ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
MS No. S-2013-046.R2
Estimation of Long-Term Prestress Losses in Post-
Tensioned Girders
by Alexandra K. Kottari and P. Benson Shing
Post-tensioned concrete girders are commonly used in bridge struc-
tures. Long-term prestress losses due to the creep and shrinkage of
concrete in post-tensioned girders are smaller than those in preten-
sioned girders because of the higher amount of non-prestressed
steel present in the former, and also the fact that post-tensioning
can take place a long while after a girder has been cast and when
the concrete has reached a mature age. Two methods that can be
used to estimate long-term prestressed losses in post-tensioned
girders are presented in this paper. One is a refined method and
the other is a simplified method. The accuracy of the methods
has been verified by field data collected from two bridge struc-
tures monitored for long-term losses. A numerical parametric
study conducted with these methods has shown that the concrete
strength, the amount of non-prestressed steel, the relative humidity,
and the age of concrete at post-tensioning are equally important
for the assessment of prestress losses. Because the post-tensioning
of a bridge girder in a long multi-span bridge can take place at
a concrete age between 100 and 200 days, when an appreciable
amount of shrinkage has already occurred, an accurate account of
the incremental shrinkage strain from the time of post-tensioning
is as important as that of the ultimate shrinkage strain. The calcu-
lation of this incremental strain relies on an accurate equation to
predict the increase of shrinkage strain with time over the entire
shrinkage period.
Keywords: bridge girders; creep; post-tensioning; prestress loss;
prestressed concrete; pretensioning; shrinkage; steel relaxation.
INTRODUCTION
Many bridge structures have pretensioned or post-tensioned
concrete girders. There is a gradual loss of the prestressing
force over time due to the creep and shrinkage of concrete
and the stress relaxation in the prestressing steel. From the
standpoint of crack and deflection control, which has a
direct impact on the durability and serviceability of a bridge,
it is important to have an accurate assessment of this long-
term loss in the design process. The two analysis methods,
one of which is called a refined estimate and the other an
approximate estimate, provided in the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications to estimate long-term prestress
losses in bridge girders were first introduced in the fourth
edition in 2007.1 In this edition, formulas to estimate the
creep and shrinkage of concrete were also revised. These
changes are based on the work of Tadros et al.2 that focuses
on pretensioned high-strength concrete girders. While the
refined analysis method is permitted to be used for post-
tensioned girders as well, the approximate method is only
allowed for pretensioned girders. Long-term prestress losses
in post-tensioned bridge girders are expected to be smaller
than those in pretensioned girders for two main reasons: one
is the higher amount of non-prestressed steel that is normally
ACI Structural Journal
TECHNICAL PAPER
present in post-tensioned girders, providing a higher restraint
to the creep and shrinkage of the concrete, and the other is
that post-tensioning could take place a long while after the
girders have been cast and when the concrete has reached a
more mature age, which results in a lower creep as well as
a lower shrinkage loss. While the concrete age at loading
is taken into consideration in the refined analysis method
introduced in the 2007 AASHTO LRFD specifications,1 the
influence of non-prestressed steel is not. Hence, the loss esti-
mation methods given in the current AASHTO LRFD speci-
fications are more suited for pretensioned bridge girders than
for post-tensioned girders.
Youakim et al.3,4 proposed a detailed analysis method to
estimate long-term prestress losses in post-tensioned girders
that accounts for the influence of non-prestressed steel. This
method is based on an analytical approach described in Ghali
et al.5 Both this method and the refined analysis method in
AASHTO proposed by Tadros et al.2 adopt the concept of the
age-adjusted modulus of elasticity of concrete6 to estimate
the creep deformation of concrete under a gradually varying
prestressing force. Nevertheless, the formulations for the
two methods are quite different. The method of Youakim et
al. has been proven to be accurate by Shing and Kottari7 with
field data acquired from two post-tensioned bridge struc-
tures monitored for long-term prestressed losses.8,9 Its form,
however, is not convenient for adoption by AASHTO, as it
is vastly different from the refined method currently used in
the AASHTO LRFD specifications.
This paper presents a refined analysis method whose
formulations assume a similar form as the AASHTO method,
and yet it accounts for the presence of non-prestressed steel
and is, therefore, more suited for post-tensioned girders.
Furthermore, a simplified analysis method that accounts for
the age of concrete at prestressing as well as the presence
of non-prestressed steel has been derived from the proposed
refined method. This is an extension of the approximate
analysis method introduced in the 2007 AASHTO LRFD
specifications, which is not applicable to post-tensioned
girders. The proposed methods have been evaluated and
compared with field data collected from two bridge struc-
tures.8,9 For the refined method, three sets of creep and
shrinkage values have been used for the evaluation. One
is measured from concrete samples collected for the moni-
tored bridges, and the other two are calculated with formulas
ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 1-6, January-December 2014.
MS No. S-2013-046.R2 received August 27, 2013, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2014, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be
published ten months from this journals date if the discussion is received within four
months of the papers print publication.
1
provided in the 200410 and 20071 editions of the AASHTO
LRFD specifications, respectively. Moreover, a parametric
study has been conducted to further compare the refined and
approximate analysis methods and to examine the influence
of the concrete strength, amount of non-prestressed steel,
relative humidity, and age of concrete at post-tensioning on
the ultimate long-term prestress loss. Main findings of this
study are also presented in this paper.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Current AASHTO LRFD specifications do not have
suitable methods to estimate long-term prestress losses
in post-tensioned bridge girders. The analysis methods
proposed herein can be readily adopted by AASHTO to
fill this gap. These methods are not intended to replace the
current prestress-loss calculation methods in AASHTO for
pretensioned members, but rather as additions to address
the shortcoming of current specifications for post-tensioned
bridge girders.
PROPOSED REFINED ANALYSIS METHOD
The long-term prestress loss DfpLT in a prestressed concrete
member consists of the following contributions
DfpLT = DfpC + DfpS + DfpR (1)
in which DfpC and DfpS are the losses caused by the creep
and shrinkage of concrete, respectively; and DfpR is the steel
relaxation loss. The refined analysis method proposed herein
to calculate each of the aforementioned losses is an exten-
sion of the method proposed by Tadros et al.2 to account for
the presence of non-prestressed reinforcement. This method
yields the same results as the method proposed by Youakim
et al.,3-5 but has the equations cast in a form similar to the
refined method introduced in the 2007 AASHTO LRFD
specifications,1 and can thus be readily implemented in
AASHTO for post-tensioned members.
The derivation of the proposed method is presented as
follows. In this derivation, the prestressing force is treated as
an external force applied to the girder section, which includes
the net concrete area and the area of the non-prestressed
steel. Furthermore, with the assumption of perfect bonding,
it is taken that the incremental strain in the prestressing steel
is equal to that in the concrete at the same elevation as the
steel centroid in the girder section.
Shrinkage loss
If one considers that the prestressing steel exerts an
external force on a concrete section, the shrinkage of the
concrete is only restrained by the non-prestressed steel. To
account for the influence of the non-prestressed steel, one
can first calculate a hypothetical restraining force that will
gradually increase with time to prevent the free shrinkage
of the concrete member until the tendency of the concrete
to shrink stops. This force is computed with the net concrete
area of the girder section Ac, and the age-adjusted modulus
of elasticity of the concrete Ec(t, ti). The actual shrinkage
2 ACI Structural Journal
strain that will be realized in the presence of the non-pre-
stressed steel can then be obtained by applying a relaxation
force that is equal in magnitude, but opposite in direc-
tion to the hypothetical restraining force using the area of
the age-adjusted transformed section of the girder At and
Ec(t, ti).3-5 Following this procedure, if the prestressing force
were to remain constant during shrinkage, the resulting
shrinkage strain would be esh(t,ti)Ac/At, where esh is the
free shrinkage strain in unrestrained concrete. Neverthe-
less, the change in concrete strain due to shrinkage will be
partly offset by the elastic rebound of concrete as a result
of the prestress loss. Consider that the net shrinkage loss in
the prestressing steel is DfpS. By enforcing the incremental
strain compatibility condition between the prestressing steel
and the concrete and accounting for the elastic rebound, the
following relation can be obtained2
Df pS Aps Df pS Aps Df pS enp2
= k A e sh (t , ti ) + (2)
Ep Ec At Ec I t
where
Eci
Ec ( t , t i ) = (3)
1 + cy (t , ti )
Ac
k A = (4)
At
in which Ec (t , ti ) is the age-adjusted modulus of elasticity of
the concrete; Eci is the initial modulus of elasticity of concrete
at the time of load application; c is an aging coefficient;
y(t,ti) is the creep coefficient expressed as a function of time
t, where ti is the concrete age at loading or post-tensioning;
t and It are the cross-sectional area and moment of inertia of
A
the age-adjusted transformed girder section, which includes
the net concrete area and the non-prestressed steel, with the
transformation based on the age-adjusted modulus of elas-
ticity of concrete Ec; enp is the eccentricity of the prestressing
force with respect to the centroid of the age-adjusted trans-
formed girder section, with its sign positive when the
prestressing force is below the centroid of the section; and
Aps and Ep are the total cross-sectional area and the modulus
of elasticity of the prestressing steel.
Taking c to be 0.7, which is suggested in the 2007
AASHTO LRFD specifications, one can obtain from Eq. (2)
the following expression for the shrinkage loss
DfpS(t,ti) = EpkAesh(t,ti)Kidn (5)
where
1
K idn = (6)
E p Aps At enp2
1+
Eci At 1+
I t
(1 + 0.7y (t, ti ))
Creep loss Ep
Using a derivation process similar to that for the shrinkage Df pC (t , ti ) = y (t , ti )K idn
fcgp (13)
Eci
strain in the presence of non-prestressed steel, one can obtain
the following expression for the creep strain in the concrete
at the elevation of the centroid of the prestressing steel where

ecp (t , ti ) = eco (t , ti ) enp f(t , ti ) (7) enp Ac Dy Aps f pi M

where
eco (t , ti ) = k A ( e o (ti ) f(ti )Dy1 ) y (t , ti ) (8)
Ac
f(t , ti ) = kIf(ti )y (t , ti ) +
It
(e o (ti ) f(ti )Dy1 ) y (t, ti )Dy (9)
in which Dy1 is the distance of the centroid of the net concrete
section from that of the initial transformed girder section
(consisting of concrete and non-prestressed steel) with its
sign positive when the former is below the latter; Dy is the
distance of the centroid of the age-adjusted transformed
section from that of the initial transformed girder section;
and kI = Ic/It is the ratio of the moment of inertia of the
net concrete section to that of the age adjusted transformed
girder section. Finally, eo(ti) and f(ti) are the instantaneous
strain and curvature induced by post-tensioning, and can be
calculated as follows
Aps f pi
e o (t i ) = (10)
Eci At
M total
f(ti ) = (11)
Eci I t
in which fpi is the initial prestress in the steel; At and It are
the cross-sectional area and moment of inertia of the initial
transformed girder section, which includes the net concrete
area and the non-prestressed steel, with the transformation
based on the initial modulus of elasticity of the concrete Eci
at the time of post-tensioning; and Mtotal is the total moment
at the girder section, including the primary and secondary
moments introduced by the prestressing force and the self-
weight moment of the girder.
Consider that DfpC is the net prestress loss due to creep.
By enforcing the incremental strain compatibility condition
and accounting for the elastic rebound of the concrete, the
following relation can be obtained
= k A
fcgp kIenp total (14)
I
A It
t t
It should be noted that Eq. (13) and (14) will be identical
to the refined long-term loss calculation method introduced
in the 2007 AASHTO LRFD specifications when there is no
non-prestressed steel in a girder section.
Relaxation loss
The expression to calculate the net relaxation loss DfpR
in a post-tensioned girder can be derived with an approach
similar to that proposed by Tadros et al.2 for pretensioned
girders. By applying the incremental strain compatibility
condition and accounting for the elastic rebound of the
concrete, the following equality can be obtained for the net
changes in strains in the prestressing steel and concrete
cr DfpR Df pR Aps Df pR Aps Df pR enp2
= + (15)
Ep Ec At Ec I t
in which DfpR is the net relaxation loss realized after the
elastic rebound of the concrete due to the steel relaxation;
Df pR is the intrinsic relaxation loss that would have been real-
ized if the tensile deformation of the prestressing steel were
kept constant; and cr is a relaxation loss reduction factor
that accounts for the creep and shrinkage of concrete during
the relaxation process. Hence, the left-hand side of Eq. (15)
represents the net change in strain in the prestressing steel.
The intrinsic relaxation loss is Df pR calculated with a widely
accepted expression proposed by Magura et al.11
log(24(t ti )) f pi
DfpR (t , ti ) = 0.55 f pi (16)
K f py
in which fpy is the nominal yield strength of the prestressing
steel; (t ti) is the time (in days) since prestress applica-
tion; and K is 45 for low-relaxation strands, and 10 for other
strands. From Eq. (15), one can solve for DfpR
Df pR = cr DfpR K idn (17)

Df pC Aps Df pC Aps Df pC enp2 in which Kidn is given in Eq. (6). The value cr can be obtained
= ecp (t , ti ) + (12)
Ep Ec At Ec I t with the following approximation2

3( Df pS + Df pC )
Assuming that Dy1 is zero, which is a good approximation, cr = 1 (18)
and substituting Eq. (7) through (11) into Eq. (12), we can f pi

solve for the creep loss

ACI Structural Journal 3

Fig. 1Typical box girder section in I5-I805 connector.
Youakim et al.3,4 suggested that the value of cr be 0.7,
while it is assumed to be 0.67 in the AASHTO LRFD spec-
ifications.1 These values, however, are more appropriate
for pretensioned girders. Creep and shrinkage losses in
post-tensioned girders can be much smaller than those in
pretensioned girders due to the differences in the age of
concrete at prestressing and the amount of non-prestressed
steel. By substituting the shrinkage and creep losses calcu-
lated for four post-tensioned bridge girders considered
in a subsequent validation study, which will be discussed
in the next section, into Eq. (18), values of cr close to 0.8
were obtained. With this value of cr and t assumed to be
15,000days, Eq.(17) gives the following expression for the
ultimate relaxation loss
1 f pi
Df pR = 0.55 f pi K idn (19)
K f py
in which K is 10 for low-relaxation strands, and 2.2 for
otherstrands.
EVALUATION WITH FIELD DATA
To evaluate the proposed prestress loss calculation
method, field data acquired by Lewis et al.8 and Kim9 from
four instrumented cast-in-place post-tensioned girders in
two bridge structures are used. Two of the girders are in
Frames 4 and 5 of the I5-I805 connector, which is located
in a coastal area in San Diego, California, and the other two
are in the I215-CA91 Northeast and Southwest connectors,
respectively, located inland in Riverside, California. The
coastal area has an average relative humidity of 65%, while
the inland area has 36% average relative humidity. The age
of concrete at post-tensioning ranges from 45 to 175 days,
with three of the girders post-tensioned after 100 days. The
girders are box sections with four webs, and are continuous
over bridge piers. A typical girder section for the I5-I805
connector is shown in Fig. 1. For each girder, prestress
losses were deduced from the concrete strains monitored
at a midspan section and an end section near a bridge bent
using vibrating wire gauges embedded in concrete. In addi-
tion, creep and shrinkage data were collected from 6 x
12in. (152x 305 mm) concrete cylinders cast with the same
concrete batches used for the bridge girders. Descriptions
of the bridge structures, construction sequence, instrumen-
4 ACI Structural Journal
Fig. 2Creep coefficient from concrete samples for I5-I805
connector.
tation, and data collection can be found in Lewis et al.8
andKim.9
Creep and shrinkage data
To evaluate prestress losses with the method derived
previously, three sets of creep and shrinkage values are
used. One set is based on the creep and shrinkage measured
from the concrete cylinders cast with the bridge girders, and
the other two are calculated with the creep and shrinkage
formulas provided in the 200410 and 20071 AASHTO LRFD
specifications, respectively. Compared with the creep and
shrinkage data collected from the concrete cylinders, the
AASHTO formulas tend to under-predict the creep and
shrinkage strains. The formulas in the 2004 AASHTO spec-
ification, however, provide a far better match of the mate-
rial data. Figures 2 and 3 show comparisons for one set of
concrete samples collected from the I5-I805 connector. It
was observed that the 2007 AASHTO formulas give much
lower creep and shrinkage values than the measured data.
This could be attributed to the fact that they were calibrated
with data obtained from high-strength concrete that had
compressive strengths ranging from 6000 to 9000 psi (41 to
62 MPa),2 with the majority of the samples having strengths
on the high side, while the concrete in the monitored bridges
had a strength approximately 6700 psi (47 MPa) or lower.
Hence, even though the compressive strength of concrete
Fig. 3Shrinkage strain from concrete samples for I5-I805 Fig. 5Corrected shrinkage strain for I5-I805 connector.
connector.

Fig. 6Comparison of calculated prestress loss with field

data for midspan section of Frame 4 of I5-I805 connector.
Fig. 4Corrected creep coefficient for I5-I805 connector.
is taken into consideration in these formulas, the suitability
of the 2007 AASHTO formulas for predicting the creep
and shrinkage strains in normal-strength concrete deserves
further attention.

Prestress losses
To use the creep and shrinkage data obtained from the
concrete cylinders to calculate prestress losses, a best-fit
curve is obtained for each data set as shown in Fig. 2 and
3. The best-fit curves are then corrected to reflect the actual
volume-surface area ratios (V/S) for the girders using the
formulas provided in the 2004 AASHTO LRFD specifica-
tions.10 The corrected curves for the data shown in the afore-
mentioned figures are identified as Corrected Curve-Fit in
Fig. 4 and 5 together with the creep and shrinkage curves
calculated with the AASHTO formulas. The girder section Fig. 7Comparison of calculated prestress loss with field
and material properties used in the loss calculations are data for end section of Frame 4 of I5-I805.
presented in Shing and Kottari.7 Time histories of the
prestress losses calculated with the proposed method using the field data obtained from the monitored bridge struc-
the different sets of creep and shrinkage values (measured, tures. The comparisons are shown in Fig. 6 through 13. In
2004 AASHTO, and 2007 AASHTO) are compared with all cases, except for one outlier (which is the end section
of the I215-CA91 SE connector), the prestress losses calcu-

ACI Structural Journal 5

Fig. 8Comparison of calculated prestress loss with field
data for midspan section of Frame 5 of I5-I805 connector.
Fig. 9Comparison of calculated prestress loss with field
data for end section of Frame 5 of I5-I80.
Fig. 10Comparison of calculated prestress loss with field
data for midspan section of I215-CA91 NW connector.
lated with the corrected curve-fit creep and shrinkage data
have the best match with the field data. The losses calcu-
lated with the 2004 AASHTO creep and shrinkage formulas
tend to be lower than the actual losses, but not by an unrea-
6 ACI Structural Journal
Fig. 11Comparison of calculated prestress loss with field
data for end section of I215-CA91 NW connector.
Fig. 12Comparison of calculated prestress loss with field
data for midspan section of I215-CA91 SE connector.
Fig. 13Comparison of calculated prestress loss with field
data for end section of I215-CA91 SE connector.
sonably large amount. The losses calculated with the 2007
AASHTO formulas appear to be significantly lower than
the actual losses in most cases. One reason for this is the
generally lower creep and shrinkage predictions by the 2007 in which rps and rns are the ratios of the areas of the
AASHTO formulas as discussed previously. Another factor prestressing and non-prestressed steel, respectively, to the
is the shape of the time-history curves for the shrinkage gross cross-sectional area of the concrete girder; ksc is a
predicted by the 2007 AASHTO formula, as illustrated in correction factor in the 2004 AASHTO formula to account
Fig. 5. The steeper initial slope followed by a more gentle for the V/S ratio; khc is a correction factor for the humidity
slope of the curve given by the 2007 AASHTO formula, as condition; kf is a correction factor for the concrete strength;
compared with the other curves, will result in a lower differ- and
ential shrinkage and, thereby, a lower loss when the concrete
is post-tensioned at a more mature age between 100 and 200 Ep
days, which is the case for three of the four post-tensioned h ps =
Eci
[1 + 0.7y (, t )] (22)
i

girders considered herein. The difference in the shapes of

the time-history curves for creep and shrinkage given by the
formulas in the 2004 AASHTO and 2007 AASHTO is due to Es
the fact that the former has a time-dependent term for the V/S
hns =
Eci
[1 + 0.7y (, ti )] (23)

correction factors, while the latter does not. It was found that
the effect of the time-dependent term on the shape of a curve
For typical situations, one can assume that rps and rns
is significant only when the value of V/S is higher than 2 in.
are much less than one; ksc = 0.7, which corresponds to V/S
(51 mm). For pretensioned girders, the shape effect is not
approximately 5 in. (127 mm) and above; Ep/Eci = 6; and hps
important because stress transfer normally occurs at a very
= hns. As a result, Eq. (21) can be simplified to
early concrete age. In that case, only the ultimate shrinkage
strain matters.
1 f pi Aps
Df pC (, ti ) = 14 khc k f ti0.118 (24)
SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS METHOD 1 + ( hs 1)(r ps + rns ) At

The 2007 and later editions of the AASHTO LRFD spec-
ifications have two simplified methods to estimate the ulti- where
mate long-term losses in prestressed concrete girders. One is
a lump-sum method, and the other is called an approximate
estimation. The latter is more refined, and requires more
(
hs = 6 1 + 1.2ti0.118 (25))
calculation effort than the former, but it is not permitted
for post-tensioned girders. The simplified analysis method The expression in Eq. (25) is derived from Eq. (22) and
presented herein is an extension of the approximate method (23) with the assumptions that Ep/Eci = Es/Eci = 6, khc = 1.0,
in AASHTO to account for the presence of non-prestressed and kf = 0.7. The aforementioned expressions have been
steel and the age of concrete at prestressing, which are proven to provide sufficient accuracy for the loss estimation
important factors to consider for post-tensioned girders. It as compared with the refined method.
is derived from the refined method presented in a previous Following similar assumptions as mentioned previously
section using the 2004 AASHTO formulas for creep and and substituting the ultimate shrinkage strain given by the
shrinkage, which were proven to provide a better correlation 2004 AASHTO LRFD specifications10 into Eq. (5), one
with the measured data considered in this study. has the following expression for the ultimate long-term
Bridge girders are normally designed so that the net shrinkage loss
deflections under their self-weight and the prestressing force
are minimal. Based on this notion, one can ignore the influ- 1
Df pS (, ti ) = 0.51 10 3 E p
ence of bending in estimating prestress losses. Ignoring the 1 + ( hs 1)(r ps + rns ) (26)
terms related to bending in Eq. (14), the following expres- t 45 + ti 1064 94(V /S )
sion from Eq. (13) and (14) for the ultimate long-term creep 1 i k
hs
35 + ti 26e
0.36 (V /S )
+ ti 923
loss can be obtained

Df pC (, ti ) = E p k A e o (ti )y (, ti )K idn (20)

With Ep = 28,000 ksi and the assumption that V/S is
approximately 5 in. (127 mm), one has
Substituting Eq. (4) and (6) into Eq. (20), ignoring the
bending term in Kidn and using the ultimate creep coeffi-
1 ti 45 + ti
cient given by the 2004 AASHTO LRFD specifications,10 Df pS (, ti ) = 10 1 khs
oneobtains 1 + ( hs 1)(r ps + rns ) 35 + ti 157 + ti

(27)
1 r ps rns
Df pC (, ti ) = E p
1 + ( h ps 1)r ps + ( hns 1)rns Combining Eq. (24) and (27) and using an identical
(21) humidity correction factor for creep and shrinkage, which
f pi Aps

At Eci
(3.5k k k f ti0.118
sc hc ) is the average of khc and khs, one can obtain the following

ACI Structural Journal 7

approximate expression for calculating the ultimate long- Table 1Comparison of calculated and measured
term prestress loss in post-tensioned girders prestress losses for I5-I805 connectors
Prestress losses, ksi (MPa)
f pi Aps
Df pLT = 14 g st g ac (ti ) + 10 g as (ti ) g h g sr + Df pR (28) Frame 4 Frame 5
A t
Midspan End Midspan End
(1) Measured
where (1800 days)
12.8 (88) 9.8 (68) 14.2 (98) 12.8 (88)

(2) Proposed
1 11.3 (78) 10.4 (72) 13.7 (95) 13.3 (92)
g st = k f = simplified method
f
0.67 + c (29) (3) Proposed refined
9 method
10.7 (74) 8.8 (61) 13.2 (91) 13.1 (90)

[(2) (3)]/(3) 100 6 18 4 2

gac(ti) = ti0.118 (30)
AASHTO lump sum 17.8 (151) 17.8 (151) 17.4 (150) 17.4 (150)

t 45 + ti
g as (ti ) = 1 i (31) Table 2Comparison of calculated and measured
35 + ti 157 + ti prestress losses for I215-CA91 connectors

Prestress losses, ksi (MPa)
gh = 1.7 0.01H (32)
NW connector SE connector

1 Midspan End Midspan End

g sr = (33)
1 + ( hs 1)(rns + r ps ) (1) Measured
(1200 days)
15.2 (105) 12.5 (86) 12.2 (84) 6.5 (45)

(2) Proposed
in which fc is the 28-day compressive strength of concrete; simplified method
14.1 (97) 13.5 (93) 14.8 (101) 14.3 (99)
H is the average relative humidity in percent; and ti is the
age of concrete, in days, at the time of prestressing. As (3) Proposed refined
13.1 (90) 12.3 (85) 11.9 (82) 11.2 (77)
method
to the relaxation loss, one can assume a value of 2.4 ksi
(16.5MPa) for low-relaxation strands, and 10 ksi for stress- [(2) (3)]/(3) 100 8 10 24 28
relieved strands as recommended in the 2007 AASHTO AASHTO lump sum 18.0 (152) 18.0 (152) 17.8 (150) 17.8 (150)
LRFDspecifications.1
Table 3Comparison of refined and simplified
Comparison with refined analysis method methods for Willits Bypass and Forester
The accuracy of the simplified analysis method was eval- CreekBridge
uated by comparing it with the refined method. For this
Prestress losses, ksi (MPa)
purpose, four bridge structures are considered. Two of them
are the I5-I805 and I215-CA91 connectors considered previ- Willits Bypass Forester Creek Bridge
ously. The other two bridges have only design details, but Midspan End Midspan End
no field measurements. One is the Willits Bypass, which is
Proposed simplified
a single-span bridge located in coastal Northern California, method
15.2 (105) 16.3 (112) 14.8 (102) 14.7 (101)
where the average relative humidity is 80%, and the other
is the Forester Creek Bridge, which has three spans, and is Proposed refined
15.5 (107) 17.3 (119) 14.8 (102) 15.2 (105)
method
at a location near San Diego, California, where the average
relative humidity is 65%. Because they are small bridges, Difference, % 2 6 0 3
the concrete age at prestressing is assumed to be 30 days AASHTO lump sum 17.7 (150) 17.8 (150) 18.0 (152) 17.8 (150)
in both cases. The girder section and materials properties
for these bridges are given in Shing and Kottari.7 The time method provided in the 2007 AASHTO LRFD specifications
period used to calculate the ultimate long-term losses with are also shown in the tables. They are much higher than those
the refined method is 5000 days for all four bridges. The predicted by the two analysis methods proposed herein.
creep and shrinkage values given by the 2004 AASHTO
LRFD specifications10 are used. The results are compared PARAMETRIC STUDY
in Tables1 through 3. The losses measured at the end of A numerical parametric study has been conducted to have
the field data collection periods for the I5-I805 and I215- a thorough comparison of the simplified and the refined
CA91 connectors are also shown in the first two tables. The analysis methods considering a range of bridge condi-
match between the results obtained with the simplified and tions, and to examine the influences of concrete strength,
the refined methods is reasonably good, with discrepan- amount of non-prestressed steel, relative humidity, and
cies less than 10% in most cases, and the largest difference the age of concrete at prestressing on the ultimate long-
being 28%. The average losses estimated with the lump-sum term prestress loss in a post-tensioned box girder. For this

8 ACI Structural Journal

Fig. 14Influence of relative humidity (RH) on long-term
prestress loss.
Fig. 15Influence of concrete strength on long-term
prestress loss.
purpose, the midspan section of the girder in the I215-CA91
NW connector was selected. On the day of prestressing, the
concrete had a compressive strength of 6.7 ksi (47 MPa).
The ratio of the non-prestressed steel ratio rns with respect
to the gross cross-sectional area of the girder is 0.7%, and
the age of the concrete at post-tensioning is 148 days. The
average relative humidity for the bridge location is 35%.
The variations introduced to the values of these param-
eters in this study reflect the range of possible conditions
for post-tensioned bridge structures in California as iden-
tified by Youakim and Karbhari.3 For the loss calculations
using the refined method, the creep and shrinkage formulas
recommended by the 2004 AASHTO LRFD specifications
are used. The results are shown in Fig. 14 through 16.
The figures show that the simplified method gives a slightly
higher loss than the refined method, but the losses calculated
with the two methods vary with the same tendency as the
values of the parameters change. The results obtained with
the refined method are used herein to examine the influence
of the parameters. The maximum loss obtained is no more
than 20 ksi (138 MPa) for the range of conditions consid-
ered. Figure 14 shows that a change of the relative humidity
ACI Structural Journal
Fig. 16Influence of amount of non-prestressed steel on
long-term prestress loss.
from 35 to 90% can reduce the prestress loss from 18 to
11 ksi (124 to 76 MPa) when the concrete is post-tensioned
at an age of 20 days. This influence is slightly reduced as
the age of concrete at post-tensioning increases. For small
bridge structures with two or three spans, post-tensioning
could take place in less than 30 days after the casting of
the girders, while this could happen after 100 days, partic-
ularly for very long multi-span bridge structures. As shown
in Fig.14 through 16, a change of the concrete age at post-
tensioning from 20 to 100 days could reduce the loss by 5 ksi
(34 MPa). Figure 16 shows a similar level of loss reduction
as the ratio of the non-prestressed steel increases from 0 to
2% of the gross cross-sectional area of the girder. The influ-
ence of these parameters is relatively significant because
the ultimate long-term loss calculated with the baseline
conditions for this girder section is only 13 ksi (90 MPa), as
shown in Table 2.
CONCLUSIONS
A refined analysis method and a simplified analysis
method were presented to estimate long-term prestress
losses in post-tensioned bridge girders. The calculation
methods are formulated in a form that can be readily adopted
by AASHTO, which currently does not provide adequate
methods to estimate long-term losses in post-tensioned
bridge girders. These methods are not intended to replace
the current prestress-loss calculation methods in AASHTO
for pretensioned members, but rather as possible addi-
tions to address the shortcoming of current specifications
for post-tensioned bridge girders. The proposed methods
account for the presence of non-prestressed steel and the age
of concrete at post-tensioning. The accuracy of the methods
has been verified by field data collected from two bridge
structures. As compared with the formulas introduced in the
2007 AASHTO LRFD specifications, the formulas given
in the 2004 AASHTO LRFD specifications to calculate the
creep and shrinkage strains in concrete provide a far better
match of the data obtained from concrete samples collected
for the two monitored bridge structures. The use of the 2004
AASHTO formulas for creep and shrinkage also leads to a
9
better estimation of the long-term prestress losses measured
from these bridges. This could be attributed to the fact that
the formulas introduced in the 2007 AASHTO LRFD spec-
ifications are largely based on data obtained from high-
strength concrete, and might not be suitable for the normal-
strength concrete considered herein. Furthermore, the
refined analysis conducted herein has shown that because
the post-tensioning of a long multi-span bridge girder can
take place at a concrete age between 100 and 200 days, when
an appreciable amount of shrinkage has already occurred, an
accurate account of the incremental shrinkage strain from
the time of post-tensioning is as important as a good estimate
of the ultimate shrinkage strain.
A numerical parametric study was conducted to examine
the influences of the concrete strength, amount of non-
prestressed steel, relative humidity, and age of concrete at
post-tensioning on the ultimate long-term prestress loss in a
post-tensioned box girder. It was found that their influences
are equally important, and that these parameters could affect
the long-term loss by as much as 50% with respect to the
baseline conditions for the girder considered herein. Because
a post-tensioned girder normally has a higher amount of
non-prestressed steel and post-tensioning could take place a
long while after a girder has been cast and when the concrete
has reached a mature age, it will experience less loss than a
pretensioned girder.
AUTHOR BIOS
Alexandra K. Kottari is a PhD Candidate in the Structural Engineering
Department of the University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA. She
received her BS from the National Technical University of Athens, Athens,
Greece, and her MS from the University of California, San Diego.
ACI member P. Benson Shing is a Professor of structural engineering at the
University of California, San Diego. He received his BS, MS, and PhD from
the University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. His research interests
include seismic design and the behavior and performance of concrete and
masonry structures, including large-scale testing and analytical modeling.
10
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). The authors would like to thank V. Karbhari at the University of
Alabama, Huntsville, AL, and S. D. Kim for generously sharing the field
data they collected in a previous phase of this project. The authors would
also like to acknowledge the technical input and constructive comments
provided by C. Sikorsky, S. Hida, M. Friedheim, and T. Menard of Caltrans
throughout this study. Opinions expressed in this paper are those of the
authors, however, and do not necessarily reflect those of Caltrans.
REFERENCES
1. AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, fourth
edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials, Washington, DC, 2007, Section 5, pp. 14-17, 114-122.
2. Tadros, M. K.; Al-Omaishi, N.; Seguirant, S. J.; and Gallt, J. G.,
Prestress Losses in Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete Bridge Girders,
NCHRP Report 496, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003, pp. 11-13.
3. Youakim, S., and Karbhari, V. M., A Simplified Method for Predic-
tion of Long-Term Prestress Loss in Post-Tensioned Concrete Bridges,
Report No. SSRP-06/21, Department of Structural Engineering, University
of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 2006, pp. 8-20.
4. Youakim, S. A.; Ghali, A.; Hida, S. E.; and Karbhari, V. M., Predic-
tion of Long-Term Prestress Losses, PCI Journal, V. 52, No. 2, 2007,
pp.116-131.
5. Ghali, A.; Favre, R.; and Elbadry, M. M., Concrete Structures:
Stresses and Deformations, Third Edition, E&FN Spon Press, London and
New York, 2002, 608 pp.
6. Baant, Z. P., Prediction of Creep Effects Using Age-Adjusted Effec-
tive Modulus Method, ACI Journal, V. 69, No. 4, Apr. 1972, pp. 212-217.
7. Shing, P. B., and Kottari, A., Evaluation of Long-Term Prestress
Losses in Post-tensioned Box-Girder Bridges, Report No. SSRP-11/02,
Department of Structural Engineering, University of California at San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, 2011, pp. 31-44.
8. Lewis, M., and Karbhari, V. M., Experimental Verification of the
Influence of Time-Dependent Material Properties on Long-Term Bridge
Characteristics, Report No. SSRP-06/01, Department of Structural
Engineering, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 2006,
pp.243-253.
9. Kim, S. D., Prediction of Long-Term Prestress Loss in Concrete Box
Girder Bridges, PhD dissertation, Department of Structural Engineering,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 2009, pp. 26-50.
10. AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, third
edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials, Washington, DC, 2004, Section 5, pp. 13-16.
11. Magura, D. D.; Sozen, M. A.; and Siess, C. P., A Study of Stress
Relaxation in Prestressing Reinforcement, PCI Journal, V. 9, No. 2, 1964,
pp. 13-57.
ACI Structural Journal