This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Oral Buyukozturk

Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation Massachusetts Institute of Technology

1.054/1.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures (3-0-9) Design Example Failure Investigation of A Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girder

Objective: To investigate the failure of a prestressed girder in accordance with ACI 318-02. Problem: A highway overpass consists of 3 parallel continuous prestressed concrete beams. The length of the overpass structure is 292.8 ft, with a width of 47 ft (Fig. 1 and 2). Each prestressed beam had 5 strands of prestressing steel. There were 22 wires in each strand and each wire had a diameter of 0.6 in. The end of each prestressed beam was supported by a corbel, which was inclined at an angle with respect to the bearing plate (Fig. 3, 4, and 5). Construction proceeded as planned: the beams were cast-in-place, and after the concrete hardened, they were post-tensioned. Minutes after the prestressing operation, 4 out of the 6 corbels broke (Fig. 3). The State Transportation Authority decided to determine the responsible parties involved in this failure case. Task: You are hired to be the expert witness on the case. The following information were established: (a) The reaction force (R) at each end of the beam right before the collapse was estimated at 275 kips. (b) The horizontal restraint offered by the bearing (i.e., the Teflon disk) is negligible. (c) Normal weight concrete was used with the compressive strength of fc’ = 5000 psi. (d) Yield stress for normal reinforcement was fy = 60 ksi. Using the above information and the attached drawings, you are asked to assess and testify on the following questions: (1) Was the design (Fig. 6) adequate in accordance with ACI code requirements? (2) It was reported that the elastic shortening of the beam due to the initial prestressing was 0.9 in (Fig. 7). Check the design adequacy for this situation. (3) It is postulated that the workmen might have placed the Teflon disk in the wrong position initially. Together with the elastic shortening due to prestressing, the final position of the Teflon disk was as shown in Fig. 8. Check the design again using the ACI code. (4) Based on the above information, give your opinion as to the cause(s) of the collapse. It was argued that if instead of having the corbels, the prestressed beams were cast into the piers as a whole unit (i.e., fixed ends), and then the failure would not have occurred. Do you foresee any problems with this design?

1 / 12

5‘ Figure 2.1.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures Prof. Cross section of overpass (section a-a) 2 / 12 .25‘ 2% grade 13‘ 5‘ 5.75‘ 9. y 0. Plan view of overpass z sym. S1 =50 o c B3 a 117‘ 58.054/1. Oral Buyukozturk Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation ` y x B1 a c b B2 b sym.8‘ 117‘ Figure 1.

054/1. Location of failure (section b-b) 3 / 12 . Oral Buyukozturk Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation shear failure Teflon disk R z x Figure 3.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures Prof.1.

Oral Buyukozturk Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation sym.1.#6 5’ 18’’ beam axis sym.054/1. cable axis y x Figure 5. End zone detail for prestressed beam (section c-c) cable axis 4 .541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures Prof. e prestressing steel anchor d z y e corbel d Figure 4. Plan view of end zone (section d-d) 4 / 12 .

a = 2.#5 @ 5 in 3’’ 18’’ Shaded area = 44.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures Prof.054/1.#5 @ 4 in 4 . Oral Buyukozturk Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation z x Cable axis 4 . Elevation view of corbel (section e-e) (Design Drawing) 5 / 12 .1.45’’ Figure 6.#6 @ 5 in 25’’ 3 .55 in2 Teflon disk 18’’ y x 1’’ 6’’ Distance between the center of the shade area and its edge.

elastic shortening at each end of the beam. ∆L) 6 / 12 .#5 @ 5 in 5.1.1’’ 6’’ Distance between the center of the shade area and its edge.55’’ Figure 7.9’’ 2.#6 @ 5 in 25’’ 3 . a = 2.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures Prof.054/1. Elevation view of corbel (section e-e) (after initial prestressing.1’’ 18’’ Shaded area = 56.55 in2 Teflon disk 18’’ y x 0. Oral Buyukozturk Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation z x Cable axis 4 .#5 @ 4 in 4 .

#6 @ 5 in 25’’ 3 . a = 3.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures Prof.1. Elevation view of corbel (section e-e) (Postulate failure configuration) 7 / 12 .9 in2 18’’ y x Distance between the center of the shade area and its edge.054/1.#5 @ 5 in Teflon disk 18’’ Shaded area = 78. Oral Buyukozturk Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation z x Cable axis 4 .#5 @ 4 in 4 .56’’ Figure 8.

9.4 ksi A A’ = 44.45 = = 0.4 11.55 in2 Vu = σ u ⋅ A ’ = 151.2 kips (governs) 8 / 12 .5 x 2.1 11.5 in ≥ 0.9.3. Oral Buyukozturk Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation (I) Engineering Drawing: Load on the corbel – reaction – factored reaction – area of Teflon disk – uniform stress on the Teflon disk – shaded area – shear force – tension – moment R = 275 kips Ru = 1.3.4 R = 385 kips A= σu = ACI π 4 ⋅ (12 ) = 113.5 kips Nuc = 0 kips Mu = Vu ⋅ a = 151.107 < 1.K.9.45 = 371.2 kips-in 11.0 (O.1 max Vn = 0.3.2 ⋅ 5 ⋅18 ⋅ 23 = 414 kips max Vn = 800 ⋅ b w ⋅ d = 800 ⋅18 ⋅ 23 = 331.9.) d 23 and Nuc < Vu d1 = 5 ⋅ 23 = 11.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures Prof.1.2 Corbel dimension h = 25 in d = 25 – 2 = 23 in bw = 18 in a 2.9.) 10 11.2 ⋅ f c′ ⋅ b w ⋅ d = 0.5 = 202 kips 0.3.9.K.5d (O.054/1.1 11.2.2 Shear design Vn = since Vu φ = 151.75 11.1 in2 2 Ru = 3.

there are 3 .3 A f = 0.85 ⋅ f c′ ⋅ b w ⋅ x ⋅ ⎜ d.71 in2 From the design.) Ties A n ≥ 0.3.K.41 − 0 ) 11.44 in2 = 1.5 ⋅ ( As − A n ) ≥ 0.3.76 in2 > 1.9.1.7. 3 9 / 12 .054/1.5 From the design. over 2 d = 15.4 in2 60 ⋅1.9.4.K.3.33 in .2 = 0.4 Vn = A vf ⋅ f y ⋅ µ A vf = 202 = 2.10 setting x = 0.9.85 ⋅ 5 ⋅18 ⋅ x ⋅ ⎜ 23.2 kips (O.41 in2 (O.9 ⋅ 0.#5 bars provided.⎟ 2⎠ ⎝ 10.4 ≥ 0.3 11.4 ⋅ λ = 1.5 ⋅ (1.85 ⋅ f c′ ⋅ b w ⋅ x = 0.⎟ ⎝ 2⎠ x⎞ ⎛ 371.4.2.2 11. (As)provided = 4 ⋅ 0.383 in2 Tension design Since Primary tension reinforcement As = Af + An = 0.7.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures Prof.383 in2 or 2 A vf + A n = 1.41 in2 (governs) 3 Nuc = 0 An = 0 11.4 11.9.) µ = 1. there are 4 .#6 bars provided.4 11.1 Flexural design ⎛ x⎞ M u =φ ⋅ 0. Oral Buyukozturk Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation Vn = 202 < 331.

9.3. Oral Buyukozturk Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation (An)provided = 3 × 2 × 0.0043 b ⋅ d 18 ⋅ 23 ρ= 11.111 < 0.G.86 in2 > 0.054/1.31 = 1.0033 < 0. (II) With elastic shortening Similarly.55 = 490.) fy 60 ⇒ The engineering design in Fig.3 kips Nuc = 0 Mu = Vu ⋅ a = 192.K.75 11.5 (O.) 10 2 Shear design Vn = Vu φ = 192. 6 is adequate in accordance with ACI code 318-02.43 < (N.5 0.3 ⋅ 2.) 0.) Reinforcement ratio As 1.6 = 3.04 ⋅ f c′ 5 = 0.0043 (O.9.2 kips (O.71 in2 (O.04 ⋅ = 0.4 ⋅ 56.76 = = 0.1 d ⋅ 23 = 9.K.3 = 257.1.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures Prof.6 kips < 331. we have A’ = 56.8 kips-in Corbel dimension a 2.2 A vf = 257.) d 23 d1 = 4.07 in 2 60 × 1.55 in2 Vu = 3.K.55 = = 0.4 Flexural design x⎞ ⎛ M n = φ f c′bx ⎜ d − ⎟ 2⎠ ⎝ 10 / 12 .K.55 = 192.

4 × 78.) d 23 d1 = 2 d × 23 = 4.) (An)provided = 1.3 × 3.G.1.2 A vf = 357.155 < 1 (O.40 in 2 or Since As = 2 A vf +A n = 2.04 = = 1.9 in.) ⇒ With elastic shortening of 0.86 in 2 > A s 2.3 = 357.K. Oral Buyukozturk Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation x⎞ ⎛ 490.9.26 in 2 (O.04 in 2 (N.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures Prof. A’ = 78.02 in 2 2 2 (O.4 Flexural design 11 / 12 .K.8 = 0.7 = 4.2 kips (N.76 in 2 < 2.) 0.40 in2 Primary tension reinforcement A s = A f +A n = 0.G. (III) With shortening and misplaced Teflon disk Similarly.75 11.56 = 955 kips-in Corbel dimension a 3.3.6 in < (N.) 10 2 Shear design Vn = Vu φ = 268.04 in 2 (governs) 3 (As)provided = 1.56 = = 0.7 kips > 331.G.9 = 268.85 × 5 × 18 × x × ⎜ 23 − ⎟ 2⎠ ⎝ ⇒ x = 0.) 60 × 1.9 in2 Vu = 3.054/1.316 in ⇒ Af = 0.3 kips Nuc = 0 Mu = Vu × a = 268.K.9 × 0. the given design is not adequate.

541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures Prof. the bridge does not have much of a chance of surviving.) (An)provided = 1.79 in 2 or Since As = 2 A vf +A n = 2. Misplacement of the Teflon disk greatly increased the risk of failure since no information on the site supervision on the pat of the engineer was given.K. – Thermal stresses created due to differential temperature effect.79 in2 Primary tension reinforcement A s = A f +A n = 0.84 in 2 (N. with the elastic shortening of beam and live loads. the given design is not adequate.62 in ⇒ Af = 0. A probable cause of the failure could then be attributed to both the engineer and the contractor. problems that might arise are – Secondary stresses induced die to creep. 12 / 12 .84 = =1.054/1. shrinkage and elastic shortening.76 in 2 < 2. (IV) There is a good chance that the failure was due to poor design or inadequate considerations on the part of engineer. Even if the Teflon disk was correctly placed.84 in 2 (governs) 3 (As)provided = 1.42 in 2 (O. If the beam is cast monolithically into the pier.9 × 0.85 × 5 × 18 × x × ⎜ 23 − ⎟ 2⎠ ⎝ ⇒ x = 0.86 in 2 > A s 2.) 2 2 ⇒ With misplacement of Teflon disk and elastic shortening.G. Oral Buyukozturk Spring 2004 Design Example – Failure Investigation x⎞ ⎛ M n = φ f c′bx ⎜ d − ⎟ 2⎠ ⎝ x⎞ ⎛ 955 = 0.1.

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd