See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301371205

Creep of Concrete in Bridge Standards

Conference Paper · September 2015

DOI: 10.1061/9780784479346.092

CITATIONS READS

0 1,175

2 authors, including:

Janusz Holowaty
West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin
43 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Degradation processes in normalized mild- and low-alloy steel building structures in service View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Janusz Holowaty on 15 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CONCREEP 10 770

Creep of Concrete in Bridge Standards

J. Hołowaty1 and D. Jurkowski2

1
West Pomeranian University of Technology Szczecin, Department of Civil
Engineering and Architecture, al. Piastów 50, 70-311 Szczecin. E-mail:
janusz.holowaty@zut.edu.pl
2
PPDM, ul. Wilków Morskich 6/9, 71-063 Szczecin. E-mail: dajurny@wp.pl

Abstract

As structural concrete is a continuously-developing material, evolution in the

estimation of its material properties can be seen with the development of concrete
technology. The paper reviews methods for predicting concrete creep in bridge
structures. The principal variables that influence creep are outlined. Code-related
procedures have been drawn up in recently-used models for concrete creep with a
higher range of concrete grades. This enables a more realistic estimation of delayed
deformations and prestress losses in bridge structures.

INTRODUTION

Time-dependent deformations in concrete bridges have become of great

interest in recent decades, as they cause gradual changes in stresses and strains which
sometimes become too excessive. Delayed stresses and deformations in reinforced
and prestressed concrete bridges may be several times higher than instantaneous
deformations measured at the first loading. Numerous papers and reports have
observed excessive deformations and deflections on cantilever prestressed concrete
bridges in almost every country worldwide (Bažant et al. 2009; 2011). Excessive
deformation usually results in problems with the serviceability of the structures;
however, their safety is not compromised provided the stresses in the concrete are
within the serviceability limit. When other concomitant issues arise, their combined
effects on a structure may be deadly. A growing deflection in a prestressed concrete
bridge is the first sign and warning that a prestressing force in the structure is
decreasing due to excessive deformations or a failure in the prestressing system etc.
The precise determination of concrete structure deformations is still difficult
as many influencing parameters need to be taken into account, including concrete
shrinkage and creep, dimensions of a member and the amount and distribution of
reinforcement (ACI 2009b; Bažant et al. 2009; Ghali et al. 2012, Gilbert et al. 2011).
Concrete creep and shrinkage are time-dependent deformations which are
interdependent. They are affected by humidity and stress history. Many models have
been developed over the years to describe the time-dependent behavior of structural
concretes (ACI 2009a; 2009b). Structural methods for time-dependent analysis were
introduced to take into account of when delayed deformation influences the design of

© ASCE
CONCREEP 10 771

a bridge. New models for the behavior of structural concrete are designed using code-
type formulas and including wider ranges of concrete (CEN 2004; 2008; fib 2013).
Prestressed concrete bridges are structures where the estimation of delayed
deformation and loss of initial prestress is essential when designing the serviceability
limit (Gilbert 1988; Ghali et al. 2012). Bridge designers use a range of simplifications
to predict time effects in concrete structures, as detailed analysis is often too
complex. The time-dependent analysis of concrete bridges is usually more
complicated since construction in stages is applied. Where there are many
construction and prestressing stages involved, the analysis is further complicated,
especially for creep of concrete.
In bridge codes, there are different simplified procedures for the reasonable
calculations of prestress losses or time-dependent deformations, as well as models for
concrete properties. For basic structures, simple procedures allow final prestress
losses at the end of the bridge’s lifespan to be estimated. Where necessary, more
detailed procedures may be used for predicting prestress losses over time. To express
concrete creep in codes, a creep coefficient is generally used as a well-understood
parameter in the delayed deformation of concrete under loading. For more complex
problems, some codes suggest the use of compliance or relaxation functions.
Structural concretes are continuously developing materials; as a result, an
evolution in the estimation of their material properties can be seen with the
development of concrete technology. This is followed in structural codes for concrete
structures which adopt different models for describing the creep properties of
concretes (CEN 2004; 2008). In the paper, the prediction procedures or models for
creep in cement concrete included in some bridge standards and fib Model Code 2010
are described and briefly compared. The description attempts to reflect both older
approaches and also modern standards such as fib Model Code 2010 or the AASHTO
specifications. Over the years, concrete models have evolved to code-type procedures
for easy adoption at the design stage and to cover a higher range of concrete grades.
In bridge codes, the adopted procedures have usually allowed the final values of
creep deformation in addition to its development over time to be calculated. The
progressively evolving concrete models and their implementation in bridge standards
now give a practical and accurate method for the prediction of creep and shrinkage
effects. Modern bridge standards also give recommendations on time-dependent
analysis in the staged construction of concrete bridges.

CREEP DEFORMATION

Creep deformation in a concrete structure under load is a part of total

deformation and now includes both initial plastic flow and time-dependent
components. At constant temperature, the total concrete strain at time t, c(t) is
expressed as the sum of the instantaneous strain ci(t), creep strain cc(t) and shrinkage
strain cs(t). Creep strain cc(t,t0) of concrete at time t due to the constant compressive
stress of c applied at concrete age t0 is calculated as:

where, ϕ(t,t0) is the creep coefficient and Ec is the tangent modulus of the concrete.

© ASCE
CONCREEP 10 772

Creep coefficient is defined as the ratio of creep strain to instantaneous elastic strain,
which are both proportional to stress. In the codes, creep coefficient is usually
determined as a function of several parameters such as the stress range, the age of the
concrete at the time of first loading, mean ambient humidity, the composition of the
concrete mix or the concrete compressive strength, and the dimensions of members.
Many codes introduce final (ultimate) values of creep coefficients for the assumed
lifespan or its reliable estimation.
When a structure requires more detailed time-dependent analyses, it is recommended
that the total stress-produced strain be calculated using a compliance (creep) function
J(t,t0), which expresses the strain, measured at time t under the sustained unit stress
applied at time t0. For the reverse effects, under a sustained unit strain applied at time
t0, the relaxation function R(t,t0) is used.

EUROPEAN CODES

European standards implemented the progressively evolving CEB-FIP models

from the 1970 recommendations up to CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, which was
adapted in the Eurocodes (CEN 2004; CEN 2008). Two European bridge standards,
British (BS 1990) and Polish (PKN 1992), which have been in use for many years,
implemented the CEB-FIB 1970 recommendations with a simplification within the
Polish bridge standard of ultimate creep coefficients. This results in the estimation of
higher creep strains in the Polish codes (Figure 1).
At the time of implementation, the CEB-FIP 1970 recommendations gave
simple procedures for the evaluation of the final values of time-dependent
deformation in concrete and the possibility to take development over time into
account. The formulas were calibrated for Portland cement concretes of ordinary
quality in normal conditions. Concrete composition characteristics are used in
describing delayed concrete deformation, so for the same concrete grades but with
different compositions, the estimated values of delayed deformations may be
different. The final creep is predicted for 30 years.

Figure 1. Creep coefficients ϕ(t, t0) versus notional size h0 when fck = 40 MPa;
humidity RH = 80%; the age of loading: (a) t0 = 10 days, (b) t0 = 60 days.

© ASCE
CONCREEP 10 773

The comparison of concrete creep with time was performed to Polish and
British codes for normal ambient humidity RH = 80%, with the age of concrete at
loading t0 = 10 days and 60 days and characteristic compressive strength of concrete
at 28 days fck = 40 MPa. For this concrete, the following composition characteristics
are used: cement class CEM I 42.5R, water-cement ratio w/c = 0.4 and cement
content c = 370 kg/m3. For the comparison of creep deformation with time versus the
notional size h0, the creep coefficients are employed (Figure 1). In the American
standards, parameter h0 is replaced by V/S = h0/2. In the comparisons, creep values
are higher for the Polish code despite the use of the same time formulas from the
CEB-FIB 1970 recommendations, but the notional creep coefficients are established
with higher values. Creep deformation curves, according to relative humidity RH =
40, 60 and 80%, are shown in Figure 2. The final creep coefficient values are still
higher for the Polish code, but for lower ages at loading the differences are smaller.

Figure 2. Creep coefficients ϕ(t, t0) versus humidity RH when fck = 40 MPa;
notional size h0 = 100 mm; the age of loading: (a) t0 = 10 days, (b) t0 = 60 days.

Figure 3. Creep coefficients ϕ(t, t0) when fck = 40 MPa; age of loading t0 = 10 and
60 days; relative humidity: (a) RH = 50%, (b) RH = 80%.

© ASCE
CONCREEP 10 774

A further description of creep is made for the concrete models included in

Eurocode 2 (CEN 2004) and fib Model Code 2010 (fib 2013). These models use
code-type formulas in which the concrete composition characteristics are omitted and
replaced by the compressive strength of the concrete. The fib Model Code 2010
(MC10) introduced a new and improved formulation to describe creep effects as the
sum of basic and drying creep deformations. In the description, the same parameters
of the concrete are used (normal strength). The final creep coefficient values are
established at different ages for each model, but for comparison with time they are
omitted. The comparison of creep for the three models is shown in Figure 3. Lower
values of creep for BS5400 are characteristic for the CEB-FIP model included in this
code and in the Polish code (Hołowaty 2013). For the British code and Eurocode 2,
the creep reaches asymptotic values, while as for fib MC 2010, creep does not reach
ultimate values. The shapes of the creep curves indicate that an initial plastic
deformation is not included in the creep deformations in BS5400. The effects of
decreasing the creep values with increasing relative humidity is clearly visible.

AMERICAN CODES

American requirements for bridge structures are included in the AASHTO

LFRD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO 1998, 2007; Barker et al. 2007). The
evaluation of creep strain is based on parameters available at the design stage, so the
compressive strength of concrete is used as a correction factor for creep. The early
editions of the specifications gave simple procedures for calculating loss of prestress
for normal strength concretes. As the procedure for creep grossly overestimated long-
term deformation, it was corrected for higher concrete grades from the 2005 edition
(AASHTO 2007; Al-Omaishi et al. 2009). The ultimate creep coefficient for standard
conditions was changed from 2.3 to 1.9. The concrete strength correction factor
accounts for the effect that creep decreases with higher concrete grades. The
specifications also allow the use of the CEB-FIB or ACI 209 models in the
calculation of creep.

Figure 4. Creep coefficients ϕ(t, t0) versus notional size h0 when fck = 40 MPa;
humidity RH = 80%; the age of loading: (a) t0 = 10 days, (b) t0 = 60 days.

© ASCE
CONCREEP 10 775

Figure 5. Creep coefficients ϕ(t, t0) versus humidity RH when fck = 40 MPa;
the age of loading: (a) t0 = 10 days, (b) t0 = 60 days.

The calculation of concrete creep development over time for the two
approaches in the AASHTO LFRD specifications are shown in Figures 4 and 5, using
the same parameters as in the previous section. Final creep is predicted for 75 years.
In describing member sizes, the AASHTO specifications, along with other American
codes, use the volume-surface ratio V/S which is equal to h0/2 in the European codes.
The maximum value of V/S ratio used in the AASHTO formulas is 150 mm (h0 = 300
mm). The final creep coefficient values are overestimated in the old approach in the
AASHTO specifications. However, both approaches are still in error by ±50%. In
both formulas, concrete creep though decreasing with time reaches its ultimate value.
The AASHTO specifications give some guidance on the estimation of
prestress losses, deflection and camber. Recommendations when approximate, refined
and time-step methods for estimation of time-dependent losses in prestressed concrete
bridge are given.

Figure 6. Creep coefficients ϕ(t, t0) when fck = 40 MPa; the age of loading
t0 = 10 and 60 days; relative humidity: (a) RH = 50%, (b) RH = 80%.

© ASCE
CONCREEP 10 776

The time-step method supported by test results is required when a more

precise calculation of prestressed losses is necessary. For segmental bridges with a
span longer than 75 m, elastic structural analysis results should be evaluated with a
consideration of the changing time-dependent properties of concrete. The
requirements for different types of staged construction for concrete superstructures
are also given in Eurocodes 2 (CEN 2008).
To simply compare creep development with time and final values in the
AASHTO specifications, Eurocode 2 and fib Model Code 2010, the creep curves for
the same parameters as in the previous section are shown in Figure 6. A wide range of
creep values is obtained with final values for the AASHTO and EC 2 creep prediction
models. Further comparison for the three models is made for the final values of creep
coefficients depending on the parameters selected. The final values of creep
coefficients versus the age of loading t0 after casting are shown in Figure 7, and
versus concrete strength in Figure 8.

Figure 7. Final creep coefficients ϕ(∞, t0) versus the age of loading t0 when fck =
40 MPa; relative humidity: (a) RH = 50%, (b) RH = 80%.

Figure 8. Final creep coefficients ϕ(∞, t0) versus compressive strength fck when
humidity RH = 80%; the age of loading: (a) t0 = 10 days, (b) t0 = 60 days.

© ASCE
CONCREEP 10 777

A comparison is made for normal strength concretes i.e. with the strength
class fck < 55 MPa according to Eurocode 2. Lower values of creep for loading at
older concrete ages are pronounced in every model. Creep values also decline as
concrete strength increases. Higher creep values are found in lower concrete strengths
which are not used in prestressed concrete bridges. The tendency of declining creep
with increasing concrete strength is also maintained for high-strength concretes (fib
2013; Hołowaty 2015). This means that the use of high-strength concretes in bridge
construction may significantly reduce problems of creep in bridge structures, but also
that by increasing deformation rigidity, there will be a reduction in relaxation
capability.

SUMMARY

Creep of concrete is treated more precisely in bridge standards than other

time-dependent deformations, because it may influence the behavior of some types of
concrete bridges. Contemporary creep models adopted in bridge standards use code-
type formulas for easy adoption at the design stage. Different, simplified procedures
have been drawn up for reasonable calculations of prestress losses or time-dependent
deformations, in addition to concrete material property models. For typical bridges
with standard precast girders, the simplified procedures allow the final prestress
losses at the end of the bridge’s lifespan to be estimated. When necessary, more
detailed methods may be used for predicting prestress losses with time.
Bridge standards include some guidance on time-dependent analyses, which
are necessary for different concrete bridge construction techniques. However,
modeling for creep and shrinkage in concrete bridges is still approximate, due to the
great number of both variable and uncertain parameters. The methods for time-
dependent analysis given in the literature and codes are sometimes too simplified,
leading to misunderstandings in the real-time behavior of concrete structures. Many
variable parameters induce significant differences in the deformations estimated, and
lead to serviceability problems if they are treated too crudely.

Figure 9. Dimensionless creep functions J(t, t0) when fck = 40 MPa; the age of
loading t0 = 10 and 60 days; relative humidity: (a) RH = 50%, (b) RH = 80%.

© ASCE
CONCREEP 10 778

Possible variations in predicted values are still very wide, so in order to

improve the estimations for an individual bridge, the bridge standards recommend
that predictions be made on the basis of results measured over a short time frame. To
express creep of concrete in the codes, a creep coefficient is usually used as a well-
understood parameter of the delayed deformation of concrete under loading. For more
complex problems, some codes suggest using compliance or relaxation functions. The
compliance function is said to give a better description of the total deformation of
a structure under load. The compliance functions for BS 5400, Eurocode 2 and fib
Model Code 2010 are described for two ages at loading: at t0 = 10 and 60 days after
casting for C40 concrete grade, at relative humidity 50 and 80%, and for notional
member size h0 = 100 mm. Creep coefficient values predicted to be higher by MC10
than in Eurocode 2 are clearly visible. Figure 9 briefly shows the development in the
assessment of creep deformations according to the CEB-FIP models. For high
strength concretes, only fib Model Code 2010 is recommended.

CONCLUSION

Structural concrete is a continuously-developing material, with a higher range

of concrete grades introduced over the last few decades, especially in bridge
construction. The evolution in the estimation of the properties of concrete can be seen
with the development of concrete technology. This is followed in the structural codes
for bridge structures which adapt different models for describing the creep properties
of concrete. In the paper, the procedures and models for creep in cement concrete
included in some bridge standards are briefly described. The description reflects both
older approaches along with modern standards such as fib Model Code 2010 or the
AASHTO specifications. Over the years, concrete models have evolved into code-
type procedures for easy adoption at the design stage. In bridge codes, the procedures
adopted allow the estimation of final creep deformation values for simple calculations
as well as its development with time for more complex problems. The evolving
concrete models and their implementation in bridge standards give quite practical and
generally accurate procedures for the prediction of time-dependent effects. In all the
modern bridge standards, recommendations are given for time-dependent analysis in
the staged construction of concrete bridges.

REFERENCES

ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 209. (2009a). Guide for Modeling and
Calculating Shrinkage and Creep in Hardened Concrete, ACI 209.2R-08. ACI
Manual of Concrete Practice, ACI, Farmington Hills.
ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 209. (2009b). Prediction of Creep,
Shrinkage and Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures, ACI 209.2R-92
(Reapproved 2008). ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, ACI, Farmington Hills.
Al-Omaishi N., Tadros, M.K. and Seguirant, S.J. (2009). “Elasticity modulus,
shrinkage, and creep of high-strength concrete as adopted by AASHTO.” PCI
Journal, 54(2), 44-63.

© ASCE
CONCREEP 10 779

AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials).

(1998). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification. SI Units, second
edition. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials).
(2007). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification. SI Units, fourth edition.
AASHTO, Washington, DC.
Barker, R.M., and Puckett, J.A. (2007). Design of Highway Bridges: An LRFD
Approach. Second edition. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken and New Jersey.
Bažant, Z. P., Li, G. H., and Yu, Q. (2009). “Prediction of Creep and Shrinkage and
Their Effects in Concrete Structures: Critical Appraisal.” Proc. Eighth
International Conference on Creep, Shrinkage and Durability Mechanics of
Concrete and Concrete Structures, CRC Press, Leiden, 1275-1289.
Bažant, Z. P., Hubler, M. H., and Yu, Q. (2011). “Excessive Creep Deflections: An
Awakening. Data from numerous long-span prestressed segmental box girders
show alarming trend” Concrete International, 33(8), 44-46.
BS (British Standard Institution. (1990). BS 5400: Part 4. Code of practice for design
of concrete bridges. British Standard. Third edition. BS, London.
CEB-FIB (Euro-International Concrete Committee- International Federation for
Prestressing). (1970). CEB-FIP International Recommendations for the
Design and Construction of Concrete Structures, CEB, Paris and London.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2004). EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2:
Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1: Generals Rules and Rules for
Buildings. European Standard. CEN, Brussels.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2008). EN 1992-2, Eurocode 2:
Design of Concrete Structures. Part 2: Concrete Bridges—Design and
Detailing Rules. European Standard. CEN, Brussels.
fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete). (2013). fib Model Code for
Concrete Structures 2010, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
Ghali, A., Favre, R., and Elbadry, M. (2012). Concrete Structures: Stresses and
Deformations: Analysis and Design for Serviceability. Fourth edition, Spon
Press, London and New York.
Gilbert, R. I. (1988). Time Effects in Concrete Structures. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Gilbert, R. I., and Ranzi, G. (2011). Time-Dependent Behaviour of Concrete
Structures. Spon Press, London and New York.
Hołowaty, J. (2013). “Comparison of Eurocode 2 and Polish Bridge Standards for
Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete—Necessity for Implementation.” Proc. 9th
Central European Conference on Concrete Engineering CCC 2013: Concrete
Structures in Urban Areas, DWE, Wrocław, 76-79.
Hołowaty, J. (2015). “Conventional Models For Creep in Normal- and High-Strength
Concrete.” Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment, in press.
PKN (Polish Committee for Standardization). (1992). PN-91/S-10042. Bridges.
Concrete, Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures. Polish
Standard. PKN, Warsaw (in Polish).

© ASCE

View publication stats