A Comparative Study on Long Term Deformation of High Performance Prestressed Concrete Bridges

Presented by:

Naresh Prasad Keshari

203210021 Structural Engineering

Under the Guidance of: Dr. J. Karthikeyan Assistant Professor

1/23/2012

Department of Civil Engineering National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli -620 015

Presentation Flow
Introduction Literature Review Objectives Methodology Model Validation Twin cell box girder bridge I section Girder Bridge Comparison of Results Conclusion Recommendations References
2

1/23/2012

Introduction
Bridges with precast, prestressed concrete girders and reinforced concrete decks are common in new bridge construction Lower initial cost relative to other bridges system Relatively low maintenance cost through the life of the structures In recent years the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA) has stimulated the development and implementation of High Performance concrete (HPC) Utilization of higher compressive strength Enhances the long term durability Increased span length and fewer structural components
1/23/2012 3

Contd.
HPC as concrete that has been designed to be more durable and, if necessary, stronger than conventional concrete (FHWA) HPC as concrete meeting special combinations of performance and uniformity requirements that cannot always be achieved routinely with conventional constituents and normal mixing, placing, and curing practices.(ACI) Increased durability and strength of HPC are generally achieved through the use of chemical and mineral admixtures.
1/23/2012

Contd.
Accurate prediction of long term prestress losses is essential part of the design process: Over prediction could mean limitation in span length and considerable increase in the prestress force Under prediction could translate into undesired deflections and cracking under service condition. Prestress losses can be defined as a decrease in the initial prestressing force
Instantaneous elastic shortening loss long term losses Relaxation of strands Creep and shrinkage of concrete
1/23/2012 5

Contd.
Prestress losses are also influenced by other time dependent properties of concrete
Compressive strength Modulus of elasticity

The prediction of deflection requires more emphasis

Camber Due to creep and shrinkage of concrete Camber may increase Leads to invasion of road profile and irregular surface

1/23/2012

Fig. Components of time dependent camber and deflection

Source:-Center for Transportation Research, Bureau of
Engineering Research, The university of Texas at Austin (Oct. 1997)

1/23/2012

Literature Review
1. Alex Aswad et al.(1991). Rational prediction of Bridge Girder reinforcing and Strength. PCI Journal Simple mathematical formulas to predict required number of strands with small error. Predict the required concrete strength for concrete bridge girders of different types.

1/23/2012

Contd.
2. J. Michael Stallings et al. (2003). Camber and Prestress Losses in Alabama HPC Bridge Girders. PCI Journal Overestimation of camber and prestress losses for HPPC girders may discourage the efficient use of design and longer spans. Comparison of field values and calculated values Accurate prediction of camber are possible using the incremental -time step method and the approximate time step method AASHTO bridge design specification may overestimate prestressed losses due to creep and shrinkage in HPC girders.
1/23/2012 9

Contd.
3. Young-Ha Park et al. Development of Long Span Prestressed Concrete I Girder Bridge by Optimal Design., Expressway and Transportation Research Institute 08-06,Korea Expressway Corporation Optimal design of standard type PSC I girder bridge. I girder section for varying top flange , bottom flange and web thickness based on span of the bridge Optimal girders have consistent safety with respect to flexural and shear failure Serviceability for both the live load deflection and long term deflection after deck slab placing.
1/23/2012 10

The optimal girder sections shapes designed in this study

1/23/2012 11

Contd.
4. Hema Jayaseelan, Bruce W. Russell (2007). Prestress losses and the Estimation of long term deflection and camber for Prestressed Concrete Bridge. Final Report, Oklahoma state University
Add top prestressed strands to lower long term deformation and camber by 69% AASHTO time step method is adequate for the estimation of long term deflection and camber 20% increase in Elastic modulus of concrete lowers the long term prestress losses by 6% and long term camber by 12%

1/23/2012

12

Cont.
5. Karthikeyan. J (2008). Long Term Deformation of High Performance Prestressed Concrete Bridges. Ph.D Thesis,IIT, Roorkee (India) Creep and shrinkage strains have been measured for a period of 850 days of two different test specimen sizes
No much size effect

Long term deformation prediction using RM2004 bridge engineering software and Incremental time step method

1/23/2012

13

Contd.
6. S.Rana et al. (2010). Design of prestressed concrete I- girder bridge superstructure using optimization algorithum. IABSEJSCE joint conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering II ,Dhaka Bangladesh Demonstrate the real life project named Teesta Bridge
I - girder prestressed bridge (post-tensioned) Medium span (50 m) Existing spacing of girder 2.4 m Optimum Design spacing 3.0 m

35% economical than the existing design

1/23/2012 14

Objectives
To identify long term deformation of two different type of HPPC bridge girders using RM2004 & Incremental time step method I section Girder (Pre tensioned) Twin cell Box Girder(Post tensioned) To compare the long term deformation for the girders mentioned above.

1/23/2012

15

Methodology
Literature Review

Objectives

Modeling & Analysis of Isection girder of 40 m span (pre - tensioned) in RM2004

Modeling & Analysis of Twin cell box girder bridge of 40 m span (post-tensioned) in RM2004

Comparison of Long term deformation

1/23/2012 16

Methodology for Prediction of Long Term Behavior

AASTHO LRFD Model for Creep and Shrinkage Low Relaxation Formula (PCI ) Incremental Time step method Finite difference technique

1/23/2012

17

AASHTO-LRFD Model for Creep and Shrinkage

1/23/2012

18

Cont.

1/23/2012

19

Cont.

1/23/2012

20

Cont.

1/23/2012

21

Cont.

1/23/2012

22

Cont.

1/23/2012

23

Incremental Time step Method

1/23/2012

24

Cont.

1/23/2012

25

Cont.

1/23/2012

26

Cont.

1/23/2012

27

Validation of Model
Alabama bridge modeling and Analysis using RM2004 and long term deformation calculation using Incremental time step method Comparison of result with calculated result by J. Michael Stallings et al. The long term response of the bridge has been monitored for 295 days.
1/23/2012 28

Detail of the Alabama Bridge

1/23/2012

29

Cont.

Fig. Cross section of the bridge

1/23/2012

30

Design parameters of Alabama Bridge

Number Prestressing steel: 15.2 mm Low-relaxation strands Strand Area Ultimate tensile strength, fpu Modulus of elasticity, Eps Jacking stress, fpj Girder characteristics Span length, L Hold-down location, a Release strength, fci Concrete properties 28-day strength, fc Unit weight Modulus of elasticity, Ec Cross-Sectional Area Sectional Properties Second moment of Inertia Ytop Ybottom 42 1.42 x 10-4 m2 1860 MPa 189.6 GPa 0.75 fpu 34.21 m 14.06 m 55.16 MPa 68.95 MPa 2399 Kg/m3 39.58 GPa 0.4252 m2 0.1116 m4 0.669 m 0.702 m

1/23/2012

31

Cont.

1/23/2012

32

Cont.

Fig. Mid span and end cross sections of HPPC girder showing the cable points.
1/23/2012 33

Screenshot from RM2004

Fig. Cable Profile

1/23/2012

Fig. 3D view

34

Results
Long-term Deformation at Mid-span (mm) Girder Age (Days) Measured (Stallings) 1 G1 295 1 G2 295 1 G3 242 1 G4 242 1 G5 234 84.83 115.57 92.20 124.46 81.02 103.88 83.31 106.68 84.83 105.91 Calculated (Stallings ) 76.70 109.47 76.70 109.47 76.70 107.69 76.70 107.69 76.70 107.44 Absolute Difference Validated 74.43 107.318 74.43 107.318 74.43 106.612 74.43 106.612 74.43 106.238 (mm) -2.28 -2.156 -2.28 -2.156 -2.27 -1.084 -2.27 -1.084 -2.27 -1.254 Percentage difference

-2.97 -1.97 -2.97 -1.97 -2.97 -1.01 -2.97 -1.01 -2.97 -1.17

1/23/2012

35

Comparision of Initial Camber

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Measured [Stallings et al.] Calculated [Stalings et al.] G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 Validated

1/23/2012

Camber (mm)

36

Comparision of Long Term Deformation

140 120 100 Camber (mm) 80 60 40 20 0 Measured [Stallings et al.] Calculated [Stalings et al.] G1 1/23/2012 G2 G3 G4 G5 37 Validated

Detail of Twin cell Box Girder Bridge

Fig. General arrangement drawing of the bridge

1/23/2012

38

Design parameters of Twin cell Box Girder Bridge

Jacking force, F Frictional coefficient 24 Prestressing tendons: Each tendon consists of 19 numbers of 12.7 mm diameter, low relaxation tendons have been used Deviation angle ( ) Wedge/slip Area of one tendon Area of the duct Modulus of elasticity, Ep Ultimate tensile strength (UTS) Jacking stress (0.75 UTS) C.G distance of the girder At supports At quarter-span At mid-span Ytop 1.498 1.222 1.222 2618 kN simultaneously stressed at both the ends 0.2 0.86 deg/m 0.006 m 1.875 x 10-3 m2 6.36 x 10-3 m2 195 x 103 MPa 1862 MPa 1396 MPa Ybot (m) 1.502 1.778 1.778

1/23/2012

39

Fig. Section Elevation of the bridge

1/23/2012

40

Fig. Twin cell box section at the mid span

1/23/2012

41

Fig. Twin cell box section at the Support end

1/23/2012

42

Fig. Cable arrangement at support

1/23/2012

43

Fig. Cable arrangement at mid section

1/23/2012

44

Screenshot from RM2004

Fig. Cable Profile

1/23/2012

Fig. 3D view

45

Screenshot from RM2004

Fig. IRC Class A Loading

1/23/2012

Fig. IRC Class 70R Loading

46

Results
Camber (mm)

Age At quarter span Initial 7 Days 168 Days 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days 8.78 9.57 11.83 12.06 12.30 12.34 At mid span 12.13 12.75 15.63 15.91 16.16 16.18

1/23/2012

47

Quarter Span Camber

14 12 Deformation (mm) 10 8 6 4 2 0 Initial 7 Days 168 Days 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days
9.58 8.78 11.84 12.07 12.30 12.35

1/23/2012

48

Mid Span Camber

18 16 14 Deformation (mm) 12.13 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Initial 1/23/2012 7 Days 168 Days 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days 49 12.76 15.63 15.91 16.16 16.19

Long-Term Deformation
20 16 Camber (mm) 12 8 4 0 0 15 Span (m) Initial 1/23/2012 7 Days 168 Days 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days 50 30 45

Detail of I-Section Girders Bridge

Fig. Cross section of bridge (I- section)

1/23/2012

51

Design parameters of I section Girders Bridge

Number Prestressing steel: 15.2 mm Low-relaxation strands Strand Area Ultimate tensile strength, fpu Modulus of elasticity, Eps Jacking stress, fpj Girder characteristics Span length, L Hold-down location, a Release strength, fci Concrete properties 28-day strength, fc Unit weight Modulus of elasticity, Ec Cross sectional Area Girder Cross sectional Properties Second moment of Inertia , I Ytop Ybottom 49 1.42 x 10-4 m2 1860 MPa 189.6 GPa 0.75 fpu 40 m 16 m 55.16 MPa 68.95 MPa 2399 Kg/m3 39.58 GPa 0.7156 m2 0.2773 m4 0.8659 m 0.8541 m

1/23/2012

52

Fig. Cross section I- section girder

1/23/2012 53

Fig. Tendon scheme near to support

1/23/2012

Fig. Tendon scheme at Middle of span

54

Screenshot from RM2004

Fig. Cable Profile

1/23/2012

Fig. 3D view

55

Results for Prior to construction of Deck slab

Deformation (mm)

Age of Structure At quarter span Initial 7 Days 168 Days 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days 32.98 38.76 46.62 47.19 48.46 48.47 At mid span 43.87 56.10 68.25 69.30 71.26 71.02

1/23/2012

56

Quarter Span Camber

60 50 40 Camber (mm) 32.99 30 20 10 0 Initial 7 Days 168 Days 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days 38.77 46.63 47.20 48.46 48.47

1/23/2012

57

Mid Span Camber

80 68.26 60 Camber (mm) 43.87 40 56.10 69.30 71.27 71.02

20

0 Initial 7 Days 168 Days 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days

1/23/2012

58

Long-term camber Without Slab topping

80 70 60 Camber (mm) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Span (m) Initial 7 Days 168 Days 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days

1/23/2012

59

Results for after construction of Deck slab

Deformation (mm) [with slab] Age of Structure At quarter span 46.63 At mid span 68.26

Initial (i.e 168 Days)

365 Days

52.84

76.82

1825 Days

54.63

79.50

10800 Days

54.53

79.62

1/23/2012

60

Quarter Span Camber

56 54.64 54 52 Camber (mm) 50 48 46.63 46 44 42 Initial 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days 52.84 54.54

1/23/2012

61

Mid Span Camber

100 76.82 68.26 Camber (mm) 60 40 79.50 79.62

80

20

0 Initial 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days

1/23/2012

62

1/23/2012

Comparison of Results
Comparision of Long Term Deformation at Quarter Span
60 50 Camber (mm) 40 30 20 11.84 10 0 168 Days 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days 12.07 12.30 12.35 46.63 52.84 54.64 54.54

Twin cell Box Girder HPPC Bridge

I-Section HPPC Bridge

1/23/2012

64

Comparision of Long Term Deformation at Mid Sapn

90 80 70 Camber (mm) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 168 Days 365 Days 1825 Days 10800 Days 15.63 15.91 16.16 16.19 68.26 76.82 79.50 79.62

Twin cell Box Girder HPPC Bridge

I-Section HPPC Bridge

1/23/2012

65

Conclusion
Determination of long term deformation using proposed method shows good match with calculated by stallings et al.[error -2.27 to -1.08] In twin cell box girder bridge camber is increasing gradually and very controlled manner. In I section girders bridge camber increases gradually with respect to age of the structure .

1/23/2012

66

Contd.
In I section girders bridge camber increases after placing of the RCC deck slab. Incremental time step method is flexible in time i.e. we can calculate the camber as our requirement time elapsed. In both type of bridges the camber is almost constant after 365 days.
1/23/2012 67

Recommendations
For long span bridges its not suitable for go for precast pretensioned because of difficulties in erecting ,required more grade of concrete compared to post-tensioned. Standard design guidelines and those recommendations have been made more refined prediction of prestress losses, camber and deflection as follows;
Add top prestressing strands in prestressed concrete beams to lower the long term losses and camber by approximately 69%.

1/23/2012

68

Contd.
Add mild steel which increases stiffness to the concrete beam as well as reduces the long term camber by approximately 17.4%.

1/23/2012

69

References
1. AASHTO-LRFD (2004), AASHTO-LRFD bridge design specification, 3rd edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA. ACI Committee 209, (1992). Report on factors affecting shrinkage and creep of hardened concrete, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA. Aswad, A. and Gus G. Aswad (1991) Rational prediction of bridge girder reinforcing and strength. PCI Journal May-June, 68-77. Barakat, S., Ali salem Al Harthy and Aouf R. Thamer (2002) Design of prestressed concrete girder bridges using optimization techniques. Pakistan Journal of Information and Technology 1(2): 193-201
70

2.

3. 4.

1/23/2012

Contd.
5. Barr, P. J., B. M. Kukay and M. W. Halling (2008) Comparison of prestress losses for a prestress concrete bridge made with high performance concrete. Journal of Bridge Engineering ASCE Branson, D. E. and K. M. Kirpanarayanan (1970) Loss of prestress, camber and deflection of non-composite and composite prestressed concrete structures. The sixth congress of the federation international de la precontrainite, Prague, Czechoslovakia. Debbarma, S. R. and S. Saha (2011) Behavior of pre-stressed concrete bridge girders due to time dependent and temperature effects. First Middle East Conference on Smart Monitoring, Assessment and Rehabilitation of Civil Structures, Dubai, UAE.
71

6.

7.

1/23/2012

Contd.
8. Glover, J. M. and James Michael Stallings High performance bridge concrete, Highway Research Center, Harbert Engineering Center, Alabama University, Alabama, USA, 2000. 9. Guo, T., Richard sause, Dan M. Frangopol and Aiqun Li (2011) Time dependent reliability of PSC box-girder bridge considering creep, shrinkage and corrosion. Journal of Bridge Engineering ASCE. 10. Hassanain, M. A. and Robert E. Loov (1999) Design of prestressed girder bridges using high performance concrete- An optimization approach. PCI journal March-April, 40-55. 11. Hendy, C. R. and D. A. Smith Designers guide to EN 1992-2 Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures Part 2: Concrete Bridges, 1st Edition, Thomas Telford Ltd., London , UK, 2007.
1/23/2012

72

Contd.
12. Hewson, Nigel R. Prestressed concrete bridges: design and construction, 1st Edition, Thomas Telford Ltd., London, UK, 2003. 13. IRC: 18 (2000), Design Criteria for prestressed concrete road bridges (post-tensioned concrete), 3rd revision, The Indian road Congress, New Delhi, India. 14. IRC: 6 (2000), Standard specification and code of practice for road bridges: Section-II, Loads and Stress, 4th Revision, The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, India. 15. Jayaseelan, H. and Bruce W. Russell Prestress losses and the estimation of long-term deflection and camber for prestressed concrete bridges. Final Report August 2007, School of civil Environmental Engineering Oklahoma State university.
1/23/2012

73

Contd.
16. Karthikeyan, J. (2008) Long term deformation of high performance prestressed concrete bridges, Ph.D dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee. 17. Karthikeyan, J., Akhil Upadhyay and Navratan Mal Bhandari (2009) Incremental time-step method for predicting long term deformation of a HPPC bridge, PCI/NBC. 18. Lounis, Z. and M.Z. Cohn (1993) Optimisation of precast prestressed concrete bridge girder systems. PCI Journal JulyAugust, 60-62. 19. Nilson, Arthur H. Design of prestressed concrete, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, USA, 1978. 20. Park, Y. H, Chan-Min Park, Tae-Song Ahn, Hai-Moon Cheong, Bon-Sung Ku and Kyu-Chon Choi (2006) Development of long span prestressed concrete I girder bridge by optimal design. Expressway & Transportation Research Institute, Korea.
1/23/2012

74

Contd.
21. PCI Design Handbook, Precast and prestressed concrete, 5th Edition, Precast prestressed concrete Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 1999. 22. Rana, S. and R. Ahsan (2010) Design of prestressed concrete Igirder bridge superstructure using optimization algorithm. IABSEJSCE joint conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-II, August 8-10. 23. Stallings, J. M., Robert W. Barnes and Sam Eskildsen (2003) Camber and prestress losses in Alabama HPC bridge girders. PCI Journal September-October, 2-16.

1/23/2012

75

1/23/2012

76