July–August 2023

Volume 68, Number 4

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute

Slabs, Panels, and Hollow-core

31 47 65
Composite Full-scale Precast,
elastic behavior experimental prestressed
of precast testing of UHPC concrete
concrete insulated in deck bulb-tee girder spans
wall panels girder connections using 0.7 in. strand
 YOUR TRUSTED SOURCE FOR
CONCRETE LIFTING SYSTEMS
AND ACCESSORIES

CONAC NEW LIFTING PRODUCTS

SANDWICH
FORGED
PANEL
INSULATED
ERECTION
ANCHOR
ANCHOR
COIL THREAD
3/4", 1"
& 1-1/4"

WAVED TAIL DOUBLE TEE FORGED ERECTION TECH ERECTION

COIL WAVY ANCHOR ANCHOR

www.conacweb.com

SERVING THE PRECAST

INDUSTRY FOR OVER
38 YEARS

Photo courtesy of Northeast Precast

WE SAVE YOU TIME, LABOR & MONEY!

CALL US TODAY: 1-800-336-2598
The Team!
A Great Connection for
Great Connections!

Your Connection Connection

7131 North Ridgeway Avenue • Lincolnwood, IL 60712 USA
847-675-1560 • 1-800-742-8127 • www.jvi-inc.com
 Table of Contents

Slabs, panels, and hollow-core

Simplified Models for Composite Elastic Behavior 31
of Precast Concrete Insulated Wall Panels
Ruth Taylor, Brennan Bean, Marc Maguire, Salam Al-Rubaye, and Maryam A. Al-Bayati

31
Investigating UHPC in Deck Bulb-Tee Girder Connections, 47
Part 2: Full-Scale Experimental Testing
Abdullah Haroon, Eric Steinberg, Richard Miller, Bahram Shahrooz, and Waleed Hamid

How Long is Long? An Analytical Study of Precast, Prestressed Concrete 65

Girder Spans Using 0.7 in. Strand
Kent A. Harries, Bahram M. Shahrooz, Payne D. Ball, TianQiao Liu, Venkata S.S.P. Sathiraju,

47 Abdullah Alabdulkarim, Richard A. Miller, and Reid W. Castrodale

Index of advertisers
ALP ............................................................. 8, 9 PCI...............................................6, 16, 26, 88
www.alpsupply.com www.pci.org
CONAC........................Inside Front Cover Prestress Supply Inc ............ Back Cover
www.conacweb.com www.prestresssupply.com
Hamilton Form ......................................... 20 Tindall ........................... Inside Back Cover
www.hamiltonform.com www.tindallcorp.com
JVI ..................................................................... 1 Tuckers........................................................... 4
www.jvi-inc.com www.tuckerbilt.com

PCI Journal | July–August 2023

2
July–August 2023 • Volume 68, Number 4

July–August 2023
Volume 68, Number 4

Departments
On the cover
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute

Chairman’s Message 5
Situated on a triangular
block in downtown San Your PCI
Francisco, Calif., the Serif
Residences and the Line Slabs, Panels, and Hollow-core
President’s Message 7
Hotel use glass-fiber- Plan to participate in Precast Days
reinforced precast concrete
panels to achieve a three-
dimensional faceted facade.
31
Composite
elastic behavior
47
Full-scale
experimental
of precast testing of UHPC
65
Precast,
prestressed
concrete
From PCI Headquarters 10
concrete insulated in deck bulb-tee girder spans

Courtesy of Jason O’Rear

wall panels girder connections using 0.7 in. strand

Photography. PCI Calendar 15

Our Members 17

In the News 21

Industry Calendar 23

Project Spotlight 24

Research Corner 27

PCI Directories 89
Board of Directors and
Technical Activities Council 89

PCI Staff Directory 90

Regional Offices 91
JOURNAL EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Coming Ahead 91
Chair Richard A. Miller Adel ElSafty Chungwook Sim
Vice Chair Pinar Okumus Amir Fam Sri Sritharan Meet Frank Nadeau 92
Secretary Collin Moriarty Alexander G. Mihaylov
Staff Liaison Tom Klemens Stephen J. Seguirant

EDITORIAL DESIGN & PRODUCTION

Tom Klemens Editor-in-Chief
K. Michelle Burgess Managing Editor
Courtney McCormick Technical Editor
Angela Mueller Technical Editor
Carrie Wyrick Technical Editor
Rory Cleveland Copy Editor
Elizabeth Nishiura Copy Editor
Lisa Scacco Publications Manager PCI Journal (ISSN 0887-9672) is published bimonthly by the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, 8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave.,
Chicago, IL 60631. Copyright © 2023, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute is
Walt Furie Senior Production Specialist
not responsible for statements made by authors of papers or claims made by advertisers in PCI Journal. Original manuscripts
and letters on published papers are accepted on review by the PCI Technical Review Committee. No payment is offered.
ADVERTISING SALES Direct all correspondence to PCI Journal at journal@pci.org or Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal, 8770
W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL 60631. For information on advertising rates, send an email to adsales@pci.org.
Beth Taylor Business Development Manager
Subscription rates are $80 per year and $200 for three years in the United States, $170 per year and $470 for three years for
international, and $80 per year and $200 for three years for electronic-only subscriptions anywhere in the world. A single or
back issue is $15. International subscriptions are delivered by an international carrier; allow one to three weeks.

Laura Vidale Copy Editor Postmaster: Please send address changes to PCI Journal, 8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL 60631.
Laura Bedolla Technical Activities Program Manager Periodicals postage rates paid at Chicago and additional mailing offices.

This paper is milled from a 3rd-party certified source

PCI Journal | July–August 2023

3
 Chairman’s Message

Your PCI
R ecently, at a regional event, producer members were asked what the perceived benefits are
of belonging to PCI. The answers were quite positive and varied. Returning from the trip,
I had time for reflection on the answers and to consider what the correlation in the answers
may be.
The strength of PCI comes directly from the active involvement of volunteer members. PCI
has 107 committees and councils with 2645 volunteers. That is an amazing level of involvement.
Those who are on the committees are responsible for progress and steering their respective com-
mittee. The councils are in charge of the committees and have seats on the board. Those with
seats on the board steer PCI.
The correlation in the answers was the level of involvement in PCI. Those who are involved
are getting more benefit. It’s not rocket science, but it’s certainly noteworthy. PCI is enjoying
another successful year thanks to those volunteer members and PCI staff. As there is more salt
than pepper in the hair of those on the board, we must constantly look to involve the next
generation.
I thought about what my answer to the question would be. It was not any of the given
answers. The phrasing of the question did not lend itself to one of the biggest benefits of PCI:
the people. Getting involved with an intelligent group of motivated people is highly rewarding
on a personal and professional level. There is great joy in attaining common goals and develop-
ing lifelong friendships. If you had told young me that committee and board work would be so
rewarding, I would not have believed you, and I would have been wrong. When attending meet-
ings, wherever they are, I feel like I’m home with my friends.
This is your PCI. Make it so. J

Matt Ballain
2023 PCI Board Chair
Vice President and General Manager
Coreslab Structures (INDIANAPOLIS) Inc.
Indianapolis, Ind.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 5

CALL FOR ENTRIES
Entries open on April 17, 2023. Join us in our
search for excellence and submit your projects
electronically by July 26, 2023.
The PCI Design Awards is not just looking for design excellence,
but also for projects with outstanding use of precast concrete.
PCI looks for projects that push the envelope and advance the
precast concrete industry.

The PCI Design Awards program showcases winning

projects in multiple ways:
■ PCI Convention Reception
■ Full coverage in PCI publications
■ Opportunity to appear on the
front cover and/or as a project
feature of Ascent
■ Special project video
■ Dedicated project profile
on PCI website
■ Editorial coverage in external,
local, and national magazines

Sponsored by:

VISIT PCI.ORG/DESIGNAWARDS FOR MORE INFORMATION

AND SUBMISSION DETAILS.
 President’s Message

Plan to participate
in Precast Days
W hile summer is in full swing, we are planning some exciting in-person events this fall at
PCI. We hope you can be a part of all of them.
Registration is now open for Committee Days, which is October 4–7 in Tampa, Fla., the first
time the meeting will be held outside of Chicago, Ill. We are very excited about the opportunity
to spread our wings in these new locations. The J. W. Marriott is a new hotel, and the location
in downtown Tampa is outstanding. In addition to the usual committee meetings and social
gatherings, we are planning a special event to support the PCI Foundation and also celebrate the
retirement of PCI managing director of quality programs, Mike Kesselmayer, at the end of the
year. (Rumor has it there may even be a bit of live entertainment provided by a PCI member!)
Also on the agenda this fall is the Architectural Precast Concrete Production Workshop
September 6–8 in Hartford, Conn. Hosted by the Architectural Precast Committee, this two-
day event for operations personnel of architectural producers includes presentations and a plant
tour of a PCI producer member.
Most exciting is PCI’s full participation in Precast Days as we celebrate and showcase the pre-
cast concrete industry October 9–20. During this period, precast concrete producer members are
invited to open their doors and host a local Precast Days event that is customized to your com-
pany and its values and products. PCI joins the Canadian Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute
and the National Precast Concrete Association in this North American showcase of precast con-
crete from coast to coast. Precast Days also coincides with Manufacturing Day.
Precast Days is a great opportunity for you to help grow the awareness of precast concrete.
Activities might include plant tours, education sessions, job fairs, and product demonstrations.
Many producers who have participated in the past have used the event for a variety of audiences.
Opening to the local community can show local residents what precasters contribute to their
built environment. It can also showcase the benefits of building with precast and precast, pre-
stressed concrete to members of the design community. In addition, local students get to see the
possibilities of building with precast concrete and the opportunities available with a career in the
precast concrete industry. It’s also a great opportunity to invite local politicians and members of
Congress to tour the plant and see how precast concrete benefits the community.
Whatever the audience, we encourage all PCI members to consider planning an open house
as part of Precast Days this fall. More information about Precast Days and a link to marketing
materials for promoting the event are available under Marketing Resources in the Members sec-
tion of the PCI website, PCI.org. Please reach out to PCI marketing staff if you have any ques-
tions, and please let us know if you plan to participate.
Have a great summer and we’ll see you in the fall! J

Bob Risser, PE
PCI President and CEO

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 7

 From PCI Headquarters
2023/24 Leadership PCI class
kicks off with 21 members
T his year’s Leadership PCI (LPCI) class kicked off at the
2023 PCI Convention at the Precast Show, February
21–25, 2023, in Columbus, Ohio, with 23 new students,
Katherine Arthur, a structural engineer at Consulting Engineers
Group Florida; Edward Bjorling, a PE/SE at Coreslab Structures
(OMAHA) Inc.; Donavon Burns, a lead engineer at Tindall
Corp.; James Calloway, a design engineer at PTAC Engineering;
Michelle Charapata, a senior engineer at Consulting Engineers
Group Illinois; Michael Clay, a field planner and preconstruc-
tion manager at Wells Concrete; Megan Comen, a structural
engineer at Metromont Corp.; Nick Comforter, principal, chief
engineer at Design Collaborative Solutions; Chris Dewanz, BIM
manager at Wells Concrete; Carrie Fain, director of sales and
estimating at PDM; Josh Harrell, director of engineering and
drafting at PDM; Thomas Holder, precast structural engineer
at Devita and Associates; Eric Humphries, engineering project
manager at Shockey Precast Group; Andre Jag, BIM director
at Gate Precast Co.; Calder Kaatz, project manager at Dailey
Precast/Peckham Industries; Matt Malloy, design team leader at
High Concrete Group; Anthony Nidhan, application engineer
at Finfrock Technologies; Pulumati Vijaykanth, project engineer
at Blue Ridge Design Inc.; Kyle Purcell, project engineer at TRC
Worldwide Engineering; Nicole Rodriguez, operation manage-
ment at Splice Sleeve North America Inc.; Vern Smith, sales
manager at Coreslab Structures (TAMPA) Inc.; Billy Sorensen,
operations manager at EnCon Field Services LLC; Taylor
Thorp, director of technical solutions and BIM integration at
PTAC Engineering; and Terri Ward, director of marketing at
Metromont.
This class also has new facilitators, John Miner, Betsy Aylin,
and Tom Black from Collaboration Unlimited. This is their
second LPCI class after taking over from the previous facilitator,
Mike Renquist, who retired. John Miner, the foudner of the
The 2023/24 Leadership PCI class commenced in February at the 2023 PCI Convention at the Precast Show in Columbus, Ohio.
10 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
organization, has spent more than 40 years as a management
consultant, executive manager, engineer, and educator in the
utility industry. Collaboration Unlimited helps companies and
groups prepare for continued success in an environment of
increasing customer expectations, complexity, and rapid change.
LCPI was created to sharpen participants’ skills and abil-
ities by providing management training, industry association
experience, and networking opportunities. Participants com-
mit to a year of learning led by a third-party facilitator that
focuses on management and leadership training. Nominees
must commit to attending five in-person events that kicked off
at the 2023 PCI Convention at the Precast Show in Columbus
and conclude when participants graduate at the 2024 PCI
Convention at the Precast Show in February in Denver, Colo.
In between conventions, members of the current LPCI class
attended a spring leadership boot camp in May in Chicago, Ill.,
and will attend PCI Committee Days in October in Tampa,
Fla., and a winter leadership boot camp in November.
LPCI accepts nominations from all membership ranks and
areas of the precast concrete industry. Candidates should have
three continuous years of employment in the industry and
should have exhibited job performance and other traits con-
sistent with a high-potential employee. Any PCI member can
nominate a candidate, and sponsors agree to pay a program fee
of $2500 upon acceptance of their nominee to cover travel and
lodging costs for program events. For more information, visit
https://www.pci.org/LPCI.
Architectural precast
workshop set for September
T he 2023 Architectural Precast Concrete Production
Workshop will take place September 6–8, 2023, in
Hartford, Conn. The workshop will focus on production tech-
niques to produce high-quality architectural precast concrete.
 The workshop is designed as an opportunity to spend time
with peers, sharing ideas and expanding your expertise. These
workshops are programmed and guided by experts and designed
to promote an exchange of experience from plants throughout
North America that brings out solutions to problems in an
effective way. Approaches to mixture designs, mixing, conveying
of concrete, placing and consolation, curing, stripping, storage,
and loading all provide new ideas and innovations.
Space is limited, so please save the date. For more informa-
tion, visit PCI.org and click on Continuing Education under
the Education tab or contact education@pci.org.
PCI Foundation announces
new studios at UVA, Auburn
PCI Mid-Atlantic Young
Professionals Network
kicks off second year
T he PCI Mid-Atlantic Young Professionals Network
met at Northeast Precast, Vineland, N.J., for the first
of three plant tours as part of their professional develop-
ment and networking program. Each plant visit provides
a business overview by a business leader as well as an open
discussion on workplace experiences. This year’s partici-
pants include Megan Bleidorn, TD&H Engineering; Mike
DeAmore, Northeast Precast; Cheyenne Doyle, Northeast
Precast; Brandon Hamilton, Summers Trucking; Robby
Henne, Northeast Prestressed Products; Chad Hollinger,
High Concrete; Brian Huttner, Tindall Corporation; Tony

T he PCI Foundation will have two new programs starting

during the 2023-2024 school year. The board of trustees
accepted proposals from the University of Virginia (UVA) and
Mark Gorgas, president of Northeast Precast, leads a tour of PCI Mid-
Atlantic’s early-career professionals. Courtesy of Dawn Decker.

Auburn University during its recent meeting.

Mohamed Ismail, an assistant professor at the UVA, will
lead a precast studio that will introduce new courses in the
undergraduate and graduate architecture curricula to teach
students in multiple disciplines and help advance precast
concrete design research and practices. Working with the
Tindall Corporation, Metromont, and the UVA School of
Engineering and Applied Science, Ismail aims to build compe-
tency in precast concrete design and construction and, equally
important, work with the concrete industry toward sustainable
design and construction technologies that take full advantage
of concrete’s performative values and widespread availability.
Alma Salman, Auburn University assistant professor, pro-
posed starting a multiyear studio integrating multiple steps of
precast concrete construction, including designing, modeling,
estimating, scheduling, and preparing a detailed comparison to
highlight the benefits of precast concrete construction.
Contech Engineered Solutions and Gate Precast will be
Auburn’s local partners.

2024 Mario J. Bertolini Leadership

and Innovation Award call for nominations
To honor the legacy of Mario J. Bertolini, an
icon of the precast concrete industry, PCI es-
tablished the Mario J. Bertolini Leadership and
Innovation Award. Bertolini was president of a
major precast concrete manufacturer for many
years and chairman of PCI in 1989.
The award will be presented next at the 2024
PCI Convention at the Precast Show, February
6–9, 2024, in Denver, Colo. Nominations are
being accepted through August 18, 2023. The cri-
teria for this award and the nomination form are
available at https://www.pci.org/PCI/About
/Awards/Mario_J_Bertolini_Award. For more in-
formation, contact Philip McConnell, PCI’s coordi-
nator of administrative services, at pmcconnell
@pci.org.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 11

 Mazariegos, Shockey Precast; Mark Ronning, Alp Supply;
and Gary Smith, High Concrete.
Student edition of PCI Design
Handbook now available
T he PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete
Student Edition is now available for free through the
PCI bookstore. This free e-book download includes chapters
1 through 5, 9, and 15 from the eighth edition of the PCI
Design Handbook. The free e-book is for students and aca-
demic members only. It is available for three years from the
date of the initial download and is available at https://doi
.org/10.15554/MNL-120-17-SE.
New PCI standard proposed
for insulated wall panels
A proposed new PCI standard, “Specification for the
Design of Precast Concrete Insulated Wall Panels,” is
now available for public review and comment. This standard
provides minimum requirements for the design of prestressed
2024 PCI Design Awards call for entries
The PCI Design Awards program recogniz-
es design excellence and construction quality
using precast concrete. Be a part of the search
for excellence and submit your precast concrete
projects today.
The 2024 PCI Design Awards submission site is
open. Visit https://pci.org/designawards for com-
plete information, including this year’s categories
and submission guidelines, or to make a submis-
sion.
Entries are accepted in two primary catego-
ries: buildings and transportation structures. In
addition to buildings and transportation, there are
2024 PCI educator awards call for nominations
PCI’s educator awards program recognizes the
work of academic professionals who exhibit a
commitment to precast concrete in their gradu-
ate and undergraduate classrooms. Nominations
must include recommendation letters, an updat-
ed curriculum vitae or resume, and additional
information. PCI Distinguished Educator and
PCI Educator of the Year Awards are available.
12 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
or nonprestressed precast insulated wall panels. Included
within the standard are provisions for composite action,
wythe connectors, reinforcement, strength evaluation, ser-
vice-level analysis, earthquake resistance, and temperature
effects, among others.
The proposed standard was developed through PCI’s ANSI-
accredited standards developer process. Interested individuals
may download the proposed standard and the related comment
form on the PCI Standards Development page, https://www
.pci.org/PCI/About/Standards_Development.aspx.
All comments must be submitted on the comment form
and be submitted electronically to standards@pci.org.
Comments are due by July 3, 2023.
Spanish translation
of TM-101 available
T he Spanish translation of TM-101, Quality Control
Technician/Inspector Level I and II Training Manual,
has been completed and is now available in the PCI book-
store at https://doi.org/10.15554/TM-101-SP-23. Work
is underway to also develop a Spanish version of the Level I
and Level II quality control technician/inspector certifica-
tion exams.
special awards categories: the Harry H. Edwards
Industry Advancement Award, the All–Precast
Concrete Solution Award, the Sustainable Design
Award, and the Building Information Modeling
(BIM) Award.
July 26, 2023, is the submission deadline, and
winners will be notified in October. All winning
projects will be showcased at the 2024 PCI Con-
vention at the Precast Show, February 6–9, 2024,
in Denver, Colo. and will be included in a supple-
ment to PCI Journal and Aspire and the spring
issue of Ascent. For more information, contact
PCIDesignAwards@pci.org.
Nomination forms must be submitted by October
9, 2023, and the awards will be presented at the
2024 PCI Convention at the Precast Show, Febru-
ary 6–9, 2024, in Denver, Colo. Nomination forms
are available online at https://www.pci.org
/EducatorAward. For more information about the
educator awards program, contact education
@pci.org.
 Research Fellowship call for applications
The PCI Research and Development Council
is soliciting applications for the 2023/24 Daniel
P. Jenny Research Fellowships and the Dennis
R. Mertz Bridge Research Fellowship programs.
The fellowship awards consist of grants of up
to $50,000 and are anticipated to advance the
precast concrete industry through the financial
support of graduate engineering students and re-
2024 Leadership PCI call for nominations
PCI’s flagship leadership program, established on
the occasion of PCI’s 50th anniversary, is opening
the nomination period for the next Leadership PCI
class. Each year, a class of outstanding individuals
is selected from candidate nominations submitted
by PCI members. Each new class begins at the
PCI Convention, during which class members take
part in program initiation, committee meetings,
and other convention activities. In the subsequent
year, class members are committed to a program of
development activities, culminating in a graduation
ceremony at the subsequent convention.
The next class starts at the 2024 PCI Conven-
tion at the Precast Show, February 6–9, 2024,
in Denver, Colo., and graduates at the 2025 PCI
2024 PCI Medal of Honor call for nominations
The PCI Medal of Honor award was established
to honor a person who has made extraordinary
contributions to PCI and the precast concrete in-
dustry. The nominees for the Medal of Honor shall
have made a highly significant contribution to
the precast concrete structures industry and shall
have demonstrated a sincere continuing interest
in the institute. The award will be presented at the
2024 PCI Fellows call for nominations
The PCI Fellows recognition is awarded to in-
dividuals who embrace the values of the institute,
who have provided continuous outstanding con-
tributions to the U.S. precast concrete industry,
and who have demonstrated exceptional service
to PCI. Service to the industry may be considered
in the areas of education, research, design, and/or
production.
PCI is accepting nominations for PCI Fellows,
search. Ancillary award benefits include engaging
faculty in the precast concrete industry, introduc-
ing students to the benefits of precast concrete,
and connecting students, faculty, and PCI mem-
bers for future networking opportunities.
Applications are due August 14, 2023. Com-
plete information is available at https://www.pci
.org/Fellowships.
Convention. Nominees must commit to attending
five in-person events, including the PCI Conven-
tion and PCI Committee Days. Any PCI member
can submit a candidate for Leadership PCI by
completing and submitting an application, avail-
able at https://www.pci.org/LPCI. Applications
are due by August 21, 2023. Both a sponsor and
participant application must be submitted to be
considered for the program.
Sponsors agree to pay a program fee of $2500
upon acceptance of their nominee to cover travel
and lodging costs for program events. The pro-
gram fee is due before the 2024 PCI Convention.
For more information about the LPCI program,
email membership@pci.org.
2024 PCI Convention at the Precast Show, Febru-
ary 6–9, 2024, in Denver, Colo. Visit https://www
.pci.org/PCI/About/Awards/PCI_Medal_of
_Honor for more information and nomination
criteria. Nominations are being accepted through
August 18, 2023, and should be sent to Philip
McConnell, PCI’s coordinator of administrative
services, at pmcconnell@pci.org.
to be awarded during the 2024 PCI Convention at
the Precast Show, February 6–9, 2024, in Denver,
Colo. Nominations are being accepted through
August 18, 2023. The criteria for this award and
the nomination form are available online at
https://www.pci.org/PCI/About/Awards/PCI
_Fellows. For more information, contact Philip
McConnell, PCI’s coordinator of administrative
services, at pmcconnell@pci.org.
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 13
 PCI releases errata
for UHPC guidelines
E rrata for the first publication of TR-9-22, Guidelines for
the Use of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC)
in Precast and Prestressed Concrete, have been posted to the
Publications Errata webpage at https://www.pci.org
/PublicationErrata. An updated guide specification for
UHPC, extracted from appendix A and revised based
on the errata, will also shortly be posted to the Guide
Specifications page.
Advanced Prestressed
Design online academy
registration open
R egistration is now open for PCI’s online academy
Advanced Prestressed Design. This six-part online series
will build on the concepts introduced in the Basic Prestressed
Concrete Design series and cover details of provisions for
design precast and precast, prestressed components including
torsion, dapped end design, ledge design, corbel design, design
of compression members, and detailing of beam openings.
The importance of local partner funding to PCI studios
In the years that the PCI Foun-
dation has been offering curriculum
development grants, the process
for receiving a grant has gotten in-
creasingly competitive. This spring,
the PCI Foundation was able to
fund only two of the five grant
applications we received, in part Greg Force
because we lacked the funding to PCI Foundation
Chair
offer more opportunities.
The process for applying for a
grant begins in December when the preliminary
proposal is due. At that time, we work to estab-
lish that the professor is interested in developing
new precast concrete curriculum at the university
where they teach, that the school is supportive,
that they have an industry partner willing to work
with them, and when possible, a local region
willing to work with them. Each of these factors is
key in ensuring the success of the program.
Once we establish these basics, applicants are
typically required to submit a detailed proposal
outlining the project or program they plan to un-
dertake, including the scope of work, budget, time
line, and expected student outcomes. They work
14 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
The series will run from 5 to 6:30 p.m. central time on
Thursdays from August 24 to September 28, 2023. For more
information and to register, visit https://www.pci.org
/PCI/Education/PCI_Online_Academy_-_Advancing
_Professionals.aspx.
Project surveys for categories
AA and AB begin in July
E ffective in July, producer plants certified in the AA and
AB categories will be required to submit project informa-
tion to PCI that will facilitate a PCI-distributed survey to the
architect and GC/CM upon completion of a project. Plants
should expect to receive an email outlining these requirements
and a request to designate specific plant contacts who will
complete the survey requests and have access to the results.
This requirement applies to all completed projects speci-
fied as category AA or AB with more than 5000 ft2 (465 m2)
of wall panel area. Concurrent with implementing this
requirement, category AA and AB plants will be invoiced
$3000 for the annual surcharge for these surveys. The fee is
per the Architectural Certification Program Supplemental
Requirements which can be found at https://www.pci.org
/PCI_Docs/Certification/Arch/ARCH-CERT19x3716
_ArchCert_Program.pdf.
with a PCI Foundation trustee liaison, their local
producer, the regional director, and the PCI Foun-
dation executive director to write the proposal.
The foundation’s grant selection process typically
involves a review of all submitted proposals by the
board of trustees. Proposals are evaluated based on
a range of factors, including their potential impact
on advancing precast concrete education, the feasi-
bility of the proposed project and program, and the
applicant’s qualifications and experience, and prob-
ably most importantly local support. Local support
is measured in terms of many factors: time spent by
the regional director managing the program; gifts in
kind, such as projects built by the local precasting
partner; and cash donations to the PCI Foundation
by the local partners.
A local cash contribution to the PCI Foundation
is a key component to receiving a grant because it
demonstrates the commitment and support of the
local partner toward the proposed studio. It also
ensures that funding for programs is locally avail-
able. In addition, local cash contributions help to
leverage the impact of the PCI Foundation’s grant
funds, allowing them to support a greater number
of projects and initiatives.
 PCI’s Calendar
Events
PCI event details are subject to change. For the most current information, visit
https://www.pci.org/events.
PCI of Illinois & Wisconsin Summer Meeting
July 11–12, 2023
Grand Geneva Resort, Lake Geneva, Wis.
Florida Prestressed Concrete Association Summer Meeting
July 27–30, 2023
Charlotte Harbor, Fla.
PCI Gulf South Summer Convention
July 27–30, 2023
Fairhope, Ala,
PCI Mid-Atlantic Summer Membership Meeting
August 3–4, 2023
Annapolis Waterfront Hotel, Annapolis, Md.
PCI Architectural Precast Production Workshop
September 6–8, 2023
Hartford, Conn.
2023 PCI Northeast Meeting
September 18–19, 2023
Graduate Providence, Providence, R.I.
2023 PCI Committee Days Conference
October 4–8, 2023
Tampa, Fla.
PCI Gulf South 2023 Winter Meeting
November 7–8, 2023
Biloxi, Miss.
PCI West 2024 Annual Board Meeting
January 24, 2024
World of Concrete, Las Vegas, Nev.
Florida Prestressed Concrete Association Winter Meeting
January 30–31, 2024
Orlando, Fla.
2024 PCI Convention at The Precast Show
February 6–10, 2024
Denver, Colo.
PCI West 2024 Summer Board Meeting
May 22, 2024
Woodland, Calif.
2024 PCI Board of Directors Meeting
June 4-6, 2024
Jackson Hole, WY
2024 PCI Committee Days Conference
September 23–27, 2024
Nashville, Tenn.
2025 PCI Convention at The Precast Show
February 3–7, 2025
Denver, Colo.

PCI personnel training and certification schools

Quality Control School event details are subject to change. If you have any questions about the Quality Control School sched-
ule or need help completing a registration form, please contact PCI’s continuing education coordinator, education@pci.org.
Registration forms are available at https://www.pci.org/qc_schools.
July 25–27, 2023 Lancaster, PA
September 18–21, 2023 online
Levels I and II
October 25–27, 2023 Nashville, Tenn.
November 13–16, 2023 online
August 14–17, 2023 online
Level III October 24–27, 2023 Nashville, Tenn.
December 11–14, 2023 online
Certified Field Auditor September 11–14, 2023 online
Certified Company Auditor September 15, 2023 online

Compiled by K. Michelle Burgess (mburgess@pci.org) J

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 15

Do you have what it takes to be a leader in the precast
concrete industry? PCI members are invited to apply
to join Leadership PCI (LPCI), an extraordinary
opportunity for participants to accelerate their
growth as high-potential employees.
During this yearlong program, participants develop their Emotional
Intelligence—a key to successful leadership—through in-person
camps and other learning opportunities focused on self-awareness,
self-management, knowledge of human differences, quality listening,
feedback, motivation, coaching for performance improvement, and
change management.

You can find more information at pci.org/lpci and apply to

be part of the 2025 class. Applications close at 5:00 p.m.
Central on August 21, 2023.
 Our Members

BASF joined AltusGroup a life-cycle assessment of a manufactured material. This enables

comparisons between products fulfilling the same function.
as innovation partner The EPD was conducted in accordance with ISO 21930 as
the core product category rule and is also compliant with the

B ASF launched the ultra-low embodied carbon version

of Neopor Graphite Polystyrene called Biomass Balance
(BMB) at the 2022 American Institute of Architect’s
ISO 14025 standard. This was the first EPD for a reinforcing
fiber product published through the National Ready Mixed
Concrete Associate EPD program. The EPD is accessible
Conference. The biomass balance approach combines renew- to the public and listed as NRMCA EPD: 20080 Euclid
able feedstock with traditional fossil feedstock during produc- Chemical.
tion, allowing more fossil fuels to stay in the ground, protect- —Source: Euclid Chemical
ing the environment and climate by reducing carbon dioxide
emissions. In conjunction with Habitat for Humanity, Neopor
BMB was showcased in a low-carbon concrete affordable home Northeast Precast announces
project in Will County, Ill.
Neopor comprises many small pockets of air within a poly- change in its leadership
mer matrix containing graphite. The graphite reflects radiant
heat energy like a mirror, increasing the material’s resistance to structure
the flow of heat, or R-value. Neopor GPS is in a unique class
because it increases in R-value as the temperature outside drops.
Neopor’s North America Business Manager Luis Espada
said, “We are thrilled to partner with the AltusGroup to sup-
N ortheast Precast
LLC has
announced that several
port lowering embodied carbon in buildings made of concrete long-standing employees
to further reduce CO2 emissions in construction.” have stepped into new
—Source: BASF leadership positions,
effective June 1, 2023.
Owners John and
Euclid Chemical completes Lorie Ruga will continue Lorie Ruga John Ruga
to lead within the new roles
environmental product of chief executive officer
and chief operating offi-
declaration for FRP products cer, respectively. The new
structure allows them to

E uclid Chemical has completed its first Environmental

Product Declaration (EPD). The EPD reports on the
impacts of four microfibers and one macrofiber used as con-
crete reinforcement.
Manufactured at Euclid Chemical’s LaFayette, Ga., fiber
production facility, PSI Fiberstrand Multi-Mix 80, PSI
Fiberstrand 100, PSI Fiberstrand 150, PSI Fiberstrand F, and
Tuf-Strand SF were analyzed for the report. The EPD helps
quantify the environmental savings, or footprint, that can
result when using or converting traditional steel reinforcement
to Euclid Chemical’s fibers.
An EPD is a communications document that provides
transparent and third-party verified data about the environ-
mental impact of products and services based on the results of
guide the company with
an eye on the long-term
future while allowing
room for others on their Mark Gorgas Justin Wigglesworth
executive team to play a
more prominent role in day-to-day activities.
Mark Gorgas has stepped into the position of president of
Northeast Precast after working for the past 20 years in vari-
ous roles within the company. Long-standing employee Justin
Wigglesworth was promoted to vice president to work directly
with Gorgas in the new position. Previously, Wigglesworth led
field operations and steel fabrication, with a steady presence in
plant operations.
—Source: Northeast Precast LLC

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 17

 Welcome to PCI!
Erectors Producer
Arch City Ironworks Rocky Mountain Precast
10328 Lake Bluff Drive 410 Joaguin Tugon Road
St. Louis, MO 63123 Yigo, Guam 96929
(314) 892-3030 RMPGuam.com
Primary contact: Alvan Caby (671) 653-4701
acaby@archcityironworks.com Primary contact: Jeremiah Frey
Rocky Mountain Precast jeremiahf@rmpguam.com
410 Joaguin Tugon Road
Yigo, Guam 96929 Supplier Associate
RMPGuam.com Arcosa Lightweight
(671) 653-4701 1112 East Copeland Blvd.,
Primary contact: Chris Rabbetts Suite 500
chrisr@rmpguam.com Arlington, TX 76011
ArcosaLightweight.com
Precast Installers (205) 499-6711
Hodges Erectors Inc. Primary contact: Jack Moore
11403 NW 122nd Street, jack.moore@arcosa.com
Miami, FL 33178 Glen-Gery
(305) 234-3467 1166 Spring St.
Primary contact: Jorge Amador Jr. Wyomissing, PA 19610
jorge.amador@hodgeserectors.com GlenGery.com
Inland Crane Inc. (610) 374-4011
6931 Supply Way Primary contact: Jay Moersen
Boise, ID 83705 info@glengery.com
InlandCrane.com Max Co. Ltd.
(208) 345-9508 6-6 Ninonbashi, Hokozaki-cho
Primary contact: Jeremy Haener Chuo-ku
info@inlandcrane.com Tokyo, Japan 103-8502
KLS Contractors Inc. Max-Ltd.Co.jp
3011 Academy Road +81-3-3669-8131
Portland, TN 37148 Primary contact: Shuhei Kato
(615) 336-2844 kato-4-s@max-ltd.co.jp
Primary contact: Karl Schneider Molenaar North America Inc.
kschneider9@comcast.net 3625 Greenside Court
Sealed-Rite Inc. Dacula, GA 30019
9681 South State Road 67 Molenaar-Americas.com
Fortville, IN 46040 (404) 493-7628
SealedRiteInc.com Primary contact: Joerg Starkmann
(317) 646-0678 info@molenaar-americas.com
Primary contact: Adam Marschinke Victory Bear Products/Fukuvi USA Inc.
adamm@sealedriteinc.com 7631 Progress Court
Huber Heights, OH 45424
VictoryBear.com
(937) 236-7288
Primary contact: Jon Dresel
jdresel@fukuvi-usa.com

18 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

Lang promoted to
president of Tindall
T indall Corp. has promoted Cheryl
Lang to the position of president as the
company celebrates its 60th year.
Lang joined Tindall in 1990 as a control-
ler. In 2006, she was named vice president
and chief financial officer. She was promot-
ed again in 2022 to the role of senior vice
president of administration, where she was Cheryl Lang
responsible for accounting and finance, human
resources, safety, trucking, information technology, and mar-
keting. As acting president, Lang will assume the duties of
overseeing the day-to-day operations of the business.
Lang graduated from East Tennessee State University in
Johnson City with a degree in business and earned a master’s
degree in business administration from Clemson University in
South Carolina.
—Source: Tindall Corp.
Andrawes to lead new
transportation infrastructure
research center at U of I
B assem Andrawes, PCI member and pro-
fessor at University of Illinois Urbana-
Champaign, will lead a new research center
with the goal of improving the durability
and extending the life of transportation
infrastructure by advancing the technologies
used in precast concrete systems, thanks to a
$2 million grant from the U.S. Department Bassem Andrawes
of Transportation to establish a University
Transportation Center. The Transportation Infrastructure
Precast Innovation Center (TRANS-IPIC) will be a con-
sortium of five universities, including Purdue University,
Louisiana State University, SUNY University at Buffalo, and
the University of Texas at San Antonio.
“Deterioration of transportation infrastructure is a press-
ing national problem,” Andrawes says. “We cannot address
this critical problem without adopting transformative tech-
nologies that are specifically tailored for transportation infra-
structure systems. Many of the emerging technologies such as
nano and high-performance materials, robotics, and automat-
ed manufacturing sound exciting theoretically, but are faced
with major practical challenges that hinder or prevent their
application.”
A major reason for this issue, he says, is the difficulty and
high cost of incorporating these very delicate technologies
into the construction site using conventional construction
techniques. Providing a well-controlled manufacturing envi-
ronment would significantly increase the feasibility of incor-
porating these new technologies in the delivery, maintenance,
and management of transportation infrastructure.
Precast concrete is, by definition, manufactured in a con-
trolled environment, so the path for introducing and imple-
menting new technologies that can drastically and swiftly have
an impact on the durability and service life of infrastructure is
much more feasible and straightforward using precast concrete.
“A quite large sector of our transportation infrastructure is
built or repaired using precast concrete—for example, bridges,
tunnels, railroads, pavement, and ports—so deploying new
precast concrete technologies will impact the durability of
multiple modes of transportation,” Andrawes says.
The new center will focus on the following three key
research topic areas: application of new materials and tech-
nologies, construction methodologies and management, and
condition monitoring and remote sensing. The research that
TRANS-IPIC will offer will play a significant role in sup-
porting the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Strategic
Plan goals including transformation, climate and sustainabil-
ity, and safety.
TRANS-IPIC’s mission is to leverage research innovation
and strong industry support to foster research and education
that focus on using precast concrete and its related technolo-
gies as an economic approach to provide a quick boost for the
durability, safety, and climate adaptability of various modes of
transportation networks in the United States through infra-
structure repair or reconstruction. The consortium will address
various aspects of precast concrete technologies, including
materials, design, modeling, manufacturing, quality control,
installation, operations, and condition assessment.
The research that will be carried out through the center
will focus on a broad range of innovative topics pertinent to
the advancement of the durability, resilience, and economics
of precast concrete transportation infrastructure. TRANS-
IPIC researchers will study the use of precast concrete–related
solutions that are based on innovative and smart materials (for
example, smart composites and metals) and novel emerging
manufacturing methods that involve robotics and automat-
ed manufacturing (for example, three-dimensional printing,
uncrewed aerial vehicles, and building information modeling)
guided by big data analytics and artificial intelligence.
The center will also provide long-term solutions by replac-
ing existing infrastructure with more-durable components that
are built in a controlled environment with advanced durable
materials, such as ultra-high-performance concrete, fiber-rein-
forced concrete, and fiber-reinforced polymers, and built more
efficiently to reduce cost and carbon emissions and increase
quality and productivity using advanced design optimization
techniques such as topology optimization, innovative manu-
facturing methods, quality control technologies, and industrial
operating processes.
The center will also work on developing a new generation
of intelligent transportation infrastructure that has an innova-
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 19
tive built-in capability of self-condition assessment using smart
materials and remote sensing.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced up
to $435 million in grant awards for 34 university transportation
centers. These awards are meant to assist the next generation of
transportation professionals in making our roads, bridges, rail,
shipping, and airspace more innovative, resilient, and equitable
as well as help the American people travel more safely, quickly,
and affordably. Funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
there will be five national, 10 regional and 20 tier one university
transportation centers that will receive, respectively, $4 million,
$3 million, and $2 million annually for five years.
For more information on TRANS-IPIC, visit https://
trans-ipic.illinois.edu.
—Source: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and U.S.
Department of Transportation

PCI’s newly certified plants and erectors

PCI recently certified the following plant. For an explanation of the certification designations, visit
http://www.pci.org/Plant_Certification.
• Smith-Midland Corp. in Reidsville, N.C.: B2 and C2

Compiled by K. Michelle Burgess (mburgess@pci.org) J

It’s An Art Installation,

a 3-mile Bike/Walking Path and
an Illuminated Twin-Span Bridge
Crossing the Hudson River.

And, It Required Intricate Forms.

Project: Gov. Mario M. Cuomo Bridge

(formerly Tappan Zee Bridge)
Client: Unistress Corporation

Our Role: Hamilton Form created the

forms for the deck panels.

Hamilton Form Company For more than 55 years,

Custom forms Hamilton Form has been helping
Custom equipment
Practical solutions the precast community meet its
www.hamiltonform.com greatest challenges.
sales@hamiltonform.com
817-590-2111
It’s all we do.
 In The News
Proposed ASTM standard
will support FRP concrete
A STM International’s concrete and concrete aggregates
committee (C09) is developing a proposed standard
(WK73384) that will evaluate the tensile performance of
fiber-reinforced concrete using cylindrical specimens with dou-
ble-punch loading.
The proposed standard contains “pre- and post-peak
tensile properties (that) hold great significance in fiber-rein-
forced concrete (FRC) and ultra-high-performance concrete
(UHPC). These properties serve as the fundamental character-
istics of FRC and UHPC, playing a vital role in determining
the capacities and failure modes of structural members con-
structed from these materials,” says, Shih-Ho Chao, ASTM
International member and professor of civil engineering at
the University of Texas at Arlington. He says that FRC and
UHPC provide enhanced durability over conventional con-
crete, which “has the potential to encourage the adoption of
these durable materials, thereby promoting sustainable devel-
opment within society, particularly in terms of sustainable
infrastructure.”
This method is primarily based on the double-punch test
(DPT). “The double-punch test, outlined in the proposed
standard, utilizes a simple apparatus and procedure, providing
a convenient method for obtaining these tensile properties.
This test method is well-suited for routine testing purposes and
exhibits low variability in its results,” says Chao. According to
Chao, the DPT is highly regarded as it has undergone exten-
sive testing by various researchers across the world.
Chao says this will serve as a helpful tool for quality control
purposes and as a guide for serviceability and strength design.
All interested parties (specifically departments of transpor-
tation, government agencies, FRC suppliers, fiber manufactur-
ers, and researchers) are invited to contribute to the develop-
ment of the proposed standard.
This effort directly relates to the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goal number 12 on responsible con-
sumption and production.
—Source: ASTM International
Pankow Foundation releases
report on spandrel assemblies
in glazed wall systems
T he Charles Pankow Foundation has released the phase
1 report from grant 04-22, “Thermal Performance of
Spandrel Assemblies in Glazing Systems Research Roadmap.”
Glazed wall systems, such as curtain walls or window walls,
form part of the building envelope and are commonly used in
modern buildings. They comprise transparent, translucent, and
opaque areas; however, because of the complex arrangement
of materials and structural components that bridge the insu-
lation, spandrel assembly thermal performance is often lower
than assumed. This can contribute to building energy loss, con-
densation, and other performance issues.
The overall goal of this program is to provide the industry
with a repeatable and accurate procedure for estimating the
thermal performance of spandrel panel systems. Based on this
physically validated simulation procedure, jurisdictions may
choose to recognize the performance of spandrels in differ-
ent ways, including requiring the use of the procedure when
reporting performance or by setting targets independent from
those of other opaque wall assemblies.
The program objectives in the short- to midterm are to pro-
vide research findings that lead to the publication of the design
guide, “Design Guidance for Thermal Performance of Spandrel
Assemblies in Glazed Wall Systems.” The goals of the design
guidance document are to provide shorter-term direction to
improve existing practice and to inform codes and standards
changes over a 10-year time span.
The overall project is divided into the following four phases:
• phase 1: design test program
• phase 2: physical testing and analysis
• phase 3: defining spandrel thermal performance require-
ments
• phase 4: preparation of design guidance document
The current final report is for the phase 1 design test pro-
gram, and it is available at http://www.pankowfoundation
.org/site/assets/files/2320/04-22_thermal_performance_
of_spandrel_assemblies_in_glazed_wall_systems-1.pdf.
Cofunding partners are being sought for the phase 2 testing
and analysis program.
—Pankow Foundation
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 21

ASTM announces next step
in digital workflow functionality
with Compass Points
A STM International has announced its newest product for
improving digital workflow functionality through its new
Compass Points tool. Compass Points is an online tool that
provides users with the ability to highlight important compo-
nents in standards, building a permanent link back to that data
for multiple purposes.
The release of the new Compass Points tool follows a major
investment into ASTM International’s information technol-
ogy infrastructure that has significantly enhanced the ASTM
Compass product. With the newly improved platform, ASTM
International provides users with improved and more flexible
solutions so they can do more with their standards, especially
when incorporating them into a variety of key workflow sys-
tems.
All Compass features are based on years of customer feed-
back and usage data and were built to help customers manage
change and use technology to meet growing digital needs.
Specifically, ASTM Compass enables users to switch between
both HTML and PDF versions of standards; easily export and
transfer content to internal workflow systems, standard oper-
ating procedures, or other platforms; access additional content
from a variety of standards developers and associations; and
easily identify changes to standards through ASTM Redlines,
saving time and money; and create and share a unique and per-
manent URL.
To learn more about the enhancements to ASTM
Compass, visit www.astm.org/compass.
—ASTM International
ACI names Grubbe new
executive vice president
T he American Concrete Institute (ACI) has named
Frederick H. Grubbe, current president
and chief executive officer of the National
Precast Concrete Association (NPCA),
executive vice president of ACI.
Current ACI executive vice president,
Ronald G. Burg, will retire from ACI in
August after 13 years of service to the insti-
tute. Grubbe will join the 148-member ACI
staff at its Farmington Hills, Mich., head- Frederick Grubbe
quarters on August 10.
Grubbe brings more than 25 years of not-
for-profit executive leadership experience to the ACI. He has
held positions at the Appraisal Institute, the American Fraternal
22 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
Alliance (formerly the National Fraternal Congress of America),
and the Think First Foundation. He also served as director of
strategic planning and special projects at the Million Dollar
Round Table, along with positions at several other not-for-profit
organizations.
In addition to this experience, Grubbe worked at the
U.S. Department of Transportation as a special assistant
to the secretary and White House liaison prior to serving
as deputy administrator of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. In 1992, President George H. W.
Bush appointed Grubbe deputy director of the U.S. Office of
Consumer Affairs in the White House.
During his tenure at NPCA, Grubbe oversaw the contin-
ued growth and success of The Precast Show. As president and
CEO, Grubbe served as an ex-officio board of directors and
executive committee member, as well as NPCA Foundation
president and ex-officio board member.
Grubbe is an active member of the American Society of
Association Executives (ASAE), currently serving on the board
of directors for ASAE Business Solutions, a for-profit subsidi-
ary of ASAE. He also served as chair of the board of directors
for the Association Forum of Chicagoland.
A Certified Association Executive (CAE), Grubbe received
his master of business administration degree from Loyola
University Chicago.
—Source: American Concrete Institute
ASTM specification
to cover emerging
cementitious materials
A STM International’s concrete and concrete aggregates
committee (C09) is developing a proposed standard
specification for a broad range of supplementary cementitious
materials (SCMs).
Principal engineer at Sutter Engineering and ASTM
International member Larry Sutter says that performance spec-
ification WK70466 will ease the adoption of new materials
used for SCMs as established sources become less available.
“For a variety of reasons, historic sources of SCMs, like coal
fly ash from electric power generation, are in short supply and
new materials are emerging,” Sutter says. “These new materials
do not fall under existing specifications, leading to the need for
new specifications. Rather than writing a new specification for
every emerging material, we are writing a performance specifi-
cation that can be used to cover the full range of them.”
Sutter says that concrete made with SCMs can be less cost-
ly, more durable, and more sustainable than traditional port-
land cement. New specifications will allow these new materials
to be used for more construction projects.
 This effort directly relates to the United Nations injuries and fatalities for people working at heights in all indus-
Sustainable Development Goal number 7 on clean and afford- tries. The targeted enforcement program is based on historical
able energy. Bureau of Labor Statistics data and OSHA enforcement histo-
—Source: ASTM International ry. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that of the 5190 fatal
workplace injuries in 2021, 680 were associated with falls from
elevations, about 13% of all deaths.
U.S. Department of Labor The program establishes guidance for locating and inspect-
ing fall hazards and allows OSHA compliance safety and
announces national emphasis health officers to open inspections whenever they observe
someone working at heights. An outreach component of the
program to reduce falls program will focus on educating employers about effective
ways to keep their workers safe. If a compliance officer deter-

T he U.S. Department of Labor announced that the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
has begun a National Emphasis Program to prevent falls, the
leading cause of fatal workplace injuries and the violation the
agency cites most frequently in construction industry inspections.
The emphasis program will focus on reducing fall-related
mines an inspection is not necessary after entering a worksite
and observing work activities, they will provide outreach on
fall protection and leave the site.
For more information about federally required fall protec-
tion, visit https://www.osha.gov/fall-protection.
—Source: U.S. Department of Labor

Industry Calendar
Event details are subject to change.
BEI-2023 “Sustainability in Bridge Engineering”
July 17–20, 2023
Roma Eventi-Fontana di Fontana Trevi, Rome, Italy
CACRCS 2022
September 12–15, 2023
Parma, Italy
Greenbuild
September 26–29, 2023
Walter E. Washington Convention Center, Washington, D.C.
PTI 2023 Committee Days
October 3–6, 2023
Cancun, Mexico
ACI Concrete Convention
October 29–
Boston Convention Center and Westin Boston Waterfront,
November 2, 2023
Boston, Mass.
AASHTO Annual Meeting
November 12–16, 2023
J. W. Marriott Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Ind.
ASBI 35th Annual Convention
November 5–8, 2023
Westin La Paloma Resort and Spa, Tucson, Ariz.
World of Concrete
January 22–25, 2024
Las Vegas Convention Center, Las Vegas, Nev.
ACI Concrete Convention
March 24–28, 2024
Hyatt Regency New Orleans, New Orleans, La.
PTI Convention
April 14–17, 2024
Indianapolis, Ind.
ACI/RILEM International Conference on Cementitious Materials
and Alternative Binders for Sustainable Concrete June 23–26, 2004
Toulouse, France
fib International Conference on Concrete Sustainability
September 11–13, 2024
Guimarães, Portugal

Compiled by K. Michelle Burgess (mburgess@pci.org) J

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 23

 Project Spotlight

GFRC proves best solution

for San Francisco hotel

S erif Residences and the Line Hotel are both located in a

12-story, mixed-use residential building with 200,000 ft2
(19,000 m2) of residential space for the Serif and 140,000 ft2
(13,000 m2) of space for the Line hotel on a triangular block in
downtown San Francisco, Calif. The scale of this project was
influenced by adjacent buildings and the challenging propor-
tions of the triangular site.
The Serif has 242 residences comprising studios and
one- and two-bedroom homes. The Line Hotel has 236 guest
rooms, as well as retail and dining. The structure wraps around
the irregular site, culminating in a flatiron corner at Market
and Turk Streets. It has a distinctive, bright white facade and
floor-to-ceiling windows.
Early in the design process, the architect considered a
metal panel rainscreen, precast concrete, and glass-fiber-rein-
forced concrete (GFRC) as potential materials to achieve the
three-dimensional faceted facade. Ultimately, GFRC proved
the most advantageous due to its light weight and its simplic-
ity of detailing and installation. The owner selected Willis
Construction of San Juan Bautista, Calif., for the GFRC.
The unusual floor plan configuration features various
angles and curving conditions. By creating a series of repeat-
ing panels at different lengths and applying them in a stag-
gered formation, the modular system was able to incorporate
the various conditions seamlessly. To limit the number of
individual forms needed to create unique panels, Willis
Construction designed an adjustable form to help achieve the
complex geometry and the different lengths required with
only a simple adjustment.
The windows varied in length from 12 to 30 ft (3.7 to
9.1 m) and were shipped to the GFRC production facility.
They were then installed directly into the panels to allow
Willis Construction used an adjustable form to create the complex
geometric pattern on the Serif Residences and the Line Hotel in San
Francisco, Calif. Courtesy of Handel Architects.
Serif Residences and the Line Hotel in downtown San Francisco used
671 precast concrete panels made of 79,000 ft2 (7300 m2) of glass-fi-
ber-reinforced concrete. Courtesy of Jason O’Rear Photography.
for more efficient enclosure of the structure. Traditionally,
preinstallation of windows would require a horizontal joint
between floors where two panels are stacked. When viewed
in the building information modeling model, this joint
detracted from the desired smooth and chiseled appearance.
Therefore, the design team chose to install a steel tube framing
component across the top of the panel. The skin of the upper
panel hides the header tube of the panel below. “This larger
span needed additional support during storage, trucking, and
installation,” says Sean Fitinghoff, senior project manager for
Willis Construction. “Once on the building and attached to
the structure, the additional bracing could be removed. GFRC
proved to be the best solution for the design shapes and pro-
viding the preglazing option.” The GFRC facade complements
the architectural character of neighboring historical structures
along Market Street. The combination of the light color of the
GFRC and the solidity of the panel creates a contemporary
rhythm within the urban context.
In all, the project includes 671 precast concrete panels
made of 79,000 ft2 (7300 m2) of GFRC. Panels range in size
from 18 to 37 ft (5.5 to 11.3 m) and feature a white matrix
with white sand and aggregates along with a light sandblasted
finish.
Although the project generally progressed smoothly, there
were some challenges. One was related to the design process.

24 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

“The faceted panels were preglazed in the plant,” Fitinghoff
says. “The panel that was located on the floor above con-
tained the GFRC header for the window below. Panel instal-
lation strategies were developed to prevent damage.”
In terms of production, some of the faceted surfaces were
cast separately and welded together in the plant after casting.
“Alignment strategies were developed to ensure dimensions
were kept within PCI tolerances,” he says.
Transportation also required some innovative thinking.
“Many panel shapes required several unique trailer racks and
loading schemes,” Fitinghoff says. “Loading diagrams were
prepared by an engineer to ensure damage-free handling and
transportation.”
With regard to installation, panels up to level seven were
installed below cast-in-place falsework directly above. “The
hoist line had to be held out away from the falsework above,”
he says. “A mobile line standoff was developed specifically for
this project. It was positioned three levels above the installa-
tion level. As a result, these panels had to be pulled into their
final location.”
—William Atkinson
Islanders stadium benefits
from insulated panels
T he New York Islanders of the National Hockey League
(NHL) welcomed fans to the new UBS Arena in
November 2021. The multipurpose venue is the home base
for the Islanders and now also hosts music and entertainment
events throughout the year.
Located in Nassau County, N.Y., the arena is part of a larg-
er redevelopment program that involves converting 43 acres
The new UBS Arena in Nassau County, N.Y., home of the New York
Islanders professional hockey team, was designed with thermal per-
formance and reduced energy use in mind. Precast concrete helped
meet these requirements through the use of continuous, edge-to-edge
insulation. Courtesy of Elizabeth Strohl.
(174,000 m2) of land around the Belmont Park racetrack into
a premier sports and hospitality destination.
The arena’s exterior incorporates elements inspired by
historic and modern landmarks in New York, such as Central
Park, Ebbets Field, and Grand Central Terminal. Sitting just
behind the historic Belmont Park racetrack in Elmont, just to
the east of Queens, the project cost $1.1 billion.
The facade is made from five types of material: thin brick,
insulated metal panels, glazed curtainwall, louvres, and approx-
imately 1200 glass-fiber-reinforced concrete (GFRC) panels.
The project was designed with thermal performance and
reduced energy use in mind. The precast concrete technology
met these requirements through the use of continuous, edge-
to-edge insulation. This aspect of the design proved to be a
challenge because numerous changes in plane were used to cre-
ate recessed accent areas within the panels. Meticulous design
and execution in production of the panels resulted in achieving
the design goals regarding thermal performance. Careful coor-
dination was required between the design team, contractor,
and subcontractors to ensure seamless integration between the
five unique facade types, all while maintaining a continuous
insulation philosophy.
The architect selected Universal Concrete Products as
the precast concrete producer and Universal selected Leviat
to supply the Thermomass insulation system for Universal’s
high-performance precast concrete wall panels.
Although the project progressed smoothly, there were
a few challenges, according to Ginger Wiebers, customer
service representative for the North American division of
Leviat. “The exterior facade was designed to match historic
landmarks around New York City, and the project as a whole
was designed with thermal performance and energy efficien-
cy in mind,” she says. “Incorporating thin brick on the face
of an insulated sandwich panel is an ideal solution for both
goals.” While certainly a challenge to incorporate all of the
detailing involved in fully insulating the building envelope
for a project of this scale, it is a process that Leviat has been
refining for the past 45 years. Each individual panel was laid
out to illustrate where the insulation and connectors were to
be placed in order to ensure a continuous, edge-to-edge insu-
lation layer. “Our engineering staff, drafters, and the software
they have developed over the years really made the entire
process relatively straightforward and efficient as possible,”
she says.
Production tended to go smoothly, largely because of the
manufacturer’s decades of experience. “Much like our layout
process, the production of the actual Thermomass insulation
pieces has also evolved to simplify what is a fairly complex
process,” Wiebers says. Sheets of insulation for each panel were
cut to size and shape on CNC tables. Packaged with connec-
tors, each panel’s insulation materials could be assembled and
fit into the formwork to ensure edge-to-edge coverage in the
finished panel, maximizing the wall’s energy efficiency, thermal
performance, and moisture control.
—William Atkinson J
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 25
SPECIFY PCI CERTIFICATION
THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT

Photo courtesy of
USC/Gus Ruelas.

The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) certifications are the industry’s

most proven, comprehensive, trusted, and specified certification programs.
The PCI Plant Certification Program is accredited by the International Accreditation
Service (IAS), which provides objective evidence that an organization operates
at the highest level of ethical, legal, and technical standards. This accreditation
demonstrates compliance to ISO/IEC 17021-1. PCI Certification offers a complete
regimen covering personnel, plant, and field operations. This assures owners,
specifiers, and designers that precast concrete products are manufactured and
installed by companies who subscribe to nationally accepted standards and are
audited to ensure compliance.
To learn more about PCI Certification, please visit pci.org/certification
 Research Corner
PCI-funded research
on insulated wall panels
shows their strength
Andrew Osborn
T he theme of this issue of the PCI Journal is “Slabs,
Panels, and Hollow-core.” Numerous research and
development projects have investigated various aspects
of these three component types, and this Research Corner
focuses on precast concrete insulated wall panels, which are
sometimes called sandwich panels.
A precast insulated wall panel has rigid insulation
sandwiched between inner and outer wythes of concrete.
The main purpose of the insulation is to reduce heat
(in other words, energy) loss through the panel, but the
insulation also provides sound attenuation and impact
energy absorption. Connections between the individual
concrete wythes are necessary to tie the panel together.
Connections may comprise solid zones of concrete or
distributed or individual ties fabricated from metal, rigid
polymer composite, or carbon-fiber materials. The great-
est degree of composite behavior is achieved by using
Degrees of composite behavior. Source: Olsen et al. (2019).
solid zones of concrete to connect the wythes, but this
results in the poorest thermal performance.
The concrete wythes may be reinforced with non-
prestressed steel reinforcing bars or mesh, fiber-rein-
forced-polymer bars or mesh, or may be prestressed with
prestressing strands. Both concrete wythes may be designed
as structural, in which case the mechanical ties are intended
to provide some degree of composite behavior and the two
wythes act as a system to resist external lateral and gravi-
ty loads. Sometimes just the inner wythe is structural and
the outer wythe primarily provides weather protection and
impact resistance. In this case the mechanical ties transfer
wind forces from the outer wythe to the inner wythe.
There have been many PCI-funded projects that investi-
gated precast concrete insulated wall panels, but three key
aspects prevail:
• their composite structural behavior
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 27
 • their thermal performance
• their resistance to blast loads
Studies funded by PCI have also examined panel
response to seismic loads, impacts, and differential volume
change.
Several researchers1–3 have studied the degree of com-
posite behavior afforded by different types of wythe con-
nectors. Some composite behavior is achieved through the
rigid insulation alone. Full composite behavior means that
bending from an out-of-plane load will generate a uniform
strain profile with compression in one wythe and tension the
other wythe. Noncomposite behavior means that each wythe
resists a portion of the out-of-plane load independently, with
each wythe undergoing compression on one face and equal
tension on the opposite face. Partially composite panels fall
between a fully composite and noncomposite panel. The
figure from Olsen et al.3 illustrates varying degrees of com-
posite behavior.
Lee and Pessiki4,5 studied the heat transfer properties of
the insulated wall panels through testing and analysis and
found that connections between wythes serve as thermal
conduits. The total thermal performance of a panel was
found to be analogous to the resistance of an electric circuit
with two resistors in parallel, namely that the inverse of
total resistance.
Atotal/Rtotal = Ainsulation/Rinsulation + Aconnection/Rconnection
where
Atotal = total face area of panel
Rtotal = total effective R-value
Ainsulation = total face area of the insulation
Rinsulation = R-value of the insulation
Aconnection = total face area of the solid zones
Rconnection = R-value of the solid zones
Hence, solid concrete areas tend to degrade the thermal
performance disproportionate to their relative size. As a
result of this research, panel design standards encouraged
minimal ties between wythes to achieve the maximum ener-
gy benefit. One consequence of this is a reduced composite
interaction between wythes. One research project4 studied
triple-wythe panels with two layers of insulation and offset
concrete wythe between layers in order to maximize both
energy performance and structural behavior benefits.
Recently, several research projects6–8 have focused on the
blast resistance of precast concrete insulated wall panels.
Panels were erected in frames and subjected to impulsive
loads generated by explosives at varying standoff distances.
Precast concrete panels with suitable connections and ties
have demonstrated excellent blast resistance. Mander et al.7
and Alawad et al.8 summarize the results of past PCI funded
research and provide design guidelines.
Research implemented in practice has demonstrated that
insulated wall panels provide an excellent building enclo-
sure system. They can be designed to be energy efficient
28 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
while at the same time providing strength to resist envi-
ronmental and human-generated loads. Guidelines for the
use of insulated wall panels can be found in “State of the
Art of Precast/Prestressed Concrete Wall Panels, Second
Edition”9,10 with updated information related to blast-resis-
tant design in Mander et al.7 and Alawad et al.8
References
1. Bush, T. J., and Z. Wu. 1998. “Flexural Analysis of
Prestressed Concrete Panels with Truss Connectors.”
PCI Journal 43 (5): 76–86. https://doi.org/10.15554
/pcij.09011998.76.86.
2. Pessiki, S., and A. Mlynarczyk. 2003. “Experimental
Evaluation of the Composite Behavior of Precast
Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels.” PCI Journal 48 (2):
pp. 54–71. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.03012003
.54.71.
3. Olsen, J., S. Al-Rubaye, T. Sorensen, and M.
Maguire. 2017. “Developing a General Methodology
for Evaluating Composite Action in Insulated Wall
Panels.” Report to PCI by Utah State University.
https://doi.org/10.15554/pci.rr.comp-003.
4. Lee, B., and S. Pessiki. 2004. “Analytical Investigation
of Thermal Performance of Precast Concrete Three-
Wythe Sandwich Wall Panels.” PCI Journal 49 (4):
88–101. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.07012004.88.101.
5. Lee, B., and S. Pessiki. 2008. “Revised Zone Method
R-Value Calculation for Precast Concrete Sandwich
Panels Containing Metal Wythe Connectors.” PCI
Journal 53 (5): 86–100. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij
.09012008.86.100.
6. Cramsey, N., and C. Naito. 2007. “Analytical
Assessment of Blast Resistance of Precast, Prestressed
Concrete Components.” PCI Journal 52 (6): 67–80.
https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.11012007.67.80.
7. Mander, T. J., B. L. Bingham, M. J. Lowak, and M.
A. Polcyn. 2016. “Development of a Simplified Blast
Design Procedure and Response Limits for Load-
Bearing Precast Wall Panels Subject to Blast Loads.”
Baker Engineering and Risk Assessment report to
PCI Technical Activities Council and Research and
Development Council, July 20, 2016. https://doi.org/10
.15554/pci.rr.misc-001.
8. Alawad, O. M., M. J. Gombeda, C. J. Naito, and S. E.
Quiel. 2019. “Simplified Methodologies for Preliminary
Blast-Resistant Design of Precast Concrete Wall
Panels.” PCI Journal 64 (4): 55–70. https://doi.org
/10.15554/pcij64.4-03.
9. PCI Committee on Precast Sandwich Wall Panels.
2011. “State of the Art of Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Wall Panels, Second Edition.” PCI Journal 56 (2):
131–176. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij56.2-06.
10. PCI Committee on Precast Sandwich Wall Panels.
2011. “State of the Art of Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Wall Panels, Second Edition Appendix.” PCI Journal
56 (3): 115–130. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij56.3-06.
About the authors Keywords

Andrew Osborn is senior Blast resistance, composite behavior, connection,

principal at Wiss, Janney, insulated wall panel, sandwich panel, seismic
Elstner Associates Inc. and load, thermal performance.
chair of the PCI Research
and Development Council. Publishing details

This paper appears in PCI Journal (ISSN 0887-

9672) V. 68, No. 4, July–August 2023, and can be
found at https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij68.4-04. PCI
Journal is published bimonthly by the Precast/
Prestressed Concrete Institute, 8770 W. Bryn Mawr
Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL 60631. Copyright ©
2023, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute.

Have a research idea?

We urge readers to send in their research ideas to

Jared Brewe, PCI’s vice president of Technical
Services, at jbrewe@pci.org. J

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 29

Slabs, Panels, and Hollow-core
Simplified Models for Composite Elastic Behavior
of Precast Concrete Insulated Wall Panels 31
Ruth Taylor, Brennan Bean, Marc Maguire, Salam Al-Rubaye, and Maryam A. Al-Bayati
Simplified models for composite
elastic behavior of precast concrete
insulated wall panels
Ruth Taylor, Brennan Bean, Marc Maguire, Salam Al-Rubaye,
and Maryam A. Al-Bayati
■ This paper outlines a new simplified method for
predicting the degree of composite action and thus
the elastic moment of inertia and the elastic section
modulus for precast concrete insulated wall panels.
■ This simplified approach was developed by using 1
million simulations from the iterative sandwich beam
theory method.
■ The level of accuracy of the new method to predict
the percent composite is similar to the levels of accu-
racy of the more complicated approaches.
P
recast concrete insulated wall panels are rapidly
gaining popularity because of their light weight,
thermal efficiency, and economy. Typical precast
concrete insulated wall panels consist of two layers of con-
crete separated by a layer of insulation and steel or fiber-re-
inforced-polymer connectors, which provide some level of
composite behavior. Designs using such walls are popular
for warehouse structures, cold storage, data centers, and
other buildings that require large open spaces. In addition,
they are gaining popularity in the nonwarehouse commercial
market and can integrate architectural features. Architects
like the versatility and thermal efficiency of precast concrete
insulated wall panels.
Recent efforts have been made to increase the thermal effi-
ciency of precast concrete insulated wall panels, which have
historically been made with solid penetrations of concrete
and steel ties, both of which result in significant thermal
bridging.1–3 Solid concrete penetrations result in high levels
of composite behavior that are hard to quantify but were
typical design details until recently.4,5 Steel connectors are
ductile and strong, but they create point thermal bridges that
result in condensation issues and drops in apparent R-value
compared with contemporary composite connectors.6,7 As
new connectors and analyses have become available, the
use of solid zones has become less common, and panels are
often now produced with unbridged edge-to-edge insulation.
This change makes it critical to understand the behavior of
precast concrete insulated wall panels. Although thermal
efficiency may be improved when precast concrete insulat-
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 31
 ed wall panels do not have solid concrete penetrations and
strong, ductile steel connectors, a possible tradeoff is that
structural efficiency is diminished.7,8,9
Figure 1 illustrates the mechanics of precast concrete insu-
lated wall panels. At a basic level, a noncomposite precast
concrete insulated wall panel behaves as if the two layers act
independently, while a fully composite panel behaves as if
the two layers act as one. The actual behavior of any precast
concrete insulated wall panel will be somewhat compos-
ite, but it is nearly impossible to reach the fully composite
extreme without stiff connectors such as solid ribs between
layers. There is experimental evidence that shows that partial
composite action occurs even with such solid concrete
penetrations.4,10 Similarly, even a panel with noncomposite
connectors will behave with some low level of composite
action.11 The actual behavior, as demonstrated in previous re-
search,12–16 is that the two wythes interact as two independent
elements with some axial force and/or moment imparted by
the connectors. The result is the strain profile labeled “Actual
behavior” in Fig. 1.
The method itself was developed in the early 2000s to follow
the process of designing a precast concrete solid panel when
fiber-reinforced-polymer connectors were popular.25 In this
process, a given panel configuration behavior is estimated
by experimental or complex analysis and the deflection
response or the cracking response is determined; however,
this analysis is often proprietary26 or finite element based.
This part of the process is typically performed by the wythe
connector supplier and then converted to a percentage that is
an interpolation between 0% and 100% composite associat-
ed with the moment of inertia Ig and section modulus S for a
noncomposite panel and fully composite panel of the same
geometry and material (Eq. [1] and [2]). Figure 3 presents
this process visually.
⎛ S − S NC ⎞
S PC = 100 ⎜ PC ⎟ (1)
⎝ S FC − S NC ⎠
where
SPC = section modulus for the partially composite section

There are multiple shear connectors available on the market. SNC = section modulus for the noncomposite section
Their geometries and materials vary considerably. Further,
some connectors rely on the bond of the insulation to carry SFC = section modulus for the fully composite section
some horizontal shear, but others do not. In addition, connec-
tors can be composed of various fiber-reinforced composites ⎛ I − I NC ⎞
or unfilled polymer or they can be made of steel. The variety I PC = 100 ⎜ PC ⎟ (2)
of connectors has made it challenging in the past to establish a ⎝ I FC − I NC ⎠
uniform design and analysis process. where

Several contemporary methods for predicting behavior of wall IPC = moment of inertia of a partially composite wythe
panels rely on shear load versus shear displacement data for
precast concrete insulated wall panel wythe connectors.15,17–19 INC = moment of inertia of a noncomposite wythe
In the elastic range, which is where many precast concrete
insulated wall panels are designed, the initial elastic stiffness IFC = moment of inertia of a fully composite wythe
K0.5 is used for predicting behavior.20 Researchers usually use
double shear tests to estimate this value from the load deflec- This percentage is provided through design tables or submittal
tion plot (Fig. 2), and the stiffness K0.5 is reported in kip/in. documents to the engineer. Using this percentage, the engi-
This value and others from the load-versus-deflection plot are neer would back calculate the section properties of interest
used in various analytical methods for predicting full-scale (Ig or S) for use in designing the panel as if it were any solid
panel behavior, including the iterative sandwich beam theory panel for flexural slender wall design (Eq. [3] and [4]).
(ISBT) that was used in the research reported in this paper.
M
Over the past 20 years, precast concrete insulated wall panel σt = (3)
design has most often been accomplished with a percent S PC
composite approach that estimates the degree of compos- where
ite action.20 This approach is demonstrated by comparing
partially composite stress σPC in the diagram labeled “Actual σt = maximum tensile stress at the outer fiber
behavior” with σPC in the diagram labeled “Percent compos-
ite” in Fig. 1, where the approach matches the stresses (or M = applied moment
deflections) of an advanced analysis or experimental results
at cracking. Although this approach has not been codified
5wL4
or applied uniformly across the industry, wythe connector σ midspan = (4)
suppliers have typically used proprietary methods based on 384Ec I PC
testing or finite element analysis to estimate the apparent where
composite action.5,15,19,22 This approach has also been used to
some extent in previous research.23,24 δmidspan = midspan deflection

32 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

Figure 1. Different assumptions about strain profiles in insulated walls. Note: M = applied moment; MFC = fully composite mo-
ment; M1 = moment on wythe 1; M2 = moment on wythe 2; P1 = axial force from connectors on wythe 1; P2 = axial force from con-
nectors on wythe 2; σFC = fully composite stress; σNC = noncomposite stress; σPC = partially composite stress.

w = applied uniform load The horizontal shear design is a completely separate limit state
that is not covered in the approach here; it is typically handled
L = span length by shear flow or similar methods.8,9,27 For a given panel, it is ex-
pected that the percentages of composite action will be different
Ec = modulus of elasticity for cracking and deflection because the mechanics are different

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 33

 from that of a solid component and IPC can no longer be related
to SPC through the distance from the centroid to the outer fiber
c (for example, stress distribution in Fig. 2). To the uninitiated,
this process seems counterintuitive and duplicative. Although
it is true that the process is duplicative, it has greatly facilitated
design in a proprietary market for many years and it continues
to be used as of the writing of this paper.

The reliance on the percent composite approach to design

continues, despite the fact that closed form,12,28 iterative,15,17,18
and finite element solutions6,15,29,30 have been available for
many years. Currently, the U.S. engineering community
seems to be moving away from the percent composite ap-
proach in favor of finite element approaches,25 but the percent
composite approach is still commonly used and may be
codified in the future PCI design standard for precast concrete
insulated wall panels. Double shear test where Example load-versus-dis-
the center layer is pushed placement curve to indicate
relative to the outer layers stiffness of connector.
Finite element analysis or other complex analysis methods
shearing the connectors
can be challenging for a practicing engineer to apply to
the design of precast concrete insulated wall panels. Many Figure 2. Double shear testing. Note: K0.5 = initial elastic
engineers are not familiar with the finite element modeling stiffness.
techniques validated for precast concrete insulated wall panels
or the mechanics of the various methods available. Engineers
who are inexperienced or unfamiliar with these methods will
benefit from an independent check of results developed using
alternate means.

This paper aims to create an aid to these issues. A statistically

derived and empirically validated method was developed to
estimate the percent composite for the critical cracking and
deflection calculations of partially composite precast con-
crete insulated wall panels. The goal of this method is not
to replace existing design approaches but rather to provide a
supplementary design aid that can be quickly implemented
without any of the software required to implement the more
complex methods. Engineers may be reluctant to use a statisti-
cally derived equation for behavior that could be determined
in other ways, but complicated approaches have gained
little traction in the engineering world in the past 50 years
and are difficult to enforce in a building code environment.
Further, the American Concrete Institute’s Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
(ACI 318-19)31 includes many statistically derived and Figure 3. Demonstration of converting percent composite to
semi-empirical equations that are used to describe complex section modulus and moment of inertia properties. Note: IFC
= moment of inertia of fully composite wythe; INC = moment
phenomena. For example, in ACI 318-19, the post-tensioned of inertia of noncomposite wythe; IPC = moment of inertia of
unbonded tendon stress increase at ultimate, Δfps, is an entirely partially composite wythe; SFC = section modulus for fully
statistical formula despite phenomenological models available composite section; SNC = section modulus for noncomposite
in the literature.32–34 Furthermore, concrete beam shear design section; SPC = section modulus for partially composite section.
in ACI 318-19 is semi-empirically derived, compared with the
phenomenological modified compression field theory used in Research significance
other code documents.35,36
Solutions to the elastic behavior of precast concrete insulated
The following sections outline the development of a statisti- wall panels have existed since at least the 1960s,12 and finite
cally derived estimate of the percent composite (as defined element strategies have been used since the 1980s,6,37 but
in Eq. [1] and [2]) for precast concrete insulated wall panels. these types of solutions have largely been unpalatable or un-
These equations are derived based on nearly 1 million simula- implementable on a wide scale in U.S. engineering practice.
tions using ISBT and validated with experimental data. This paper presents a simple-to-implement set of equations

34 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

to predict the elastic percent composite for a precast concrete
insulated wall panel. The work presented here is not intended
to be a design procedure, but it can give precast concrete en-
gineers a starting point for preliminary sizing and estimating
or serve as a point of reference for proprietary software that is
difficult to replicate.
Analytical investigation
methodology
The primary goal of this paper is to create a simplified linear
approximation of the values for percent composite for both
cracking and deflection, with the approach having the follow-
ing general properties:
• The approach is reasonably accurate for a typical range
of wall configuration parameters and is not expected
to compete with the accuracy of more complex soft-
ware-based approaches.
• The models rely only upon a small number of variables
readily accessible to the practicing engineer with model
forms that can be calculated using nothing more than a
basic calculator.
• The models for cracking and deflection have identical
forms, albeit with different coefficients.
• The models directly predict a unit-invariant percent com-
posite action for cracking and deflection, making it easy
to use for both metric and imperial unit calculations.
There was no mathematical way to balance these mostly
qualitative objectives across the various models considered
during development. Fortunately, among the various statis-
tical models considered by the authors, the simplified linear
approximation presented in this paper was the most accurate
and easiest to implement.
The development of these simplified approximations re-
quires many observations of percent composite estimates
(for both cracking and deflection) across a wide range of
different precast concrete insulated wall panel configurations.
Unfortunately, the small number of actual experiments on
precast concrete insulated wall panels makes it impossible
to rely solely on observed measurements when developing a
simplified approximation. Further, experimental precast con-
crete insulated wall panels tend to be smaller than the walls
used in actual design, and the current lack of an engineering
design standard for precast concrete insulated wall panels
creates high variability in the strength measurements taken by
the different research groups performing the experiments. For
these reasons, the simplified linear approximation described
in this paper was developed using the random generation of
wall configurations and composite action output from the
analytical ISBT approach, which has previously been shown
to provide high-fidelity approximations of the cracking and
deflection behavior of precast concrete insulated wall panels.18
The ISBT approach relates an initial assumed slip profile
between the two concrete layers to flexural sectional behavior
using axial slip and rotational slip kinematic relationships at
connector locations. Slips at the connector locations can then
be used with standard beam mechanics, treating each layer
as a separate beam with these connector forces acting upon
them. The slip profile can then be iterated to maintain static
equilibrium at all sections to determine the final slip profile
and internal forces. These mechanics were adopted into
design software in recent years because of the lack of uniform
prediction methodologies.
The dataset development requires the simulation of hundreds
of thousands of wall panel configurations and their corre-
sponding composite action values using the ISBT method.
The following are the primary assumptions made by the ISBT
models used in the simulations: linear stiffness of connectors
and other material, uniform spacing of the connectors at 12 in.
(300 mm) centers, simply supported panels, and uniform
loading. Although connectors are not always spaced at a 12 in.
interval in practice, they are commonly uniformly spaced.
Uniform spacing is also convenient for the simulations,
ensuring that odd spacings were not simulated for different
panel geometries. This uniform connector and spacing sim-
plification is shown to predict behavior well in experimental
and simulated panels with other connector spacings when the
panels contain uniform connector distributions. As expected,
there is less accuracy for the limited number of experiments
with nonuniform connector distributions (that is, more con-
nectors at the ends); this observation will be discussed in the
Experimental Results section.
The ISBT method was used to simulate 1 million panels
in R 4.2.038 using random combinations of the variables in
Table 1. Variable ranges were selected to represent most
experimental precast concrete insulated wall panel configu-
rations discussed in the “Experimental Results” section, as
well as the vast majority of the precast concrete insulated
wall panel configurations used in practice. Each variable was
simulated on a discrete scale, with the jump between possible
values indicated by the increment column in Table 1. These
simulated observations were used to train (that is, fit) simple
statistical models to predict percent composite strength. These
simulated observations are referred to hereafter as training
data. Attempts to expand the simulated ranges of these vari-
ables began to overwhelm the training data with impractical
variable combinations, which compromised efforts to find a
simplified approach that would work for typical panels. Given
this constraint, wall configurations with variables outside the
specified ranges should not use the simplified linear approach
presented in this paper.
While the variable ranges in Table 1 reasonably encapsulate
typical precast concrete insulated wall panel configurations,
it is possible to generate combinations of parameters not
practical for actual use. The model-fitting process assumes
that most of these unreasonable variable combinations wash
out when modeling averages; however, a few combinations
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 35
 Table 1. Variables considered in the iterative sandwich beam theory method

Variable Range Increment

Length or span l, in.* 120 to 540 0.25

Wythe layer thickness wx, in.* 3 to 5 0.25

Insulation layer thickness Is, in. 2 to 4 0.25

Height (that is, width) h, in. 16 to 144 0.25

Modulus of elasticity (concrete) Ec, ksi* 3000 to 6200 1

Modulus of rupture (concrete) fr, ksi 0.35 to 0.77 0.01

Average elastic stiffness of connectors k,

0 to 300 0.1
kip/in./ft2*

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
*Variables were also used in the simplified linear approximation.

lead to numerical issues with the ISBT predictions (that a = horizontal asymptote
is, excessively high shear stiffness, grossly different wythe
thicknesses). For this reason, only observations where the x = some data input
ISBT predicted percent composite action values between 0%
and 100% for both cracking and deflection were retained. It is reasonable to assume in this context that a is less than
As a result, 0.5% of the 1 million observations in the master or equal to 100. To preserve the simplicity of the simplified
dataset were removed. Of the remaining observations, 80% modeling approach, the choice was made to set a equal to
were used to train the simplified linear approximation, while 100 and use a two-stage modeling approach to adjust the
the other 20% of remaining observations were used for slope and curvature of the asymptotic regression line for
model testing. different precast concrete insulated wall panel configura-
tions. Equations (6) and (7) present this two-stage modeling
The trends observed in Fig. 4 are the motivation for the final approach for estimating percent composite action (β̂I for
modeling approach, which shows the strong, asymptotic re- cracking or β̂Sm for deflection).
lationship that connector stiffness k and wall length (or span)
l share with percent composite strength for both cracking ⎛ ck⎞ ⎛cl⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
and deflection on the training dataset. The number of obser- b̂w = b0 + b1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ + b2 ⎜ 2 ⎟ + b3 ⎜ ⎟ + b4 ⎜ ⎟ (6)
vations in the training dataset is large enough that it would ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎝ c2 wa ⎠ ⎝ c3 Ec ⎠
be impossible to differentiate between individual points in a where
traditional scatterplot. For this reason, observations are binned
into a hexagonal lattice, where colors represent the number b̂w = estimated asymptotic regression coefficient
of observations that fall within each cell of the lattice.39,40 The
orange line represents a locally smoothed trend line, which is b0 = regression coefficient
fit as a single variable generalized additive model, which fits a
smoothed trend line through data without assuming a specific b1 = regression coefficient
model form.41 The smoothed trend line mathematically bal-
ances the degree of smoothness in such a way that the general c1 = constant for unit conversion (the constant equals
trend is captured without trying to represent random variation 1 when the imperial units indicated in Table 1 are
in the data. used)

The shape of the trend lines in Fig. 4 inspires the use of an b2 = regression coefficient
asymptotic regression model with the mathematical form in
Eq. [5]). c2 = constant for unit conversion (the constant equals
1 when the imperial units indicated in Table 1 are
used)
a (5)
ŷ = a −
x +1 b3 = regression coefficient
where
wa = average wythe layer thickness
ŷ = the predicted output (in this case, percent
composite) b4 = regression coefficient

36 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

Figure 4. Binned scatterplots showing the relationship that wall length l and connector stiffness k share with percent composite
strength. Orange lines represent the smoothed trend estimate of the relationship using generalized additive models.

c3 = constant for unit conversion (the constant equals ed coefficients for the stage one model for cracking cr are
1 when the imperial units indicated in Table 1 are -0.25, -0.01, -0.01, 1.23, 936, respectively. For deflection,
used) the estimated coefficients are -0.06, -0.003, -0.004, 0.32,
340, respectively. The use of three digits is required to ensure
⎛ ⎞ necessary precision due to the large numbers computed in the
⎜ ⎟ final calculation.
⎜ 1 ⎟
β̂1 or β̂ S = 100 ⎜ 1− 2 ⎟
(7)
⎜ b̂ ⎛ c1k ⎞ ⎛ c2 l ⎞ + 1⎟ Example application
m

w⎜
⎜⎝ ⎝ 100 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 100 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
To illustrate the use of the function, a realistic full-scale
The coefficients b0, b1, b2, b3, and b4 are fit using ordinary panel from Salmon et al.42 was used. This panel has a span of
least squares regression on the training dataset. The estimat- 29 ft (8.8 m) and width of 8 ft (2.4 m) with a configuration

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 37

 of a nominal 2.5-3-2.5 in. (64-76-64 mm) and prestressed
with five 3/8 in. (10 mm) diameter strands. Fifteen glass-fi-
ber-reinforced polymer semi-continuous shear connector
bars with length of 10 ft (3 m) were used as shear ties. Using
the ISBT method, the panel cracking load and deflection is
71 lb/ft2 (350 kg/m2) and 0.92 in. (23 mm), resulting in a
cracking percent composite of 78% and a deflection precent
composite of 52%.18 The experimental percent composites
were 68% for cracking and 58% for deflection. Using the
proposed model, it was considered that the wall from Salmon
et al.42 has a length of 348 in. (8840 mm), an average wythe
layer thickness of 2.75 in. (69.9 mm), modulus of elastici-
ty of 4524 ksi (31,190 MPa), with stiffness at 73 kip/in./ft2
(140 kN/mm/m2). Using the estimated coefficients b0, b1,
b2, b3, and b4 and c1 = c2 = c3 = 1, the resulting cracking and
deflection percent composite estimates derived from the pro-
posed model are calculated using Eq. (6) and (7).
also considered.44 Details regarding how these methods can
be used in an engineering context are provided by Wheeler
et al.45 Ultimately, both machine learning approaches were
abandoned because they failed to provide the combination of
simplicity and accuracy achieved by the previously described
linear model approach. Further, the complexity of the random
forest approach rivals those of many of the physics-based
models already known to provide highly accurate estimates
of percent composite strength. When simplicity is no longer
desirable, the authors recommend using physics-based ap-
proaches, such as the ISBT method, which was used to train
all the statistical models considered in this paper.
Results and discussion
Comparison to simulated data
Figure 5 summarizes the accuracy of the simplified linear

) ( )( ) ⎥ + ( −0.01) ⎢ ( )100
⎡ 1 73 ⎤ ⎡ 1 ( 348) ⎤ ⎡ approximation
1 ⎤ ⎡on the1 test ⎤set that was not part of the training
( ) ( ) (
b̂w cr = −0.25 + −0.01 ⎢ ⎥ + 1.23 ⎢ data. This
(1)( 2.75)
⎥ +test
936set
⎢ contained ⎥ = 0.362
(1)( 4524) nearly 200,000 observations ran-
⎢⎣ 100 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎥
domly generated using the⎦ISBT approach. Like Fig. 4, Fig. 5

( −0.01) ⎢ ( )( )
⎡ 1 348 ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤ bins the observations within a hexagonal lattice with colors
⎥ + 1.23 ⎢ ⎥ + 936 ⎢ ⎥ = 0.362
⎢⎣ 100 ⎥⎦ ( )(
⎢⎣ 1 2.75 ⎥⎦ ) ⎢⎣ 1 4524 ⎥⎦ ( )( ) representing the number of points in each bin. A smoothed
trend line generated with a generalized additive model shows
the average ratio of the true cracking and deflection strength
⎧ ⎫ against the estimated values obtained using the percent com-
⎪ ⎪ posite predictions calculated using the linear approach. The
⎪⎪ 1 ⎪⎪ accuracy ratios are made by using actual estimates of crack-
β̂ S = 100 ⎨1− ⎬ = 76%
) ( )( ) ( )( )
2
m
⎪ ⎡ 1 73 ⎤ ⎡ 1 348 ⎤ ⎪ ing and deflection as calculated from the percent composite
⎪ (
0.362 ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ + 1⎪ predictions. This allows the accuracy ratios to account for the
⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ 100 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 100 ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭ difference between fully composite and noncomposite actions
and avoids the inflated variance in accuracy ratios that comes

) ( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
⎡ 1 73 ⎤ ⎡ 1 348 ⎤ ⎡ comparing
when 1 ⎤ ⎡
near-zero ⎤ composite predictions.
1 percent
( ) (
b̂w def = −0.06 + −0.003 ⎢ ) ( ⎥ + −0.004 ⎢ ⎥ + 0.32 ⎢ ⎥ + 340 ⎢
( )( )
⎥ = 12
( )( )
⎢⎣ 100 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 100 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 2.75
Figure 5 shows ⎢⎣ 1 4524
⎥⎦ agreement ⎥⎦
between the linear approximation

) ( )( ) ⎥ + 0.32 ⎢ (1)( 2.75

⎡ 1 348 ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤ and the adapted ISBT approach for deflection, with nearly
−0.004 ⎢ ⎥ + 340 ⎢ ⎥ = 12
⎢⎣ 100 ⎥⎦ )
⎢⎣ (1)( 4524)
⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
every linear approximation being within 10% of the simulat-
ed ISBT value and the average ratio being nearly equal to 1,
which indicates no approximation bias, across the entire range
⎧ ⎫ of percent composite predictions. The results for cracking are
⎪ ⎪ slightly worse than those for deflection. However, the model
⎪⎪ 1 ⎪⎪ displays virtually no bias across the spectrum of estimated
β̂1 = 100 ⎨1− ⎬ = 52%
) ( )( ) ⎥ ⎢ ( )( )
2
⎪ ⎡ 1 73 ⎤⎡ 1 348 ⎤ ⎪ values except for the smallest values of percent cracking com-
⎪ (
0.12 ⎢ ⎥ + 1⎪ posite (below 15%). The overall bias (the average ratio) of the
⎪⎩ ⎣⎢ 100 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 100 ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭ linear approximation on the ISBT test dataset is 1.0 for both
cracking and deflection, while the overall coefficient of varia-
This example shows the simplicity of the simplified approxi- tion (COV), that is, bias divided by the standard deviation, is
mation for predicting full-scale data and the accuracy of the fit 0.04 for cracking and 0.03 for deflection. These overall sum-
as compared with the ISBT approach. This method, despite its maries confirm that the simplified linear approximation shows
simplicity, shows strong agreement with the ISBT approach strong consistency with the adapted ISBT method despite its
and is competitive when compared with more-complicated simpler form.
methods from the literature when estimating the strength and
deflection of experimental data. Comparison to experimental data

Considerations for machine learning While the results on the ISBT test dataset show the effec-
tiveness of the simplified linear approximation, it was still
The implementation of more-complex machine learning ap- necessary to determine the effectiveness of the approximation
proaches, namely regression trees43 and random forests were on real observations. For this evaluation, the authors used a

38 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

Figure 5. The ratio comparison between the cracking and deflection composite values generated by the iterative sandwich
beam theory (ISBT) across the values of percent composite action estimated by the simplified linear approximation. Values
above 1 (grey dashed line) indicate that the ISBT-generated composite value was greater than the value estimated by the simple
linear approximation. The orange line represents the smoothed trend estimate of the ratio using generalized additive models.

dataset of 69 precast concrete insulated wall panel experi- Table 2. Panels in the experimental dataset
ments conducted by multiple researchers (Table 2).11,16,27,42,46–53
Load
Reference Number of panels
configuration
Of these 69 experiments, 25 used two-point loading rather
than the uniform loading that the simplified approximation 46 6 Four-point loads
was designed to estimate. Additionally, the protocol for
construction and testing experimental panels varied from 47 6 Four-point loads
researcher to researcher, which makes it difficult to separate 27 5 Uniform
variability in estimation error due to modeling error from
error due to differences in wall panel testing or construction. 48 9 Uniform
For this reason, accuracy results were grouped according to 16 5 Uniform
the paper publishing the experimental unit.54 Results are only
shown for papers using uniform loading with at least five 49 5 Two-point loads
experimental units. 50 4 Two-point loads

Figures 6 and 7 show boxplots of the observed versus predict- 51 11 Uniform

ed ratios for cracking and deflection percent composite for
52 8 Two-point loads
each reference using seven methods available in the literature
for predicting composite strength and deflection. For brevity, 53 4 Two-point loads
detailed descriptions of each method have not been provided
11 4 Two-point loads
but can be found in the cited references. The methods selected
from the literature can be grouped into three categories. The 42 1 Uniform
first category is closed-form methods, which include those
described by Holmberg and Plem12 and Allen.55 The Holmberg compared to a large database of precast concrete insulated
and Plem and Allen methods are based on closed-form solu- wall panels for accuracy. The primary difference between the
tions to the elastic behavior of precast concrete insulated wall two methods is the way they introduce the core shear stiff-
panels that incorporate kinematic relationships between axial ness and local bending stiffness of the panel component. As
and rotational slip and sectional behavior and assume a con- evidenced by the predictions in Fig. 6 and 7, the difference
tinuous shear layer. Those methods have not previously been seems to be negligible.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 39

 Figure 6. Comparison of the observed versus predicted ratio for cracking for precast concrete insulated wall panel experiments
as organized by reference number. Values above 1 indicate that the observed strength was greater than the predicted strength.
The second category is iterative methods, which have more
flexibility and can capture different geometries and any
connector spacing; these methods are known as the simpli-
fied model,15 mechanics-based model,17 and the ISBT.18 The
simplified method is an iterative method that adds the force
couple created by the connectors to the noncomposite resis-
tance after multiple iterative loops to enforce equilibrium
through calculation of the slip profile. A further simplifica-
tion in that method is the consideration of only the rotational
slip component, neglecting the axial slip component of the
aforementioned methods. The ISBT, as described previously,
treats each wythe as a continuous beam element, whereas
the mechanics-based model takes similar mechanics but
discretizes each wythe into finite length sections. A similar
iterative scheme is then implemented to enforce force equi-
librium, and curvatures are integrated to obtain deformations
following convergence. The third category is the matrix
analysis method, termed the beam-spring model.5 Each of
these three methods uses reference-reported geometry, mate-
rial properties, and double shear elastic stiffness to make its
predictions.56
These results show that, at best, the simplified linear approx-
imation presented in this paper does as well or better than the
more complicated industry-standard methods for cracking and
40 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
deflection. At worst, the simplified linear approach slightly
underestimates experimental cracking and deflection but
performs no worse in prediction than the lower-performing
industry standard methods. Notably, the simplified approach’s
deflection predictions did not perform well when compared
to data from Gombeda et al.,27 which investigated panels with
connectors concentrated at the ends or in a hybrid configu-
ration, as opposed to a uniform configuration. The method
presented herein should only be applied to situations with
uniformly spaced connectors.
It should be noted that most of the previously established
methods tend to perform poorly in estimating the true values
of percent composite action for at least one of the experimen-
tal data sets cited in this paper. Table 3 summarizes the bias
and COV for the uniform loading results (Fig. 6 and 7) as
well as the experimental results subject to two-point loading.
The results in this table show that cracking loads tend to, on
average, be slightly underestimated for experimental panels
subject to uniform loading and underestimated for experi-
mental panels subject to two-point loading. The bias in the
simplified linear approximation is reduced in both uniform
and two-point loading scenarios when considering deflection,
though all methods tend to have a higher COV for deflection
predictions. Table 3 results reveal that the new approach
Figure 7. Comparison of ratios for observed deflection versus predicted deflection for precast concrete insulated wall panels.
Values above 1 indicate that the observed strength was greater than the predicted strength.

Table 3. Summary of the biases and coefficients of variation for the experimental data

Holmberg
Al-Rubaye Allen Al-Rubaye Jensen et Gombeda
New and Plem
et al. (2021) (1969) et al. (2019) al. (2020) et al. (2017)
(1965)

Two-point Bias 1.33 (1.13) 1.11 (1.22) 0.91 (1.28) 0.91 (1.28) 1.11 (1.04) 1.15 (1.26) 0.97 (1.16)
loads COV 0.27 (0.47) 0.21 (0.44) 0.27 (0.48) 0.27 (0.48) 0.21 (0.32) 0.16 (0.42) 0.37 (0.49)

Uniform Bias 0.88 (0.90) 0.97 (1.06) 1.06 (1.14) 1.06 (1.14) 0.98 (1.07) 0.97 (1.03) 0.97 (1.09)
loads COV 0.21 (0.33) 0.16 (0.23) 0.32 (0.3) 0.32 (0.3) 0.16 (0.2) 0.18 (0.19) 0.2 (0.36)

Note: Values outside of parentheses are for cracking composite. Values in parentheses are for deflection composite. COV = coefficient of variation.

tends to have a lower COV than the methods from Allen55 and
Holmberg and Plem12 but a higher COV than the ISBT18 and
mechanics-based model.17 The best methods for predicting
percent composite action are, as expected, better than the
simplified approach. However, the simplified approach is
reasonably accurate in predicting percent composite action
for the experimental data, and, in many cases, it has a smaller
COV than existing approaches in the literature. Further, when
the assumptions behind the adapted ISBT approach are met
(namely, uniform placement of the connectors), as is the case
with the data from Cox et al.,47 the simplified approach is
as accurate as any other method considered in this paper in
estimating percent composite action.
Conclusion
This paper has outlined a new simplified method for predicting
percent composite and thus the elastic moment of inertia and
the elastic section modulus for precast concrete insulated wall
panels. One million simulations from the popular ISBT method
were used to statistically develop this simplified approach.
Furthermore, the new method was compared with the limited

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 41

 experimental data that are available. This dataset comprised
69 panels with various connectors, configurations, and loadings.
The following conclusions are made from this investigation:
• The simplified model displays virtually no bias across
the spectrum of estimated values except for the smallest
values of percent cracking composite (below 15%).
• The overall bias (the average ratio) of the linear ap-
proximation on the simulated test dataset is 1.0 for both
cracking and deflection, whereas the overall COV is 0.04
for cracking and 0.03 for deflection.
• The training data assumed uniform loading and uniform
connectors, so it was expected to perform best on experi-
ments that match those parameters. For such panels, the new
method reports a bias of 0.88 and COV of 0.21 for cracking
loads. By comparison, the bias for other available methods
with reported biases ranges from 0.97 to 1.06, and the COV
for those methods ranges from 0.16 to 0.32. This compar-
ison indicates that the new method slightly underpredicts
cracking loads when compared with the more complicated
approaches, but the new method has a relatively low COV.
• For the two-point load dataset, the bias increased to
1.33 (high bias indicates a conservative prediction) and
the COV was 0.27. By comparison, the bias for other
available methods with reported biases ranges from 0.91
to 1.15, and the COV for those methods ranges from 0.16
to 0.37. Again, this comparison indicates that the level of
accuracy of the new method is similar to that of the more
complicated approaches.
Based on these conclusions, the following recommendations are
made for the use of the simplified method presented in this paper:
• The new method is suitable for panels with more than
15% estimated composite behavior and uniform connec-
tors for the range of variables investigated (see Table 1).
• Although the accuracy of this method is similar to that of
many of the other complex methods, some engineers may
find the new method unsuitable for final design because
it is statistically derived. In those circumstances, the new
method is recommended as a simple and independent
way to check results from more complicated approaches.
This paper has not explored applications of the simplified
linear approximation for complex panels (for example, panels
with openings and nonuniform connectors). A rigorous ex-
ploration of how the simplified method might be adapted for
application to such panels is a topic for future work.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded in part by a Peak Summer Research
Fellowship provided by Utah State University’s Office of
Research.
42 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
References
1. Sorensen, T., R. Tawadrous, and M. Maguire. 2022.
“Thermally Efficient Corbel Connections for Insulated
Sandwich Wall Panels.” Journal of Building Engineering
45: 103424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103424.
2. Sorensen, T. J., R. J. Thomas, S. Dorafshan, and M.
Maguire. 2018. “Thermal Bridging in Concrete Sandwich
Walls.” Concrete International 40 (10): 45–49.
3. Einea, A., D. C. Salmon, G. J. Fogarasi, T. D. Culp, and
M. K. Tadros. 1991. “State-of-the-Art of Precast Concrete
Sandwich Panels.” PCI Journal 36 (6): 78–98. https://doi
.org/10.15554/pcij.11011991.78.98.
4. Pessiki, S., and A. Mlynarczyk. “Experimental Evaluation
of the Precast Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels.” PCI
Journal 48 (2): 54–71. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij
.03012003.54.71.
5. Al-Rubaye, S., T. Sorensen, R. J. Thomas, and M.
Maguire. 2019. “Generalized Beam–Spring Model
for Predicting Elastic Behavior of Partially Composite
Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels.” Engineering Structures
198: 109533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct
.2019.109533.
6. PCI Concrete Handbook Committee. 2017. PCI Design
Handbook : Precast and Prestressed Concrete. 8th ed.
Chicago, IL: PCI.
7. PCI Precast Sandwich Wall Panels Committee. 2011.
“State of the Art of Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Sandwich Wall Panels, Second Edition.” PCI Journal 56
(2): 131–176. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij56.2-06..
8. PCI Committee on Precast Sandwich Wall Panels. 1997.
“State-of-the-Art of Precast/Prestressed Sandwich Wall
Panels. PCI Journal 42 (2): 92–134. https://doi
.org/10.15554/pcij42.2-05.
9. Pozo-Lora, F. F., and M. Maguire. 2020. “Thermal
Bowing of Concrete Sandwich Panels with Flexible
Shear Connectors.” Journal of Building Engineering 26:
101124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101124.
10. Pfeifer, D. W., and J. A. Hanson. 1965. “Precast Concrete
Wall Panels: Flexural Stiffness of Sandwich Panels.” ACI
symposium publication vol. 11: 67–86. https://doi.org
/10.14359/16692.
11. Huang, J., Q. Jiang, X. Chong, X. Ye, and D. Wang. 2020.
“Experimental Study on Precast Concrete Sandwich
Panel with Cross-Shaped GFRP Connectors.” Magazine
of Concrete Research 72 (3): 1–49. https://doi.org
/10.1680/jmacr.18.00258.
12. Holmberg, A., and E. Plem 1965. Behaviour of Load-
Bearing Sandwich-Type Structures. Gävle, Switzerland:
Statens Institut för Byggnadsforskning.
13. Al-Rubaye, S., J. Olsen, T. Sorensen, and M. Maguire.
2018. “Evaluating Elastic Behavior for Partially
Composite Precast Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels.” PCI
Journal 63 (5): 71–88. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij63
.5-04.
14. Frankl, B. A., G. W. Lucier, T. K. Hassan, and S. H.
Rizkalla. 2011. “Behavior of Precast, Prestressed
Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels Reinforced with CFRP
Shear Grid.” PCI Journal 56 (2): 42–54. https://doi.org
/10.15554/pcij.03012011.42.54.
15. Gombeda, M. J., P. Trasborg, C. J. Naito, and S. E. Quiel.
2017. “Simplified Model for Partially-Composite Precast
Concrete Insulated Wall Panels Subjected to Lateral
Loading.” Engineering Structures 138: 367–380. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.065.
16. Trasborg, P. A. 2014. Analytical and Experimental
Evaluation of Precast Sandwich Wall Panels Subjected
to Blast, Breach, and Ballistic Demands. Bethlehem, PA:
Lehigh University. https://asa.lib.lehigh.edu/Record
/10545440.
17. Jensen, K., S. Al-Rubaye, R. J. Thomas, and M. Maguire.
2020. “Mechanics-Based Model for Elastic Bending,
Axial, Thermal Deformations, and Asymmetry of
Concrete Composite Sandwich Wall Panels.” Structures,
no. 23: 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019
.11.004.
18. Al-Rubaye, S., T. Sorensen T, and M. Maguire. 2021.
“Iterative and Simplified Sandwich Beam Theory for
Partially Composite Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels.”
Journal of Structural Engineering 147 (10): 04021143.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003116.
19. Olsen, J., S. Al-Rubaye, T. Sorensen, and M. Maguire.
2017. “Developing a General Methodology for
Evaluating Composite Action in Insulation Wall Panels.”
Master of science thesis, University of Utah. https:/
/digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
7769&context=etd.
20. ICC (International Code Council) Evaluation Service.
2010. Acceptance Criteria for Semi-continuous Fiber-
Reinforced Grid Connectors Used in Combination
with Rigid Insulation in Concrete Sandwich Panel
Construction. ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC422.
Country Club, IL: ICC.
21. Maguire, M., and F. F. Pozo-Lora. 2020. “Partially
Composite Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels: What Is
‘Percent Composite’”? Concrete International 42 (10):
53–58.
22. Al-Rubaye, S., T. Sorensen, S. Dorafshan, and M.
Maguire. 2018. “Matrix Model Accuracy of Partially
Composite Concrete Sandwich Panels.” In Proceedings:
PCI Convention and National Bridge Conference.
Chicago, IL: PCI. https://www.pci.org/PCI_Docs
/Papers/2018/13_Final_Paper.pdf.
23. Al-Rubaye, S., T. Sorensen, and M. Maguire. 2017.
“Investigating Composite Action at Ultimate for
Commercial Sandwich Panel Composite Connectors.”
In Proceedings: PCI Convention and National Bridge
Conference. Chicago, IL: PCI.
24. Al-Rubaye, S., T. Sorensen, J. Olsen, and M. Maguire.
2018. “Evaluating Elastic Behavior for Partially
Composite Precast Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels.” PCI
Journal 63 (5): 71–88. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij63
.5-04.
25. Losch, E. 2019. “LECWall.” http://www.loschsoft.net
/lecwall.html.
26. Donahey, R. C., and K. E. Seeber. Method of Designing
Partially Composite Concrete Sandwich Panels and Such
Panels. Canadian Patent CA2447829C, filed March 19,
2003, and issued July 9, 2013.
27. Gombeda, M. J., C. J. Naito, and S. E. Quiel. 2021
“Flexural Performance of Precast Concrete Insulated
Wall Panels with Various Configurations of Ductile Shear
Ties.” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 33: 101574.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2020.101574.
28. Granholm, H. 1949. Om Sammansatta Balkar Och Pelare
Med Särskild Hänsyn till Spikade Träkonstruktioner [On
Composite Beams and Columns with Particular Regard
to Nailed Timber Structures]. Gothenborg, Switzerland:
Gumpert.
29. Teixeira, N., D. G. Tomlinson, and A. Fam. 2016.
“Precast Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels with Bolted
Angle Connections Tested in Flexure under Simulated
Wind Pressure and Suction.” PCI Journal 61 (4): 65–83.
https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij61.4-02.
30. Olsen, J., and M. Maguire. 2016. “Shear Testing of
Precast Concrete Sandwich Wall Panel Composite Shear
Connectors.” In Proceedings: PCI Convention and
National Bridge Conference. Chicago, IL: PCI.
31. ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2019. Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-19). ACI 318-19. Farmington
Hills, MI: ACI.
32. Maguire, M., M. Chang, W. N. Collins, and Y. Sun. 2017.
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 43
 “Stress Increase of Unbonded Tendons in Continuous
Posttensioned Members.” Journal of Bridge Engineering
22 (2): 04016115. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
BE.1943-5592.0000991.
33. MacGregor, R. J. G., M. E. Kreger, and J. E. Breen.
1989. Strength and Ductility of Externally Post-Tensioned
Segmental Box Girders. FHWA/TX-90+365-3F. Austin,
TX: University of Texas Center for Transportation
Research. https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/digitized
/texasarchive/phase2/365-3f-ctr.pdf.
34. Mattock, A. H., J. Yamazaki, and B. T. Kattula. 1971.
“Comparative Study of Prestressed Concrete Beams, with
and without Bond.” Journal of the American Concrete
Institute 68 (2): 116–125. https://doi.org/10.14359/11298.
35. CSA Group. 2019. Canadian Highway Bridge Design
Code. CSA S6:19. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian
Standards Association.
36. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials). 2020. AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. 9th ed. Washington, DC:
AASHTO.
37. Drysdale, R. G., A. A. Hamid, and L. R. Baker. 1994.
Masonry Structures: Behavior and Design. New York,
NY: Prentice Hall.
38. Core, R. 2022. “R: A Language and Environment for
Statistical Computing.” Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org
/foundation/.
39. Wickham, H. 2016. “Data Analysis.” In Ggplot2,
189–201. New York, NY: Springer.
40. Neuwirth, E. 2014. “RColorBrewer: ColorBrewer
Palettes.” R Package version 1.1-2.
41. Wood, S. N. 2011. “Fast Stable Restricted Maximum
Likelihood and Marginal Likelihood Estimation of
Semiparametric Generalized Linear Models.” Journal
of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical
Methodology 73 (1): 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1111
/J.1467-9868.2010.00749.X.
42. Salmon, D. C., A. Einea, M. K. Tadros, and T. D. Culp.
1997. “Full Scale Testing of Precast Concrete Sandwich
Panels.” ACI Structural Journal 94 (4): 354–362. https://
doi.org/10.14359/486.
43. Breiman, L., J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J.
Stone. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. New
York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10
.1201/9781315139470.
44 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
44. Breiman, L. 2001. “Random Forests.” Machine Learning,
vol. 45: 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324.
45. Wheeler, J., B. Bean, and M. Maguire. 2022. “Creating
a Universal Depth-to-Load Conversion Technique for
the Conterminous United States Using Random Forests.”
Journal of Cold Regions Engineering 36 (1). https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CR.1943-5495.0000270.
46. Al-Rubaye, S. 2017. “Experimental and Simplified
Analytical Investigation of Full Scale Sandwich Panel
Walls.” Master of science thesis, Utah State University.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/6825.
47. Cox, B., P. Syndergaard, S. Al-Rubaye, F. F. Pozo-Lora,
R. Tawadrous, and M. Maguire. 2019. “Lumped GFRP
Star Connector System for Partial Composite Action in
Insulated Precast Concrete Sandwich Panels. Composite
Structure, vol. 229: 111465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compstruct.2019.111465.
48. Naito C. J., J. M. Hoemann, J. S. Shull, A. Saucier, H.
A. Salim, B. Bewick, M. I .Hammons. 2011. Precast/
Prestressed Concrete Experiments Performance on Non-
Load Bearing Sandwich Wall Panels. Tyndall Air Force
Base, FL: Air Force Research Laboratory Materials and
Manufacturing Directorate. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs
/ADA545204.pdf.
49. Luebke, J. 2021. “Out-of-Plane Behavior of Concrete
Insulated Wall Panels with 2-inch, 8-inch, and 10-inch
Insulation.” Master’s thesis, University of Nebraska–
Lincoln. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/archengdiss/67.
50. Jiang, H., Z. Guo, and J. Liu. 2018. “Composite Behavior
of Sandwich Panels with W-Shaped SGFRP Connectors.”
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 22 (5): 1889–1899.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-2050-3.
51. Maguire, M., and S. Al-Rubaye. 2022. Tilt-Up Partially
Composite Insulated Wall Panels. Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska. https://doi.org/10.32873/unl
.dc.oth.014.
52. Huang, J. 2019. “Structural Performance of Precast
Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Sandwich Panels
Enabled by FRP Connectors.” PhD diss, Hong Kong
Polytechnic University. https://theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk
/handle/200/10015.
53. Zhi, Q. 2017. “Experimental Evaluation of Precast
Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels with Steel-Glass Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Shear Connectors.” Advances in
Structural Engineering 20 (10): 1476–1492. https://doi
.org/10.1177/1369433216683198.
54. Wickham, H., M. Averick, J. Bryan, et al. 2019.
“Welcome to the Tidyverse.” Journal of Open Source
 Software 4 (43): 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105 M = applied moment
/JOSS.01686.
MFC = fully composite moment
55. Allen, H. G. 1969. Analysis and Design of Structural
Sandwich Panels. New York, NY: Pergamon Press. M1 = moment on wythe 1

56. Pozo-Lora, F. F., and M. Maguire. “Determination of the M2 = moment on wythe 2

Mechanical Properties of Flexible Connectors for Use
in Insulated Concrete Wall Panels.” Journal of Visual P1 = axial force from connectors on wythe 1
Experience, vol. 188: e64292. https://dx.doi.org/10
.3791/64292. P2 = axial force from connectors on wythe 2

Notation SFC = section modulus for fully composite section

a = horizontal asymptote SNC = section modulus for noncomposite section

b0 = regression coefficient SPC = section modulus for partially composite section

b1 = regression coefficient w = applied uniform load

b2 = regression coefficient wa = average wythe layer thickness

b3 = regression coefficient X = data input

b4 = regression coefficient β̂l = percentage composite of cracking

cr = cracking β̂Sm = percentage composite of deflection

c1 = constant for unit conversion δmidspan = midspan deflection

c2 = constant for unit conversion σFC = fully composite stress

c3 = constant for unit conversion σt = maximum tensile stress at the outer fiber

ec = modulus of elasticity σNC = noncomposite stress

Ec = modulus of elasticity σPC = partially composite stress

fr = modulus of rupture

h = height (width)

IFC = moment of inertia of fully composite wythe

INC = moment of inertia of noncomposite wythe

IPC = moment of inertia of partially composite wythe

IS = insulation layer thickness

k = connector stiffness

K0.5 = initial elastic stiffness

ℓ = wall length

L = span length

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 45

 About the authors
Ruth Taylor is a master’s student
in the Department of Mathematics
and Statistics at Utah State
University in Logan.
Brennan Bean is an assistant
professor in the Department of
Mathematics and Statistics at Utah
State University.
Marc Maguire is an assistant
professor in the Durham School of
Architectural Engineering and
Construction at the University of
Nebraska–Lincoln. He is a
member of the PCI Insulated Wall
Panel Committee and the PCI
Design Standards Committee.
Salam Al-Rubaye is a PhD
candidate in the Durham School
of Architectural Engineering and
Construction at the University of
Nebraska–Lincoln. He is a
member of PCI and the American
Concrete Institute (ACI).
Maryam Al-Bayati is a master’s
student in the Durham School of
Architectural Engineering and
Construction at the University of
Nebraska–Lincoln. She is a
member of PCI and ACI.
Abstract
This paper outlines a new simplified method for pre-
dicting the degree of composite action (percent com-
posite) and thus the elastic moment of inertia and the
elastic section modulus for precast concrete insulated
wall panels. This simplified approach was developed
by using 1 million simulations from the iterative sand-
wich beam theory method. The overall bias (average
ratio) of the linear approximation on the simulated
46 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
test dataset is 1.0 for both cracking and deflection, and
the overall coefficient of variation (COV) is 0.04 for
cracking and 0.03 for deflection. When compared with
data from previously published experiments, the new
method has a bias of 1.02 and COV of 0.32 in cases
where the experiment conforms to the assumptions of
the new method. By comparison, the reported biases of
other available methods, which are more complicated
to use, range from 0.97 to 1.06, and the COVs of other
available methods range from 0.16 to 0.32. Thus, the
level accuracy of the new method to predict the percent
composite is similar to the levels of accuracy of the
more complicated approaches.
Keywords
Composite action, cracking, deflection, insulated wall
panel, ISBT, iterative sandwich beam theory, percent
composite, sandwich beam theory method, statistical
modeling.
Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process. The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute
is not responsible for statements made by authors of
papers in PCI Journal. No payment is offered.
Publishing details
This paper appears in PCI Journal (ISSN 0887-9672)
V. 68, No.4, July–August 2023, and can be found at
https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij68.4-03. PCI Journal
is published bimonthly by the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite
1150, Chicago, IL 60631. Copyright © 2023, Precast/
Prestressed Concrete Institute.
Reader comments
Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal
editor-in-chief Tom Klemens at tklemens@pci.org or
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal,
8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL
60631. J
Investigating UHPC in deck bulb-tee
girder connections, part 2:
Full-scale experimental testing
Abdullah Haroon, Eric Steinberg, Richard Miller, Bahram Shahrooz,
and Waleed Hamid
■ The research presented in this paper is the ex-
perimental testing portion of a larger study per-
formed under National Highway Research Program
project 18-18. To enable wider adoption of deck
bulb-tee girder systems, design guidelines and
standard details must be developed for joints used
in these systems to ensure that these joints perform
adequately and are useful for accelerated bridge
construction.
■ This paper, part 2, presents full-scale experimental
testing performed as a follow-up to the analytical
investigation that appeared in part 1. Longitudinal
joints of a deck bulb-tee girder system grouted with
ultra-high-performance concrete were tested under
thermal and fatigue loading. The longitudinal joint
system was also subjected to camber differential
between adjacent girders. In addition, a continu-
ity joint composed of conventional concrete and
ultra-high-performance concrete was tested for posi-
tive and negative moments at the pier.
P
refabricated bridge elements and systems are an
essential part of accelerated bridge construction
because they offer significant time and cost savings,
improved safety, and convenience for public travel. Precast,
prestressed concrete deck bulb-tee girders are one such
system because the top flange of the precast concrete girder
section can act as the deck of the bridge, which eliminates
the need for time-consuming forming, casting, and curing
of a cast-in-place deck. These girders are manufactured
in precast concrete plants under closely controlled and
monitored conditions, transported to the construction site,
and erected so that flanges of adjacent units join together.
The wide upper flange of deck bulb-tee girders results in
a very efficient section for prestressing purposes because
it provides a large cross-sectional area that can resist the
prestressing force of many strands. The casting of the deck
as part of the girder also allows for a variation of the deck
thickness, resulting in a more efficient transverse design of
the deck.
Despite the many benefits of deck bulb-tee girder bridge
systems, their use has been limited and most existing bridges
of this type have relatively short spans with low traffic
volumes. Concerns regarding the long-term performance
of longitudinal and transverse connections between indi-
vidual girders partially explain why these systems have not
been widely used. In addition, variable camber profiles of
the girders can cause bridge deck profile problems as the
cambers in adjacent girders do not align, making it difficult
to make the connection between flanges. Forces are induced
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 47
 into the system if a leveling procedure is used to remove
differential camber between the girders.
Several longitudinal joint details have been proposed and used
in deck bulb-tee girder systems. These details can be primari-
ly categorized as follows:
• a bar or plate field welded across the width of the joint
and spaced along its length
• distributed reinforcement protruding transversely along
the length of the joints.
Because the field-welded connections are widely spaced,
limited moment transfer takes place along the joint. Cracking
of the joint interface between the grout and girder concrete
has been reported.1–3 The cracking and resulting leakage led
the state of Washington to restrict the use of deck bulb-tee
girders for bridges with high levels of average daily traffic and
for continuous bridges.4
Li et al.4 investigated two distributed joint reinforcement
details for deck bulb-tee systems. One detail consisted of a
single row of headed bars at the middepth of the flange. The
headed bars had lap lengths of 6, 4, and 2.5 in. (150, 100,
and 63.5 mm) and bar spacings of 6 and 4 in. The other detail
consisted of welded wire reinforcement with spacings of 6
and 4 in. The results showed that the headed-bar detail pro-
vided enough force transfer to reduce joint width. French et
al.5 investigated a U-bar detail and a headed-bar detail for the
longitudinal connection in deck bulb-tee girders. The U-bar
detail consists of a single row of bars bent at 180 degrees
with a lap length of 6 in. The headed-bar detail had two rows
of smaller headed bars and a lap length of 6 in. The results
showed that the U-bar detail with no. 5 (16M) reinforcing
bars spaced at 4.5 in. (114 mm) and a 6 in. overlap provided
a viable detail. However, the bend diameter of the no. 5 bars
for this detail does not meet the minimum bar-bend-diameter
requirements of the American Concrete Institute’s Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19)
and Commentary (ACI 318R-19).6 Other concerns that have
been raised about this detail include loops not fitting correctly,
especially on skewed bridges; interference; longitudinal bars
not fitting through the loops; and the breakage of the flange
tips. It should also be noted that none of the studies described
herein considered the thermal loading effects of the connec-
tion performance. Several studies7–9 on box-girder bridges
have shown that the girder connections develop higher stress
due to thermal loads than the vehicular live load.
Leveling of the differential camber for adjacent beams may
be required because camber is inherently inconsistent due to
variations in the properties and fabrication dates of compo-
nents. Differential camber will occur for girders in skewed
bridges, even if all components have the same camber profile,
because the ends of the girders are offset by the skew dis-
tance. Camber differential was reported as one of the most
common concerns in a survey regarding the use of deck bulb-
48 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
tee girders.5 Composite decks and concrete overlay can be
used to smooth the camber differential, but this work extends
the project timeline, defeating the purpose of using deck bulb-
tee girder systems to accelerate bridge construction.
The selection of the appropriate joint material is critical for
the long-term durability of the joints. The typical practice is
to use a nonshrink grout as the joint material since it prevents
the shrinkage tension cracking in joints or at the interface. For
adjacent box girders, the use of ultra-high-performance con-
crete (UHPC) as the joint material has been associated with
superior-quality shear strengths with relatively short develop-
ment lengths for any reinforcement extending into the joint.10
Developed in recent decades, UHPC is a new class of cemen-
titious composites that have improved strength, tensile ductil-
ity, excellent bonding properties, and low permeability. The
steel fibers in UHPC make it ductile under flexural tension,
with the direct tensile strength of the mixture reaching up to
2 ksi (14 MPa).11 The fibers also help reduce the permeability
of the strained section by changing the cracking pattern from
fewer wider cracks to several narrower cracks.12 Using UHPC
as the closure pour material in deck bulb-tee girder system
connections can improve system performance. Field-cast
UHPC joints have been shown to perform better and are more
durable than conventional concrete joints.13
In multispan applications, the transverse continuity joint
between the deck bulb-tee girders is typically made using a
cast-in-place diaphragm to connect the girders over the pier.
However, this method requires a large transverse joint to fully
develop the continuity reinforcement. Also, the use of cast-in-
place conventional concrete results in a joint section that has
less strength and durability than the rest of the girder. Thus,
UHPC may be a useful alternative to cast-in-place concrete
for transverse joints. In particular, the use of a convention-
al-strength diaphragm with a UHPC topping in the top-flange
area may provide an economical detail.
Currently, there are no design specifications in the United
States for the use of UHPC connections. To date, the
most helpful guidance document regarding UHPC con-
nection design is Design and Construction of Field-Cast
UHPC Connections, published by the Federal Highway
Administration in 2014.13 To enable wider adoption of deck
bulb-tee girder systems, design guidelines and standard details
must be developed for joints used in these systems to ensure
that these joints perform adequately and are useful for accel-
erated bridge construction.
The research presented in this paper is the experimental
testing portion of a larger study performed under National
Highway Research Program project 18-18. The analytical
findings presented by Haroon et al.14 guided the direction of
the full-scale experimental testing program presented herein,
in which the longitudinal joints of a deck bulb-tee girder
system were tested when subjected to thermal and fatigue
loading and camber differential between adjacent girders.
A continuity joint composed of conventional concrete and
UHPC was also tested for positive and negative moments at
the pier.
Experimental program
The experimental testing consisted of the following tasks:
• full-scale experimental testing on a system of three
girders (girders 1, 2, and 3) with longitudinal UHPC
joints subjected to thermal and fatigue load
• full-scale experimental testing on a system of three
girders (girders 1, 4, and 3) with longitudinal UHPC
joints subjected to differential camber
• full-scale experimental testing of the transverse joint
(continuity connection) between two girders using a
partial UHPC connection
Girder design and fabrication
The test girders were designed based on the ninth edition of
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials’ AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.15
Figure 1 illustrates the joint reinforcement detail and the
locations of the instrumentation embedded in the girder during
construction; complete details of the design can be found
in the first part of this article series.14 The precast concrete
economical fabrication deck bulb-tee section was used for the
girders. Although a typical deck bulb-tee girder span ranges
between 90 and 180 ft (27 and 54.9 m), the test girder span
was limited to 55 ft (16.8 m) due to limitations on the labora-
tory testing floor. Most of the bridges in the experiment have
skews under 30 degrees. In the analytical modeling, it was
found that the bridges with skew have higher forces; there-
fore, the test girders were designed to have a 30-degree skew
angle. The two layers of transverse no. 5 (16M) reinforcing bar
provided in the top flange were doweled 5.5 in. (140 mm) into
the joint to constitute the joint reinforcement. The transverse
reinforcement spaced at 6 in. (150 mm) in the beam was offset
longitudinally to create a 3 in. (76 mm) reinforcement spacing
in the joint. The reinforcement doweled into the joint from the
flanges was fanned at the skewed ends to allow for placement
without interference.
Four girders (girder 1, girder 2, girder 3, and girder 4) were
designed. Girders 1 through 3 each had 10 straight and two
harped strands. Girder 4 was designed to have six additional
strands to create the difference in camber that would be used
during differential camber testing.
The girders were fabricated at the prestressing plant of
Concrete Industries Inc. in Lincoln, Neb. During girder fabri-
cation, four vibrating-wire strain gauges were installed in the
longitudinal direction at the midspan of each girder to monitor
the strains at various stages of the testing program. Three
thermistors were also installed along the depth of the web of
each girder to measure internal temperature gradient.
Thermal and fatigue testing
of longitudinal joints
This test assessed the effects of temperature and fatigue
loading on the longitudinal UHPC joints of the deck bulb-tee
girder system.
Test setup and instrumentation Girders 1, 2, and 3
were placed adjacent to each other on the laboratory floor. At
each end, the girders were simply supported on elastomeric
bearing pads 6 in. (150 mm) wide in the longitudinal direc-
tion and 24 in. (610 mm) wide in the transverse joints. Load
cells were placed under the bearing pads to measure the end
reactions of the girders. The vibrating-wire strain gauges and
thermistors embedded in the girders during fabrication would

6" 6"
2"
6 5
83
4"
4
83
4"
3
83
4"
2
83
4"
1

Vibrating
Vibrating wirewire
gagegauge
Thermistor
Thermistor

Figure 1. Girder details for longitudinal joint tests. Note: no. 5 = 16M; 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 49

 be used to monitor temperature profiles and measure strains
inside the girder. To measure the girder camber during heating
and cooling cycles and during live load tests, linear variable
displacement transducers were installed at the midspan of each
girder. To measure the lateral movement of the joints due to
applied temperature load, 12 in. long (300 mm) vibrating-wire
strain gauges were attached on the top surface of the girders
such that they spanned across the joints. A total of five vibrat-
ing-wire strain gauges were installed on each joint. Since the
gauges also have an inbuilt thermistor, they were also used to
measure the surface temperature of the girders. A 12 in. long
vibrating-wire strain gauge that spanned across the bottom of
the joint was also installed at midspan of each joint. To mea-
sure the strains in the joints after UHPC was placed, strain
gauges were attached to the joint reinforcement bars. Upon
placement of the UHPC into the joints, these strain gauges
were embedded into the joints and then used to measure the
strain in the joints as well as any slip of the reinforcement. The
layout of these gauges is shown in Fig. 2.
Figure 3 shows the girder assembly on the laboratory floor.
To apply the temperature load, a temperature gradient along
the girder depth was to be developed. For this purpose, a
closed environmental chamber or “insulated box” was built on
top of the girder deck. This methodology was adapted from
a paper by Shi et al.16 A wooden frame was constructed on
top of the girders and then covered with 2 in. thick (51 mm)
expanded polystyrene foam sheets. The top view of the com-
pleted insulated box in shown in Fig. 3. Eighteen 250-watt
heat lamps, eight high-capacity heaters, and six circulation
fans were installed inside the insulated box. The heat lamps,
heaters, and fans were uniformly distributed inside the insu-
lated box and were regulated to generate thermal gradient in
the girders.
Thermal loading of open joints The thermal properties
of concrete vary with the mixture proportions. Therefore, an
initial establishment of thermal properties of the girders was
Figure 2. Instrument location and labels for thermal and fatigue testing of longitudinal joints. Note: LVDT = linear variable dis-
placement transducer; VW = vibrating wire.
50 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
required. The girders were heated and cooled several times
before UHPC placement in the joints. Strain, deformation, and
thermal response of the individual girders were recorded. This
type of evaluation served two purposes:
• It established an appropriate heat cycle protocol that
would develop a similar gradient through girder depth,
as suggested in the AASHTO LRFD specifications,15
and that would be used for thermal loading of the girder
system. Several trial heating-and-cooling cycles were
performed by varying the intensity of the heaters and
the locations of the circulation fans until an appropriate
gradient was developed in the girders.
• It established the thermal properties of the system,
without shear keys, such as the camber of the individu-
al girders and strain across the joints. This information
would serve as a reference for the measurements taken
after the grouting.
To generate a thermal gradient in the girders, the heat lamps
and circulation fans were turned on initially. The heaters
were ramped up gradually to heat the top of the surface. The
heating equipment was placed to heat the entire top of the
girder system as uniformly as possible. The AASHTO LRFD
specifications stipulate a temperature gradient T1 of 38°F
(21°C) to 54°F (30°C) between the top of the girder and a
position 16 in. (406 mm) deep and a gradient T2 of 9°F (5°C)
to 14°F (8°C) between the depths of 4 in. (100 mm) and 16 in.
(Fig. 3). In this artificially simulated heating environment, it
was not possible to control the temperatures in both locations
simultaneously. The temperature gradient within the girder
was critical to the performance of the joints, so the gradient
between 4 and 16 in. (gradient T2 for zone 1) was the key
parameter that was monitored during a typical heat cycle. This
temperature gradient value marked the peak of the heating,
and once this gradient was around 14°F for all the girders, the
heat was turned off.
 Test girders on laboratory floor Construction of wooden framing Top view of the completed
for insulation box insulation box

AASHTO temperature gradient Inside view of the insulation box

Figure 3. Test setup for thermal and fatigue load test for longitudinal joints. Note: AASHTO = American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, T1 = thermal gradient between girder surface and 16 in. depth; T2 = thermal gradient be-
tween 4 and 16 in. depths. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; °F = 1.8(°C).

Figure 4 shows the camber of the girders alongside the
gradient at a depth of 4 in. (100 mm) during a typical heating
cycle. As expected, all the girders cambered up with an
increase in the girder temperature gradient and cambered
down as the girders cooled. Girders 1 and 2 had almost the
same maximum camber of approximately 0.13 in. (3.3 mm),
whereas the maximum camber for girder 3 was about 0.2 in.
(5 mm). This variation in the cambers of the girders was ex-
pected given the concrete variability. Figure 4 shows the strain
across the tops and bottoms of the joints alongside the average
girder temperature gradient before grouting. Both the tops
and bottoms of the joints showed a compressive strain as the
girder temperature gradient, indicating that the girder flanges
were expanding and the joint was closing. The tops of the
joint (gauges J12-3 and J23-3) developed higher compressive
strain than the bottoms of the joint (gauges J12-B and J23-B).
Figure 4 shows the temperature profiles through the depth
of girder 2 at various times during a typical heat cycle. At
the start of heating, the temperature was almost uniform
throughout the girder depth. It took around 8 hours to reach
the heating peak (defined by a 14°F [8°C] gradient at a 4 in.
[100 mm] depth); at that point, the surface temperature was
around 100°F (37.8°C) and the temperature at a depth of
20 in. (510 mm) was almost same as at the beginning of the
heating cycle. After 4 hours of cooling, the surface tempera-
ture dropped faster than the temperature inside the girder
flange. Also, the girder web became slightly warmer than it
was at the peak heating.
Figure 4 compares the girder temperature gradient with the
gradient band recommended in the AASHTO LRFD speci-
fications. The gradient at 4 in. (100 mm) depth T2 was in the
range of 15°F (8°C) to 16.5°F (9°C) for the three girders. This
temperature gradient is above the recommended value of 14°F
(8°C) for T2 in the most extreme AASHTO zone 1 condition.
The temperature gradient at the surface of the girders T1 was
between 33°F (18°C) and 40°F (22°C), which was slightly
below the range of 38°F (21°C) to 54°F (30°C) recommended
in the AASHTO LRFD specifications. However, as discussed,

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 51

 Camber_G1 Camber_G2 J12-3 J12-B
Camber_G3 Gradient_G1 J23-3 J23-B
Gradient_G2 Gradient_G3 Average Gradient
0 15
0.25 20

Temperature Gradient, °F
Temperature Gradient, °F
0.2 -500
10 10

Microstrain
Camber, in.

0.15 -1000
0
0.1 5
-1500
-10
0.05
-2000 0
0 -20 0 2 4 6 8
0 10 20 30
Time, hours
Time, hours
Girder camber on primary axis and gradient Strain across joints on primary axis and
at 4 in. depth on secondary axis average girder gradient on secondary axis

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
60 70 80 90 100 110
0
0
4
4
8

Girder depth, in.

Girder depth, in.

12
8
16
20 AASHTO Zone 1
12 AASHTO Zone 4
24
8 am (Start of heating) Girder 1
28
16 Girder 2
32 4 pm (P eak heating)
Girder 3
36 8 pm (After 4 hours of cool ing) 20
40
Temperature Gradient, °F
Temperature, °F
Temperature variation along the depth of girder 2 Peak temperature gradient in girders compared
at various times during a typical heat cycle with AASHTO gradient for a typical heat cycle

Figure 4. Thermal testing of the girder system with open joints before grouting the joints with ultra-high-performance concrete.
Note: AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; °F = 1.8(°C).

under laboratory conditions, it was not possible to control the mixing; the manufacturer indicated that neither the age
both T1 and T2 simultaneously and because T2 was critical for of the material nor the additional water put the UHPC out of
the performance of the joints, it was selected as a control for specification.
the heating cycle.
To make the UHPC flow along the joints, the joints were
UHPC placement in joints After testing on open joints covered with formwork both at the bottom and the top. Two
was completed, formwork was placed at the top and bottom openings were made on each joint, and “chimneys” were
of the joints, and the joints were grouted with UHPC. A installed. The UHPC was placed into the joint through these
proprietary UHPC mixture was used for this project. Table chimneys. To simulate field conditions, the girders were
1 provides some of the properties of the material used. This heated the day before UHPC placement and again in the
commercially available product has been used in numerous morning of placement to keep the girders as warm as possible
projects throughout the United States and was used by the during the placement process. When the crew was ready to
authors in several previous projects. It should also be noted grout the joints, the ceiling of the insulation box was removed
that due to delays caused by the COVID-19 shutdown, the to allow easy access of the joints to place the UHPC. Just
UHPC sat in the laboratory for approximately 1 year before before the UHPC was placed into the joints, the top forms
the experiment was conducted. The UHPC seemed to have were removed and a fine water mist was applied to wet each
a slightly more doughy consistency during placement than joint; then the top forms were screwed back into place. The
the authors were accustomed to. Table 2 presents the UHPC UHPC was transferred from the mixer in buckets into the
mixture proportions used for this project and the fresh UHPC chimneys, which were placed approximately at third points
properties. Slightly higher amounts of water were used on the joints (Fig. 5). This arrangement allowed the UHPC to
because the premixture was approximately 1 year old. A rep- flow in each direction. A hydraulic head was maintained in the
resentative of the manufacturer was present and supervised chimneys to ensure that the entire joint was filled.

52 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

 Table 1. Published properties of the proprietry
ultra-high-performance concrete used on this project
Density 150 to 160 lb/ft3
7 to 10 in. diameter without
Flow visible sign of fiber segrega-
tion
Approximately 120 minutes/
Working time/set time
15 to 18 hours
>14 ksi† at 4 days‡
Compressive strength*
>21 ksi at 28 days
Tensile strength§ >725 psi at 28 days
Modulus of elasticity >6500 ksi at 28 days
Long-term shrinkage <800 microstrain at 28 days
<250 coulomb (very low) at
Chloride ion penetrability
56 days
Resistance to freezing and
>96% RDM at 300 cycles
thawing
Note: Field results may differ depending on mixing/test methods,
equipment used, temperature, and site/curing conditions. 1 in. =
25.4 mm; 1 lb/ft3 = 16.01 kg/m3; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
* Compression tests are performed on 3 × 6 in. cylinders with ends
ground flush before testing.
† 14 ksi is the typical minimum compressive strength required before ap-
plication of design live load for most closure pour applications; consult
the engineer or project specifications to verify.
‡ Four days or less is typical when the ambient curing temperature is
greater than 60°F (16°C). For colder temperatures, an accelerating
admixture may be required to obtain 14 ksi in four days. For 14 ksi
compressive strength in 12 to 36 hours, consider using a rapid-set
product.
§
This test measures the sustainable postcracking direct tension strength
of a mixture with 2% (by volume) steel fibers.
After sufficient UHPC was placed into the joints, the insulat-
ed box was closed, and girders were heated again to regain
the lost temperature gradient. Three days later, the forms were
removed from the joint. Both joints turned out well. Figure 5
shows the top of the joint between girders 2 and 3 at the west
end. The sealer material on each side of the joint was used to
ensure that the UHPC did not leak out of the joint and gave
an approximately 0.125 in. (3.2 mm) height above the joint.
UHPC is often placed approximately 0.125 to 0.375 in. (3.2
to 9.5 mm) higher than the adjoining members in the field and
ground flush.
During the UHPC placement, 3 × 6 in. (76 × 150 mm)
cylinders were cast for compression testing (Table 3). The
28-day (thermal) results were for cylinders stored within the
insulated box built on the girders. Several thermal cycles
were performed while these cylinders were inside the box.
The purpose of these cylinders was to match the conditions
of the UHPC in the joint. The compressive strength of the
UHPC was within the range of the standard specifications
for this product.
Thermal loading after grouting Starting on the next day
after the UHPC placement, thermal loading as described in the
previous section was applied to the girder system. Fourteen
heating cycles were completed. The girders were heated
until the temperature gradient between 4 and 16 in. (100 and
406 mm) below the girder surface reached approximately 14°F
(8°C), and then they were allowed to cool until the gradient
fell at least below 6°F (3°C). Ideally, the temperature gradient
should have been reduced to 0°F (0°C) before the next cycle
but cooling the girders to this extent in the enclosed laboratory
setup with the heat box on top would have taken a very long
time. Also, Miller et al.17 observed during field monitoring of
temperature profiles in box girders that girders hold some heat
overnight, so the authors decided to limit the lower tempera-
ture gradient to 6°F or less.
Data were recorded from instruments during every thermal
cycle. Results of various measurements during the first and
fifth heating cycles are discussed herein. The first cycle was
critical because the joints were gaining strength during this
time. During the fifth cycle, the joints had gained sufficient
strength and joint formwork was removed. No significant
differences in the measurements were observed between the
fifth and final thermal cycles.
During the first cycle, the girder cambers were slightly lower
than the cambers recorded before grouting of the joints
(Fig. 4). This finding was expected because the joint form-
work was still in place during this cycle and would have pro-
vided some restraint to the movement of the girders. During
the fifth cycle, when the formwork was removed, the girder
camber values were the same as the camber values before
grouting of the joints. However, the fifth-cycle variation in the
camber values of different girders was much lower than varia-
tion before grouting of the joints, indicating that the joints had
gained strength and the girder system was acting as a unit. For
both joints, the strains inside the joints were found to increase
from 150 to 250 microstrains during first thermal cycle to 250
to 350 microstrains during fifth thermal cycle; this difference
can be attributed to joint formwork being present during the
first cycle and absent during the fifth. No obvious signs of
reinforcing bar slippage or cracking were observed.
Figure 6 compares the strain across joints 1–2 and 2–3 during
the first and fifth thermal cycles. During the first cycle, both
joints developed a compressive strain in the range of 300
to 400 microstrains upon heating. Upon cooling, the strains
reduced in magnitude but remained compressive. However,
during the fifth cycle, the joints developed a compressive
strain in the range of 80 to 120 microstrains upon heating and
then, upon cooling, the strain became tensile in the range of
0 to 50 microstrains. These findings indicate that during the
first cycle, when the UHPC joints were still gaining strength,
they allowed the girder flanges to expand and therefore the
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 53
 Table 2. UHPC mixture constituents and fresh UHPC properties for thermal and fatigue testing of the
longitudinal joints

Batch 1 (joint 2–3) Batch 2 (joint 1–2)

UHPC premixture 3690 3690

Water 216 219

Constituents, lb/yd3
Fibers 264 264

Superplasticizer 50.4 51.2

Time of mixing 10:33 a.m. 12:49 p.m.

Laboratory temperature, °F 51 51

Fresh UHPC properties UHPC temperature, °F 70 71

Static slump, in. 8.75 8.75

Dynamic slump, in. 9.35 9.25

Note: UHPC = ultra-high-performance concrete. 1 in. =25.4 mm; 1 lb/yd3 = 0.59 kg/m3; °F = 1.8(°C) + 32.

joints developed higher compressive stresses (300 to 400 mi-
crostrains). However, during the fifth cycle, when the joints
had gained strength, they resisted the movement of girder
flanges and therefore the compressive stresses were reduced
(80 to 120 microstrains).
Combined thermal and fatigue loading After the
thermal cycles were completed, cyclic live loading was applied
to the girder system. Figure 7 illustrates the load setup without
the insulating box in place. A cyclic load between 0 and 70 kip
(0 and 310 kN) was applied at a frequency of 2 Hz. A total of
1 million live-load cycles were applied.
The first 100,000 cycles were applied without thermal
loading to monitor any immediate effect of live load after
thermal cycles. After the initial 100,000 cycles were com-
pleted, thermal loading was also applied during the cyclic
live loading (Fig. 7). During each thermal cycle, 100,000
cycles of live load were applied. At the end of each thermal
cycle, cyclic loading was stopped and a 70 kip (310 kN)
load was applied statically to monitor potential degrada-
tion of connection integrity in terms of load distribution
or deflection of individual girders. These pauses in the
cyclic live-loading process were necessary to read instru-
mentation, which could not be read during the 2 Hz cyclic

“Chimneys” at third points used to pour Top view of the UHPC joint between girders
UHPC into the joints 2 and 3 after removing the formwork

Figure 5. Grouting of the longitudinal joints with ultra-high-performance concrete.

54 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

loading. The process continued until 1 million live-load Table 3. Results of compression testing the
cycles were applied. ultra-high-performance concrete cylinders made
during thermal and fatigue testing
The support reactions during static testing before and after
Average compressive
the combined thermal and fatigue loading showed no change Age, days
strength, psi
in the load distribution, indicating that the joints were not de-
graded by the live-load cycles. The deflections of the girders 7 15,465
at the beginning and end of the combined thermal and fatigue
loading also showed no change. The maximum strain within 14 17,348
the joints due to static load was around 80 microstrain, which 28 21,749
is less than the strain developed in the joints due to thermal
loading. Again, no significant change in the joint strains was 28 (thermal) 22,384
found before or after the live-load cycles. In addition, no 120 26,039
obvious signs of reinforcing bar slippage or cracking were
observed in either joint. Note: 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

Joint flooding and inspection After the combined
thermal and fatigue loading was completed, the joints were
visually analyzed. No cracking was visible. However, micro-
cracking can be difficult to visually identify; therefore, joints
were flooded with water to inspect for any leaks (Fig. 8).
Dams were constructed and sealed around the top surface of
the joints. These dams were then flooded with water. Flooding
revealed severe cracking in joint 1–2 between girders 1 and 2.
Joint 2–3 between girders 2 and 3 had a few small leaks. The
leakage occurred both at the interface between the girder and
the UHPC and within the UHPC.
Several factors, either individually or in combination, could
have caused the cracking. The interface could have dried out
during delays in placing the UHPC. However, cracking was
found within the UHPC in addition to along the interface.

J12_1 J12_2 J12_3 J12_1 J12_2 J12_3

J12_4 J12_5 J12_4 J12_5
100 100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
-100 0
Microstrains

Microstrains

0 5 10 15 20 25
-200

-300 -100
-400
Cycle 1 Cycle 5
-500 -200
Time, hours
Time, hours
Joint 1-2 after first and fifth loading cycles

J23_1 J23_2 J23_3

J23_2 J23_3 J23_4 J23_5
J23_4 J23_5
100 100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
-100 0
Microstrains

Microstrains

0 5 10 15 20 25
-200

-300 -100
-400 Cycle 1 Cycle 5
-500 -200
Time, hours Time, hours
Joint 2-3 after first and fifth loading cycles

Figure 6. Strain across the joints during thermal loading of the girder system after placement of ultra-high-performance con-
crete in the longitudinal joints.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 55


End view
End view
Elevation
Elevation
view view
Schematics of fatigue loading setup without insulation box
Figure 7. Combined thermal and fatigue load setup and loading protocol. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
Shrinkage of the UHPC during curing could have resulted in
cracking along the interface and within the UHPC. Changes
in strain measurements during thermal loading may indicate
that cracking occurred during the thermal cycle. The thermal
cycle loading in this experiment was severe and may not be
typically experienced during UHPC placement. Lastly, the
UHPC was more than 1 year old when placed. Flow of the
UHPC did appear to slow down for the joint that experienced
more cracking.
Differential camber testing
of longitudinal joints
Deck bulb-tee girders may have variable camber profiles
if their material properties vary or if they are fabricated on
different dates. When these girders are erected next to each
other, the system may have a camber differential in the ad-
jacent beams. Many contractors employ some type of level-
ing procedure to minimize the camber differential between
adjacent units. The girders are either pulled up or pushed
down and jacked in place while the joints are grouted and
cured. Any procedure used to remove or reduce the camber
differential introduces additional forces in the joints. Tests
were performed to evaluate the effect of camber differential
between the girders.
Test setup and instrumentation After the thermal and
fatigue load testing was completed, the girder assembly was
cut along the joint lines to disconnect the three girders. Girder
2, the middle girder during thermal and fatigue tests, was now
removed from the laboratory floor. Girders 1 and 3 swapped
positions so that their exterior sides of flanges not used in ther-
56 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
Combined fatigue and thermal loading
Static loading after every 100,000 cycles
mal testing could now be used. Girder 4 was placed in between
girders 1 and 3 to create a new setup with two longitudinal
joints. As noted earlier, girder 4 had six additional prestressing
strands to ensure that its camber differed from the camber of
girders 1 and 3. The measured girder cambers at midspan for
girders 1, 4, and 3 were 0.875, 1.375, and 1 in. (22.2, 34.9,
and 25.4 mm), respectively. Thus, the differential cambers
were 0.5 in. (12.7 mm) between girders 1 and 4 and 0.375 in.
(9.5 mm) between girders 4 and 3.
The instrumentation used to monitor the behavior of the joints
was same as the instrumentation used in the thermal and
fatigue tests, except that the vibrating-wire gauges were now
used to record strain only. Because the girder assembly was
changed for the differential camber testing, a new scheme of
instrumentation labels (Fig. 9) was used to be consistent with
the changed girder labels and to avoid confusion with the
previous scheme of instrumentation.
Leveling of camber and UHPC placement The dif-
ferential camber between girders was removed by loading the
middle girder (girder 4) to approximately 90 kip (400 kN).
This loading resulted in a downward deflection of 0.5 in.
(12.7 mm) for girder 4. The hydraulic cylinder was locked off
to hold the girder in position. The loading slightly decreased
from seepage of the hydraulic pressure, creep of the girder, and
settlement of the system. However, the downward deflection
remained at approximately 0.5 in. to match flange heights
(Fig. 10). Formwork was then attached to the girders and the
UHPC was placed. Table 4 presents the UHPC mixture pro-
portions and fresh properties, and Table 5 provides the com-
pressive strength of the UHPC.
 Dams filled with water Puddles of water leaked
from joint between
girders 1 and 2
Figure 8. Joint flooding details.
Figure 9. Instrument location and labels for differential camber testing of longitudinal joints. Note: LVDT = linear variable dis-
placement transducer; VW = vibrating wire.
Load release and joint inspection Three days after
UHPC placement, the top forms were removed. Dams were
erected around the joints and waterproofed. On the fourth day
after UHPC placement, the dams were filled with water for more
than 30 minutes. No cracking was observed from leakage of the
joint. The load used to remove the differential camber was then
released gradually in 15 kip (67 kN) increments. Upon removal
of the first load increment, leakage and cracking occurred in
joint 3–4 between girders 3 and 4. The cracking occurred within
the UHPC as well as within the interface between the UHPC and
the girder flanges. The joint 4–1 between girders 4 and 1 also
had minor cracking. Most of the cracking occurred on joint 3–4
and mostly in the region where UHPC was placed at the end.
Upon removal of the camber leveling load, girder 4, which
had been pushed down by 0.5 in. (12.7 mm) at the midspan
UHPC girder interface Leakage within the UHPC
leakage
before the UHPC was placed, rose by 0.2 in. (5.1 mm).
The midspan of girders 1 and 3 rose approximately 0.12 in.
(3.0 mm). Since the cambers were measured at the bottom,
this finding implies a slight bending of the flange, a slight ro-
tation of the outside girders, or a combination of slight flange
bending and slight girder rotation.
Fatigue loading After the load was fully released from the
system, cyclic testing of 70 kip (310 kN) was performed. A
total of 1 million cycles were applied to the system. At various
periods throughout the cyclic loading, the cyclic loading was
stopped and a static 70 kip load was applied to investigate any
deterioration of the joints due to live load. Several of the stat-
ic loadings also included flooding the joints. No evidence of
new cracks due to cyclic loading was found. The few existing
cracks grew by less than 1 in. (25.4 mm).
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 57
 Deflection of girder 4 during jacking operation Grouting the joints with ultra-high-performance
concrete with jacking in place

Figure 10. Differential camber testing of longitudinal joints. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

Figure 11 plots the camber data from static load tests before
the start of the load cycles and after completion of 1 million
cycles of loading. The cambers at the start and end are nearly
identical, indicating that the system did not degrade over the
loading cycles. Figure 11 plots the support reaction data from
the beginning of the experiment and after 1 million cycles of
loading. The reactions are also nearly identical, indicating that
the system did not degrade.
Continuity joint testing
The continuity joint design was based on the AASHTO LRFD
specifications15 and results of analytical modeling presented in
the first part of this article series.14 Figure 12 shows the continu-
ity joint detail tested. UHPC was only used in the upper portion
of the diaphragm to save on material costs and deal with the
higher negative moment. The lower portion of the diaphragm
was conventional concrete. The continuity connection had a
positive moment design capacity of 78 kip-ft (106 kN-m) and a
negative moment design capacity of 1152 kip-ft (1562 kN-m).
Test setup and instrumentation To test the perfor-
mance of a continuity joint made of UHPC, two 20 ft (6 m)
long precast concrete economical fabrication girders were
constructed. The girders were placed end to end, 7.5 in.
(191 mm) apart. A 1 ft wide (0.3 m) diaphragm was construct-
ed to make the girders continuous. The girders were embedded
approximately 2.25 in. (57.2 mm) into the diaphragm. The

Table 4. UHPC mixture constituents and fresh UHPC properties for differential camber testing of the
longitudinal joints

Batch 1 (joint 2–3) Batch 2 (joint 1–2)

UHPC premix 3840 3840

Water 215 215

Constituents, lb/yd3
Fibers 264 264

Superplasticizer 50.4 52.6

Time of mixing 10:33 a.m. 12:49 p.m.

Laboratory temperature, °F 75 79

Fresh UHPC properties UHPC temperature, °F 91 91

Static slump, in. 8.75 8.5

Dynamic slump, in. 9.75 9.5

Note: UHPC = ultra-high-performance concrete. 1 in. =25.4 mm; 1 lb/yd = 0.59 kg/m ; °F = 1.8(°C) + 32.
3 3

58 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

reinforcement in the diaphragm was provided according to Table 5. Results of compression testing the
the requirement of continuity joint design. In addition, welded ultra-high-performance concrete cylinders made
wire mesh (12 × 12 in. [305 × 305 mm]) was placed to prevent during differential camber testing
shrinkage cracking. The bottom 33 in. (840 mm) of the dia-
Average compressive
phragm was constructed using conventional concrete. Eleven Age, days
strength, psi
days after the placement of the concrete, the UHPC was placed
only in the top 6 in. (150 mm) of the diaphragm, equal to the 3 10,410
depth of the top flange. Figure 12 shows the continuity dia-
phragm after removal of the formwork. Instrumentation was 7 15,507
installed within the joint and on the top reinforcement. 14 17,536

Positive moment testing Hydraulic cylinders were 28 20,024

placed 12 ft. (3.7 m) from the face of the joint under each
girder. A frame was placed over the joint to keep it from mov-
ing upward. The hydraulic cylinders were used to apply an
upward force, thereby creating a positive moment in the joint.
Figure 13 provides the schematics of the test. A maximum
load of 7.3 kip (32.5 kN) was applied, resulting in a positive
moment of 87.6 kip-ft (118.8 kN-m) at the joint. Figure 13
shows the strains in the vibrating-wire strain gauges within
Note: 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.
the joint and the positive moment developed at the joint. The
strains were very small. As expected, gauge 1 near the bottom
of the connection experienced tension whereas the gauges in
the flanges (gauges 4, 5, and 6) experienced compression. No
cracking was observed.

G3 G4 G1 Load G3 G4 G1 Load
0 0 0 0

-0.04 10 -0.04 10

-0.08 20 -0.08 20
Camber, in.

30 30
Camber, in
Load, kip

Load, kip
-0.12 -0.12
40 40
-0.16 -0.16
50 50
-0.2 -0.2
60 60
-0.24 70 -0.24 70
Before fatigue load After 1 million cycles
-0.28 80 -0.28 80
5 7 9 11 13 15 2 7 12
Time, minutes Time, minutes
Girder camber and total static load

R3_E R3_W R4_E R3_E R3_W R4_E

R4_W R1_E R1_W R4_W R1_E R1_W
20 20
18 18
16 16
Support reaction, kip

Support reaction, kip

14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 Before fatigue load 2 After 1 million cycles
0 0
5 7 9 11 13 15 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time, minutes Time, minutes
Support reactions

Figure 11. Results of static load tests at the beginning and end of the live load cycles for differential camber test. Note: 1 in. =
25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 59

 Continuity joint detail
Continuity joint poured with UHPC in the top flange
and conventional concrete in the bottom region
Figure 12. Continuity joint test setup details. Note: UHPC = ultra-high-performance concrete; VW = vibrating-wire. 1” = 1 in. =
25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m.
Negative moment testing To test the joint for negative
moment, two frames were erected at 12 ft (3.7 m) on either
side of the diaphragm. The east frame was hinged to the
top flange of the girder to prevent vertical movement. On
the west frame, a hydraulic cylinder was attached to load
the diaphragm. Figure 14 shows the schematics of the test.
The temporary support on the west end of the girder was
then removed to create a cantilever. The self-weight of the
west girder resulted in a negative moment of approximately
230 kip-ft (310 kN-m) at the joint. An additional 114 kip
(507 kN) load was applied through the hydraulic cylinder to
create another 1311 kip-ft (1777 kN-m) negative moment at
the joint. Tensile cracks formed at the top of the continuity
joint due to negative moment. Most of the cracking occurred
either in the girder flanges or at the interface of the connec-
tion. The UHPC did not crack.
Figure 14 shows strains in the gauges attached to the
top-flange reinforcement and embedded in the joint for
the east and west girder reinforcement, respectively. At a
60 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
Strain gauges in the top flange
of the continuity joint
VW gauges inside the continuity joint
load of 98 kip (436 kN) (third-to-last load increment), the
strains in both bars at the middle of the joint (W3 and E3)
abruptly increased and indicated yielding. The 98 kip load
corresponds to a total moment of 1357 kip-ft (1840 kN-m),
including the self-weight. This moment exceeded the cal-
culated moment capacity of the joint by 18%. The strain in
the reinforcement W2 yielded at the next load increment,
but the remaining bars did not indicate yielding even on the
final load increment.
Conclusion
Based on the experimental results, the following observations
and general conclusions were made:
• Although cracking in the system tested for combined
thermal and fatigue load was not fully discovered until
the end of cyclic testing, the authors believe that the
cracking occurred early in the thermal cycles. The
thermal gradient applied to the system was slight-
 Test setup

Gauge 1 Gauge 2 Gauge 3

Gauge 4 Gauge 5 Moment
16 96
86
12

Positive moment, kip-ft

76
8 66
Microstrain

56
4 46
36
0 26
-4 16
6
-8 -4
0 5 10 15 20
Time, minutes
Vibrating-wire gauge reading and positive moments at the joint

Figure 13. Positive moment testing of the continuity diaphragm. Note: 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m.

ly higher than that specified in the AASHTO LRFD
specifications and started immediately after UHPC
placement. Significant cracking occurred in the second
joint pour and minimal cracking occurred in the first
joint placement. This finding may be explained by
the UHPC gaining sufficient strength in the first joint
before thermal-generated strains developed but not
gaining enough strength in the second joint before the
thermal-generated strains. The flow of UHPC during
placement in the second joint was slightly lower than
during placement the first joint, which could have
affected performance. Although cracking may have
existed in the joints, load transfer continued to occur
between girders under combined static and thermal
load.
• In the system tested for differential camber, cracking
was discovered right after the first loading increment
was removed from the differential camber leveling. The
cracking occurred primarily in the east end of the joints.
The UHPC was placed in the east ends last and seemed to
have slower flow.
• Though cracking occurred during removal of the differen-
tial camber leveling load, crack growth during 1 million
load cycles was 1 in. (25.4 mm) or less. In addition, new
cracks were not formed during the load cycles.
• The use of UHPC in the longitudinal joints showed prom-
ising results as it resulted in simpler joint detailing and
continued to transfer load even after cracking. However,
more research is required to mitigate thermal cracking of
the joints and subsequent leakage.
• The 7.5 in. (191 mm) continuity joint consisting of
UHPC in the top 6 in. (150 mm), and conventional con-
crete in the remaining height of the diaphragm did not
show any distress under a positive moment expected from
continuity being formed at an age of 28 days.
• The top reinforcement in the continuity joint began to
yield at a negative moment more than the calculated
negative moment capacity. Additional negative moment
caused more bars to yield and resulted in a capacity far
exceeding the calculated capacity.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 61

 Test setup

E1 E3 E4 W1 W2 W3
E5 Moment W4 W5 Moment
12000 1600 12000 1600
*Gauge E2 Negative moment, kip-ft

Negtive moment, kip-ft

9000 went bad 1200 9000 1200
Microstrain

Microstrain
6000 800 6000 800

3000 400 3000 400

0 0 0 0
0 30 60 90 120 0 50 100
Time, minutes Time, minutes
Top-flange reinforcement strain for east girder Top-flange reinforcement strain for west girder

Figure 14. Negative moment testing of the continuity diaphragm. Note: 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m.

• Using UHPC in the diaphragm can significantly improve References

the performance of a continuity connection.
1. Stanton, J. F., and A. H. Mattock. 1987. Load
Acknowledgments Distribution and Connection Design for Precast Stemmed
Multibeam Bridge Superstructures. NCHRP (National
The research presented in this paper was a part of National Cooperative Highway Research Project) report 287.
Cooperative Highway Research Program project 18-18, Washington DC: Transportation Research Board. https://
“Design and Construction of Deck Bulb Tee Girder Bridges onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_287.pdf.
with UHPC Connections” (see NCHRP report 999 at https://
doi.org/10.17226/26644). The authors wish to thank the 2. Baer, C. 2013. “Investigation of Longitudinal Joints
NCHRP project panel and senior program officers Ahmad between Precast Prestressed Deck Bulb Tee Girders
Abu-Hawash and Waseem Dekelbab for their project over- Using Latex Modified Concrete.” Master’s thesis,
sight and valuable insight and feedback throughout the University of South Carolina. https://scholarcommons
project. The material presented in this paper is reproduced .sc.edu/etd/2452.
with permission of the Transportation Research Board. The
authors are extremely grateful to the University of Cincinnati 3. Chapman, C. E. 2010. “Behavior of Precast Bridge Deck
lab technician T. J. Brown and the University of Cincinnati Joints with Small Bend Diameter U-Bars.” Master’s
graduate students Carlos Tamayo and Sushil Kunwar for their thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. https://trace
assistance during experimental testing and observations. The .tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1712&context
authors are also indebted to the UHPC specialist Gregory =utk_gradthes.
Nault from LaFarge-Holcim for providing oversight during
UHPC placement. 4. Li, L., Z. J. Ma, and R. G. Oesterle. 2010. “Improved

62 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

 Longitudinal Joint Details in Decked Bulb Tees for
Accelerated Bridge Construction: Fatigue Evaluation.”
Journal of Bridge Engineering 15 (5): 511–522. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000097.
5. French, C., C. Shield, D. Klaseus, M. Smith, W. Eriksson,
Z. Ma, P. Zhu, S. Lewis, and C. Chapman. 2011. Cast-in-
Place Concrete Connections for Precast Deck Systems.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 173. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10
.17226/17643.
6. ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 318. 2019.
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-19) and Commentary. Farmington Hills, MI:
ACI.
14. Haroon, A., H. Waleed, E. Steinberg, K. Walsh, R. Miller,
and B. Shahrooz. “Investigating UHPC in Deck Bulb-Tee
Girder Connections, Part 1: Analytical Investigation.”
PCI Journal 68 (3): 62–78. https://doi.org/10.15554
/pcij68.3-04.
15. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials). 2020. AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. 9th ed. Washington, DC:
AASHTO.
16. Shi, W., B. Shafei, Z. Liu, and B. M. Phares. 2019.
“Early-Age Performance of Longitudinal Bridge Joints
Made with Shrinkage-Compensating Cement Concrete.”
Engineering Structures 197: 109391. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109391.

7. Miller, R. A., G. M. Hlavacs, T. Long, and A. Greuel.
1999. “Full-Scale Testing of Shear Keys for Adjacent
Box Girder Bridges.” PCI Journal 44 (6): 80–90. https://
doi.org/10.15554/pcij.11011999.80.90.
8. Sharpe, G. P. 2007. “Reflective Cracking of Shear Keys
in Multi-Beam Bridges.” Master’s thesis, Texas A&M
University. http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream
/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-1912/SHARPE-THESIS
.pdf?sequence=1.
17. Miller, R., B. Shahrooz, A. Haroon, E. Steinberg, W.
Hamid, A. Chlosta, and C. Slyh. Forthcoming. Proposed
AASHTO Guidelines for Adjacent Precast Concrete Box
Beam Bridge Systems. NCHRP research report 1026.
Washington DC: Transportation Research Board.
Notation
T1 = thermal gradient between girder surface and 16 in.
depth

9. Grace, N. F., E. A. Jensen, and M. R. Bebawy. 2012. T2 = thermal gradient between 4 in. and 16 in. depths
“Transverse Post-Tensioning Arrangement for Side-by-
Side Box-Beam Bridges.” PCI Journal 57 (2): 48–63.
https://doi.org/10.15554/PCIJ.03012012.48.63.

10. Hussein, H. H., S. M. Sargand, F. T. Al Rikabi, and E. P.

Steinberg. 2017. “Laboratory Evaluation of Ultrahigh-
Performance Concrete Shear Key for Prestressed
Adjacent Precast Concrete Box Girder Bridges.” Journal
of Bridge Engineering 22 (2): 04016113. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000987.

11. Graybeal, B. A., and J. L. Hartman. 2003. “Ultra-High

Performance Concrete Material Properties.” Paper
presented at the 2003 Transporation Research Board
Conference. https://www.researchgate.net/publication
/312461906_Ultra-high_performance_concrete_material
_properties.

12. Rapoport, J., C.-M. Aldea, S. P. Shah, B. Ankenman, and

A. Karr. 2002. “Permeability of Cracked Steel Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete.” Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering 14 (4): 355–358. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0899-1561(2002)14:4(355).

13. Graybeal, B. 2014. Design and Construction of

Field-Cast UHPC Connections. FHWA-HRT-14-084.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Adminstration.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research
/infrastructure/structures/14084/14084.pdf.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 63

 About the authors
Abdullah Haroon is a graduate
research assistant in the
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the
University of Cincinnati in Ohio.
Eric Steinberg, PhD, PE, is a
professor in the Department of
Civil Engineering at the Ohio
University in Athens.
Richard Miller, PhD, PE, is a
professor in the Department of
Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of
Cincinnati.
Bahram Shahrooz, PhD, PE, is a
professor in the Department of
Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of
Cincinnati.
Waleed Hamid, PhD, is a faculty
member in the Department of
Construction and Projects at the
University of Fallujah in Iraq.
Abstract
Deck bulb-tee girders constitute an excellent precast
concrete bridge element system for medium- to long-
span bridges. The precast concrete girders are transport-
ed to the jobsite, where they are placed adjacent to each
other. The girders are connected using field-cast longitu-
dinal joints. When required, a continuity diaphragm over
the pier is used to create moment continuity; however,
there is a risk of cracking of the field-cast joints and con-
struction can be difficult when adjacent girders have dif-
ferent camber profiles. Given these challenges, adoption
of the deck bulb-tee girder systems has been limited.
64 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
Analytical investigation performed in part 1 of this
series of papers indicated that using ultra-high-perfor-
mance concrete (UHPC) can improve the performance
of the field-cast joints and help overcome construction
difficulties. This paper describes full-scale experimental
testing performed as a follow-up to the analytical inves-
tigation. Longitudinal joints grouted with UHPC were
tested under a combination of thermal and live load. A
continuity diaphragm with partial UHPC was also tested
under positive and negative moments over the pier.
Keywords
ABC, accelerated bridge construction, bulb-tee girder,
connection, girder, UHPC, ultra-high-performance
concrete.
Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process. The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute
is not responsible for statements made by authors of
papers in PCI Journal. No payment is offered.
Publishing details
This paper appears in PCI Journal (ISSN 0887-9672)
V. 68, No.4, July–August 2023, and can be found at
https://doi.org//10.15554/pcij68.4-01. PCI Journal
is published bimonthly by the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite
1150, Chicago, IL 60631. Copyright © 2023, Precast/
Prestressed Concrete Institute.
Reader comments
Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal
editor-in-chief Tom Klemens at tklemens@pci.org or
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal,
8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL
60631. J
How long is long? An analytical study
of precast, prestressed concrete
girder spans using 0.7 in. strand
Kent A. Harries, Bahram M. Shahrooz, Payne D. Ball, TianQiao Liu, Venkata S.S.P.
Sathiraju, Abdullah Alabdulkarim, Richard A. Miller, and Reid W. Castrodale
■ An extensive analytical study is presented to as-
sess the maximum girder span lengths that can
be achieved when using 0.6 and 0.7 in. (15.2 and
17.8 mm) strands.
■ Girder span increases of up to 22% were achieved
using 0.7 in. strand in place of 0.6 in. strand.
■ The larger pretension forces affected end-region de-
tailing and increased congestion, although all result-
ing requirements were constructable.
I
n the United States, seven-wire prestressing strands
conforming to ASTM A4161 and AASHTO M 2032 are
used to pretension concrete bridge components. Typically,
Grade 270 (1860 MPa) low-relaxation strand is used for
bonded pretensioning (referred to in this context as prestress-
ing strand or strand). For many years, the standard in the
bridge industry was 0.5 in. (13 mm) diameter strand. Research
conducted in the 1990s supported the use of 0.6 in. (15.2 mm)
diameter strand. This size of strand is now commonly used
as a means of increasing available pretensioning force, which
makes it possible to extend spans, increase girder spacing,
and decrease structural depth. Currently, seven-wire, 0.7 in.
(17.8 mm) diameter Grade 270 (1860 MPa) low-relaxation
strands are primarily used as cable or strand roof anchors in
the mining and tunneling industries; however, these strands,
which conform to ASTM A416, may provide benefits similar
to those associated with 0.6 in. strand. Table 1 compares the
properties of 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 in. strands.
The use of 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strands in pretensioned bridge
components is not explicitly permitted in any known
international design standard.3 The American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications4 includes 0.7 in. strand
by reference to AASHTO M 2032 but is otherwise silent
on the use of 0.7 in. strand. Internationally, ASTM A4161
seems to be the only available specification for seven-wire,
Grade 270 (1860 MPa) 0.7 in. strand. (The European
standard EN 101385 identifies seven-wire, Grade 250
[1720 MPa] 0.7 in. strand products, but these are not used in
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 65
 Table 1. Physical properties of Grade 270 (1860 MPa) low-relaxation strand
Nominal
Designation,
diameter, Nominal area, mm2
in.
mm
0.500 12.7 99
0.600 15.2 140
0.700 17.8 190
Source: Data from ASTM International (2015).
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 kg/m = 0.672 lb/ft.
bridge construction.) Nonetheless, Grade 270 0.7 in. strands
have been evaluated as pretensioning reinforcement in several
experimental projects.6–8
This study was conducted as part of National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project 12-109.
Given the limitations on the length of this paper, the reader is
referred to the NCHRP report3 and appendixes9 for additional
study details.
Motivation for using 0.7 in. strands
Record-breaking span lengths have recently been achieved by
using 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strands. Examples include 62.5 m long
(205 ft) girders in the Alaskan Way viaduct in Seattle, Wash.;10
63.7 m long (209 ft) girders in the U.S. 17-92 interchange
at State Road 436 in Casselberry, Fla.;11 64.0 m long (210
ft) girders in the Deerfoot Trail extension near Calgary, AB,
Canada;12 and 68.0 m long (223 ft) modified wide-flange girders
for a high-occupancy vehicle extension in Tacoma, Wash.13
Given these accomplishments, a logical question is whether the
precast concrete industry needs 0.7 in. diameter strands.
Table 1 shows that the area of a 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strand is
92% greater than that of a 0.5 in. (13 mm) strand and 36%
greater than a 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strand. The larger area of
0.7 in. strands, in conjunction with higher-strength concrete,
has the potential to offer the following benefits:3
• The number of strands required in a girder for the same
girder span could be reduced. Fewer strands would alle-
viate congestion in heavily reinforced pretensioned ele-
ments and may be economically advantageous. However,
simply reducing the number of strands in a girder by
replacing 0.6 in. strand with fewer 0.7 in. strands that
provide the same reinforcement area has little, if any,
structural advantage, such as increasing span length or
allowing for fewer girders (by increasing girder spacing).
Reducing the required number of strands could be poten-
tially beneficial in situations where filling all (or most)
strand locations in a section with 0.6 in. strand does not
provide sufficient pretensioning force. Replacing 0.6 in.
strand with 0.7 in. strand on a one-to-one basis using the
same 51 mm (2.0 in.) grid spacing is one way to achieve
a greater pretension force.
66 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
Minimum Minimum
Nominal Minimum load at
breaking elongation in
weight, kg/m 1% extension, kN
strength, kN 605 mm, %
0.77 184 165
1.10 261 234 3.5
1.49 353 318
• The total number of girders in a bridge could be
reduced by using individual girders that have greater
pretension force. Fewer girders may shorten the
construction time, cut construction costs, and reduce
overall energy consumption for fabrication and girder
transportation.
• Longer spans could be achieved by using girders with
greater pretension force. Longer spans may reduce the
number of piers required for a new bridge or permit
the elimination of the central pier in typical two-span
bridges. In bridge replacement projects, particularly in
congested urban areas, eliminating the central piers on
large thoroughfares or interstate crossings may permit
more efficient expansion of the roadways beneath the
bridge, eliminate the hazards associated with piers
located close to the roadways, and minimize the impact
of the span on environmentally sensitive habitats.
Nonetheless, there are practical upper limits on girder
length based on size and weight limitations associated
with shipping and handling.14
• Shallower girders that have greater pretension force could
be used for the same span length. This benefit becomes
particularly important in replacement projects that must
increase existing clearances or expand the hydraulic
opening beneath the bridge.
Objectives of reported study
The objectives of the analytical study presented in this paper
were to assess maximum achievable pretensioned girder
span lengths when using 0.6 and 0.7 in. (15.2 and 17.8 mm)
strands and examine the influence of girder shape and size
on the potential benefits of using 0.7 in. strands. The study
also examined the impacts of using 0.7 in. strands on girder
end region detailing requirements, prestress transfer, and the
handling and erection stability of long-span girders.
This study did not specifically address many additional
factors that should be considered regarding the use of 0.7 in.
(17.8 mm) strands. Some of the issues that require consider-
ation involve the handling of the heavier and stiffer strand and
larger strand forces and the potential need to retool existing
stressing beds and hardware.
Parametric study
The investigators generated 584 pretensioned simple-span
girder design cases to compare girders using 0.6 and 0.7 in.
(15.2 and 17.8 mm) strands. The objective of each design
case was to maximize the girder span while respecting all
requirements of the AASHTO LRFD specifications.4 Issues of
handling stability were not considered in the parametric study,
but were subsequently analyzed for girders having the longest
resulting span lengths, as described later in this paper.
Each design case was replicated with 0.6 and 0.7 in. (15.2 and
17.8 mm) Grade 270 (1860 MPa) prestressing strands. Ten
girder types (cross sections) of varying depth were considered
(Table 2).
When the single-web girder analyses were conducted, it was
assumed that the girders were interior girders having the fol-
lowing combinations of spacing S and slab thickness tf:
• S = 1830 mm (72.0 in.) and tf = 203 mm (7.99 in.)
• S = 2440 mm (96.0 in.) and tf = 203 mm (7.99 in.)
• S = 2540 mm (100 in.) and tf = 229 mm (9.02 in.)
• S = 3660 mm (144 in.) and tf = 229 mm (9.02 in.)
All slabs were provided with a 51 mm deep (2.0 in.) haunch.
Double-web cases considered the following:

Three normalweight concrete compressive strengths f c′ (69, 103,
and 124 MPa [10, 15, 18 ksi]) and one lightweight
concrete compressive strength f c′(69 MPa) were considered.
The unit weights of concrete wc were 2400, 2480, 2530, and
2000 kg/m3 (150, 155, 158, 125 lb/ft3), respectively. The
concrete strength at strand release f ci′ was assumed to be
0.6 f c′ for cases where f c′ exceeded 69 MPa, and 0.8 f c′ for cases
where f c′ was equal to or less than 69 MPa.6 A normalweight
concrete composite slab with a compressive strength f c′ of
31 MPa (4.5 ksi) and unit weight wc of 2320 kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3)
was included in all designs. A nominal 80 kg/m3 (5 lb/ft3) allow-
ance for reinforcing steel was added to all concrete unit weights.
• S = 3660 mm (144 in.) and tf = 203 mm (8.00 in.)
• S = 4270 mm (168 in.) and tf = 203 mm (8.00 in.)
• S = 4880 mm (192 in.) and tf = 229 mm (9.02 in.)
Girder cross sections and key properties for all shapes are
provided in NCHRP Web-Only Document 315 appendix A.9
The designs assumed a simple, nonskewed span, and the
designs were performed using a spreadsheet developed by the
authors, which was benchmarked and validated against LEAP

Table 2. Girder types and designations used in parametric study

Single web Double web

Nominal Wash-
depth, PCI Ohio AASHTO NEXT Wash-
AASHTO FIB NU ington Texas U
mm bulb-tee WF box deck ington U
I-girder girder girder WF girder
girder girder girder beam girder
I-girder

915 WF36 NU900

1020 40D U40

1100 NU1100

1220 BIV48

1370 BT54 WF54 U54 U54G5

1520 UF60G5

1600 NU1600

1625 BT63

1830 BT72 VI WF72 UF72G5

1880 WF74G

2000 NU2000

2440 FIB96

2540 WF100G

Note: FIB = Florida I-beam; NEXT = northeast extreme tee; NU = University of Nebraska I-girder; WF = wide flange. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 67

 CONSPAN software from Bentley Systems. The design
methodology used to determine the greatest achievable span is
described in the next section of this paper. Live load distri-
bution to the interior girders was determined in accordance
with the approximate analysis method of article 4.6.2.2 of the
AASHTO LRFD specifications.4 Additional assumed dead
loads included a 1.2 kPa (25 lb/ft2) allowance for wearing
surface DW and a 358 kg/m (241 lb/ft) allowance added to
each girder for barrier walls and appurtenances DC.
Design procedure for parametric
study
The following steps summarize the design procedure for
determining the longest achievable span for each design case.
These steps were programmed into the PCI Girder Stability
Analysis version 1.0 Excel spreadsheet.
Step 1
The girder section is filled with as many straight strands as
geometrically possible, and the span is increased until either
the Service I or Service III limits of the AASHTO LRFD
specifications4 are reached at midspan or the Strength I limit
is achieved; from this step, the maximum achievable span is
determined. To achieve these limits, four partially tensioned
top strands providing a total of 267 kN (60.0 kip) compressive
force are used for all cases. These top strands are not included
in Strength I limit state calculations as is customary for pre-
stressing strand on the compression side of a girder.
Step 2
The tensile and compressive stress limits at prestress transfer
and the Service I and Service III limits near the end of the
girder are checked. If these stress limits are not exceeded,
the design is complete based on step 1. Otherwise, the design
progresses to step 3.
If the stress limits at transfer are exceeded, the value of con-
crete strength at prestress transfer f ci′ = η f c′ is increased until
the limits are satisfied. This side check is akin to permitting
the girder to cure further before prestress transfer to mitigate
excessive stresses. The values used for design are f ci′ equal to
0.8 f c′ for f c′≤ 69 MPa (10 ksi) and f ci′ equal to 0.6 f c′ for
f c′ > 69 MPa. Therefore, a value of η greater than 1.0 indi-
cates that the design is controlled by concrete strength at
release, and f c′ must be increased or the span shortened. A
value of η between 0.8 (or 0.6) and 1.0 indicates that the
stress limits could be met by delaying release to increase
concrete strength at transfer. Regardless of the outcome of
this side check, all designs in this study progressed using the
values of f ci′ equal to 0.8 f c′ or 0.6 f c′.
Step 3
Using the design values for f ci′ , strand debonding is attempted
to satisfy the step 2 stress check(s) while limiting the total
68 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
debonding ratio dr to 25% or less (≤ 40% in any single-strand
layer). If the step 2 stress checks are satisfied by this debond-
ing, the design is complete.
Step 4
If a successful design is not possible using debonding (step 3),
all strands are assumed to be bonded, and harping is attempt-
ed to satisfy the step 2 stress limits. Regardless of girder
length, harp points are assumed to be 4.6 m (15 ft) to either
side of the girder centerline. If more than eight strands must
be harped, second harp points are selected 5.8 m (19 ft) to
either side of the girder centerline. If the stress checks are
satisfied by harping, the design is complete.
Step 5
If harping alone (step 4) is insufficient, a combination of
harping and debonding is used to bring the step 2 stresses
within limits. The number of harped strands is limited to as
few as possible. If the stress checks are satisfied by a combi-
nation of harping and debonding, the design is complete. Note
that Texas U girders are not permitted to have harped strands.
Therefore, debonding strands is the only available method for
keeping release stresses below the AASHTO LRFD specifica-
tion limits for this girder type.
Step 6
If the methods of mitigating stresses considered in steps 3,
4, or 5 remain insufficient to satisfy the step 2 stress limits,
the span length is reduced (in increments of 305 mm [1 ft]),
and the process is repeated until a design satisfying all stress
limits is achieved.
Step 7
Once an acceptable span is obtained, the required transverse
reinforcement is determined.
Step 8
A final design constraint is based on satisfying requirements
of AASHTO LRFD specifications articles 5.9.4.4.1 and
5.9.4.4.2 dealing with splitting reinforcement and confinement
near the ends of girders, as well as requirements for longitu-
dinal reinforcement in AASHTO LRFD specifications article
5.7.3.5. The designs limit splitting reinforcement near the
ends of the girders to no. 5 (16M) reinforcement, with spacing
equal to or greater than 51 mm (2.0 in.).
The design steps were used to first design a girder using
0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strands for the maximum possible span at
the minimum considered spacing S of 1830 mm (72.0 in.)
for single-web girders, or S of 3660 mm (144 in.) for dou-
ble-web girders. New girders were designed using the same
concrete strength, concrete density, and strand diameter
while increasing the girder spacing in 610 mm (24 in.) incre-
ments. The process was then repeated with 0.7 in. (17.8 mm)
strands.
Results of parametric study
The maximum achievable spans for pretensioned girders
using 0.6 and 0.7 in. (15.2 and 17.8 mm) strands (L0.6 and
L0.7, respectively) were computed. The resulting design
details of all 584 cases—including the number of straight and
harped strands, the number and length of debonded strands,
and required web reinforcement—are provided in NCHRP
Web-Only Document 315 appendix B.9 Figure 1 presents
a representative resulting span length chart for PCI BT72
(72 in. [1800 mm] bulb tee). NCHRP Web-Only Document
315 appendix D has similar charts for all 10 girder shapes
considered. Figure 1 indicates the percentage increase in
the achievable span length resulting from the use of 0.7 in.
strands, and Table 3 summarizes this for all girder types. For
the PCI BT72 case (Fig. 1), a greater potential increase in
span length is associated with higher concrete compression
strength and increased girder spacing.
Potential increase in span length
Figure 2 compares the maximum span lengths achieved
using 0.6 and 0.7 in. (15.2 and 17.8 mm) strands. When
0.7 in. strands were used, the achievable span lengths
increased within a band of 1.0 to 1.22 times their corre-
sponding design cases having 0.6 in. strands. Therefore,
by using 0.7 in. strand, it was possible to increase the span
Figure 1. Maximum span length chart for PCI BT72 with different concrete strengths. The percentages shown indicate increas-
es in achievable span length when 0.6 in. diameter strands (lower curves with dashed lines) are replaced with 0.7 in. diameter
strands (upper curves with solid lines). Note: BT72 = 72 in. bulb tee; LWC = lightweight concrete; NWC = normalweight concrete.
1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
length by a maximum of 22% in comparison to designs
using 0.6 in. strand. The largest value of 1.22 is less than
the ratio of the area of a 0.7 in. strand to that of a 0.6 in.
strand, 1.35 (Table 1), which indicates that a one-to-one
replacement of strands is not possible given the many
other design constraints (such as stress limits at prestress
release) that must be considered. Thus, the full potential
benefit of using 0.7 in. strands cannot be realized for the
sections and designs considered.
Influence of girder geometry
The potential for increasing the girder span using 0.7
in. (17.8 mm) strands was affected by girder geometry
(Table 3 and Fig. 2). In general, girders whose design had
been optimized based on 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strands (for
example, University of Nebraska [NU] and wide-flange
[WF] girders) offered little potential for span length
increases using 0.7 in. strands. More general sections
(PCI bulb-tee girders) and deep sections established by
lengthening the web between standard top and bottom
bulbs (Washington 100 in. [2540 mm] wide-flange I-girder
[WF100G]) showed greater potential for increasing span
lengths using 0.7 in. strand.
In almost all cases, when 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strand was used,
more harped strands and/or greater debonding were required
because the total pretension force was greater. Harped strands
are not permitted in Texas U girders; as a result, the potential
increase in span was limited (Table 3).
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 69
 Table 3. Ratios of achievable span lengths using 0.7 in. diameter strands to achievable span lengths using 0.6 in.
diameter strands L0.7/L0.6

Girder Average Minimum Maximum

PCI 54 in. bulb tee (BT54) 1.10 1.03 1.15

PCI 63 in. bulb tee (BT63) 1.13 1.09 1.17

PCI 72 in. bulb tee (BT72) 1.15 1.12 1.19

AASHTO I-girder Type VI 1.06 1.01 1.13

Florida 96 in. I-beam girder (FIB96) 1.10 1.06 1.13

Washington 74 in. wide-flange I-girder

1.14 1.06 1.21
(WF74G)

Washington 100 in. wide-flange I-girder

1.18 1.13 1.22
(WF100G)

University of Nebraska 900 mm I-girder

1.02 1.00 1.05
(NU900)

University of Nebraska 1100 mm I-girder

1.03 1.00 1.05
(NU1100)

University of Nebraska 1600 mm I-girder

1.06 1.01 1.12
(NU1600)

University of Nebraska 2000 mm I-girder

1.09 1.05 1.12
(NU2000)

Ohio 36 in. wide-flange girder (WF36) 1.02 1.01 1.02

Ohio 54 in. wide-flange girder (WF54) 1.07 1.06 1.08

Ohio 72 in. wide-flange girder (WF72) 1.12 1.11 1.13

AASHTO 48 in. box IV girder (BIV48) 1.08 1.06 1.09

Northeast extreme tee 40 in. deck beam

1.15 1.15 1.16
(NEXT40D)

Texas 40 in. U girder (U40) 1.02 1.01 1.04

Texas 54 in. U girder (U54) 1.05 1.02 1.11

Washington 54 in. U girder (U54G5) 1.11 1.02 1.18

Washington 60 in. U girder (UF60G5) 1.18 1.18 1.19

Washington 72 in. U girder (UF72G5) 1.18 1.17 1.19

Note: 1 in. = 25.4mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

One measure of the efficiency of a prestressed concrete
section is the lever arm of the internal couple.15 This value is
represented as e + kt (Fig. 3), where e is the distance between
the centroid of the cross section and the centroid of pre-
stressing steel and kt is the distance between the centroid of
the cross section and the top kern point. The top kern point
is defined as the uppermost location in the cross section at
which the compression resultant may be placed such that the
condition of zero tension is maintained at the bottom face of
the girder. The greater the distance e + kt is, the more effi-
cient the section is, and so less prestressing force is required
to carry a given load over a given span. The value e + kt was
calculated for all sections considered herein and normalized
with respect to girder depth h. Figure 3 plots the relationship
between the achievable span increase and (e + kt)/h for all the
sections considered. Less-efficient girders—that is, those with
a smaller (e + kt)/h (such as Washington U girders [UF] and
PCI BT72 girders)—tend to benefit more from using 0.7 in.
(17.8 mm) strands.
In addition to the girder geometry, the achievable increase
in span length using 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strands generally
increased as a function of girder depth (Fig. 3). Even among
relatively optimized shapes, deeper girders had a greater

70 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

potential relative increase in span length when using 0.7 in.
strands (for example, compare NU girders in Table 3 and
Fig. 3).

Although there were variations in the resulting designs,3,9

girders designed for a greater spacing S generally had a
greater potential for span increase (Fig. 1). This finding is
associated with the proportionally lower live load distribution
factor inherent as S increases.4 Greater potential increases in
girder span were also observed as concrete strength increased.
This finding reflects the fact that service-limit states—typical-
ly at prestress transfer—often control the design; higher con-
crete strength increases the design limits on concrete stresses.

Comparison of observations
with previous related study
Salazar et al.16 published a parametric study on the use of
0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strands that was similar to the study reported
herein. Using a methodology like that adopted here, Salazar et
al. considered AASHTO Type IV, Type V, and Type VI girders,
Texas bulb-tee girders, Texas spread-box girders, and Texas U
girders. They concluded that I-girder and bulb-tee girder spans
could be increased up to 3 m (10 ft) by using 0.7 in. strand
instead of 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strand. This increase generally
required concrete strength at prestress transfer f ci′ greater than
69 MPa (10 ksi) and the use of harping or other methods to
control end-region stresses. Salazar et al. concluded that use
of 0.7 in. strand in U girders and box girders did not result in
greater span lengths than could be achieved with 0.6 or 0.5 in.
strands. They concluded that for I-girders and bulb-tee girders
of a given span length, the required depth of some of the
girder shapes could be decreased if 0.7 in. strands were used in
conjunction with higher concrete strength at prestress transfer.
Although many I-girders and bulb-tee girders reported in that
Figure 2. Comparison of maximum achievable span lengths
using 0.6 in. and 0.7 in. diameter strands. Note: 1 in. =
25.4 mm; 1 m = 3.28 ft.
study achieved longer spans when 0.7 in. strands were used,
not all did. Contrary to our findings, Salazar et al. reported
that shallower cross sections benefitted more from the use of
larger strand diameters. Also, somewhat contrary to the find-
ings of this study, Salazar et al. concluded that there was little
advantage to using 0.7 in. strand to increase girder spacing
and that any advantage appeared at a girder spacing so large
as to be impractical. Nonetheless, in general, the conclusions
of Salazar et al. are consistent with the findings of our study,
with one notable exception; Salazar et al. found no advan-
tage to using 0.7 in. strand in box girders, whereas our study
did indicate a potential advantage. Differences in box-girder
configuration may explain this discrepancy. Salazar et al. only
considered Texas box shapes used in a spread configuration,
whereas this study considered AASHTO box shapes in an
adjacent configuration.

Effect of normalized girder efficiency (e + kt)/h Effect of girder depth h

Figure 3. Achievable span length increases as function of girder geometry. Note: BT72 = 72 in. (1800 mm) bulb tee; e = distance
between the centroid of the cross section and the centroid of prestressing steel; kt = distance between the centroid of prestress-
ing steel and the top kern point; NU = University of Nebraska I-girder; UF = Washington U girder; WF100G = Washington wide-
flange 100 in. (2540 mm) I-girder. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 71

 Design validation by finite element
modeling of full-length girders
To validate the approach used in the parametric design
study reported herein, investigators used the 2016 release
of Cervenka Consulting’s ATENA finite element software
to develop full-girder models of selected cases. The anal-
yses were based on the extensive modeling and validation
studies presented in Shahrooz et al.6 Material properties
used for the models were consistent with those used for
design (as discussed previously). Initial prestressing force
fpi was taken as 1396 MPa (202.5 ksi), and transfer length
was consistent with the AASHTO LRFD specifications.4
Transfer length Lt is equal to 60db (where db is the strand
diameter) or 915 mm (36.00 in.) for 0.6 in. (15.2 mm)
strand and 1067 mm (42.01 in.) for 0.7 in. (17.8 mm)
strand. Prestress losses upon tendon release were deter-
mined within the finite element model based on the bond
slip model; these losses were approximately 10% of the
initial prestressing force but varied somewhat based on the
girder cross section.6 Long-term losses were calculated to
result in an effective prestressing force of 0.56fpu (where fpu
is the tensile strength of the strand)6 and were used at all
subsequent steps (Table 4). Only the critical flexural load
case was considered in steps 3, 4, and 5. The overstrength
factor Ω was found by increasing the axle loads LLtruck
(only) until failure of the girder.
Two I-girder shapes were considered, and comparative
designs with both 0.6 and 0.7 in. (15.2 and 17.8 mm) strands
were modeled. PCI BT72 girders benefitted the most (in
terms of potential span length increase) from replacing 0.6 in.
strands with 0.7 in. strands. In contrast, 2000 mm (79 in.)
Table 4. Full-girder finite element modeling steps
Step Description Applied loads
1 Release tendons Girder self-weight only
2 Place deck slab Girder and slab self-weight
Service I DC + DW + (LL + IM)
3 0.56fpu = 151
Service III DC + DW + 0.8(LL + IM)
4 Strength 1.25DC + 1.50DW +1.75(LL + IM)
1.25DC + 1.50DW + 1.75LLlane +
5 Failure
Ω(LLtruck + IM)
Note: DC = weight of components (barrier walls and appurtenances); DW = weight of wearing surface; Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete corre-
sponding to fc ; Eci = modulus of elasticity of concrete corresponding to fci′ ; fc = concrete compressive strength; fci′ = concrete strength at strand release;
fpu = tensile strength of prestressing strand; IM = impact factor; LL = HL93 live load; LLlane = lane load component of HL93 live load; LLtruck = truck axle
load component of HL93 live load; n/a = not applicable; Ω = overstrength factor. 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
72 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
University of Nebraska (NU2000) girders did not show great
potential increases in span length (Table 3).
For each of the four cases (each girder shape using 0.6 or
0.7 in. [15.2 or 17.8 mm] strands), a girder spacing S equal
to 2440 mm (96.1 in.) was used; deck tributary area and live
load distribution factors were calculated on this basis. It was
assumed that each girder was fabricated 450 mm (18 in.)
longer than its span length L and was supported on 450 mm
long, full-width neoprene bearings. The distribution factor
for flexure of interior girders gM,int was determined from
AASHTO LRFD specifications Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1 for cross
section type (k). Table 5 summarizes the details of the PCI
BT72 and NU2000 models.
Table 6 summarizes the analysis results, and Fig. 4 shows
selected stress and crack distributions. The finite element
results accurately mirrored the design requirements, and
each girder mostly met the concrete stress requirements
of the AASHTO LRFD specifications. At prestress trans-
fer, the concrete tension stresses for the PCI BT72 girders
fell between the AASHTO LRFD specification limits of
0.25 f ci' (0.095 f ci' in ksi units) and 0.63 f ci' (0.24 f ci'
in ksi units), indicating a need for nonprestressed rein-
forcement in the region of tensile stress. The tensile stress-
es in the NU2000 girders at prestress transfer fell below
0.25 f ci' , so no additional reinforcement would be required.
In all cases except PCI BT72-6 (where 6 indicates 0.6 in.
[15.2 mm] diameter strand), the maximum compression
stresses at prestress transfer exceeded the AASHTO LRFD
specifications limit of 0.60 f ci′ . The high compressive stress-
es were localized near the girder ends. This discrepancy
between the finite element model and section-based design
Girder concrete, Slab concrete,
Prestress, MPa
MPa MPa
fci = 0.6fc = 62
n/a ≈ 0.9(0.75fpu) = 182
Eci = 41,000
fc = 103
n/a 0.56fpu = 151
Ec = 49,000
fc = 103 fc = 31
Ec = 49,000 Ec = 30,000
fc = 103 fc = 31
0.56fpu = 151
Ec = 49,000 Ec = 30,000
fc = 103 fc = 31
0.56fpu = 151
Ec = 49,000 Ec = 30,000
Table 5. Details of PCI BT72 and NU2000 full-girder finite element models

Model PCI BT72-6 PCI BT72-7 NU2000-6 NU2000-7

Strand, in. 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7

Girder
40.4 47.7 55.4 61.8
length, m

Girder span
40.0 47.3 54.9 61.3
L, m

gM.int 0.66 0.63 0.63 0.61

Strands at
midspan
(harped
strands
shown in
32 straight 32 straight 56 straight 46 straight
box)
2 harped 2 harped 4 harped 14 harped
6 debonded

x=0 x = 15.6 m x=0 x = 19.3 m x=0 x = 23.1 m x=0 x = 26.3 m

Location 1948 356

of harped 1897 305
strand pairs 1847 254
1948 356
above soffit 1778 203 1778 203 1796 203
1897 305
y, mm 1745 152
1694 102
1643 51

Top straight
Four strands stressed to 67 kN at y = 1778 mm Four strands stressed to 67 kN at y = 1948 mm
strands

0.04Apsfpi,
267 298 467 636
kN

Web rein-
forcement Thirteen pairs no. 5 at
Five pairs no. 5 at 102 mm Six pairs no. 5 at 76 mm Ten pairs no. 5 at 51 mm
at girder 51 mm
end

Web rein-
forcement Pairs no. 4 at 356 mm Pairs no. 4 at 457 mm Pairs no. 4 at 356 mm Pairs no. 4 at 356 mm
over span

Bulb tie
512 391 867 1561
force, kN

Bulb rein-
forcement Nine no. 3 hoops at Nine no. 4 hoops at Fifteen no. 4 hoops at
No. 3 hoops at 152 mm
at girder 114 mm 121 mm 64 mm
end

Bulb rein-
forcement No. 3 hoops at 152 mm No. 3 hoops at 152 mm No. 3 hoops at 152 mm No. 3 hoops at 152 mm
over span

Note: Aps = area of prestressing strand; BT72-6 = 72 in. bulb tee with 0.6 in. strand; BT72-7 = 72 in. bulb tee with 0.7 in. strand; fpi = initial prestressing
force; gM.int = distribution factor for flexure of interior girders; NU200-6 = 2000 mm University of Nebraska I-girder with 0.6 in. strand; NU2000-7 =
2000 mm University of Nebraska (NU) I-girder with 0.7 in. strand; x = distance measured from end of girder; y = vertical location of prestressing strand
measured from bottom of girder. No. 3 = 10M; no. 4 = 13M; no. 5 = 16M. 1 mm = 0.039 in.; 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 73

 Table 6. Summary of full-girder finite element analysis results

Limit state Parameter PCI BT72-6 PCI BT72-7 NU2000-6 NU2000-7

ft,max, MPa 2.00 2.96 1.03 0.34

Release of tendons fc,max, MPa 35.4 54.5 43.1 46.9

wcr,max, mm ≤0.30 ≤0.50 ≤0.30 ≤0.40

ft,max, MPa 1.51 2.00 1.72 0.69

Service I fc,max, MPa 32.4 54.1 40.6 42.7

wcr,max, mm ≤0.30 ≤0.50 ≤0.20 ≤0.40

ft,max, MPa 0.69 0.62 0.48 0.62

Service III fc,max, MPa 32.6 54.1 40.7 43.0

wcr,max, mm ≤0.30 ≤0.50 ≤0.20 ≤0.40

ft,max, MPa 4.69 5.79 6.00 6.41

Strength I fc,max, MPa 30.7 53.8 47.8 49.6

wcr,max, mm ≤2.00 ≤2.00 ≤2.00 ≤0.50

Failure Ω 1.9 2.5 2.5 3.7

Note: BT72-6 = 72 in. bulb tee with 0.6 in. strand; BT72-7 = 72 in. bulb tee with 0.7 in. strand; fc,max = maximum concrete compression stress; ft,max = max-
imum concrete tension stress; NU200-6 = 2000 mm University of Nebraska I-girder with 0.6 in. strand; NU2000-7 = 2000 mm University of Nebraska
(NU) I-girder with 0.7 in. strand; wcr,max = maximum predicted crack width; Ω = overstrength factor (see Table 4). 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

procedure is expected and has been identified previously.6
The design procedure used gross section properties to assess
the stress condition (that is, P/A ± Pe/I, where A is the gross
section area, P is the total prestressing force, and I is the
gross moment of inertia of the section). Near the girder
end, where the prestressing force is introduced primarily
in the flange, the entire section area A was not engaged for
some distance into the beam. The prestressing force near the
girder end is, in effect, resisted over a smaller area, resulting
in a higher stress. The spreading of the compression force
over the depth of the beam can be visualized at the left end
of the stress plots (Fig. 4). This effect was more pronounced
for girders having large prestressing forces, and in deeper
girders with uniform bottom flanges (such as BT and NU
girders). The highly stressed bottom flange represents a
smaller portion of the gross section area for a deeper girder,
which leads to a greater discrepancy between actual local
stresses and those calculated based on the gross area. This
effect can be mitigated by additional debonding to introduce
the prestressing force more gradually along the span.
At the Service I limit state, tensile stress was not observed
to exceed 0.50 (0.19 in ksi units) and at the Service III limit
state, compressive stress did not exceed 0.60 f c′ in any case.
All designs were governed by the Strength I limit state.
Consistent with the design goal of maximizing girder length,
all girders met, but demonstrated relatively little reserve
capacity above, the Strength I limit state. As may be expect-
ed for long girders, relatively significant decompression and
cracking were observed in the midspan regions, particularly
for the PCI BT72 girders (Fig. 4).
In these comparisons, the number of strands for each girder
type was the same and, thus, the total prestressing force was
approximately 35% greater for the models having 0.7 in.
(17.8 mm) strands (Table 1). Nonetheless, the spans increased
only 18% and 12% for the PCI BT72 and NU2000 girders,
respectively. This combination manifested as greater precom-
pression near the midspan, resulting in a higher decompres-
sion load and less cracking. Because the span increase for the
NU girder was proportionally less, the counteracting effects
of the applied moment were less significant. The improved
cracking behavior of NU2000-7 (2000 mm [79 in.] University
of Nebraska girder with 0.7 in. diameter strand) compared
with NU2000-6 (with 0.6 in. [15.2 mm] diameter strand) at
Strength limit I is evident in Fig. 4.
Failure of the finite element models occurred due to an
inability of the models to (mathematically) converge at loads
greater than the Ω values (Table 6). This lack of convergence
was associated with the relatively conservative linear bond
slip model used. (This model was calibrated for an AASHTO
LRFD specifications-compliant transfer length Lt of 60db.)
As expected, the finite element model predicted extensive
cracking near the girder midspan (Fig. 4). Although the
stresses in the strands were approaching rupture, none of the
models predicted that the strand would rupture at the failure
load attained; rather, they predicted that the degree of crack-
ing would lead to a bond slip failure between closely spaced
cracks. The 31 MPa (4.5 ksi) slab experienced considerable
damage in the PCI BT72 models. A stronger and, therefore,
stiffer slab would result in a relatively minor improvement in
behavior. Based on the finite element model behavior reflect-

74 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

 BT72-6
Strength I

BT72-6
failure (Ω = 1.9)

BT72-7
Strength I

BT72-7
failure (Ω = 2.5)

NU2000-6
Strength I

NU2000-6
failure (Ω = 2.5)

NU2000-7
Strength I

NU2000-7
failure (Ω = 3.7)

Figure 4. Finite-element-predicted longitudinal stress contours and crack patterns. A half span is shown with support at left
and midspan at right. Note: BT72-6 = 72 in. bulb tee with 0.6 in. strand; BT72-7 = 72 in. bulb tee with 0.7 in. strand; NU200-6 =
2000 mm University of Nebraska I-girder with 0.6 in. strand; NU2000-7 = 2000 mm University of Nebraska (NU) I-girder with
0.7 in. strand; Ω = overstrength factor. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

ing the design objectives, the design approach for the para-
metric study was validated.
Effects at girder ends
The finite element models provided some insight into control of
web-splitting cracks expected to occur due to the large pre-
stressing forces near the girder ends. The models included the
vertical web reinforcement, which was arranged over the initial
h/4 length of the girder (Table 5), to resist splitting. Figure 5
shows the associated cracking, which was expected to become
more significant but was not expected to propagate along
the girder at the Strength I limit state. However, the cracking
extended beyond the h/4 distance over which the concentrated
reinforcement was provided. This result supports providing
the required splitting reinforcement over a longer length, as
is permitted in Washington state17 and elsewhere, or as pro-
posed by Tuan et al.18 The Washington State Department of
Transportation limits the splitting reinforcement to pairs of no. 5
bars (16M) at 2.25 in. (57.2 mm) spacing but permits this detail

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 75

 Limit states BT72-6 BT72-7 NU2000-6 NU2000-7

Prestress transfer

Strength I

Figure 5. Finite-element-predicted crack patterns over first 1.5 m (4.9 ft) of girder ends (support at left). Note: BT72-6 = 72 in.
bulb tee with 0.6 in. strand; BT72-7 = 72 in. bulb tee with 0.7 in. strand; NU200-6 = 2000 mm University of Nebraska I-girder with
0.6 in. strand; NU2000-7 = 2000 mm University of Nebraska (NU) I-girder with 0.7 in. strand. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

to extend beyond h/4 to accommodate all required bars. Tuan et
al. proposed that one-half of required splitting reinforcement be
located within h/8, with the remainder being extended to h/2.
Transverse bulb confinement
reinforcement
Article 5.9.4.4.2 of the AASHTO LRFD specifications
requires minimum confinement of the bulb of single-web
sections consisting of at least no. 3 (10M) hoops spaced
at 6.0 in. (150 mm) over a length 1.5h from the end of the
beam. For heavily loaded or long-span components (as
considered herein), this requirement has been inadequate in
some cases.3,6,19 Shahrooz et al.6 identified the development
of tension oriented transversely across the bulb of single-web
sections as a potential failure mode requiring tie reinforce-
ment across the bulb width to control associated longitudinal
cracking at the Strength I limit state. The magnitude of tie
forces is affected by girder geometry, in particular the ratio
of bearing width to flange depth bb/hb (Fig. 6). Girders with
wide, flat bulbs are most susceptible to developing large tie
forces. The strut-and-tie modeling approach proposed by
Harries et al.19 (Fig. 6) was used to design bulb confinement
reinforcement intended to mitigate lateral splitting failures at
the ultimate limit state for all 448 single-web design cases in
the parametric study; details are reported in Harries et al.19
All 448 single-web design cases generated for the parametric
study exhibited transverse tie forces that could be resisted
without requiring unreasonably large tie bars or violating
bar spacing requirements in most cases. Based on practical
considerations regarding tie placement and concrete consoli-
dation, ties should be no. 5 bars (16M) or smaller, and spacing
should not be less than 51 mm (2.0 in.). The greatest tie-force
requirement observed was 1.7 kN/m (9.8 kip/in.) predicted for
an NU2000 girder with 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strand and a span
of 56.4 m (185 ft), where f c′ was 103 MPa (15 ksi) and S was
3.05 m (10.0 ft). This tie force could be resisted by no. 3 (10M)
hoops spaced at 32 mm (1.3 in.), which violated bar-spacing
requirements; no. 4 (13M) hoops spaced at 57 mm (2.2 in.); or
no. 5 (16M) hoops spaced at 95 mm (3.7 in.). Though congest-
ed, all options are feasible (Fig. 6). Table 5 presents examples
of the required bulb confinement reinforcement for the finite
element modeled PCI BT72 and NU2000 girders.
Despite the greater total prestressing force present when 0.7 in.
(17.8 mm) strands are used, the tie force is only marginally
affected.19 Using 0.7 in. strands may result in fewer strands and,
thus, it is easier to use a preferential strand pattern to mini-
mize tie forces.19 The greater strand debonding required when
larger prestressing forces are present also reduces the tie force
because this reduces anchorage stresses at the girder end. On
the other hand, the use of harped strands can increase tie forces
because there are fewer strands in the bulb at the girder end
and the harped strands are aligned with the web. Thus, debond-
ing was given preference over harping in this study. Allowing
debonding ratios greater than 0.25, as proposed by Shahrooz
et al.6 and adopted in the AASHTO LRFD specifications,4 also
affects reduced confinement-tie requirements.
Web-splitting reinforcement
Article 5.9.4.4.1 of the AASHTO LRFD specifications
requires that vertical splitting reinforcement (Fig. 6) be

76 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

 Strut-and-tie modeling to Single-leg confinement tie
determine confinement reinforcement
tie forces
Figure 6. Confinement requirement for single-web girder (bulb-tee shape shown). Note: bb = bearing width; hb = flange depth;
V = shear force; α = ratio of tie force to shear force.
provided in the girder web to resist a force equal to 4% of
the total prestressing force: 0.04Aps fpi (where Aps is the area
of the prestressing strand). Splitting forces (and the resulting
reinforcement requirement) are proportional only to pre-
stressing force. Only debonding (not harping) can mitigate
the splitting force (since only bonded strands are included in
Aps). Once again, allowing debonding ratios greater than 0.25
will mitigate splitting forces and the resulting reinforcement
congestion.
The greatest splitting force requirement observed in the
parametric study was 1.45 kN/m (8.3 kip/in.), which was
observed for multiple University of Nebraska 900 mm (35 in.)
(NU900) girders with 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strands. (Harping,
rather than debonding, was more effective at increasing
span length for this type of section.) These cases require
bundled pairs of no. 5 (16M) hoops spaced at 76 mm (3.0 in.).
Congestion could be mitigated by extending the region over
which splitting reinforcement was placed. When splitting
reinforcement was permitted to be extended over h/3, rather
than h/4, the splitting reinforcement requirement for the
NU900 girders could be met using single no. 5 hoops spaced
at 51 mm (2.0 in.), bundled pairs of no. 5 hoops spaced at
102 mm (4.0 in.), or pairs of no. 4 (13M) hoops spaced at
51 mm. Table 5 includes examples of the required splitting
reinforcement for the finite element modeled PCI BT72 and
NU2000 girders.
Long-span girder stability
This paper has shown that span lengths of existing girder
shapes may, theoretically, be increased as much as 22%
when 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strand is used. As girders become
longer, stability considerations during lifting and handling
can begin to control aspects of design. Stability of pre-
Hoop confinement Example of splitting
reinforcement for greater reinforcement (vertical
tie forces hoops shown)
stressed concrete girders is considered in terms of the poten-
tial for rollover and susceptibility to excessive deformations
that would cause concrete stress limits to be exceeded.
Mast20,21 noted that prestressed girders are stiff in torsion,
so lateral torsional buckling is not usually a consideration.
Rollover, which is the rigid body rotation of the girder, may
control long girder design.22 Bracing is a relatively straight-
forward way to mitigate rollover at all handling, trans-
portation, and erection stages; this is commonly done and
represents good practice. Girders are checked for stability
for the processes of moving (lifting) the girders in the plant,
storage (on dunnage), transportation to the site, and lifting,
as well as in their final erected geometry prior to bracing.
Girders are also checked for cracking and failure, which can
occur due to excessive lateral deflection. In general, a factor
of safety of 1.0 is used for cracking and 1.5 for failure.
Girders are also checked for rollover using a factor of safety
of 1.5.
In this study, investigators used the prestressed girder stability
analysis approach prescribed by PCI.23 Fundamentally, the
stability analysis calculates factors of safety FS and stipulates
acceptance criteria for conditions causing cracking (FScr >
1.0), failure (FS' > 1.5), and rollover (FSroll > 1.5). The anal-
yses are rigorous, considering girder geometry and material
properties at each stage as well as other factors affecting
stability such as camber, prestressing force, lateral wind pres-
sure, centrifugal force during transportation, etc. The analysis
for this study was done using the Girder Stability Analysis
Excel spreadsheet created by PCI and revised by the research
team to address several programming errors found in the orig-
inal version. The revised spreadsheet was validated using the
well-documented 68 m long (223 ft) WF100G described by
West;13 the validation and example calculations are presented
in Alabdulkarim24 and Shahrooz et al.9
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 77
 Table 7. Critical cases selected for stability analyses

Case fc , MPa Girder spacing, m L0.6, m L0.7, m L0.7/L0.6

Washington 100 in.

wide-flange I-gird- 103 3.05 51.8 63.1 1.22
er (WF100G)

Washington 74 in.
wide-flange I-gird- 124 3.05 45.8 55.2 1.21
er (WF74G)

PCI 72 in. bulb tee

124 3.66 34.5 41.2 1.20
(BT72)

Ohio 72 in. wide-

flange girder 69 2.44 50.0 56.4 1.13
(WF72)

Florida 96 in.
I-beam girder 124 2.44 63.1 68.0 1.13
(FIB96)

University of Ne-
braska 2000 mm 124 1.83 59.8 67.1 1.12
I-girder (NU2000)

Note: fc = concrete compressive strength; L0.6 = maximum achievable span for pretensioned girder with 0.6 in. diameter strand; L0.7 = maximum achiev-
able span for pretensioned girder with 0.7 in. diameter strand. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

Stability analysis of parametric design its final position, the value a of 152 mm (6.0 in.) was selected
cases in all analyses.

This study focused on stability of those cross-section and
span combinations that had the greatest achievable increases
in span length when 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strands were replaced
with 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strands (Table 7). These cases poten-
tially represented the most efficient use of 0.7 in. strands, but
they also introduced the greatest potential impacts on girder
stability. The study only analyzed stability of the longer
0.7 in. strand-reinforced girders.
Table 8 lists girder-dependent input parameters required
for PCI stability analysis.23 Girder unit weight was assumed
to be 2400 kg/m3 (150 lb/ft3) in all cases. Table 9 reports
other input parameters required for each step in the stability
analysis. Complete reporting of all cases presented, includ-
ing sample calculations, is available in NCHRP Web-Only
Document 3159 appendix E.
In the analyses conducted, symmetric girder support was
located a distance a from each girder end; this location was
varied to maximize the calculated factors of safety. An initial
assumption of a equal to 0.1L was made, and the analyses
were then revised until adequate (or maximum) factors of
safety were achieved. Table 10 reports the resulting values of
a used. The value of a during transportation may be limited
by interaction of the vehicle and roadway geometry—specif-
ically, the arc swept out by the overhanging end of the girder.
A maximum value a of 6.1 m (20 ft) was used for the trans-
portation stage in this study. When the girder was placed into
Table 10 presents the results of stability analyses in terms
of the three factors of safety prescribed by PCI.23 In a few
analyses (Table 10), additional revisions to assumptions
were necessary to achieve adequate factors of safety for the
long spans. A complete set of sample calculations for the
NU2000 case is provided in appendix E of NCHRP Web-Only
Document 315.9
Despite the long spans, adequate stability could be achieved
with all cross sections (Table 10). When the girder factor
of safety for rollover FSroll was less than 1.5, the girder
simply requires bracing to be placed at its ends. This use of
bracing should be standard practice for all such long girders,
and it was required for all of the evaluated girders, except
the Washington 74 in. (1880 mm) wide-flange I-girder
(WF74G), when the girders were placed in their final in situ
position.
The sections with the lowest ratio of weak- to strong-axis
moment of inertia Iy/Ix, WF100G and Florida 96 in. I-beam
girder (FIB96), failed multiple stability checks for the girder
in transportation and when placed on dunnage. West13 offers
a simple remedy: increase the width of the top flange. In
the WF100G and FIB96 cases, this approach worked. The
top flanges of the WF100G mod and FIB96 mod sections
were increased 457 and 305 mm (18.0 and 12.0 in.), respec-
tively, to achieve stability at all construction stages. West13
reported that increasing the top flange of a 68.0 m (223 ft)

78 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

 Table 8. Parameters required for PCI stability analysis

Parameter WF100G WF74G PCI BT72 WF72 FIB96 NU2000

L0.7, m 63.1 55.2 41.2 56.4 68.0 67.1

btop flange, mm 1245 1245 1067 1245 1219 1226

bbot flange, mm 975 965 660 1016 965 975

A, mm2 6.99 × 105 5.32 × 105 4.95 × 105 7.50 × 105 7.59 × 105 5.83 × 105
Girder
Ix, mm4 6.35 × 1011 3.06 × 1011 2.27 × 1011 3.51 × 1011 6.09 × 1011 3.29 × 1011
geometry
Iy, mm4 2.86 × 1010 3.00 × 1010 1.71 × 1010 4.34 × 1010 3.21 × 1010 2.53 × 1010

J, mm4 3.56 × 109 2.73 × 109 2.57 × 109 4.75 × 109 4.60 × 109 3.01 × 109

ybot, mm 1227 904 930 909 1087 907

w, kN/m 16.45 12.53 11.65 17.68 18.64 13.74

Straight
46 46 32 57 66 52
strands

cgsstraight, mm 104 104 98 193 150 104

Strands Harped
11 11 2 2 5 8
strands

216 (mid) 216 (mid) 152 (mid) 254 (mid) 361 (mid) 279 (mid)
cgsharped, mm
2324 (end) 2324 (end) 1778 (end) 1765 (end) 2324 (end) 1796 (end)

Source: Data from PCI (2016).

Note: Girder unit weight was assumed to be 2400 kg/m3 (150 lb/ft3) in all cases. A = section area; bbot flange = width of bottom flange; btop flange =
width of top flange; BT72 = 72 in. bulb tee; cgsharped = center of gravity of harped prestressing strands; cgsstraight = center of gravity of straight prestressing
strands; FIB96 = Florida 96 in. I-beam girder; Ix = moment of inertia about strong axis; Iy = moment of inertia about weak axis; J = torsional moment of
inertia; L0.7 = maximum achievable span for pretensioned girder with 0.7 in. diameter strand; NU2000 = University of Nebraska 2000 mm I-girder; w
= weight per unit length of section; WF72 = Ohio 72 in. wide-flange girder; WF74G = Washington 74 in. wide-flange I-girder; WF100G = Washington
100 in. wide-flange I-girder; ybot = distance from centroid to bottom of girder. 1 mm = 0.0394 in; 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

long WF100G by 305 mm addressed stability issues during
transportation of these particular girders. The more-slender
WF100G and FIB96 girders also tended to require stiffer
supports. For example, the WF100G mod girder (WF100G
girder with increased top-flange width) initially failed the
cracking check for the transportation stage. A value for
FScr of 1 was achieved by increasing the hauling rig stiff-
ness Kqtrans 43% from 9260 kN m/rad (6830 kip ft/rad) to
13,200 kN m/rad (9750 kip ft/rad). The original stiffness
was selected based on recommendations in stability analysis
guidelines23 and in consultation with practicing engineers
making these calculations. The authors have not investi-
gated whether the rig stiffnesses required are achievable in
practice.
The PCI BT72 section had a thinner bottom flange width b
of 660 mm (26 in.) than the other sections. (All other sec-
tions had bottom flange widths of approximately 1000 mm
[39 in.].) The thinner flange width resulted in a significant-
ly lower bearing rotational stiffness Kqseat calculated to be
2560 kN m/rad (1890 kip ft/rad), which is approximately 30%
of the bearing rotational stiffness of the wider WF100G.25
Increasing the rotational stiffness of the PCI BT72 section by
approximately 50% was required to satisfy FScr > 1.0 when
the girder was placed on dunnage.
Conclusion
An extensive analytical study assessed the maximum achiev-
able girder span lengths when 0.6 and 0.7 in. (15.2 and
17.8 mm) strands were used. Investigators conducted a para-
metric design study with 584 cases to examine the influence
of girder shape and size on the potential benefits of using
0.7 in. strands. A detailed finite element evaluation of some
of the longer spans achieved was also conducted. The impacts
of using 0.7 in. strands on end-region detailing requirements,
prestress transfer, and handling and erection stability of long-
span girders were examined. Based on the results and dis-
cussion reported in this paper, we offer the following general
conclusions and observations:
• The design case studies show that one-to-one replace-
ment of 0.6 in. strands by 0.7 in. strands was not possible
given the presence of many other design constraints;
among those constraints, stress limits at pretensioning
release are a critical concern.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 79

 Table 9. Other input parameters required for PCI stability analysis

Rigid extension of lift device above top of girder ylift 0

Lateral tolerance of lift device from centerline of girder

Lifting 6.4 mm
econn

Lateral wind force at lifting from bed or in field wwind.lift 0.22 kN/m

Plan dimension of the bearing wbrg.seat bbot flange − 51 mm

Height from roll center to bottom of girder while seated

51 mm
on dunnage ybrg.seat

Height of roll center from bearing seat hroll.seat 51 mm

Seating on dunnage Bearing tolerance from centerline of girder to centerline

6.4 mm
of support ebrg.seat

Bearing rotational stiffness Kqseat See NCHRP report 596

Transverse seating tolerance from level aseat 0.005 m/m

Lateral wind force wwind.seat 0.80 kN/m

Bunking tolerance from centerline of girder to center-

25 mm
line of support ebunk.trans

Hauling rig stiffness Kqtrans 9265 kN m/rad

Superelevation atrans 0.020 m/m

Turn radius for adverse cross slope radiustrans 36.6 m

Hauling rig velocity in turn Veltrans 16 km/h

Transportation
Height from roll center to bottom of girder during
305 mm
transportation yseat.trans

Horizontal distance from roll axis to center of tire group

915 mm
zmax.trans

Height of roll center above roadway hroll.trans 1219 mm

Lateral wind force applied during transportation wwind.

0.80 kN/m
trans

Plan dimension of the bearing wbrg.seat bbot flange − 51 mm

Height of bearing hbrg.seat 51 mm

Height from roll center to bottom of girder ybgr.seat = hbgr.

25 mm
seat
/2

Height of roll center from bearing seat hroll.seat = ybrg.seat 25 mm

Single girder on bearings Bearing tolerance from centerline of girder to centerline
6.4 mm
of support ebrg.seat

Bearing rotational stiffness Kqseat See NCHRP report 596

Transverse seating tolerance from level aseat 0.005 m/m

Lateral wind force applied while seated on bearings

0.22 kN/m
wwind.seat

Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in; 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 kN m = 0.738 kip ft; 1 km/h = 0.621 mph.

80 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

 Table 10. Summary of stability analysis

WF100G FIB96
WF100G WF74G PCI BT72 OHWF72 FIB96 NU2000
modified modified

Iy/Ix 0.045 0.072 0.098 0.075 0.124 0.055 0.069 0.077

Added top flange

n/a 457 n/a n/a n/a n/a 305 n/a
width, mm

a, m 6.71 4.88 3.66 1.22 4.58 7.62 6.40 7.93

Lift from bed*
fpeff = 0.67fpu FScr 1.20 1.51 1.61 1.59 1.84 1.53 1.63 1.54
fc = 0.83fc
FS' 1.58 1.58 1.61 1.59 1.84 1.53 1.63 1.54

a, m 0.15 1.22 0.30 0.30 0.30 4.58 3.36 3.05

Sitting on
dunnage FScr 0.25 1.01† 2.72 1.00‡ 2.74 0.90 1.25 1.34
fpeff = 0.67fpu FS' 1.55 2.41 4.24 3.66 2.81 1.97 1.97 2.34
fc = 0.83fc
FSroll 1.15§ 1.64 2.09 1.80 1.91 1.52 1.52 1.52

a, m 0.15 1.22 0.30 0.30 0.30 4.58 5.12 3.95

Transportation FScr 0.02 1.00|| 2.08 1.82 2.12 0.60 1.01# 1.00
fpeff = 0.62fpu
fc = fc FS' 1.44 2.89 3.80 7.35 2.49 1.79 2.28 2.37

FSroll 1.23§ 2.05 2.33 3.26 1.98 1.56 1.89 1.82

a, m 6.71 4.88 3.66 1.22 4.58 7.62 6.40 7.93

Lift in fielde
fpeff = 0.62fpu FScr 1.23 1.42 1.52 1.48 1.58 1.50 1.55 1.55
fc = fc
FS' 1.54 4.52 1.52 1.51 1.58 1.50 1.55 1.55

a, m 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

In place FScr 1.60 2.13 5.06 2.37 3.63 1.50 1.77 2.27
fpeff = 0.62fpu
fc = fc FS' 1.86 2.34 4.95 2.76 3.20 1.45 1.69 2.08

FSroll 0.95§ 1.12§ 1.52 1.14§ 1.37§ 0.83§ 0.93§ 0.93§

Note: bold entries are below acceptance criteria. a = distance from girder end for symmetric girder support; fc = concrete compressive strength; = con-
crete compressive strength fpeff = effective prestressing stress; fpu = tensile strength of prestressing strands; FS' = factor of safety for failure; FScr = factor
of safety for cracking; FSroll = factor of safety for rollover; Ix = moment of inertia about strong axis; Iy = moment of inertia about weak axis; Kqseat = bearing
rotational stiffness; Kqtrans = hauling rig stiffness; n/a = not applicable; wwind,trans = lateral wind force during transportation. 1 m = 3.28 ft.

* Wind speeds during lifts may be limited in some cases to achieve factor of safety shown.

† Increase Kqseat by 6%.

‡ Increase Kqseat 50%.

§
Bracing at girder ends required to mitigate rollover.
||
Increase Kqtrans by 43% and reduce wwind,trans by 10%.
#
Increase Kqtrans by 7%.

• When designs with 0.6 in. and 0.7 in. strand were com-
pared, up to 22% increases in girder span length were
achievable in the designs with 0.7 in. strands.
• The span length of existing girder shapes optimized for
0.6 in. strands (such as NU and WF) was not appreciably
increased when 0.7 in. strands were used. Less-efficient
shapes (such as PCI bulb tees) exhibited greater potential
increases in their spans when 0.7 in. strand was used.
• When larger-diameter strand was used to maximize preten-
sion force, greater relief of initial stresses at the girder ends
was required. When the harping of strands is not permitted
(as in the case of Texas U girders) or when the degree of
strand debonding is limited, the potential benefits of using
the larger 0.7 in. strands cannot be fully realized.
• The increase in achievable span length associated with
0.7 in. strand was generally proportional to girder depth.

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 81

 • The design approach for the parametric design case study
was validated by the finite element models.
• When similar numbers of 0.6 in. and 0.7 in. strands
were used, the use of 0.7 in. strands tended to require
greater debonding, which had the effect of reducing
the confinement tie force (assuming a favorable strand
pattern was adopted). Therefore, in terms of required
confinement reinforcement, there was little difference
between cases with 0.6 in. and 0.7 in. strands. The
required bulb confinement reinforcement was met
for all the cases, and no constructability issues were
anticipated.
• The increased prestressing force from the use of 0.7 in.
strands resulted in greater splitting forces, leading to
potentially more congested web reinforcing steel re-
quirements at the beam ends. Nevertheless, the required
reinforcement was met for all the cases considered, and
no constructability issues were anticipated.
• The finite element models demonstrated that cracking ex-
tended beyond the h/4 distance over which concentrated
splitting reinforcement was provided. This result supports
designs in which the required splitting reinforcement is
provided over a longer length, as is permitted by some
states.
• The potential for longer achievable spans increases the
susceptibility of girders to instabilities. As is required
for much shorter girders than those considered here, end
braces must be installed immediately upon placement
on bearings to provide safety against rollover. For other
conditions, the following measures can improve safety
against stability effects:
— Refining lift points and symmetric dunnage support
locations a can optimize resistance to stability
effects. The value of a may be practically limited
during transportation based on vehicle geometry
and routes chosen.
— Increasing the width of the top flange of a girder
thereby increasing Iy/Ix has a pronounced effect on
improving stability.
— Providing stiffer transportation or dunnage
support—assuming that this is possible—improves
stability.
— Girders with relatively thin bottom flanges (bulb-
tee sections in this study) are more susceptible to
rollover while supported on dunnage or in transpor-
tation.
The parametric study was intended to be illustrative and to
identify trends. Many assumptions were made, and the results
presented are constrained by these.
82 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
Acknowledgments
The study reported in this paper was funded by the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project
12-109. See NCHRP report 9943 and NCHRP web-only doc-
ument 3159 for the complete report.
References
1. ASTM International. 2015. Standard Specification for
Low-Relaxation, Seven-Wire Steel Strand for Prestressed
Concrete. ASTM A416/ASTM A416M 15. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
2. AASHTO (American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials). 2020. Standard Specification
for Steel Strand, Low-Relaxation Uncoated Seven-Wire
for Concrete Reinforcement. AASHTO M 203M/M 203.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
3. Shahrooz, B. M., R. A. Miller, K. A. Harries, and R.
Castrodale. 2022. Use of 0.7 in. Diameter Strands in
Precast Pretensioned Girders. NCHRP report 994.
Washington, DC: TRB (Transportation Research Board).
https://doi.org/10.17226/26677.
4. AASHTO. 2020. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. 9th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
5. Technical Committee ECISS/TC 19 SC2. 2000.
Prestressing Steels—Part 1: General Requirements. Draft
prEN 10138-1. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee
for Standardization.
6. Shahrooz, B. M., R. A. Miller, K. A. Harries, Q. Yu, and
H. G. Russell. 2017. Strand Debonding in Pretensioned
Girders. NCHRP report 849. Washington, DC: TRB.
https://doi.org/10.17226/24813.
7. Schuler, G. 2009. “Producer’s Experience with 10,000 psi
Concrete and 0.7 in. Diameter Strands.” HPC Bridge
Views, no. 54, 7–8. http://concretebridgeviews
.com/2009/03/producers-experience-with-10000-psi
-concrete-and-0-7-in-diameter-strands.
8. Nebraska Department of Roads. 2015. The Roadrunner,
February/March.
9. Shahrooz, B. M., R. A. Miller, K. A. Harries, and R.
Castrodale. 2022. Details of the Study on the Use of 0.7
in. Diameter Strands in Precast Pretensioned Girders.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 315. Washington, DC:
TRB. https://doi.org/10.17226/26676.
10. Concrete Technology Corp. “Alaskan Way Viaduct.”
Accessed February 25, 2023. http://www.concretetech
.com/projects/alaskan-way-viaduct-.
11. Lallathin, T. J. 2015. “US 17-92 Interchange at SR 436.” Concrete Bridge Girders Considering Sweep and
Aspire 9 (4): 20–26. http://www.aspirebridge.com Thermal Effects. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of
/magazine/2015Fall/Project-US17 Technology. https://www.dot.ga.gov/BuildSmart
-92InterchangeAtSR436.pdf. /ResearchDocuments/05-15.pdf.

12. Canadian Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. 2002. 23. PCI Bridges Committee. 2016. Recommended Practice
“Record-Breaking Precast NU Girders Installed in for Lateral Stability of Precast, Prestressed Concrete
Alberta.” https://www.cpci.ca/en/about_us/project Bridge Girders. CB-02-16. Chicago, IL: PCI. https://doi
_month/april_2002/. .org/10.15554/CB-02-16.

13. West, C. 2019. “Prestressed Concrete Girders Achieve 24. Alabdulkarim, A. 2021. “Use of 0.7 in. Diameter
Record Lengths.” Aspire 13 (4): 56–57. https://www Prestressing Strand in Bridge Girders: Bond Behavior
.aspirebridge.com/magazine/2019Fall/CCC and Girder Stability.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh.
-PrestressedConcreteGirders.pdf. https://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/40487.

14. Castrodale, R. W., and C. D. White. 2004. Extending 25. Stanton, J. F., C. W. Roeder, P. MacKenzie-Helnwein,
Span Ranges of Precast Prestressed Concrete Girders. C. White, C. Kuester, and B. Craig. 2008. Rotation
NCHRP report 517. Washington, DC: TRB. https://doi Limits for Elastomeric Bearings. NCHRP report 596.
.org/10.17226/23375. Washington, DC: TRB. https://doi.org/10.17226/23131.

15. Collins, M. P., and D. Mitchell. 1997. Prestressed Notation

Concrete Structures. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
a = distance from girder end for symmetric girder support
16. Salazar, J., H. Yousefpour, A. Katz, R. A. Abyaneh,
H. S. Kim, D. Garber, T. Hrynyk, and O. Bayrak. aseat = transverse seating tolerance from level
2017. “Benefits of Using 0.7 in. (18 mm) Diameter
Strands in Precast, Pretensioned Girders: A Parametric atrans = superelevation
Investigation.” PCI Journal 62 (6): 59–75. https://doi
.org/10.15554/pcij62.6-04. A = section area

17. Khaleghi, B. 2006. “Design Memorandum: Splitting Aps = area of prestressing strand
Resistance of Pretensioned Anchorage Zones.”
December 23, 2006. Washington State Department of b = bottom flange width
Transportation. https://wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge
/designmemos/11-2006.htm. bb = bearing width

18. Tuan, C. Y., S. A. Yehia, N. Jongpitaksseel, and M. K. bbot flange = bottom flange width
Tadros. 2004. “End Zone Reinforcement for Pretensioned
Concrete Girders.” PCI Journal 49 (3): 68–82. https://doi btop flange = top flange width
.org/10.15554/pcij.05012004.68.82.
cgsharped = center of gravity of harped prestressing strand
19. Harries, K. A., B. M. Shahrooz, B. E. Ross, P. Ball,
and H. R. Hamilton. 2019. “Modeling and Detailing cgsstraight = center of gravity of straight prestressing strand
Pretensioned Concrete Bridge Girder End Regions
Using the Strut and Tie Approach.” Journal of Bridge db = nominal diameter of prestressing strand
Engineering 24 (3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
BE.1943-5592.0001354. dr = debonding ratio

20. Mast, R. F. 1989. “Lateral Stability of Long Prestressed DC = weight of components (barrier walls and appurte-
Beams Part 1.” PCI Journal 34 (1): 34–53. https://doi nances)
.org/10.15554/pcij.01011989.34.53.
DW = weight of wearing surface
21. Mast, R. F. 1993. “Lateral Stability of Long Prestressed
Beams Part 2.” PCI Journal 38 (1): 70–88. https://doi e = distance between the centroid of the cross section
.org/10.15554/pcij.01011993.70.88. and the centroid of prestressing steel

22. Zureick, A. H., L. Kahn, K. M. Will, I. Kalkan, J. Hurff, ebrg.seat = bearing tolerance from centerline of girder to cen-
and J. H. Lee. 2009. Stability of Precast Prestressed terline of support

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 83

 ebunk.trans = bunking tolerance from centerline of girder to cen- Kqseat = bearing rotational stiffness
terline of support
Kqtrans = hauling rig stiffness
econn = lateral tolerance of lift device from centerline of
girder L = span length

Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete corresponding to LL = HL93 live load

Eci = modulus of elasticity of concrete corresponding to LLlane = lane load component of HL93 live load

fc = concrete compressive strength LLtruck = truck axle load component of HL93 live load

f c′ = specified concrete compressive strength Lt = transfer length

f ci′ = concrete strength at strand release L0.6 = maximum achievable span for pretensioned girder
with 0.6 in. (15 mm) diameter strand
fc,max = maximum concrete compressive stress
L0.7 = maximum achievable span for pretensioned girder
fpeff = effective prestressing stress with 0.7 in. (18 mm) diameter strand

fpi = initial prestressing stress P = total prestressing force

fpu = tensile strength of prestressing strand radiustrans = turn radius for adverse cross slope

ft,max = maximum concrete tensile stress S = spacing

FS = factor of safety tf = slab thickness

FS' = factor of safety for failure V = shear force

FScr = factor of safety for cracking Veltrans = hauling rig velocity in turn

FSroll = factor of safety for rollover w = girder weight per unit length

gM,int = distribution factor for flexure of interior girders wbrg.seat = plan dimension of the bearing

h = girder depth wc = unit weight of concrete

hb = flange depth wcr,max = maximum predicted crack width

hbrg.seat = height of bearing wwind.lift = lateral wind force at lifting from bed or in field

hroll.seat = height of roll center from bearing seat wwind.seat = lateral wind force

hroll.trans = height of roll center above roadway wwind.trans = lateral wind force

IM = impact factor ybot = distance from centroid of section to bottom of gird-

er
Ix = moment of inertia of cross section about strong axis
ylift = rigid extension of lift device above top of girder
Iy = moment of inertia of cross section about weak axis
ybrg.seat = height from roll center to bottom of girder
J = torsional moment of inertia
yseat.trans = height from roll center to bottom of girder
kt = distance between the centroid of the cross section
and the top kern point zmax.trans = horizontal distance from roll axis to center of tire
group

84 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

α = ratio of tie force to shear force allowing tie force to
be written in terms of shear force

η = ratio of concrete compressive strength at strand

release to specified concrete compressive strength

Ω = overstrength factor

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 85

 About the authors
Kent A. Harries, PhD, FASCE,
FACI, FIIFC, PEng, is a professor
in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the
University of Pittsburgh in
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Bahram M. Shahrooz, PhD, is a
professor of structural engineering
at the University of Cincinnati in
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Payne D. Ball is a structural
engineer with Oldcastle
Infrastructure and a former
graduate student at the University
of Cincinnati.
TianQiao Liu, PhD, is an associate
professor at Beijing University of
Technology in China and a former
postdoctoral researcher at the
University of Pittsburgh.
Venkata S.S.P. Sathiraju is a
bridge engineer with Gresham
Smith and a former graduate
student at the University of
Cincinnati.
Abdullah Alabdulkarim, PhD, is
an assistant professor at King
Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia.
86 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
Richard A. Miller, PhD, is a
professor of civil engineering at
the University of Cincinnati.
Reid W. Castrodale is president of
Castrodale Engineering
Consultants in Concord, N.C.
Abstract
It has been proposed that 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) diame-
ter prestressing strand be permitted for use in bridge
girders. If 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) diameter strand is re-
placed on a one-to-one basis with 0.7 in. strand, the
pretensioning force can be increased by 35%. When
designs use 0.7 in. strands as well as high concrete
strengths, longer-span prestressed concrete girders may
be achieved. An extensive analytical study is presented
to assess the maximum girder span lengths that can be
achieved when using 0.6 and 0.7 in. strands. A para-
metric design study with 584 cases was conducted to
examine the influence of girder shape and size on the
potential benefits of using 0.7 in. strands. A detailed
finite element analysis of some of the longer spans
achieved was also conducted. The impacts of using
0.7 in. strands on end-region detailing requirements,
prestress transfer, and handling and erection stability of
long-span girders were examined. Girder span increas-
es of up to 22% were achieved using 0.7 in. strand in
place of 0.6 in. strand. The larger pretension forces
affected end-region detailing and increased congestion,
though all resulting requirements were constructible.
The longer spans affected girder stability calculations,
and some girder types required a wider top flange to
meet stability-related limit states.
Keywords
End-region reinforcement, girder stability, long span,
prestressed concrete girders, prestressing strand, pre-
tensioned concrete, strand.
Review policy

This paper was reviewed in accordance with the

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process. The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute
is not responsible for statements made by authors of
papers in PCI Journal. No payment is offered.

Publishing details

This paper appears in PCI Journal (ISSN 0887-9672)

V. 68, No.4, July–August 2023, and can be found at
https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij68.4-02. PCI Journal
is published bimonthly by the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite
1150, Chicago, IL 60631. Copyright © 2023, Precast/
Prestressed Concrete Institute.

Reader comments

Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal

editor-in-chief Tom Klemens at tklemens@pci.org or
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal,
8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL
60631. J

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 87

 Guidelines for the Use of Ultra-High-Performance
Concrete (UHPC) in Precast and Prestressed
Concrete (TR-9-22)
This new publication provides a practical guide for the development and
Guid eline s
qualification of UHPC mixtures based on locally available materials. It
presents an overview of UHPC production specific to long-span precast,
Gu id el in es fo r
th e Us e of pretensioned UHPC structural elements for buildings and bridges.
Ul tr a- Hi gh -P er
fo rm an ce
Co nc re te (U HP
C) in Pr ec as t
Topics discussed include:
an d Pr es tr es se
d Co nc re te • constituent materials and development of mixture proportions
• batching and placement considerations for production
• methods for evaluating UHPC materials for mixture qualification
and routine quality assurance.

PCI Con cret e M

Now available in the PCI Bookstore (free PDF download for PCI members).
ater ials
Tech nolo gy Com
mitt ee
TR-9 -22

PCI Needs You

PCI relies on a network of robust and engaged committees to develop standards, handbooks,
manuals, guidelines, and other documents for our Body of Knowledge. These committees
regularly need additional members to support ongoing efforts. Current PCI committees
soliciting new members include:
• Structural Design of UHPC (newly formed) • Prestressed Concrete Poles
• FRP Composites • Professional Members
• Prestressed Concrete Piling

To learn more or to join a committee,

scan the code or visit: pci.org/PCI/
Applications/Committee.aspx

Board of Directors
Matt Ballain, Chair, Coreslab
Structures (INDIANAPOLIS)
Jim Fabinski, Vice Chair, EnCon
Colorado
Carlos Cerna, Secretary-Treasurer,
Manco Structures Ltd.
J. Matt DeVoss, Immediate Past
Chair, Jackson Precast Inc.
Bob Risser, President and CEO, PCI
Dusty Andrews, Producer Member
Director, PCI Washington/Oregon,
Knife River Corp.–Northwest
Dennis Cilley, Associate Member
Director, Erector, American Steel &
Precast Erectors
Ned Cleland, Professional Member
Director, Blue Ridge Design Inc.
Todd Culp, Producer Member
Director, PCI Midwest, Coreslab
Structures (OMAHA) Inc.
Brandon Farley, Producer Member
Director, PCI Midwest, EnCon Field
Services LLC
Evan Fink, Producer Member
Director, PCI Mid-Atlantic,
Northeast Prestressed Products
LLC
Troy Jenkins, Institute Program
Director, Transportation Activities,
Northeast Prestressed Products
Technical Activities Council
Chair Richard A. Miller
Vice Chair Christopher Mosley
Secretary Jared Brewe
Ex-officio, fib Representative
Larbi Sennour
Ex-officio, Code Representatives
S. K. Ghosh and Stephen V. Skalko
Directories
Lloyd Kennedy, Institute Program
Director, Educational Activities,
Finfrock Industries LLC
Brent Koch, Producer Member
Director, PCI West, Con-Fab
California LLC
Cheryl Lang, At-Large Member, Tindall
Corp.
Matt Mahonski, Producer Member
Director, PCI Central, High Concrete
Group
David Malaer, Producer Member
Director, Texas, Oklahoma, New
Mexico, Valley Prestress Products Inc.
Jane Martin, Institute Program Director,
Marketing, Gate Precast Co.
Brian Miller, Associate Member
Director, Supplier, GCP Applied
Technologies Inc.
James Miller, Producer Member
Director, PCI of Illinois & Wisconsin
Richard A. Miller, Institute Program
Director, Technical Activities,
University of Cincinnati
Christopher Mosley, Professional
Member Director, The Consulting
Engineers Group Inc.
Andrew Osborn, Institute
Program Director, Research and
Development, Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates Inc.
Dusty Andrews
Suzanne Aultman
Ned M. Cleland
Harry Gleich
Mary Ann Griggas-Smith
David Jablonsky
Wayne Kassian
Yahya Kurama
Patty Peterson, Institute Program
Director, Business Performance,
Tindall Corp.
Richard Potts, Producer Member
Director, Georgia/Carolinas PCI,
Standard Concrete Products Inc.
Jim Renda, Associate Member
Director, Supplier, Cresset Chemical
Co.
Lenny Salvo, Producer Member
Director, Florida Chapter, Coreslab
Structures (ORLANDO) Inc.
Peter Simoneau, Producer Member
Director, PCI Northeast, Dailey
Precast
Ben Spruill, Producer Member
Director, PCI Gulf South, Gulf Coast
Prestress Partners
Kimberly Wacker, At-Large Member,
Wells
Lee Wegner, Producer Member
Director, PCI Mountain States,
Forterra Structural Precast
Mike Wolff, Institute Program
Director, Quality Activities,
Mid-States Concrete Industries LLC
Diep Tu, Regional Council
Representative, Nonvoting, Florida
Prestressed Concrete Association
Colin Van Kampen, Membership
Council Representative, Nonvoting,
Structures Inc.
John Lawler
Alex Mihaylov
Barry McKinley
Pinar Okumus
Andrew Osborn
Timothy Salmons
Stephen J. Seguirant
Venkatesh Seshappa
PCI Journal | July–August 2023 89
 PCI staff
Tom Bagsarian (312) 428-4945 tbagsarian@pci.org Editorial content manager

Laura Bedolla (312) 360-3218 lbedolla@pci.org Technical activities program manager

Lauren Bell (312) 583-6775 lbell@pci.org Education and publications coordinator

Jared Brewe (312) 360-3213 jbrewe@pci.org Technical services vice president

Trina Brown (312) 360-3590 tbrown@pci.org Transportation systems program manager

K. Michelle Burgess (312) 282-8160 mburgess@pci.org PCI Journal managing editor

Nikole Clow (312) 360-3202 nclow@pci.org Marketing coordinator

Royce Covington (312) 428-4946 rcovington@pci.org Member services manager

Timothy Cullen (312) 360-3206 tcullen@pci.org Technical activities director

Cher Doherty (312) 583-6781 cdoherty@pci.org Events director

Walter Furie (312) 583-6772 wfurie@pci.org Production senior specialist

Edith Gallandorm (312) 360-3219 egallandorm@pci.org Codes and standards managing director

Cody Kauhl (312) 583-6778 ckauhl@pci.org Web developer

Michael Kesselmayer (312) 583-6770 mkesselmayer@pci.org Quality programs managing director

Market development and education managing
Becky King (312) 360-3201 bking@pci.org
director
Tom Klemens (312) 583-6773 tklemens@pci.org Publications director

Ken Kwilinski (312) 428-4944 kkwilinski@pci.org Quality systems manager

Carolina Lopez (312) 583-6774 clopez@pci.org Certification programs coordinator

Membership and administrative services
Philip McConnell (312) 583-6783 pmcconnell@pci.org
coordinator
John McConvill (312) 360-3208 jmcconvill@pci.org Controller

Bekki Missaggia (312) 360-3215 bmissaggia@pci.org Education manager

Noel Morales (312) 786-0300 nmorales@pci.org Certification coordinator

William Nickas (312) 583-6776 wnickas@pci.org Transportation systems managing director

Bob Risser (312) 360-3204 brisser@pci.org President and chief executive officer

Lisa Scacco (312) 583-6782 lscacco@pci.org Publications manager

Neal Sherman (312) 786-0300 nsherman@pci.org Senior staff accountant

Mike Smith (312) 786-0300 msmith@pci.org Information technology manager

Beth Taylor (312) 583-6780 btaylor@pci.org Chief financial and administrative officer
Information technology and events
Cindi Ward (312) 360-3214 cward@pci.org
coordinator
Randy Wilson (312) 428-4940 rwilson@pci.org Architectural precast systems director

90 PCI Journal | July–August 2023

Regional offices
Florida Prestressed Concrete PCI of Illinois & Wisconsin PCI Northeast
Association Joe Lombard Rita Seraderian
Diep Tu Phone: (312) 505-1858 Phone: (617) 484-0506
Phone: (407) 758-9966 Email: joe@pci-iw.org Email: contact@pcine.org
Email: diep@myfpca.org PCI-IW.org PCINE.org
MyFPCA.org
PCI Mid-Atlantic PCI West
Georgia/Carolinas PCI Dawn Decker Ruth Lehmann
Ray Clark Phone: (717) 682-1215 Phone: (949) 420-3638
Phone: (678) 402-7727 Email: dawn@pci-ma.org Email: info@pciwest.org
Email: ray.clark@gcpci.org PCI-MA.org PCIWest.org
GCPCI.org
PCI Midwest Precast Concrete Manufacturers’
PCI Central Region Mike Johnsrud Association
Phil Wiedemann Phone: (952) 806-9997 Chris Lechner
Phone: (937) 833-3900 Email: mike@pcimidwest.org Phone: (866) 944-7262
Email: phil@pci-central.org PCIMidwest.org Email: chris@precastcma.org
PCI-Central.org PrecastCMA.org
PCI Mountain States
PCI Gulf South Jim Schneider
Dan Eckenrode Phone: (303) 562-8685
Phone: (228) 239-3409 Email: jschneider@pcims.org
Email: pcigulfsouth1@att.net PCIMS.org
PCIGulfSouth.org

Coming ahead
Materials
• Review of the effects of supplementary cementitious
materials on age-dependent concrete properties
affecting precast construction
• Axial load behavior of reinforced concrete columns
with high-strength steel coiled strips as confinement
• Alkaline activation and mechanical properties of lake
sediment geopolymers

Also
• Numerical and digital image correlation study of
the flexural behavior of prestressed ultra-high-
performance concrete beams made from locally
available materials
• Meet Amir Fam

PCI Journal | July–August 2023 91

 Meet Frank Nadeau
A lifetime
of learning and giving
William Atkinson
F rank Nadeau grew up in Somersworth,
N.H. “Throughout high school, my
favorite courses were math and the scienc-
es,” he says. He attended one year of com-
munity college before entering the Navy
for four years as a radarman.
Following that, he attended the
Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston, Mass.,
where he earned a bachelor of science degree in architectural
engineering technology in 1975. After that, he attended the
University of New Mexico (UNM) in Albuquerque, where
he earned a master’s degree in architecture in 1981 and an
MS in engineering in 1983.
His senior design project at Wentworth was a post-ten-
sioned midrise high-rise building, and his research took him
to nearby San-Vel Concrete in Littleton, Mass., for informa-
tion. That’s where he became interested in precast concrete.
After graduating, he got a job at San-Vel as a drafter.
Over the years, Nadeau expanded his knowledge in pre-
cast concrete as a result of working at several companies
and being licensed in 14 states. He found employment with
Stanley Structures in Albuquerque as an engineer with a con-
centration on parking structures, bridges, and hotels, while
obtaining his master’s degree at UNM.
After getting his master’s degree, he moved to Amarillo,
Tex., where he worked mostly on bridges and parking struc-
tures for Southwest Prestressed as engineering manager.
From there, he, his spouse, Kathrine, and his two children
moved around quite a bit, during which time he worked at
Forest City Dillon, Blakeslee Prestress, Metromont Precast,
Unistress Corp., and Tindall Corp. In his various positions
in these firms, Nadeau frequently worked on tennis stadiums,
multistory hotel structures, parking structures, hollow-core
housing projects, prisons, and bridges.
While at Blakeslee Prestress, Nadeau met Mario Bertolini,
who introduced him to PCI. Then, while working at Tindall,
92 PCI Journal | July–August 2023
Nadeau became chair of Georgia/Carolinas PCI. He was also
named a PCI fellow.
From that point on, Nadeau became increasingly active
in PCI. “Besides being active on committees, I really enjoyed
learning from all my colleagues, and I am proud to say that
we can ensure and provide a consistent product in our indus-
try,” he says.
“Step out of your comfort zone, and
talk to and learn from everyone you
can meet.”
Over his years in PCI, Nadeau was a member of the
Technical Activities Council, the Parking Structures
Committee, the Journal Advisory Committee, the Research
and Development Council, the Seismic Committee,
the Sustainability Committee, the Marketing Council,
the Erectors Committee, and the Concrete Materials
Technology Committee.
Looking back, Nadeau, who is now retired, says that his
two favorite precast concrete projects were the Flushing
Meadows Tennis Stadium and the Yale Tennis Stadium,
because of their complexity of design and the use of precast
concrete products. “I also really enjoyed the Blue Cross-Blue
Shield parking structure project when I was with Blakeslee,”
he says.
Over his career, Nadeau says, he is most proud of the fact
that he was able to help develop young engineers to become
productive, innovative, and confident in their precast con-
crete design work. To the younger generations, he says, “Step
out of your comfort zone, and talk to and learn from every-
one you can meet,” he says. “Joining PCI will help you do
this.”
Digital rendering of
The Icon’s design
THE ICON + T-SL AB ®
THE FIRST TOTAL PRECAST PROJECT OF ITS KIND
To bring this 163,000 -square-foot total precast tower
to life on a constricted, metropolitan job site, Tindall
developed nearly 700 precast elements that could be
quickly erected with just a single crane and a small
on-site crew. These elements included load-bearing
architectural wall panels, stair and elevator towers,
and the T-SLAB ® floor system.
Unlike most precast structures, which are fully
constructed in sections, The Icon was erected
sequentially by level. The precast elements for each
floor were installed in a “back-to-front” construction
method, beginning with the insulated wall panels and
Photograph of the
completed construction
ending with the installation of the T-SLABs. This process
provided early access to each floor for other trades,
dramatically accelerating the construction schedule.
In addition to providing long, clear spans for each
floor, the T-SLABs also concealed MEP throughout the
structure. This was possible thanks to T-SLAB’s unique
design, which allows the internal lightweight concrete
blocks to be omitted to accommodate bathroom
installations, additional reinforcement, or mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing items, further accelerating the
construction schedule. In the end, The Icon was fully
erected in just under 16 weeks.
TINDALLCORP.COM