71 in

td = 7.00 in A = 1667.03 in2 I = 377841.47 in4 yb = 24.65 in f'c = f'c = fy = fpu =
d g

7.0 ksi 4.0 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi

bw = 33.46 in 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 38.70 in 8.77 in2 (for trial and error purpose) 1512.8 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 3.232 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6) 77462 kip-in (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2)
d

1.0

(AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)

Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp - yt) x yb / I = 15328.3 in3 1.2 Mcr = 1.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) fps = fpu x (1 - 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.2 Fct / (fpu - fpe) fct = 0.23 x f'c
g 0.5

fr = 0.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb =

g 0.5

0.979 ksi

c = (Aps x fpu - 0.85 x f'c x (b - bw) x hf) / (0.85 x f'c x 0.85 x bw + 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = 253 ksi 77462 kip-in matches 1.2 Mcr

8.83 in

= Fct =

0.609 ksi 276.5 kips 3.40 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.5 k i 172 5 ksi assuming 30 k i l i ksi losses

fpe = 0 75 x fpu - 30 k i = 0.75 ksi Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.30 x
2/3 fck g

7.0 ksi = 4.1 Mpa =

50 Mpa 0.591 ksi 72.5 ksi

=

Mrep = Sc x fctm = 9052.1 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = z = 0.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.0 x (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 4.53 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp - yt) x yb / I = 0.627 ksi fr = 0.237 x f'c = 1.0 x (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2)
g 0.5

34.83 in 3.58 in2

with Ø =

1.0

(for trial and error purpose) 782.1 kips 1.671 ksi 43555 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses

c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.85 x f'c x 0.85 x b + 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 - 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) = 261.2 ksi

d

4.52 in

43555 kip-in matches (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc

A-18

PBS&J
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc
BY: P.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.:

CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT - PRECAST PRESTRESSED U-BEAM PUB2 h= bf = 103.00 in 142.39 in

td = 7.00 in A = 3002.75 in2 I = 4081912.23 in4 yb = 62.58 in f'c = f'c = fy = fpu = 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.3.3.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 92.70 in 12.68 in2 (for trial and error purpose) 2187.4 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 2.697 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6) 302689 kip-in (AASHTO 5.7.3.2.2) 6.51 in 265 ksi 302689 kip-in matches 1.2 Mcr 1.0 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1)
d g

10.0 ksi 5.5 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi

Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp - yt) x yb / I = 65227.1 in3 1.2 Mcr = 1.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2)
d

fr = 0.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb =

g 0.5

1.170 ksi

c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.85 x f'c x 0.775 x b + 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 - 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.2 Fct / (fpu - fpe) fct = 0.23 x f'c
g 0.5

= Fct =

0.727 ksi 572.2 kips 7.04 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses

fpe = 0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = 10.0 ksi = fctm = 2.12 x ln(1 + (f ck + 8) / 10) = Mrep = Sc x fctm = 43617.6 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.4 x 270, 72.5) = z = 0.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.0 x (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 8.78 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu - 30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp - yt) x yb / I = 0.749 ksi = fr = 0.237 x f'c 1.0 x (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2)
g 0.5 g

70 Mpa 4.6 Mpa = 72.5 ksi 0.669 ksi

83.43 in 7.21 in2

with Ø =

1.0

(for trial and error purpose) 1513.7 kips 1.866 ksi 212126 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses

c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.85 x f'c x 0.775 x b + 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 - 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp - a / 2) = 266.3 ksi

d

4.53 in

212126 kip-in matches (1.6 fr + 1.1 fpe) x Sc

A-19

6 fr + 1. Schuh and Jernigan.85 x f'c x 0.30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .5 fr = 0.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = g 0.349 ksi 10887 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.a / 2) g 0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .3 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 2.530 ksi = fr = 0.PRECAST PRESTRESSED BOX-BEAM PBB1 h= bf = td = A= I= yb = f'c = f'c = fy = fpu = d g 27. Buckley.466 ksi 72.237 x f'c 1.PBS&J Post.75 x fpu .yt) x yb / I = 4669.26 in 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.5 21.5.0.yt) x yb / I = 0.93 in 5.2 Mcr = 1.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.2 Mpa = 35 Mpa 0.a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.4 x 270.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 1.30 x fck 2/3 g 5.87 in 1.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.87 in 10887 kip-in matches (1.0.2.6 fr + 1.85 x f'c x 0.5 ksi = Mrep = Sc x fctm = 2174.099 ksi (AASHTO 5.7.30 in 2.0.7 in3 1.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 24.0 ksi d 3.2 Fct / (fpu .fpe) fct = 0.2.1 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.86 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.4.7.2.90 in2 (for trial and error purpose) 500. 72.3.1 fpe) x Sc A-20 .0 (AASHTO 5.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .1) Pf = Aps x (0.0 ksi = 3.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .827 ksi c = (Aps x fpu .99 in 5.69 in4 12.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.00 in 42.0 ksi 4.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses fpe = 0.85 x b + 0.30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .a / 2) = 258.0 x (1.85 x bw + 0.3.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.88 in = Fct = 0.37 in2 with Ø = 1.4.bw) x hf) / (0.0 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi bw = 15.514 ksi 114.75 x fpu .5) = z = 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = 252 ksi 15912 kip-in matches 1.0 (for trial and error purpose) 321.30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .75 x fpu . Inc BY: P.6) 16399 kip-in (AASHTO 5.a / 2) fps = fpu x (1 .04 in2 60659.2) d 1.23 x f'c g 0.3.5 0.6 fr + 1.2 Mcr 5.0 x (1.41 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.4 kips 1.1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .6 kips 1.00 in 633.85 x f'c x (b .

4 x 270.0 (for trial and error purpose) 289.07 in 1.85 x f'c x 0.530 ksi = fr = 0.a / 2) = 261.46 in2 with Ø = 1.3.26 in 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.5 0.1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .0.1 fpe) x Sc A-21 .0 ksi = 3.a / 2) fps = fpu x (1 .2 Mpa = 35 Mpa 0.093 ksi 17691 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.2.a / 2) g 0.5 fr = 0.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO. Inc BY: P.a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1. 72.0 x (1.39 in2 A= I = 196297.2) d 1.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .3.827 ksi c = (Aps x fpu .28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .999 ksi (AASHTO 5.20 in td = 5.07 in2 (for trial and error purpose) 529.5 38.514 ksi 121.5) = z = 0.2.85 x f'c x 0.yt) x yb / I = 8628.0 x (1.fpe) fct = 0.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = g 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = 251 ksi 28965 kip-in matches 1.6) 29268 kip-in (AASHTO 5.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 42.3 kips 1.1) Pf = Aps x (0. Schuh and Jernigan.5.6 fr + 1.75 x fpu .237 x f'c 1.7.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.4.00 in 719.2 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.75 x fpu .2 Mcr 10.2.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 1.00 in 32.5 in3 1.30 in 3.30 x fck 2/3 g 5.PBS&J Post.6 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 1.23 x f'c g 0.466 ksi 72.85 x f'c x (b .5 ksi = Mrep = Sc x fctm = 4017.yt) x yb / I = 0.0. Buckley.75 x fpu .6 fr + 1.30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .49 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.0 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi bw = 15.0 (AASHTO 5.5 kips 1.0.6 fr + 1.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .7.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .PRECAST PRESTRESSED BOX-BEAM PBB2 h= bf = 47.6 ksi d 4.0 ksi 4.30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .2 Fct / (fpu .71 in4 yb = 22.75 in f'c = f'c = fy = fpu = d g 5.91 in = Fct = 0.bw) x hf) / (0.85 x b + 0.68 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.72 in 17691 kip-in matches (1.4.3.85 x bw + 0.2 Mcr = 1.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses fpe = 0.

632 ksi 1665 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.80 in (for trial and error purpose) 144.65 in2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .6) 2193 kip-in (AASHTO 5.85 x f'c x 0.0 (AASHTO 5.2.5.3.a / 2) = 261.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 0.75 x fpu .3.00 in 567.5 fr = 0.2.6 fr + 1.fpe) fct = 0.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 10.0.8 Mpa = 459.460 ksi 65.2) 1.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses 4.401 ksi 72.0 (for trial and error purpose) 106.8 ksi 1665 kip-in 1.2 Mcr = 1.30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .56 in 259 ksi 2193 kip-in matches 1.00 in 48.2 Fct / (fpu .30 x fck 2/3 0.75 x fpu .84 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.62 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.0 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 0.4.3.yt) x yb / I = 0.a / 2) 0.1 fpe) x Sc A-22 .30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .72 in 0.1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.855 ksi (AASHTO 5.0.4 x 270.2.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.98 in 4.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp . Buckley.a / 2) fps = fpu x (1 .237 x f'c = 1.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.yt) x yb / I = 1145.8 kips 0.4 kips 0.0 x (1.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .5) = 9.23 x f'c = Fct = fpe = 0.6 fr + 1.75 x fpu .7.0 ksi = 2.4.9 in3 1.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .0 x (1.85 x b + 0.25 in4 5.PRECAST PRESTRESSED SLAB PPS1 h= b= A= I= yb = f'c = fy = fpu = 12.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = 0.5 0.6 fr + 1.81 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.474 ksi fr = 0. 72.PBS&J Post.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Δσp = Min(0. Schuh and Jernigan.2 Mcr 1.85 x f'c x 0.740 ksi c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = 0. Inc BY: P.7 kip-in 28 Mpa 0.7.14 in2 6852.5 with Ø = 1.85 x b + 0.0 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.5 ksi = Mrep = Sc x fctm = z = 0.30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.1) 0.16 in matches (1.

a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 0.0 x (1.2 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 1.35 in (for trial and error purpose) 206.91 0 91 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.6 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .0 x (1.5) = z = 0.2 Mcr 1.a / 2) 0.1 fpe) x Sc A-23 .9 kips 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = 0.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 19.460 ksi 73.a / 2) fps = fpu x (1 .PRECAST PRESTRESSED SLAB PPS2 h= b= A= I= yb = f'c = fy = fpu = 21.0 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.85 x f'c x 0.401 ksi 72.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .8 kips 0.85 x b + 0.30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.5 fr = 0.4.00 in 531.237 x f'c = 1.5 0.0 (AASHTO 5.740 ksi c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.2.6 fr + 1.2 Fct / (fpu .4 x 270.75 x fpu .0 ksi = 2.474 ksi fr = 0.3.85 x f'c x 0.fpe) fct = 0.20 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.a / 2) = 261.30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .85 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.42 in 0.75 x fpu .yt) x yb / I = 2571.yt) x yb / I = 0.5 ksi = Mrep = Sc x fctm = 1031.0 (for trial and error purpose) 146.PBS&J Post.0.071 ksi (AASHTO 5.82 in2 with Ø = 1.30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .762 ksi 4106 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses c = (Aps x fpu) / (0. Inc BY: P.82 in2 27433.1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .85 x b + 0.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.14 in matches (1.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .6 ksi 4106 kip-in 2.1) 1.75 x fpu .5 17.97 in 258 ksi 5588 kip-in matches 1.25 in4 10.6 fr + 1. Schuh and Jernigan.6) 5588 kip-in (AASHTO 5.3.50 in 36.7.2 Mcr = 1.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.1 in3 1.2) 2.2.0.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses 4.23 x f'c = Fct = fpe = 0.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = 0.3.67 in 4.30 x fck 2/3 0.4. Buckley.2.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp . 72.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.6 fr + 1.5.8 Mpa = 28 Mpa 0.7.

72.50 in 1737.5 0.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses fpe = 0.85 x f'c x 0.yt) x yb / I = 0.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.30 x fck 2/3 g 7.0 ksi = 4.95 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.6 fr + 1.55 in 5.979 ksi c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.50 in 90.3.85 x f'c x 0.0 ksi 4.5 64.237 x f'c 1.0.627 ksi = fr = 0.91 in2 (for trial and error purpose) 1019.591 ksi 72.0 (for trial and error purpose) 681.8 in3 1.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 71.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.94 in 264 ksi 107540 kip-in matches 1.1 Mpa = 50 Mpa 0.75 x fpu .a / 2) g 0.2.32 in2 with Ø = 1.40 in 3.PBS&J Post.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .2.630 ksi 73379 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.1) d g 7.3.5 ksi = Mrep = Sc x fctm = 15495.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 3.71 in td = 7.1 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 2.4.2 Mcr 1.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.0.6 fr + 1.16 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.3.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .75 x fpu .609 ksi 256. Schuh and Jernigan.yt) x yb / I = 26239.01 in 73379 kip-in matches (1.88 in2 A= I = 1365254.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = g 0.0 x (1.7.7.4 x 270.23 x f'c g 0.436 ksi (AASHTO 5.5) = z = 0.4.30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp . Inc BY: P.5 = Fct = 0.5.75 x fpu .03 in f'c = f'c = fy = fpu = 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.2 Mcr = 1.0 x (1.fpe) fct = 0.a / 2) d fr = 0.6 kips 3.85 x b + 0.1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .9 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.a / 2) = 265.77 in4 yb = 52.2.1 fpe) x Sc A-24 .28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .2 Fct / (fpu .9 kips 1.6) 107540 kip-in (AASHTO 5.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .SPLICED PRECAST PRESTRESSED GIRDER PSP1 h= bf = 79.0 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi Pf = Aps x (0.6 fr + 1.8 ksi d 4.2) 5.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.85 x b + 0. Buckley.0 (AASHTO 5.

30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .6 fr + 1.85 x f'c x 0.94 in4 yb = 117. 72.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.5 ksi 0.2 Mcr = 1.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 169.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses fpe = 0.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .7.3.75 x fpu .50 in 2664.4 kips 6.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.2) 8.0. Schuh and Jernigan.1) d g 10.36 in2 A= I = 12160103.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .1 fpe) x Sc = g 0.5 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.486 ksi (AASHTO 5.5 g 70 Mpa 4.50 in 88.yt) x yb / I = 0.0 (for trial and error purpose) 1258.a / 2) = 267.75 x fpu .a / 2) d fr = 0.2.0 ksi 5.237 x f'c 1.0 x (1. Inc BY: P.1 fpe) x Sc A-25 .21 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.2 Fct / (fpu .7 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 2.0 ksi = fctm = 2.6 fr + 1.12 x ln(1 + (f ck + 8) / 10) = 69375.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .fpe) fct = 0.1 kips 1.6) 455129 kip-in (AASHTO 5.23 x f'c g 0.5 = Fct = 0. Buckley.a / 2) d c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.5 1.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .0 x (1.99 in td = 8.727 ksi 504.69 in 6.5) = z = 0.SPLICED PRECAST PRESTRESSED GIRDER PSP2 h= bf = 188.4.7.5 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi Pf = Aps x (0.29 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.6 fr + 1.75 x fpu .0.0 (AASHTO 5.4.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = g 0.170 ksi c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.4 x 270.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 7.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .669 ksi Mrep = Sc x fctm = 152.21 in f'c = f'c = fy = fpu = 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.05 in 325739 kip-in matches (1.3.85 x f'c x 0.2.3 ksi 6.28 in2 (for trial and error purpose) 1772.30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .764 ksi 325739 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .3 in3 1.5.775 x b + 0.2 Mcr 1.65 in 10.749 ksi = fr = 0.PBS&J Post.27 in2 with Ø = 1.48 in 266 ksi 455129 kip-in matches 1.2.3.30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = 10.775 x b + 0.6 Mpa = 72.yt) x yb / I = 103746.

30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .09 in2 (for trial and error purpose) 4241.5) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .2 Mcr = 1.5 = Fctt = fpe = 0.5 ksi 1200 in 0 1200 in 212.3.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.2) 172.80 in (for trial and error purpose) 13800.75 x fpu .0 x (1.979 ksi c = (Aps x fps) / (0.13 in 218.2 ksi 306438 kip-in matches (1.0 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 7.00 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.94 in f'c = 7.2 1006 2 kips (see hand calculations) 172.0 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .0 ksi 12.34 in4 yb = 45.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT . 243.0 ksi 924408 kip-in NO CONVERGENCE ACHIEVED 0.3 kip-in Δσp = 15.237 x f'c0.30 ksi = li = Ns = le = 2 li / (2 + Ns) = Assume fps = fr = 0.00 in bf = 336.c) / le .0 ksi fy = fpu = 60 ksi 270 ksi 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.7.0 ksi = 4.23 x f'c0.70 x b) = fps = Min(fpe + 900 x (dp .5) = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.a / 2) Assume fps = 218.5 = 1.331 ksi 306438 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses A-26 .0 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 24. Buckley.4. Inc BY: P.37 x f'c0.609 ksi 1006.2 fr + 1.fpe) fct = 0.627 ksi fr = 0.c) / le .M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.yt) x yb / I = 99387.yt) x yb / I = 0.3.2) 80.16 in2 I = 4565870.54 in2 c = (Aps x fps) / (0.3.2.PBS&J Post.9 (AASHTO 5.30 x fck2/3 = 7.584 ksi (AASHTO 5.7.2.5 = Sc = I / yb = 0.85 x f'c x 0. 243.70 x b) = fps = Min(fpe + 900 x (dp .3 kips 2.0 ksi z = 0.2.2 ksi 3.2 fr + 1.75 x fpu .30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .5.9 58.12 in 212.2 Mcr Given dp = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 64.2 Fct / (fps .7 in3 1.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.85 x f'c x 0.SPAN-BY-SPAN SEGMENTAL BRIDGE GIRDER SBS1 h= 72.85 x f'c x 0.83 in 218.70 x b) = fps = Min(fpe + 900 x (dp .0 ksi Aps = 26.c) / le .a / 2) fpe = 0.0 fpe) x Sc c = (Aps x fps) / (0.a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.0 ksi matches assumed fps 50 Mpa 0.5) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .00 in A = 6259.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses (for trial and error purpose) 4.1 Mpa = 0.59 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.75 x fpu .a / 2) = with Ø = 0.0 x (1.591 ksi Mrep = Sc x fctm = 58693.75 x fpu . Schuh and Jernigan.6) 1021239 kip-in (AASHTO 5.30 ksi = Assume fps = 218. 243.32 in 67.2 fr + 1.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.4.

Inc BY: P.75 x fpu .2.6) 2385924 kip-in (AASHTO 5.40 in (for trial and error purpose) 24150.2 fr + 1.30 ksi = li = Ns = le = 2 li / (2 + Ns) = Assume fps = fr = 0.51 in2 A= I = 11744489.30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .30 ksi = Assume fps = 213.237 x f'c0.23 x f'c0.5 ksi 1800 in 0 1800 in 209.8 ksi matches assumed fps 50 Mpa 0.2 fr + 1.9 77.a / 2) fpe = 0.49 in f'c = 7.5) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .85 x f'c x 0.4.8 ksi 3.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses (for trial and error purpose) 3.108 ksi (AASHTO 5.5 = 1.1 Mpa = 0.2) 140.30 in2 c = (Aps x fps) / (0.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .2.85 x f'c x 0.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .00 in 9354.a / 2) = with Ø = 0.979 ksi c = (Aps x fps) / (0.5 = Sc = I / yb = 0.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO. 243.5 = Fctt = fpe = 0.2 ksi 2157183 kip-in NO CONVERGENCE ACHIEVED assuming 30 ksi losses 0.yt) x yb / I = 179332.6 kip-in Δσp = 15.2 fr + 1.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.6 in3 1.00 in bf = 540.5.fpe) fct = 0.a / 2) Assume fps = 213.5) = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.yt) x yb / I = 0.7.74 in 213.2.37 x f'c0.75 x fpu .00 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.30 x fck2/3 = 7.627 ksi fr = 0.2 Mcr Given dp = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 86.75 x fpu .: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .0 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .591 ksi Mrep = Sc x fctm = 105904.9 (AASHTO 5.80 in2 (for trial and error purpose) 6791.0 x (1.8 kips 2.0 ksi = 4.3.7 1352 7 kips (see hand calculations) 172.2 Mcr = 1. Buckley.70 x b) = fps = Min(fpe + 900 x (dp . Schuh and Jernigan.0 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 39.2) 172.85 x f'c x 0.4.0 x (1. 243.609 ksi 1352.843 ksi 644736 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses A-27 .3.c) / le .8 ksi Aps = 39.c) / le .2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.70 x b) = fps = Min(fpe + 900 x (dp .2 ksi 13.8 ksi 644736 kip-in matches (1.SPAN-BY-SPAN SEGMENTAL BRIDGE GIRDER SBS2 h= 96.74 in 213.3. 243.5) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .70 x b) = fps = Min(fpe + 900 x (dp .0 ksi z = 0.2 Fct / (fps .c) / le .02 in 209.0 ksi fy = fpu = 60 ksi 270 ksi 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.37 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.76 in 90.75 x fpu .PBS&J Post.0 kips 10.0 fpe) x Sc c = (Aps x fps) / (0.7.52 in4 yb = 65.

2 Fct / (fpu .75 x fpu .78 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.2 Mcr = 1.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .4. Schuh and Jernigan.5) = z = 0.29 in f'c = fy = fpu = 7.a / 2) = 266.4 x 270.1 fpe) x Sc = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .3.23 x f'c = Fct = fpe = 0.a / 2) fps = fpu x (1 .5 fr = 0.5.70 x b + 0.75 x fpu .2 Mcr 0.32 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.65 in4 yb = 44.0 x (1.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses 7.52 in 264 ksi 461563 kip-in matches 1.yt) x yb / I = 0.00 in 336.30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0. 72.2.0 x (1.7 ksi 2.9 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.1 in3 1. Inc BY: P.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 14.BALANCED CANTILEVER BRIDGE GIRDER SBC1 72.a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.0.: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .fpe) fct = 0.80 in (for trial and error purpose) 5058.627 ksi fr = 0.3.2.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.a / 2) 0.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = 0.5 ksi = Mrep = Sc x fctm = 70262.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 64.2) 29.30 x fck 2/3 0.0 ksi = 4.591 ksi 72.0.95 (for trial and error purpose) 2550.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = 0.2 fr + 1. Buckley.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.yt) x yb / I = 118979.62 in2 with Ø = 0.2) 5.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .3.237 x f'c = 1.2 fr + 1.75 x fpu .4.7.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .31 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.95 (AASHTO 5.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .136 ksi 238244 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .0 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi h= bf = 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.2 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 2.32 in 16.70 x b + 0.2 kips 15 31 i 2 15.30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .00 in A = 7471.2.6) 461563 kip-in (AASHTO 5.82 in 238244 kip-in matches (1.979 ksi c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.2 fr + 1.PBS&J Post.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.254 ksi (AASHTO 5.85 x f'c x 0.85 x f'c x 0.1 fpe) x Sc A-28 .2 kips 1.5 0.00 in2 I = 5269583.5 58.7.1 Mpa = 50 Mpa 0.609 ksi 1244.

75 x fpu .fpe) fct = 0. Schuh and Jernigan. Inc BY: P.627 ksi fr = 0.: JOB: NCHRP 12-80 OF: JOB NO.5 ksi = Mrep = Sc x fctm = 174034.609 ksi 1832.37 x f'c = Sc = I / yb = 0.a / 2) = 268.2 Ø Mn ≥ 1.5 fr = 0.95 (AASHTO 5.319 ksi (AASHTO 5.0 ksi 60 ksi 270 ksi h= bf = 1) AASHTO LRFD 5.8 kip-in Δσp = Min(0.75 x fpu .2 fr + 1.30 ksi) = fpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .30 x fck 2/3 0.4 kips 22 55 i 2 22.4 x 270.40 in2 Pf = Aps x (0. 72.20 in 24.2 x Sc x (fr + fcpe) = Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .85 x f'c x 0.7.237 x f'c = 1.2 kips assuming 30 ksi losses 2.2.75 x fpu .a / 2) fps = fpu x (1 .a / 2) = 2) LEONHARDT Aps ≥ 1.85 x f'c x 0.2 Mcr 0.23 x f'c = Fct = fpe = 0.1 fpe) x Sc = 97.0 ksi = 4.67 in A-29 .2 fr + 1.30 ksi) = fcpe = Pf / A + Pf x (dp .: CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT .3.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = fps = fpu x (1 .yt) x yb / I = 294700.4.2) 5.5 0.BALANCED CANTILEVER BRIDGE GIRDER SBC2 120.7.58 in4 yb = 78.78 in f'c = fy = fpu = 7.1 Mpa = 50 Mpa 0.4.2 Mcr = 1.yt) x yb / I = 0.1 fpe) x Sc Assume min Aps = 22.70 x b + 0.1 in3 1.9 x d = Ap = 4) PROPOSED METHOD Ø Mn ≥ 1.0 x (1.2.5 0.PBS&J Post.M CHECKED: DATE: 10/08 CLIENT: DATE: SHEET NO.28 x Aps x fpu / dp) = 0.2.14 in 266 ksi 1166130 kip-in matches 1.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .3.979 ksi c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.5) = z = 0.00 in (for trial and error purpose) 7484.3.5 ksi assuming 30 ksi losses 7.00 in 540.70 in2 with Ø = 0.00 in 12020.8 kips 1.70 x b + 0.0 x (1.1 fpe) x Sc 2. Buckley.2) 43.55 in2 (see hand calculations) 172.2 Fct / (fpu .1 ksi 609881 kip-in matches (1.197 ksi 609881 kip-in assuming 30 ksi losses Ø Mn = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .5.591 ksi 72.2 fr + 1.28 x c / dp) = Ø x Aps x fps x (dp .39 in2 Pf = Aps x (0.30 ksi = Aps = 3) EUROCODE Ap ≥ Mrep / (z x Δσp) fck = f'c = fctm = 0.95 (for trial and error purpose) 3864.08 in2 A= I = 23216472.a / 2) c = (Aps x fpu) / (0.2 Mcr Given d p = Assume min Aps = with Ø = 108.0.0.6) 1166130 kip-in (AASHTO 5.

Appendix B Design Examples .

thick. Seventy-two inch bulb-tee girders are featured in this example since the bottom flange tends to be relatively narrow.B.0 ft on center. thus limiting the amount of rotational ductility that can be sustained in the negative bending region. The 6. B-1   .     Figure B-1.5 ft. Precast Concrete Girder Made Continuous with a Composite Deck B. as shown in Figure B-1.0 in.0 ft wide and 6. This three-span precast/prestressed girder example features a single long span in the middle along with two short side spans. The deck is 8. It is intended that the side spans are short enough so the minimum flexural provisions control the design in the positive bending regions.1.1 MULTI-SPAN PRECAST CONCRETE GIRDER MADE CONTINUOUS WITH COMPOSITE DECK This is one of the most common types of structures used for freeway bridges and overpasses.1 Description of Bridge Bridge dimensions The bridge is 42.83 ft deep at the supports.0 ft deep bulb-tee girders are spaced at 9. A uniform depth is used to reduce set-up costs and improve aesthetics. The columns are circular with a diameter of 5.

B.5in (composite section) b f  26in (girder bottom flange width) B-2   .500ksi Prestress force The working prestressing force is designed with the software Conspan and is estimated to be 325 kips for an interior girder in Spans 1 and 3 and 1.25M ADL  DC  1.5M ADL  DW  1.5ksi (deck) f y  60ksi E s  29.000ksi f pu  270ksi E ps  28.1.50  (387)  1.855k  ft Section properties: hnc  6 ft  72in (non-composite section) hc  6.694k  ft Mu Mu Mu StrengthI StrengthI StrengthI  1.146 kips for an interior girder in Span 2.694)  3.5ksi (girders) f ' ci  5.75M HL 93  1.71 ft  80.5ksi (girders) f ' c  4.2 Minimum Flexural Reinforcement – Modified LRFD Method   At the outside face of support (negative moment):   Design moments (per interior girder):   M SW  0k  ft M DL  PC  0k  ft M deck  0k  ft M ADL  DC  248k  ft M ADL  DW  387k  ft M HL 93  1.25  (248)  1.75  (1.Material properties f ' c  7.

16 ft 4 (composite section) Anc  5.7.5  26   4. minimum reinforcement is not required for negative bending.80  ) 2  0.85f b    0.88in    c   c    76.46in 2 .88   The net tensile strain is greater than 0.3.88  Therefore.0075. As f y a M n  As f y (d  )  As f y (d  ) 2 2  0.85 f ' c b The section is tension-controlled and   0.6in (distance from section CG to bottom fiber – non-composite section) y b  55. Summary: Pf  325kip As  11.90 d  76. per the proposed revised Article 5.5  26 Solve the quadratic equation for As  11.80in assuming #11 mild steel reinforcement As  60 3.003   0.  s  0.90  As  60  (76. The net tensile strain is:  As f y   11.5 for redistribution.855  12  0.85  7.46in 2 mild steel reinforcement in deck. Therefore.85 2  7.h f  6in (compression flange) I nc  26.2.7.09 ft 2 (composite section) yb nc c  36. At 0.33 ft 4 (non-composite section) I c  54.3.003  where c    0.38in (distance from section CG to bottom fiber – composite section) Required flexural reinforcement: The prestressing capacity is neglected for the negative moment capacity.33 ft 2 (non-composite section) Ac  10.5 Span 1 (positive moment): Design moments (per interior girder): M SW  354k  ft B-3   .46  60  d c  s  0.3. which satisfies Article 5.8  4.044 4.

33 ft 4 (non-composite section) I c  54.5  78)  34.9 M ADL  DC  0.16 ft 4 (composite section) Anc  5.10in (prestressing eccentricity) Pf  325kips (prestressing force after all losses per Conspan analysis) nc B-4   .9  (38)  0.25( M SW  M DL  PC  M deck )  0.65  (60)  1.38in (distance from section CG to bottom fiber – composite section) Minimum reinforcement by the proposed method: M n  M fcr where M fcr   3 ( 1 f r   2 f cpe )S c  M dnc (   3  1.5in (composite section) b f  9 ft (deck effective width for an interior girder) h f  8in (compression flange) I nc  26.6in (distance from section CG to bottom fiber – non-composite section) y b  55.71 ft  80.33 ft 2 (non-composite section) Ac  10.33M u S nc  f r  0.649ksi  2  1 .5  0.09 ft 2 (composite section) yb nc c  36.036  2.0 for prestressed structures  1  1 .237 f ' c  0.036k  ft Mu Mu Mu StrengthI StrengthI StrengthI  1.75  1.6  (80.1 d p  78in (distance from P/S CG to top deck) enc  y b  (hc  d p )  36.237  7.75M HL 93  1.M DL  PC  27 k  ft M deck  408k  ft M ADL  DC  38k  ft M ADL  DW  60k  ft M HL 93  1.65M ADL  DW  1.6   Sc  1) and M n  1.25  (354  27  408)  0.724k  ft Section properties: hnc  6 ft  72in (non-composite section) hc  6.

724k  ft  1.28  dp 78 Check the force equilibrium: Flange force C f  0.623k  ft so M fcr  3.28 Assume rectangular section behavior: A ps f pu 1.05  ( f ' c 4)  0.13  9  12  466.10  36.33  12 4 Sc  M ndc S nc  Ic c yb  M SW  M DL  PC  M deck  354  27  408  789k  ft I nc yb nc  54.6in  strands) 0.85 f ' c ab f  0.85 f ' c  1b f  kAps 78 dp a   1c  0.166ksi 2 5.33  12 26.736  268.85  4.279  789  (  1)  3.5kip within 0. the section behavior is rectangular.5  4)  0.33M u StrengthI  3. Calculation of M n ps from prestressing: ps Calculate M n A ps  per the simplified method.279in 3 55.85  4.724  3.638k  ft  1.166)  M fcr  3.85  0.37  1.37 )  268.28  1.5  1. c 1.623k  ft controls the design.6 20.736  270   1.825  1.05  (4.1  1.16  12 4  20. Pi 351.917in 3 36.917 M fcr  1.33  2. B-5   .f cpe  Pf Anc  Pf enc y b I nc nc  325 325  34.7  466.07% of C f  equilibrium is satisfied.638k  ft  M u 1.13in  h f  8in Therefore.638k  ft 12 14.825 k  0.6  0.8kip Prestressing force T ps  A ps f ps  1.5  0.75  270 1  0.279 20.75  f pu 0.85  0.736  0.7 ksi f ps  f pu (1  k )  270  (1  0.6   1.5   1.33M u StrengthI StrengthI  2.736in 2 (8-0.38  26.649  1.0  (1.33  12 4  14.825  9  12  0.37in c 270 f pu 0.

5  1.4ksi )  270  (1  0.00 Mn ps  A ps f ps d p  0.5kip f ps  f pu (1  k Prestressing force T ps  A ps f ps  2. 0.41in  h f  8in therefore the section behavior is rectangular.00 M n ps  1.17in 2 (10-0. Try 2 additional strands with the same eccentricity at mid-span.751k  ft 2 2 The section is tension-controlled and   1.85  4. increasing the amount of prestressing strands does not increase the minimum reinforcement demand.736 StrengthI Since 1.825  9  12  0.751k  ft  1.17  270 c   1.434in 2 of additional prestress strand area required to meet the Modified Method Minimum Reinforcement provisions.5kip equal to C f  equilibrium is satisfied. B-6   . Pf  325  Assume a rectangular section behavior: A ps f pu 2.736  268.33M u StrengthI  3.751  3.33M u StrengthI  3. c 1.17  268.7  78  0.010k  ft  1.736  2  0.623k  ftt Summary: Pf  325kip A ps  2  0.5  1.33M u controls the design.623k  ft so additional strands are required.85  4.17  268.5  1.217  2.00  3.17  0.28  dp 78 Check the force equilibrium: Flange force C f  0.17  406kip (prestressing force after all losses) 1.010k  ft 2 M n ps  1.85 f ' c a 2 b f 0.2 The section is tension-controlled and   1.5  0.85 f ' c ab f  0.412  9  12 ps M n  A ps f ps d p   (2.85 f ' c  1b f  kAps 78 dp a   1c  0.28  2.010k  ft M n ps  3.4  582.217  0.825  1.13 2  9  12 )  12  3.4  78  )  12  3.6in  strands) 2.00  3.41  9  12  582.71  1.71in f pu 270 0.85 f ' c a 2 b f  (1.71 )  268.85  4.85  4. A ps  1.010  3.

Moment Profiles for the Precast Girder Example   B-7   .Figure B-2.

B-8   .

To control camber and reduce friction losses. It is anticipated that minimum flexural reinforcement will control the design of this mild reinforcement in these side spans. As with the first example. it is more economical to design the post-tensioning cables for service loads. Because the bridge is monolithic.0 ft. at the bents.     Figure D-3. and add mild reinforcement in localized areas as needed to resist strength limit state loads including minimum reinforcement provisions.0 ft on center and are flared from 12 in. at the abutments and the bents. the side spans are far shorter than the end spans while the depth of the bridge is constant for along the entire length. Material Properties B-9   .2 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE BOX GIRDER A three-span cast-in-place concrete box girder bridge that is commonly built in California and Nevada is the subject of this design example. the post-tensioning tendon midspan eccentricity is reduced in the shorter spans were flexural demands are reduced.B. For this type of structure.0 ft wide and 6. The girders are spaced at 11. The columns are circular with a diameter of 6. The soffit is flared to 12 in. the bridge resists all loading continuously including any prestress forces.1 Bridge Layout The bridge is 42. Cast-in-Place Box Girder B 2. to 18 in. All prestress consists of continuous post-tensioning that runs full length of the bridge.5 ft deep.

821)  1.f ' c  4ksi E c  3.500ksi Prestress Forces The allowable tension stress is limited to 0 under permanent loads and 0. The jacking force is designed under the Service III limit state and is estimated with the software CT Bridge to be 6.836k  ft M P 15  15.00 M SecP / S  1.200 kips.75  (8.35M P 15  1.25  (15.25M DC  1.836)  38.19 f ' c (ksi) under the sum of the permanent and live loads.653k  ft M DW  1.00  (568)  1.653)  1.50 M DW  1.2 Minimum Flexural Reinforcement – Modified LRFD Method At the outside face of support (negative moment):   Design moments: M DC  15.35  (15.75M HL 93  1.50  (1.653)  1.00 M SecP / S  1.821)  1. B2.25M DC  1.000ksi f pu  270ksi E ps  28.5 ft  78in h f  12in (compression flange) b f  28.25  (15.529k  ft Mu Mu Mu Mu Mu Mu StrengthI StrengthI StrengthI  1.329k  ft  1.50  (1.5 ft  342in (compression flange) B-10   .50 M DW  1.00  (568)  1.830k  ft controls the design.529)  43. StrengthII StrengthII StrengthII Section properties: h  6.821k  ft M SecP / S  568k  ft M HL 93  8.644ksi f y  60ksi E s  29.

Pjack 6.200 A ps    30.031.78  12 2 At limit state: (d p  c) (62.75  270 d p  62.1kip equal to C f  equilibrium is satisfied.94 2 )  0.bw  72in I  538.031.85 Assume c  8.031.9   0.03 ft 4 A  90. The strain of the prestress tendons consists of the following: Pf 5.0257  0.500  30.00576  0.30)  ps 3   c  0.01973 8.85  4  7.00576 Effective prestress at service load:  ps1  E ps A ps 28.94in (prestressing eccentricity) Pf  5.78 ft 2 y b  40.003   0.62in 2 0.62  267.9  8.5kip Prestressing force T ps  A ps f ps  30.30in a   1c  0.75  f pu 0.90  40.644  90.203.00017  0.9ksi 0.04 0.   B-11   .203.04in (distance from section CG to top fiber) Calculation of M n ps from prestressing: ps The calculation of M n per the strain-compatibility method is an iterative process.9kips (prestressing force after all losses per CT Bridge analysis) 1  0.007  ps  0.9 21.62 At decompression:  ps 2  Pf E c Ac (1  e2 5.04  270   267.0257  0.01973  0.30 c Thus  ps   ps1   ps 2   ps 3  0.96  21.85  8.78  12 2 ( ) 90.0086 f ps  f pu  0.00017 ) (1  538.96in (distance from section CG to bottom fiber) y t  37.90in (distance from P/S CG to bottom fiber) e  d p  y b  62.05  342  8.85 f ' c ab f  0.03  12 4 r2 3.05in  h f  12in therefore the section behavior is rectangular.30  7.90  8.007 Check the force equilibrium: Flange force C f  0.

Mn

ps

 ps 3

0.85  4  7.05 2  342 )  12  40,586k  ft 2 2  0.01973  0.005  the section is tension-controlled and   0.95  A ps f ps d p   (30.62  267.9  62.90 

0.85 f ' c a 2 b f

M n ps  0.95  40,586  38,557k  ft  M u StrengthII  43,830k  ft so mild steel is required.
Required flexural reinforcement:

The calculation of M n is an iterative process.

d s  74.68in assuming #6 mild steel reinforcement
Try As  16.67in 2 and assume c  9.30in a   1c  0.85  9.30  7.91in  h f  12in therefore the section behavior is rectangular. The strain of the prestress tendons consists of the following: Effective prestress at service load:  ps1  0.00576 At decompression:  ps 2  0.00017 At limit state: (d p  c) (62.90  9.30)  ps 3   c  0.003   0.0173 9.30 c Thus  ps   ps1   ps 2   ps 3  0.00576  0.00017  0.0173  0.0232  0.0086
f ps  f pu  0.04 0.04  270   267.5ksi 0.0232  0.007  ps  0.007

t  c
 

fy (d s  c) 60 (74.68  9.30)  0.003   0.0211    0.00207 so f s  f y  60ksi 9.30 c E s 29,000

Check the force equilibrium: Flange force C f  0.85 f ' c ab f  0.85  4  7.91  342  9,191.9kip Prestressing force T ps  A ps f ps  30.62  267.5  8,191.9kip Mild steel force Tmild  As f y  16.67  60  1,000.2kip Tension T ps  Tmild  8,191.9  1,000.2  9,192.1kip within 0.002% of compression C f  equilibrium is satisfied.
M n  A ps f ps d p  As f y d s 

0.85 f ' c a 2 b f 2

0.85  4  7.912  342 M n  (30.62  267.5  62.90  16.67  60  74.68  )  12  46,137 k  ft 2  t  0.0211  0.005  the section is tension-controlled and   0.95
B-12  

Also, the net tensile strain is greater than 0.0075, which satisfies Article 5.7.3.5 for redistribution. Therefore, per the proposed revised Article 5.7.3.3.2, minimum reinforcement is not required to be checked for negative bending. M n  0.95  46,137  43,830k  ft matches M u StrengthII
Summary: Pjack  6,200kip

As  16.67in 2 mild steel reinforcement
At 0.7 Span 1 (positive moment): Design moments:

M DC  6,148k  ft M DW  730k  ft M SecP / S  25k  ft M HL 93  3,916k  ft M P 15  5,242k  ft
Mu Mu Mu Mu Mu Mu
StrengthI StrengthI StrengthI

 0.9 M DC  0.65M DW  1.00 M SecP / S  1.75M HL 93  0.9  (6,148)  0.65  (730)  1.00  25  1.75  3,916  871k  ft  0.9 M DC  0.65M DW  1.00 M SecP / S  1.35M P 15  0.9  (6,148)  0.65  (730)  1.00  25  1.35  5,242  1,094k  ft

StrengthII StrengthII StrengthII

Section properties:

h  6.5 ft  78in h f  8.63in (compression flange)
b f  42 ft  504in (compression flange) bw  48in I  446.45 ft 4 A  71.24 ft 2
y b  45.11in (distance from section CG to bottom fiber)
B-13  

y t  32.89in (distance from section CG to top fiber) Minimum reinforcement by the Modified LRFD Method:

M n  M fcr where M fcr   3 ( 1 f r   2 f cpe ) S  and M n  1.33M u  3  1.0 for prestressed structures  1  1 .6
f r  0.237 f ' c  0.237  4  0.474ksi

 2  1 .1
d p  28.15in (distance from P/S CG to top fiber) e  d p  y t  28.15  32.89  4.74in (prestressing eccentricity) Pf  4,932.9kips (prestressing force after all losses per CT Bridge analysis)
f cpe  Pf A

( Pf e  M SecP / S ) y b
I

4,932.9 (4,932.9  (4.74)  25  12)  45.11  0.365ksi  2 71.24  12 446.45  12 4

S

446.45  12 4 I   205,223in 3 45.11 yb

M fcr  1.0  (1.6  0.474  1.1  0.365) 
M fcr  19,836k  ft  1.33M u
1.33M u
StrengthII

StrengthII

205,223 StrengthII  19,836k  ft  M u  1,094k  ft 12  1.33  1,094  1,455k  ft so

 1,455k  ft controls the design.
ps

Calculation of M n

from prestressing:
ps

The calculation of M n per the strain-compatibility method is an iterative process. Pjack 6,200 A ps    30.62in 2 0.75  f pu 0.75  270

1  0.85
Assume c  5.60in a  1c  0.85  5.60  4.76in  h f  8.63in therefore the section behavior is rectangular. The strain of the prestress tendons consists of the following: Pf 4,932.9 Effective prestress at service load:  ps1    0.00565 E ps A ps 28,500  30.62

B-14  

00014  0.85 f ' c ab f  0.154.637 k  ft  1.60)  ps 3   c  0.15  0.76 2  504 )  12  17.7kip within 0.85  4  4.3  28.85  4  4.01208 c 5.007  ps  0.04 0.3ksi 0.24  12 2 446.62  266.01208  0.62  266.95 .33M u StrengthII  1.24  12 2 At limit state: (d p  c) (28.9 (4.512k  ft 2 2  0.At decompression: Pf e2 4. Mn ps  ps 3 0. B-15   .455k  ft so no additional mild steel reinforcement is required.0086 f ps  f pu  0.  A ps f ps d p   (30.3kip Prestressing force T ps  A ps f ps  30.155.644  71.15  5.00014 E c Ac r 3.005  the section is tension-controlled and   0.04  270   266.512  16.45  12 4 ( ) 71.007% of C f  equilibrium is satisfied.003   0.60 Thus  ps   ps1   ps 2   ps 3  0.95  17.0179  0.932.01208  0.74) 2  ps 2  (1  2 )  (1  )  0.00565  0.3  8.76  504  8.007 Check the force equilibrium: Flange force C f  0.0179  0.85 f ' c a 2 b f M n ps  0.

  Figure B-4. CIP Box Girder Moment Profiles B-16   .

3 SPAN-BY-SPAN SEGMENTAL BRIDGE WITH EXTERNAL TENDONS INTRODUCTION A two-span precast segmental bridge is the subject of this design example. The length of Span 2 is approximately 115'-6" and the bridge is prestressed by means of external unbonded tendons as shown in the tendon layout in Figure B-7. An elevation view of this bridge is shown in Figure B-5. Only Span 2 of this bridge is the subject of this example. The bridge chosen for this example is part of the I4/Lee Roy Selmon Expressway in Tampa. FL. Each of the two spans in this bridge is simply supported.B. The deck width is variable as indicated in Figure B-5. Precast Segmental Span-By-Span Bridge Design Example For Span 2. B-17   . Figure B-5. The bridge is built using the span-by-span construction method. This represents a relatively large depth-to-span ratio bridge in which the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement could control the design. the cross section consists of a single-cell box section with long overhangs as shown in Figure B-6.

888 ksi B-18   . Prestressing Tendon Layout (Span 2) SPECIFICATIONS This example is designed based on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 4th Edition. Cross section (Span 2) Figure B-7. 2007. MATERIAL PROPERTIES f ' c  6.Figure B-6.5 ksi E c  4.

the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement is not satisfied and the prestressing will be controlled by the MFR requirement.33Mu controls over the 1. which could result in the flexural design being controlled by the MFR requirement. the total number of external unbonded strands in this bridge is 144-0. which is higher than the factored moment. the cracking moment based on the proposed modified LRFD method controls over 1. Longitudinal analysis and design of this bridge included concrete stresses under service loads.33Mu. Thus. whereas the span length is about 115 ft only. principal stresses in the box girder webs and minimum flexural reinforcement requirements. However.6"  strands and the fourth tendon is composed of 15-0. Thus. Alternative design to satisfy the MFR requirement will be discussed in the following sections. Except for the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement. the 1. However. B-19   . shear capacity. MOMENT DIAGRAMS Figure B-8 shows the bending moments along the length of the single span bridge (Span 2). three of these tendons are composed of 19-0. It is clear that the proposed provisions significantly reduce the minimum required design moments (MFR).f y  60 ksi E s  29. in the middle third of the span length. at all sections. It should be noted that depth of the box girder is 9 ft. The figure shows the minimum design moments due to cracking according to the current AASHTO LRFD Specifications and based on the proposed method (Modified LRFD).20Mcr (AASHTO LRFD Specifications). design is satisfactory with the use of four external tendons on each side of the box section.6" . the superstructure is relatively deep.500 ksi PRESTRESS DESIGN For precast segmental bridges with no bonded reinforcement or bonded tendons crossing the joints.000 ksi f pu  270 ksi E ps  28. Figure B-8 also shows the factored flexural moment capacity.6"  strands. flexural capacity. no tensile stresses are allowed at all segment-to-segment joints under service loads. Mu. in the middle 80 ft of the span length. The figure also indicates that along the entire span length.

M DC  24. ½" sacrificial wearing surface. Construction stages and time-dependent effects were considered in the analysis.677 k  ft Self wt. Design moments: Sign convention is positive for moment resulting in tensile stress at bottom surface (opposite to the sign shown in Figure B-8). Cracking Moment.Figure B-8. Factored Moment and Flexural Capacity of a Precast Segmental Span-By-Span Bridge Example Analysis of this bridge was done using LARSA 4D.560 k  ft B-20   . Below are hand calculations for the midspan section of the bridge. diaphragms & barriers No utilities or future wearing surface M DW  0 k  ft No secondary effects from prestressing for a single span bridge M SecP / S  0 k  ft M TU  0 k  ft No moments from uniform temperature rise for a single span bridge M TG  0 k  ft No moments from temperature gradient for a single span bridge M HL 93 I  8.

which may result in slightly different values from those calculated by LARSA 4D.25M DC  1.217 in 2  31.5 in (minimum thickness of compression flange) b f  58. Total of 144-0. The flexural capacity for the midspan section is calculated below using the AASHTO LRFD equations.59 in (tendon eccentricity)  1  0.898 in 4 A  91.631 kip-ft.88 in 2 y b  78.00 M SecP / S  1.6"  strands (external unbonded) A ps  144  0.560)  0. the factored flexural moment capacity is 47.16 in (distance from section CG to top fiber) Calculation of M n from prestressing: In Figure B-8.75  (8.75 in (distance from P/S CG to top fiber) e  d p  y t  94.75  29.Mu  Mu StrengthI  1. the moment capacity is calculated using LARSA 4D.106.50 M TG M u  1.247 kips  167.25  (24.248 in 2 Length of external tendon (approximate): li  114.97 ft 4  17.677)  1.16  65.00  (0)  1.247 kips f pe  Pf A ps  5.5 in (compression flange width) bw  30 in I  819.826 k  ft Section properties: h  9 ft  108 in The sacrificial surface is included as external load only h f  9. At the midspan section.05 ( f c '  4)  0.84 in (distance from section CG to bottom fiber) y t  29.9 ksi 31.50 M DW  1.50  (0)  1.75M HL 93 I  0.248 in 2 d p  94.50  (0)  0.002.725 Effective prestressing force in external tendons (from LARSA 4D): Pf  5.02 ft 2  13.50  (0) M u  45.85  0.625 ft  703.83 ft (2  N i ) B-21   .50 M TU  0.83 ft Number of support hinges crossed by external tendons (single span): N i  0 Effective length of external tendons: li le  2  114.

Thus.898 17.663 in 3 S 78.24  6. Thus. Minimum reinforcement by the proposed method (Modified LRFD): M n  M fcr    or    M n  1. Tensile force at ultimate moment: T  A ps f ps  7. use of equations for rectangular sections is justified.88 17.84     2.247  65. It should be noted that the above-calculated factored moment capacity does not take into account the reduction in moment arm of the external tendons due to deflection of the superstructure.00    (proposed for bridges with only unbounded tendons)  3  1. the predicted flexural capacity will be less than 50.247 5.90 (segmental bridges with unbonded tendons) Factored flexural moment capacity: a  M n   A ps f ps (d p  )  50.612 ksi  2  1.20 (proposed for precast segmental bridges)  f cr  0.00 (tensile resistance is provided by prestressing steel) Concrete compressive stress at bottom fiber due to prestressing (after losses): Pf Pf e y b 5. c A ps f ps Stress in external tendons at ultimate moment: ( d p  c) f ps  f pe  900  228 ksi  f py  243 ksi le This stress is the same as assumed above. where   M fcr   3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S    1  1.5  0.53 in ' 0. no iterations are needed.898 I   215.139 kip-ft.85 f c 1 b f Depth of neutral axis is smaller than deck thickness.106.002.33M u  .633 kip-ft (about 5% difference). Thus.Depth of compression zone: Assume f ps  228 ksi  f py  243 ksi  2.002.124.5 kips Depth of equivalent rectangular stress block: a   1 c  1.83 in Resistance factor:   0.84 yb B-22   .139 kip  ft 2 LARSA 4D calculated the factored moment capacity as 47.24 f ' c  0.000 ksi f cpe  A I 13.59  78.

826  60.826 k  ft   12  3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S  49. the actual factored moment capacity should be less than 50.142 k  ft  controls the design. The flexural moment capacity calculated by LARSA 4D is used in this example.142 k  ft The factored flexural moment capacity calculated by LARSA 4D (used for the plot in Figure B8) is smaller than the 50. factored moment and factored moment capacity for the midspan section of this bridge as a function of the number of strands in the external tendons.6"  strands from 144 to 160.663  49.1  2.20  0.33M u  1. the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement is not satisfied.000) x 215.142 k  ft  1.139 k-ft as a result of the reduction in the internal moment arm of the section due to vertical downward deflection of the girder at midspan.33  45. the proposed MRF requirements will be satisfied. the factored flexural moment capacity is about 3 percent below the flexural capacity required by the proposed MFR requirements.142 k  ft  M u  45.633 k  ft   3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S  49. B-23   . Re-Design of Prestressing Steel: Figure B-9 shows variation of cracking moment.  M n   3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S      MFR Requirement M n  47. The figure indicates that with increasing the number of 0.949 k  ft  3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S  49. 3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S  1.612  1. However. Thus. However.0  (1. The moment capacities represented in Figure B-9 are based on LARSA 4D calculations.139 kip-ft factored moment capacity calculated above.

the curve representing minimum design moment in Figure B-9 does not intersect with the curve representing the moment capacity. Variation of Cracking Moment. B-24   .33Mu controls the MFR requirement).Figure B-9. Figure B-9 indicates that such convergence is possible with the use of the proposed equation. Factored Moment and Moment Capacity with Number of Strands in External Tendons It is interesting to note that with the current AASHTO LRFD MFR requirements. which indicates that no convergence may be obtained to satisfy the MFR by increasing the number of strands (unless 1.

Precast Segmental Cantilever Bridge Design Example The cross section consists of the single-cell box section shown in Figure B-11. respectively. The deck width is 30'-1" and is constant along the entire length of the bridge.B. 186'-9" and 145'-6" for Spans 1 through 4. The bridge chosen for this example is part of the I4/Lee Roy Selmon Expressway in Tampa. Elevation view of the bridge is shown in Figure B-10.4 BALANCED CANTILEVER BRIDGE WITH INTERNAL TENDONS INTRODUCTION A four-span precast segmental bridge is the subject of this design example. with a total bridge length of 665'-7". The bridge is built using the cantilever construction method. FL. B-25   . The approximate lengths of spans are 147'-3". B-10. 186'-1".

Tendon Layout for the Precast Segmental Cantilever Bridge Design Example B-26     . Continuity prestressing steel consists of external (unbounded) tendons as shown in Figures B-12 and B-13. There are a total of three external tendons next to each of the two webs (Tendons T3. T4 & T5 in Figures B-12 and B-13). Figure B-12.Figure B-11. Cross section (Span 2) The prestressing steel consists of typical internal (bonded) tendons in the deck slab.

Tendon Layout for the Precast Segmental Cantilever Bridge Design Example SPECIFICATIONS This example is designed based on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 4th Edition. Longitudinal analysis and design of this bridge included concrete stresses under service loads.000 ksi f pu  270 ksi E ps  28. 2007.500 ksi PRESTRESS DESIGN For precast segmental bridges. flexural capacity. MATERIAL PROPERTIES f ' c  8.Figure B-13.589 ksi f y  60 ksi E s  29.5 ksi E c  5. no tensile stresses are allowed at all segment-to-segment joints under service loads. principal stresses in the box girder webs B-27   . shear capacity.

Figure B-14 also shows the factored flexural moment capacity. Figure B-14 shows the negative bending moments along the length of Spans 3 & 4 (from Pier 8-3 to End Bent 8-5).20Mcr (AASHTO LRFD Specifications) or the cracking moment based on the proposed Modified LRFD method. The figure shows the minimum design moments due to cracking according to the current AASHTO LRFD Specifications and based on the proposed method (Modified LRFD). MOMENT DIAGRAMS The bridge is almost symmetric about centerline of Pier 8-3. Figure B-14. 1. the only prestressing is provided by the continuity external tendons and the total number of strands is 114. Factored Moment and Flexural Capacity of a Precast Segmental Cantilever Bridge Example (Negative Moments) Figure B-15 is similar to Figure B-14. which is higher than 1.33Mu at all sections. B-28   .33Mu controls over the 1.6  unbonded strands (external tendons). Negative moment results in tensile stresses at top surface of the superstructure. It is clear that the proposed provisions considerably reduce the minimum required design moments (MFR). Again.33Mu controls the MFR in this case. Thus.6"  internal (bonded) strands and 114"-0. In the positive moment region in Span 4 (most critical section for positive moment). there are a total of 254-0.and minimum flexural reinforcement requirements. At the first segment-to-segment joint next to Pier 8-3 in Span 4 (most critical section for negative moment). Cracking Moment. The figure also indicates that the 1. but it shows variation of the positive bending moments (bending moments resulting in tensile stresses at bottom surface of the superstructure).

33Mu.use of the Modified LRFD method significantly reduces the required MFR design moment compared to the current AASHTO LRFD provisions. whereas 1. the factored flexural moment capacities exceed the demand moment including the MFR requirements. In all sections. Construction stages and time-dependent effects were considered in the analysis. Factored Moment and Flexural Capacity of a Precast Segmental Cantilever Bridge Example (Positive Moments)   Analysis of this bridge was done using LARSA 4D. Design moments: Sign convention is positive for moment resulting in tensile stress at bottom surface (opposite to the sign shown in Figures B-14 and B-15). diaphragms & barriers No utilities or future wearing surface B-29   .167 k  ft M DW  0 k  ft Self wt. ½" sacrificial wearing surface. For sections away from the supports. Below are hand calculations for the section at first segment-to-segment joint in Span 4 (joint at Pier 8-4) as well as maximum positive moment section in Span 4 of the bridge. Cracking Moment.33Mu controls MFR for sections near the supports. Section A: Section at First Joint (Pier Segment) in Span 4: M DC  53. Figure B-15. the minimum design moment according to the Modified LRFD method controls over 1.

50 M TU  0.50 M LT  1.000)  1.50 M DW  0.25  (6.875 k  ft Section B: Section at Location of Maximum Positive Moment in Span 4: Self wt.50 M TG M u  1.842 k  ft M HL 93 I  7.75M HL 93 I  0.50  (0)  0.000 k  ft Secondary effects from prestressing M TU  2 k  ft Uniform temperature rise M TG  1.209)  0.50 M TU  0.842) M u  31.727 k  ft Mu  Mu StrengthI  1.842 k  ft Long-term effects (concrete creep & shrinkage and relaxation of prestressing steel) M SecP / S  25.00 M SecP / S  1.50  (1.75  (7.792 k  ft No utilities or future wearing surface M DW  0 k  ft M LT  628 k  ft Long-term effects (concrete creep & shrinkage and relaxation of prestressing steel) M SecP / S  8.50  (2)  0.628 k  ft Temperature gradient M HL 93 I  7.50  (1. B-30   .50 M LT  1. diaphragms & barriers M DC  6.667)  1.842)  1.008 k  ft Section properties: Section properties for both Sections A & B are similar.50 M DW  0.75M HL 93 I  0.25M DC  1.25  (53.628) M u  54.727)  0.25M DC  1.50  (628)  1.M LT  1.50  (1.00 M SecP / S  1.50  (1)  0.792)  1.00  (25.50 M TG M u  1.209 k  ft Mu  Mu StrengthI  1.50  (0)  0. ½" sacrificial wearing surface.167)  1.75  (7.00  (8.667 k  ft Secondary effects from prestressing M TU  1 k  ft Uniform temperature rise Temperature gradient M TG  1.

G.96 in (distance from section CG to bottom fiber) y t  38.58 in  4. Section A: Section at First Joint (Pier Segment) in Span 4: A ps1  254  0.04 in (distance from section CG to top fiber) Calculation of M n from prestressing: In Figure B-14 & Figure B-15.74 in 3-1.625 Effective prestressing force in external tendons (from LARSA 4D): Pf 2  4.729 kip-ft and 37.h  9 ft  108 in The sacrificial surface is included as external load only h f  9.6"  strands (external unbonded) As  3  1.5 in (minimum thickness of compression flange for positive moment section) b f  13.217 in 2 A ps 2  114  0.85  0.G.9 ksi 24. The flexural capacities for both sections are calculated below using the AASHTO LRFD equations.0 in (minimum thickness of compression flange for negative moment section) h f  9.05 ( f c '  4)  0. of high strength bars)  1  0. The factored flexural moment capacities are 101.52 in 2 y b  69.50 ft Number of support hinges crossed by external tendons (end span): N i  1 B-31   .958 kip-ft at Sections A & B.50 in (distance from bottom fiber to C. respectively.118 in 2  24. which may result in slightly different values from those calculated by LARSA 4D.427 kips  178.738 in 2 Length of external tendon (approximate): li  150.571 in 4 A  63.738 in 2 2 Total of 254-0.119.833 ft  166 in (compression flange width for negative moment section) b f  30.217 in 2 2  55.20 ft 4  14. of external tendons) d s  102 in (distance from bottom fiber to C.G.427 kips f pe 2  Pf 2 A ps 2  4. the moment capacity is calculated using LARSA 4D.187.83 in (distance from bottom fiber to C. of cantilever tendons) d p 2  66.33 ft 2  9.083 ft  361 in (compression flange width for positive moment section) bw  30 in I  684.6"  strands (internal bonded) Total of 114-0.58"  strands high-strength bars in the deck slab Yield strength for high-strength bars: f y  120 ksi d p1  100.

984 kip-ft). Thus. The factored moment capacity is significantly larger than 1.238 kip  ft 2 2 2 The factored moment capacity calculated by LARSA 4D is 101. Also.85 f c  1 b f  k A ps1 d p1 (k = 0. Figure B-14 clearly shows that the factored moment capacity is much larger than 1.362. Thus.85 f c (b f  bw )h f c  62.79 in f pu ' 0. Thus. hand calculations demonstrating the proposed MFR procedure will not be shown for this section.24 in Resistance factor:   0.85 f c 1 bw  k A ps1 d p1 Stress in bonded tendons at ultimate moment: c f ps1  f pu (1  k )  223 ksi d p1 Stress in external tendons at ultimate moment: (d p 2  c) f ps  f pe  900  182 ksi  f py  243 ksi le This stress is the same as assumed above.33Mu (which controls the MFR requirements for this section).95 (segmental bridges with bonded tendons providing most of the prestressing) Factored flexural moment capacity: a a a  M n   A ps1 f ps1 (d p1  )   A ps 2 f ps 2 (d p 2  )   As f y (d s  )  99.33 ft (2  N i ) Depth of compression zone: Assume f ps  182 ksi  f py  243 ksi c A ps1 f pu  A ps 2 f ps 2  As f y  25.Effective length of external tendons: li le  2  100.22 in f pu ' 0.33Mu (= 72. no iterations are needed. Tensile force at ultimate moment: T  A ps1 f ps1  A ps 2 f ps 2  As f y  17. use of equations for flanged sections should be used.729 kip-ft (less than 3% difference). but it will be shown for the positive moment section (Section B). B-32   .4 kips Depth of equivalent rectangular stress block: a   1 c  39. ' A ps1 f pu  A ps 2 f ps 2  As f y  0.28 for low-relaxation strands) Depth of neutral axis is greater than deck thickness.

6"  strands (external unbonded) d p  86. no iterations are needed.50 ft Number of support hinges crossed by external tendons (end span): N i  1 Effective length of external tendons: li le  2  100. Thus.473 kip  ft 2 LARSA 4D calculated the factored moment capacity as 37. It should be noted that the above-calculated factored moment capacity does not take into account the reduction in moment arm of the external tendons due to deflection of the superstructure.33 ft (2  N i ) Depth of compression zone: Assume f ps  f py  243 ksi  3. the predicted flexural capacity will be slightly less than 38. Thus.90 Segmental bridges with unbonded tendons Resistance factor: Factored flexural moment capacity: a  M n   A ps f ps (d p  )  38.04  48.31 in   0.85  0. c A ps f ps Stress in external tendons at ultimate moment: ( d p  c) f ps  f pe  900  241 ksi  f py  243 ksi Use f ps  243 ksi le This stress is the same as assumed above.217 in 2  24.3 kips Depth of equivalent rectangular stress block: a   1 c  2.011. A ps  114  0.738 in 2 Total of 114-0.427 kips f pe  Pf A ps  4.473 kip-ft.49  38.49 in (distance from P/S CG to top fiber) e  d p  y t  86.738 in 2 Length of external tendon (approximate): li  150.9 ksi 24. Thus.45 in (tendon eccentricity)  1  0.958 kip-ft (less than 2% difference). use of equations for rectangular sections is justified. Tensile force at ultimate moment: T  A ps f ps  6.625 Effective prestressing force in external tendons (from LARSA 4D): Pf  4. B-33   .427 kips  178.85 f c 1 b f Depth of neutral axis is smaller than deck thickness.Section B: Section at Maximum Positive Moment in Span 4: Prestressing tendons at this section is composed of external (unbonded) tendons only.05 ( f c '  4)  0.69 in ' 0.

20  0.24  8.247 4.554 k  ft  1.00  0.700  1. positive moment capacity at Section B is provided by only unbounded tendons)  3  1.33M u .96 8.00 (tensile resistance is provided by prestressing steel) Secondary moment from prestressing: M SecP / S  8.20 (proposed for precast segmental bridges) f cr  0.0  (1.795 in 3 69.119. B-34   .554 k  ft Thus.667  12  69.571 I 14.554 k  ft  M u  31.571 S   202.554 k  ft    controls the design.Minimum reinforcement by the proposed method (Modified LRFD): Section B: Section at Maximum Positive Moment in Span 4:   M n  M fcr or M n  1.45  69.187.473 k  ft   3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S  30.33  31.5  0.968)   3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S  30.52 14. the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement is satisfied.00 (proposed for bridges with only unbounded tendons.187.008  41.24 f ' c  0. where M fcr   3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S  1  1.667 k  ft Concrete compressive stress at bottom fiber due to prestressing (after losses): Pf Pf e y b 4. 202.96 yb  3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S  1.96      0.33M u  1.571 14.008 k  ft 12 M n   3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S MFR Requirement M n  38.700 ksi  2  1.795  30.187.968 ksi f cpe  A I 9.241 k  ft  3 ( 1 f cr   2 f cpe ) S  30.247  48.

The columns are square 6 ft x 6 ft.5 ft each.B. The cap is 6. Cap Beam Design Example Schematics MATERIAL PROPERTIES f ' c  4ksi B-35   . Figure B-16.5 CAP BEAM DESCRIPTION OF CAP The cap beam has a main span of 23 ft and 2 cantilever spans of 12.5 ft wide and 6 ft deep.

75  (1.644ksi f y  60ksi E s  29.381)  1.50  (183)  1.914k  ft B-36   .E c  3.25  (1.381k  ft M DW  183k  ft M HL 93  1.093k  ft Mu Mu Mu StrengthI StrengthI StrengthI  1.093)  3.75M HL 93  1.50 M DW  1. Cap Beam Design Example Strength limit bending moments At the inside face of support (negative moment): Design moments: M DC  1.25M DC  1.000ksi MOMENT DIAGRAMS Figure B-17.

85 2  4  78   3.7.Section properties: h  6 ft  72in b  6.94in 2 mild steel reinforcement is required at the top of cap.  s  0. Hence. Summary: As  12.5 are met for redistribution.7  ) 2  0. and minimum flexure reinforcement per proposed revised Article 5.914  12  0.44   of Section 5.85f b    0.85  4  78 Solve the quadratic equation for As  12.90 d  68.057 . The net tensile strain is:  As f y   12.5 ft  78in I  117 ft 4 A  39 ft 2 y t  36in (distance from section CG to top fiber) Required flexural reinforcement: As f y a M n  As f y (d  )  As f y (d  ) 2 2  0. At 0.3.85 f ' c b The section is tension-controlled and   0.90  As  60  (68.7in assuming #11 mild steel reinforcement As  60 3.44in  c   c    68.003  where c      0.3.7.94in 2 .44  Therefore. which is greater than 0.138k  ft B-37   .0075.5 Span 2 (positive moment): Design moments: M DC  59k  ft M DW  20k  ft M HL 93  1. requirements 3.94  60  d c  s  0.3.2 is not required for negative bending between the columns.003   0.7  3.

7in assuming #11 mild steel reinforcement As  60 2. assumed for this example.85 f ' c b The section is tension-controlled and   0.6 f r  0.33  1.Mu Mu StrengthI StrengthI StrengthI  0. At 0.  1  1 .474   3.65  (20)  1.560k  ft so StrengthI  2.392 StrengthI M fcr  0.560  12  0.65M DW  1.9  (59)  0.474ksi S 117  12 4 I   67.925  2.6  0.33M u  1.9 M DC  0.194k  ft  1.194k  ft  M u  1.138) Mu  1.925k  ft 12 StrengthI M fcr  3.33M u Summary: As  8.90  As  60  (68.90 d  68.40in 2 mild steel reinforcement is required at mid-span.7  ) 2  0.50 Span 1 (negative moment): Design moments: M DC  651k  ft M DW  83k  ft M HL 93  395k  ft B-38   .925k  ft Section properties: The section properties are similar to the ones at the face of support.237  4  0.75M HL 93  0. As f y a M n  As f y (d  )  As f y (d  ) 2 2  0.392in 3 36 yb 67.33M u  3  0.237 f ' c  0.85  4  78 Solve the quadratic equation for As  8. 1.560 k  ft controls the design.75  (1. Minimum reinforcement by the proposed method: M n  M fcr where M fcr   3 1 f r S and M n  1.40in 2 .75 for A706 Grade 60 reinforcement.75  1.

50  12 4   46.33  1.50 ft 4 A  32.630k  ft Section properties: h  4.190k  ft  M u  1.630  2.168k  ft controls the design.237  4  0.75  (395) Mu  1. B-39   .196 StrengthI M fcr  0.75M HL 93  1.4in assuming #11 mild steel reinforcement As  60 2.85 yt 46.33M u  1. As f y a M n  As f y (d  )  As f y (d  ) 2 2  0.168k  ft so StrengthI  2.474ksi S I 66.33M u Summary: As  8.97 ft  59.25  (651)  1.85 f ' c b The section is tension-controlled and   0.90  As  60  (56.31 ft 2 y t  29.85in (distance from section CG to top fiber) Minimum reinforcement by the proposed method: M n  M fcr where M fcr   3 1 f r S and M n  1.90 d  56.6  0.7in b  6.6 f r  0.474   2.5 ft  78in I  66.69in 2 .190k  ft  1.  1  1 . assumed for this example.25M DC  1.196in 3 29.75  1.630k  ft 12 StrengthI M fcr  2.85  4  78 Solve the quadratic equation for As  8.69in 2 mild steel reinforcement is required in the cantilever span.75 for A706 Grade 60 reinforcement.237 f ' c  0.168  12  0.33M u  3  0.Mu Mu StrengthI StrengthI StrengthI  1.4  ) 2  0.50 M DW  1.50  (83)  1. 1.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->