92 PCI JOURNAL
Fig. 1. Bridge over
singlepoint urban
interchange
(115, Salt Lake
City, Utah).
Reference 9 includes a summary which forms the basis of over 7200 South. The girder is 2400 mm (94.5 in.) deep and
the presentation in this paper. has a 200 mm (77/s in.) thick web which accommodates five
NovemberDecember 2003 93
CL temporary
ICL bearing support
.z
El EEl

end block 19864 
 175
symmetric
about
1
C L temporary midspan CL temporary
suoort  support
L175
175H 26185
Fig. 3. Elevation
of end segments CENTER SEGMENT
and center
segment.
94 PCI JOURNAL
Fig. 4. Erection
sequence.
NovemberDecember 2003 95
Mg 0
iXM
1MG
IiMD, ZND, LMG and ANG represent the change to these The component forces ND, NG, MD, and MG due to section
stress resultants with time due to creep and shrinkage, forces M and N acting on the composite section can be
With the usual assumption of beam theory, the composite found by integrating the resultant stress distribution over the
section properties are given by Eqs. (4.1) to (4.6): respective portions of the cross section. This action yields
the following expressions for the component forces:
(4.1)
ND = N M (5.1)
A = A(; + nAD (4.2) A
N =N+M (5.2)
)
1
a a (4.3) Ac
A
nAD
(4.4) MD (5.3)
= a
A
SC=nADaD (4.5) 0 =M
M (5.4)
(4.6) IC
ICIG+nID+aSC
ED, EG = modulus of elasticity for deck and girder, re /.IMG, /WG, lCD, CD, i, and 2G as shown in Fig. 5.
Ac = area of transformed composite section from compatibility requirements, assuming plane sections
a = distance between centroid of deck and centroid remain plane and perfect bond between deck and girder:
of girder
aD = distance between centroid of deck and centroid lCG = lCD (6.1)
of composite section
aG = distance between centroid of girder and centroid ED EG Ica (6.2)
of composite section
S. = first area moment of the transformed deck sec Two additional equations are given by equilibrium re
tion about the centroid of the composite section quirements:
D G = moment of inertia of deck and girder, respec
tively, about their own centroids AND + ANG = 0 (6.3)
c = moment of inertia of the composite section
about its centroid ZIMD + AMG + ANGa = 0 (6.4)
96 PCI JOURNAL
Eqs. (6.3) and (6.4) signify that, even though stresses will stress force is considered with the creepproducing stress re
change in time, there is no resultant force on the composite sultants M, Mg, N and N. Prestress losses are initially es
section due to these changes i.e., the timedependent
timated by guessing at the timedependent change in strain,
stresses are selfequilibrating. This is true for a statically de at the location of the tendons or strands. The forces act
terminate system where longterm deformations do not ing on the composite section due to prestress losses are then
cause a change in section forces. For an indeterminate struc given by Eqs. (7.1) and (7.2):
ture, Eqs. (6.3) and (6.4) would need to be modified to in
clude terms for the timedependent redundant forces. = AP(AfR EE) (7.1)
The remaining four equations are given by the constitutive
equations describing the timedependent strains, analogous ziM=ziN
1 e (7.2)
to Eq. (2):
where
= ND = crosssectional area of prestressing steel
ED (PD + (1 + #(PD) + 8 (6.5)
EDAD EDAD
sD = modulus of elasticity of prestressing steel
= timedependent change in strain at location of pre
= NG stressing steel (tension positive)
+ (1 + (PG) + sG (6.6)
EGAG EQAQ AfR = prestress loss due to strand relaxation
e = eccentricity of prestressing steel relative to centroid
KD D(1+1(PD) (6.7) of composite section (down positive)
EDID EDID
Forces zIAP and AM can be decomposed into component
forces LINE, LIME, LIN and LIME in the deck and girder by
KG =(PG+U+I1cG) (6 8)
EQIQ EGIG applying Eqs. (5.1) to (5.4). The component forces due to
prestress losses are selfequilibrating with the change in ten
where don force. Therefore, Eqs. (6.3) and (6.4) remain unchanged.
(PD, (PG =creep coefficient for deck and girder, respec Furthermore, the assumption of plane sections remaining
tively plane still applies [Eqs. (6.1) and (6.2)1. Only Eqs. (6.5) to
EsD, EsG = shrinkage strain for deck and girder, respec (6.8) need to be modified to account for prestress losses:
tively
Note that Eqs. (6.5) to (6.8) do not include initial strains Ng AND + LINE
(8.1)
(PD+ (l+#(PD)+ESD
i.e., they describe timedependent strains only. A A
(9.1) to (9.7)
NovemberDecember 2003 97
2
C)
E
C,)
0
I
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
0
Fig. 6. Comparison
of creep and
Time, days
shrinkage models.
After the system of equations has been solved, the time The first term (net) includes the portion of the girder
dependent strains are known and the initial assumption for force Ng acting prior to grouting of the ducts. The creep co
the prestress losses can be verified. If necessary, the as efficient p in that term depends on the concrete age at time
sumption is corrected and new strains are calculated. This it of application of this load. The quantity AG is based on the
erative scheme converges rapidly, because the influence of net section of the girder, deducting the holes for the post
the prestress losses on the timedependent strains is typi tensioning ducts. The effect of reinforcing steel and preten
cally quite small. Some spreadsheet programs have a built sioning steel may be included by transforming their areas
in solve routine that can be used to perform the iteration. based on the ratio of girder concrete modulus and steel mod
ulus.
Section Properties Similarly, the second and third terms (grouted) refer to
load effects, section properties, and creep coefficient after
The effects of girder reinforcement and pretensioning curing of the grout in the posttensioning ducts. It is as
strands can be readily considered in the analysis. This only sumed that grouting takes place shortly after posttensioning
requires that quantities AG, G and aG in Eqs. (4.1) to (4.6) so that all redistribution forces, ANG and L1N, act on the
be determined using the transformed section properties of transformed section, including the posttensioning strands.
the girderstrandrebar system. There will be a small redistribution of compressive
With precast posttensioned girders, the tendon ducts rep stresses from the girder concrete to the grout in the tendon
resent a fairly large portion of the overall section and, there ducts [this has been ignored in the formulation of Eq. (10)1.
fore, have some influence on the section properties. In many This redistribution is caused by the difference in longterm
cases, the use of gross section properties will be acceptable. strains between the nonprestressed grout and the surround
However, for a more accurate determination of extreme ing prestressed girder concrete.
fiber stresses, net section properties accounting for the duct In general, the use of gross section properties instead of
areas should be used for load cases active prior to grouting net and transformed section properties as appropriate will be
of the tendons. Loads applied after curing of the grout act on conservative for two reasons:
the transformed section including the posttensioning 1. The posttensioning force acts on the net section; there
strands. Eqs. (4.1) to (4.6) are still applicable with the ap fore, the beneficial effect of posttensioning is underesti
propriate values input for the net or transformed (grouted) mated when gross section properties are used.
girder section properties. 2. Additional loads applied after grouting of the tendons
Eqs. (8.1) to (8.4) need to be modified. Eq. (10), for ex act on the transformed section. Using gross section proper
ample, is the resultant equation of modifying Eq. (8.2). ties and thereby ignoring the contribution of the strands to
Modification of Eqs. (8.1), (8.3), and (8.4) is analogous. the section properties will overestimate additional stresses.
Ng r Ng
Qi
[EAQ
met L EGAG Jgroutcd
Creep and Shrinkage Coefficients
A number of models are available to calculate creep coef
+E
L EGAG Jg,oeted
+ 8
sG (10) ficient and shrinkage strain. Among those in the United
States are the AASHTO LRFD 1 Specifications, ACT
98 PCI JOURNAL
% 2
=0.562m
=0.00197m
4
D
0 =29,200MPa
E
n = 0.816
PTduct 0100
26 strands 013 14 strand
typ, 5 total 4 eccentricity
Fig. 7. Idealized
_
cross section
properties for
duct with strands interior girder (115
0
0 Southbound over
7200 South).
NovemberDecember 2003 99
deck had reached 80 percent of its 28
day strength. This was assumed to be
the case after seven days of deck cur loads acting on girder alone
ing. To simplify the calculations, all
self weight of girder and deck: 35.9 kNim
creepproducing loads on the compos
ite system were considered to be ap
A A
plied at a girder age of 50 days.
19.630m  26.210m 19.630m

65.470m
strains are summarized in Table 2. :
cation of the centroid of the postten Posttensioning loss 2463 1,547 137 4
1__/____
= 0.8f 0.55
45 l0.9f
longterm
(11) strains
[x 1O] stresses [MPa]
where
t = time interval in hours
Fig. 9. Longterm strains and, initial and final stresses.
f initial steel stress
=
= nominal breaking strength of
tendon
Therefore, for the prestressing strands, the relaxation loss
between Day 50 (1200 hrs) and Day 10,000 (240,000 hrs)
is: log240,000 1322
xl
8
fR=O.
322 0.55
45 (0.9x1860
1og240,000 log 12001 1395
fR = 0.8 x1395 0.55 = 3OMPa (4.4 ksi)
45 .0.9x1860
= 16MPa (2.3 ksi)
The forces acting on the composite section due to these
For the posttensioning tendons, the relaxation loss is: prestress losses are:
Girder .1601 0
f 1
f,,,, .1,,,,, ,,
1
f .f,,,, f,,,,, ,,
6
f
1
r=0 15.7 19.7 15.7 19.7 15.7 19.7 15.7 19.7 15.7 19.7
PT change
6 0. I 7.0 0.1 7.3 0.1 6.7 0.1 8.5 0.1 6.8
CS change
t 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.! 0.5 O.2 3.5 1.1
(=00 16.2 12.6 16.2 12.3 16.1 13.0 16.4 11.0 19.3 11.8
LL & FWS
5 5.9 12.6 5.9 12.6 5.9 2.6 5.9 12.6 ,:5.9 12.6
Total 22.1 0 22.1 0.3 22 0.4 22.3 1.6 25.2 0.8
* Stress change due to prestress losses.
t Stress change due to differential creep and shrinkage.
Stresses due to live load and future wearing surface.
Note: I MP5 = 145 psi.
= 267 kN(165650)x 10 m
3 which is the same value as assumed initially. Similarly, the
430 kNm (317 kipft) change in strain at the level of the pretensioning strands is:
=_838x 10+ ilOx 10/mx(1l6050)x 10
2
E m
3
These forces are listed in the last two rows of Table 3. = 716 x l0
The results of the decomposition into component forces
[Eqs. (5.1) to (5.4)] are listed in Table 4. All the necessary which is identical to the value initially assumed. Therefore,
input data have now been determined and can be substituted no further iteration is necessary.
into Eqs. (9.1) to (9.7). These substitutions lead to the fol The resulting stresses are shown in Fig. 9 and listed in
lowing system of equations: Table 5 under Case I a. It is interesting to note that for the
girder, the timedependent stress
changes due to differential creep
28.031 28.031 37.632 0 0 0 0 ED 0 and shrinkage are quite small
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 (rows labeled CS change in
Table 5). The greater part of the
0 0 0 0 1.343 1 1 (C 0
change is due to prestress losses
16.410 0 0 2.379 0 0 0 ZiND 16,384 (rows labeled PT change).
0 28.03 1 0 0 2.085 0 0 0
uN 23,327 However, it is cautioned that this
0 0 0.0575 0 0 2.379 0 0
LI/I/I 2 is not a general conclusion. Creep
and shrinkage differentials be
0 0 21.587 0 0 0 2.085 Jill/I
0 2148
tween de.ck and girder were
greatly reduced for the example
Sensitivity Analysis
Creep and shrinkage properties observed in actual struc
JLJ3L
tures have large scatter caused by the randomness of the ma
terial properties and the environment. The 1990 CEBFIP IM[m]I
14 gives confidence limits for the equations used
Model Code
for the computation of creep and shrinkage. According to Fig. 10. Longterm curvatures for
the composite
girder and
this reference, the creep coefficient at the 90 percent confi moment diagram due to a virtual unit force applied at midspan.
dence limit may be taken as 1.26 times the expected mean
value. Likewise, the 90 percent confidence limit for the mined only for onehalf of the girder length. The small con
shrinkage strain may be taken as 1.45 times the calculated tribution of the locally increased curvature over the short
shrinkage strain. Table 5 shows a comparison of the extreme length of the closure joints was ignored.
fiber stresses for five different cases: Fig. 10 shows a plot of longterm curvatures for the com
Case 1 a Mean values for creep and shrinkage, aging co
by Eq. (12):
Case 2 90 percent fractile values for both girder and
deck, !1 = 0.7
zl=Jic(x)M(x)dr (12)
Case 3 90 percent fractile values for deck, mean values