Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

Transcription

1 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-04/ Government Aession No. 3. Reipient's Catalog No. Tehnial Report Doumentation Page 4. Title and Subtitle FLEXURAL DESIGN OF HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE PRESTRESSED BRIDGE GIRDERS REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE AND PARAMETRIC STUDY 7. Author(s) Mary Beth D. Hueste and Gladys G. Cuadros 9. Performing Organization Name and Address Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas Sponsoring Ageny Name and Address Texas Department of Transportation Researh and Tehnology Implementation Offie P. O. Box 5080 Austin, Texas Report Date Otober Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organization Report No. Report Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 11. Contrat or Grant No. Projet No Type of Report and Period Covered Researh: January 2000-May Sponsoring Ageny Code 15. Supplementary Notes Researh performed in ooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Researh Projet Title: Allowable Stresses and Resistane Fators for High Strength Conrete 16. Abstrat This is the third of four reports that doument the findings of a Texas Department of Transportation sponsored projet to evaluate the allowable stresses and resistane fators for high strength onrete (HSC) prestressed bridge girders. The seond phase of this researh study, whih is doumented in this volume, foused on three major objetives: (1) to determine the urrent state of pratie for the design of HSC prestressed bridge girders, (2) to evaluate the ontrolling limit states for the design of HSC prestressed bridge girders and identify areas where some eonomy in design may be gained, and (3) to ondut a preliminary assessment of the impat of raising ritial flexural design riteria with an objetive of inreasing the eonomy and potential span length of HSC prestressed girders. The first objetive was aomplished through a literature searh and survey. The literature searh inluded review of design riteria for both the Amerian Assoiation of State and Highway Transportation Offiials (AASHTO) Standard and Load and Resistane Fator Design (LRFD) Speifiations. Review of relevant ase studies of the performane of HSC prestressed bridge girders as well as important design parameters for HSC were arried out. In addition, researhers onduted a survey to gather information and doument ritial aspets of urrent design praties for HSC prestressed bridges. The seond objetive was aomplished by onduting a parametri study for single-span HSC prestressed bridge girders to primarily investigate the ontrolling flexural limit states for both the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations. AASHTO Type IV and Texas U54 girder setions were onsidered. The effets of hanges in onrete strength, strand diameter, girder spaing, and span length were evaluated. Based on the results from the parametri study, the limiting design riteria for HSC prestressed U54 and Type IV girders using both the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations for Highway Bridges were evaluated. Critial areas where some eonomy in design may be gained were identified. The third researh objetive was aomplished by evaluating the impat of raising the allowable tensile stress for servie onditions. The stress limit seleted for further study was based on the urrent limit for unraked setions provided by the Amerian Conrete Institute (ACI) building ode and the limit used for a speifi ase study bridge in Texas. Reommendations for improving some ritial areas of urrent bridge designs and for inreasing bridge span lengths are given. 17. Key Words Prestressed Conrete, High Strength Conrete, Survey of Pratie, Allowable Stresses 19. Seurity Classif.(of this report) Unlassified 20. Seurity Classif.(of this page) Unlassified 18. Distribution Statement No restritions. This doument is available to the publi through NTIS: National Tehnial Information Servie 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia No. of Pages Prie Form DOT F (8-72) Reprodution of ompleted page authorized

2

3 FLEXURAL DESIGN OF HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE PRESTRESSED BRIDGE GIRDERS REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE AND PARAMETRIC STUDY by Mary Beth D. Hueste, P.E. Assistant Researh Engineer Texas Transportation Institute and Gladys G. Cuadros Graduate Researh Assistant Texas Transportation Institute Report Projet Number Researh Projet Title: Allowable Stresses and Resistane Fators for High Strength Conrete Sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation In Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Otober 2003 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

4

5 DISCLAIMER The ontents of this report reflet the views of the authors, who are responsible for the fats and auray of the data presented herein. The ontents do not neessarily reflet the offiial view or poliies of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This report does not onstitute a standard, speifiation, or regulation, nor is it intended for onstrution, bidding, or permit purposes. Trade names were used solely for information and not for produt endorsement. The engineer in harge was Mary Beth D. Hueste, P.E. (TX 89660). v

6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This projet was performed in ooperation with TxDOT and the FHWA, and was onduted at Texas A&M University (TAMU) through the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) as part of projet , Allowable Stresses and Resistane Fators for High Strength Conrete. The authors are grateful to the individuals who were involved with this projet and provided invaluable assistane, inluding Kenny Ozuna (TxDOT, Researh Projet Diretor), J.C. Liu (TxDOT, Researh Program Coordinator), John Vogel (TxDOT), Peter Keating (TAMU), David Trejo (TAMU), Daren Cline (TAMU), and Dennis Mertz (University of Delaware). vi

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES... ix LIST OF TABLES...x 1. INTRODUCTION Bakground and Problem Statement Objetives and Sope Researh Plan Outline of This Report PREVIOUS RESEARCH General Use of HSC for Prestressed Bridge Girders Flexural Design of Prestressed Conrete Bridge Girders Development of the AASHTO LRFD Speifiations Allowable Stress Limits for Prestressed Conrete Beams Critial Mehanial Properties of HSC for Design Conrete Strengths at Transfer FLEXURAL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BRIDGE GIRDERS General AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations Prestress Losses Signifiant Changes in the AASHTO LRFD Speifiations TxDOT Design Guidelines and Software SURVEY OF CURRENT PRACTICE Introdution Part I: Current Design Pratie for HSC Prestressed Members Part II: Desription of Typial Bridges with HSC Prestressed Bridge Members OUTLINE OF PARAMETRIC STUDY AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES General Girder Setions Analysis and Design Assumptions Design Parameters Case Studies...83 vii

8 6. RESULTS FOR U54 BEAMS Introdution Desription of Controlling Limit States Controlling Limit States for AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations Strand Diameter and Conrete Strength Comparison of AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations Stresses at Transfer and Transfer Length Effet of Allowable Tensile Stress at Servie RESULTS FOR TYPE IV BEAMS Introdution Desription of Controlling Limit States Controlling Limit States for AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations Strand Diameter and Conrete Strength Comparison of AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations Stresses at Transfer and Transfer Length Effet of Allowable Tensile Stress at Servie SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Conlusions Reommendations for Flexural Design of HSC Prestressed Girders Reommendations for Future Work REFERENCES APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION FACTORS AND LIVE LOAD MOMENTS APPENDIX B SURVEY OF CURRENT PRACTICE APPENDIX C RESULTS FOR U54 BEAMS APPENDIX D RESULTS FOR TYPE IV BEAMS viii

9 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 4.1 Prevalene of Bridge Types with HSC Prestressed Girders Configuration and Dimensions of the TxDOT U-Beam (adapted from TxDOT 2001b) Configuration and Dimensions of the Type IV Beam (adapted from PCI 1997) Positions of the Neutral Axis in the U54 Beam Positions of the Neutral Axis in the Type IV Beam AASHTO Standard Speifiations Maximum Span Length versus Conrete Strength for U54 Girders AASHTO LRFD Speifiations Maximum Span Length versus Conrete Strength for U54 Girders AASHTO Standard Speifiations Maximum Span Length versus Girder Spaing for U54 Girders AASHTO LRFD Speifiations Maximum Span Length versus Girder Spaing for U54 Girders Number of Strands versus Span Lengths for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses (LRFD Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) AASHTO Standard Speifiations Maximum Span Length versus Conrete Strength for Type IV Girders AASHTO LRFD Speifiations Maximum Span Length versus Conrete Strength for Type IV Girders AASHTO Standard Speifiations Maximum Span Length versus Girder Spaing for Type IV Girders AASHTO LRFD Speifiations Maximum Span Length versus Girder Spaing for Type IV Girders Number of Strands versus Span Lengths for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses (LRFD Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Page ix

10 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 2.1 Allowable Stresses Speified by the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (AASHTO 2002 a,b) Allowable Stresses Speified by ACI Allowable Stresses Speified by the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (AASHTO 2002 a,b) Stress Limits for Low Relaxation Prestressing Tendons Speified by the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (AASHTO 2002 a,b) Important Differenes between the Flexural Design Provisions for Prestressed Conrete Bridge Girders in the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations List of Respondents Current Speifiations Additional Douments and Referenes Numbers of HSC Bridges Construted (Q 7) Typial Range for Speified Conrete Strength for Prestressed Girders (Q 8) Speifi Information for Required Transfer Strength (Q 9) Conerns Related to the Use of HSC (Q 10) Adjustments to Design Speifiations for HSC Prestressed Bridge Girders (Q 11) Typial Bridges with HSC Prestressed Bridge Members Typial Range for Span Lengths by Strutural Type Typial Range for Conrete Compressive Strengths by Strutural Type Typial Bridges with HSC Prestressed Members - Strutural Type: Slab Typial Bridges with HSC Prestressed Members - Strutural Type: Voided Slab...59 x

11 TABLE Page 4.14 Typial Bridges with HSC Prestressed Members - Strutural Type: Double T Typial Bridges with HSC Prestressed Members - Strutural Type: Closed Box CIP Typial Bridges with HSC Prestressed Members - Strutural Type: AASHTO Beam Typial Bridges with HSC Prestressed Members - Strutural Type: Bulb Typial Bridges with HSC Prestressed Members - Strutural Type: Box Girder Typial Bridges with HSC Prestressed Members - Strutural Type: Other Span Lengths Typial Bridges with HSC Prestressed Members - Strutural Type: Other Conrete Strengths Allowable Stresses Speified by the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (AASHTO 2002 a,b) Allowable Stresses during Transfer Used in the Parametri Study Design Parameters Additional Design Variables U54 Case Study Bridges Design Variables U54 Case Study Bridges Comparison of Results Type IV Case Study Bridges Design Variables Type IV Case Study Bridges Comparison of Results Summary of Design Parameters Controlling Flexural Limit States for U54 Girders Summary of Controlling Limit States and Maximum Spans (AASHTO Standard Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.5 in.) Summary of Controlling Limit States and Maximum Spans (AASHTO Standard Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.)...91 xi

12 TABLE Page 6.5 Summary of Controlling Limit States and Maximum Spans (AASHTO LRFD Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.5 in.) Summary of Controlling Limit States and Maximum Spans (AASHTO LRFD Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Effetive Conrete Strength (U54 Beams) Maximum Spans for 0.5 in. and 0.6 in. Diameter Strands (AASHTO Standard Speifiations) Maximum Spans for 0.5 in. and 0.6 in. Diameter Strands (AASHTO LRFD Speifiations) Impat of Inreasing Conrete Compressive Strengths Comparison of Limit States that Control Maximum Span for AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in.) Comparison of Limit States that Control Maximum Span for AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Comparison of Maximum Span Lengths for AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in.) Comparison of Maximum Span Lengths for AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Maximum Differene in Maximum Span Lengths for LRFD Relative to Standard Speifiations Comparison of Number of Strands AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) Comparison of Number of Strands AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 10 ft.) Comparison of Number of Strands AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 11.5 ft.) Comparison of Number of Strands AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 14 ft.) xii

13 TABLE Page 6.20 Comparison of Number of Strands AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 16.6 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Maximum Spans for Different Allowable Release Stresses and Transfer Lengths (AASHTO Standard Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Controlling Limit States for Maximum Spans for Different Allowable Release Stresses and Transfer Lengths (AASHTO LRFD Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Maximum Span Lengths for Different Allowable Release Stresses and Transfer Lengths (AASHTO Standard Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Maximum Span Lengths for Different Allowable Release Stresses and Transfer Lengths (AASHTO LRFD Speifiations - Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Controlling Limit States for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 10 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 11.5 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 14 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 16.6 ft.) Number of Strands for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) Number of Strands for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 10 ft.) Number of Strands for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 11.5 ft.) Number of Strands for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 14 ft.) xiii

14 TABLE Page 6.34 Number of Strands for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 16.6 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Maximum Span Lengths for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie Maximum Span Lengths for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie Summary of Design Parameters Controlling Limit States for Type IV Girders Summary of Controlling Limit States and Maximum Spans (AASHTO Standard Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.5 in.) Summary of Controlling Limit States and Maximum Spans (AASHTO Standard Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Summary of Controlling Limit States and Maximum Spans (AASHTO LRFD Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.5 in.) Summary of Controlling Limit States and Maximum Spans (AASHTO LRFD Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Effetive Conrete Strength (Type IV Beams) Maximum Spans for 0.5 in. and 0.6 in. Diameter Strands (AASHTO Standard Speifiations) Maximum Spans for 0.5 in. and 0.6 in. Diameter Strands (AASHTO LRFD Speifiations) Impat of Inreasing Conrete Compressive Strengths Comparison of Limit States That Control Maximum Spans for AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in.) Comparison of Limit States That Control Maximum Spans for AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Comparison of Maximum Span Lengths for AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in.) xiv

15 TABLE Page 7.14 Comparison of Maximum Span Lengths for AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Maximum Differene in Maximum Span Length for LRFD Relative to Standard Speifiations Comparison of Number of Strands AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 4.25 ft.) Comparison of Number of Strands AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 5 ft.) Comparison of Number of Strands AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 5.75 ft.) Comparison of Number of Strands AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 7 ft.) Comparison of Number of Strands AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) Comparison of Number of Strands AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 9 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Maximum Spans for Different Allowable Release Stresses and Transfer Lengths (AASHTO Standard Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Controlling Limit States for Maximum Spans for Different Allowable Release Stresses and Transfer Lengths (AASHTO LRFD Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Maximum Span Lengths for Different Allowable Release Stresses and Transfer Lengths (AASHTO Standard Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Maximum Span Lengths for Different Allowable Release Stresses and Transfer Lengths (AASHTO LRFD Speifiations, Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) Controlling Limit States for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 4.25 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 5 ft.) xv

16 TABLE Page 7.28 Controlling Limit States for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 5.75 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 7 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 9 ft.) Number of Strands for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 4.25 ft.) Number of Strands for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 5 ft.) Number of Strands for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 5.75 ft.) Number of Strands for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 7 ft.) Number of Strands for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) Number of Strands for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie (Girder Spaing = 9 ft.) Controlling Limit States for Maximum Span Lengths for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie Maximum Span Lengths for Different Allowable Tensile Stresses at Servie Design Parameters Effetive Conrete Strength (U54 Girders) Impat of Inreasing Conrete Compressive Strengths (U54 Girders) Maximum Differenes in Maximum Span Length for LRFD Relative to Standard Speifiations (U54 Girders) xvi

17 TABLE Page 8.5 Effet of Strand Diameter and Strength on Maximum Span Lengths (Type IV Girders) Impat of Inreasing Conrete Compressive Strengths (Type IV Girders) Maximum Differenes in Maximum Span Length for LRFD Relative to Standard Speifiations (Type IV Girders) A.1 Comparison of Distribution Fators and Live Load Moments for U54 Beams A.2 Comparison of Distribution Fators and Live Load Moments for Type IV Beams B.1 Preasters per DOT (Q 6) B.2 Preasters and Supplied DOTs (Q 6) C.1 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) C.2 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 10 ft.) C.3 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 11.5 ft.) C.4 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 14 ft.) C.5 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 16.6 ft.) C.6 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) C.7 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 10 ft.) C.8 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 11.5 ft.) C.9 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 14 ft.) xvii

18 TABLE Page C.10 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 16.6 ft.) C.11 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) C.12 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 10 ft.) C.13 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 11.5 ft.) C.14 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 14 ft.) C.15 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 16.6 ft.) C.16 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) C.17 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 10 ft.) C.18 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 11.5 ft.) C.19 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 14 ft.) C.20 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 16.6 ft.) C.21 Controlling Limit States and Maximum Span Lengths for f t = 6 f ' and f t = 7.5 f ' (U54 Beams - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) C.22 Controlling Limit States and Maximum Span Lengths for f t = 6 f ' and f t = 8 f ' (U54 Beams - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) xviii

19 TABLE Page D.1 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 4.25 ft.) D.2 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 5 ft.) D.3 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 5.75 ft.) D.4 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 7 ft.) D.5 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) D.6 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 9 ft.) D.7 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 4.25 ft.) D.8 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 5 ft.) D.9 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 5.75 ft.) D.10 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 7 ft.) D.11 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) D.12 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO Standard Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 9 ft.) D.13 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 4.25 ft.) D.14 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 5 ft.) D.15 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 5.75 ft.) xix

20 TABLE Page D.16 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 7 ft.) D.17 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) D.18 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.5 in., Girder Spaing = 9 ft.) D.19 U54 Beam Designs - AASHTO LRDF Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 4.25 ft.) D.20 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 5 ft.) D.21 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 5.75 ft.) D.22 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 7 ft.) D.23 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 8.5 ft.) D.24 Type IV Beam Designs - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations (Strand Diameter = 0.6 in., Girder Spaing = 9 ft.) D.25 Controlling Limit States and Maximum Span Lengths for f t = 6 f ' and f t = 7.5 f ' (Type IV Beams - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations - Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) D.26 Controlling Limit States and Maximum Span Lengths for f t =6 f ' and f t = 8 f ' (Type IV Beams - AASHTO LRFD Speifiations Strand Diameter = 0.6 in.) xx

21 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM STATEMENT Over the years, design proedures for engineered strutures have been developed to provide satisfatory margins of safety. Engineers based these proedures on their onfidene in the analysis of the load effets and the strength of the materials provided. As analysis tehniques and quality ontrol for materials improve, the design proedures hange. Current researh and hanges in design praties for bridges tend to fous on the Amerian Assoiation of State and Highway Transportation Offiials (AASHTO) Standard and Load and Resistane Fator Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Speifiations (AASHTO 2002b). The AASHTO Standard Speifiations for Highway Bridges (AASHTO 2002a) use both allowable stress design (ASD) and load fator design (LFD) philosophies. However, the AASHTO LRFD Speifiations, referred to as load and resistane fator design (LRFD), are written in a probability-based limit state format. In this ase, safety against strutural failure is quantified using reliability theory, where the seletion of onservative load and resistane fators take into aount the statistial variability of the design parameters. Load and resistane fators are determined for eah ultimate limit state onsidered, and safety is measured in terms of the target reliability index (Nowak and Collins 2000). As a result, the LRFD Speifiations allow for a more uniform safety level for various groups of bridges for the ultimate limit states. However, for prestressed onrete design, traditional servieability limit states are still used and often ontrol the flexural design of prestressed onrete bridge girders. On the other hand, as tehnology has improved throughout the last deade, the development of high strength onrete (HSC) has progressed at a onsiderable rate. Conrete strengths up to psi or more an be obtained through the optimization of onrete mixture proportions, materials, and admixtures. Despite this trend, bridge designers have been autious to speify HSC for their preast, prestressed onrete designs, and the appliation of HSC has been limited primarily to important high-rise buildings. This relutane is understandable given 1

22 the empirial nature of the design equations provided by the AASHTO odes for prestressed onrete members, as well as the fat that these formulas were developed based on the mehanial properties of normal strength onrete (NSC) of 6000 psi or less. Highway bridge demands often result in the need for longer spans, fewer girders, and onsequently, fewer piers and foundations. The use of HSC prestressed bridge girders, along with appropriate design riteria, would enable designers to utilize HSC to its full potential. This would result in several pratial advantages. Ralls (1985) antiipates longer span beams that are ost-effetive at the time of onstrution and during the life of the strutures. Therefore, more data on statistial parameters for the mehanial properties of HSC (more than 6000 psi) along with identifiation of ritial areas for refining urrent design provisions for HSC prestressed bridge girders are needed to fully utilize HSC. 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE This report summarizes Phase 2 of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Researh Projet , Allowable Stresses and Resistane Fators for High Strength Conrete. The objetive of this projet was to evaluate the allowable stresses and resistane fators in the AASHTO LRFD Speifiations for design of HSC girders used in Texas bridges. Hueste et al. (2003a) summarized the omplete projet. Phase 1 of this projet (Hueste et al. 2003b) evaluated the appliability of urrent predition equations for estimation of mehanial properties of HSC and determined statistial parameters for mehanial properties of HSC. The HSC samples for Phase 1 were olleted from three Texas preasters that manufature HSC prestressed bridge girders. Phase 3 of this projet assessed the impat of different uring onditions on the ompressive and flexural strength of HSC mixtures used for prestressed girders in Texas (Hueste et al. 2003). The portion of the researh projet addressed by this report (Phase 2) inludes defining the urrent state of pratie for design of HSC prestressed girders and identifying ritial design parameters that limit the design of typial HSC prestressed bridge girders. There are three speifi objetives for this study: 2

23 1. determine the urrent state of pratie for HSC prestressed bridge girders aross the United States, 2. evaluate the ontrolling limit states for the design of HSC prestressed bridge girders and identify areas where some eonomy in design may be gained, and 3. ondut a preliminary assessment of the impat of revising ritial design riteria with an objetive of inreasing the eonomy of HSC prestressed girders. 1.3 RESEARCH PLAN In order to aomplish these objetives, researhers performed the following major tasks. Task 1: Review Previous Researh and Current State of Pratie A literature review was onduted to doument the urrent state of pratie of prestressed onrete bridge girders, inluding review of design riteria and relevant ase studies of the performane of HSC prestressed bridge girders. In addition to the literature searh, a survey was developed and distributed to all 50 state departments of transportation as well as to several organizations involved in the design of bridge strutures. The objetive of this survey is to gather information and doument ritial aspets of urrent design praties for HSC prestressed bridge girders. Task 2: Comparison of Design Provisions for Prestressed Conrete Bridge Girders The main purpose of this task is to provide bakground information and a omparison of the urrent AASHTO LRFD and Standard Speifiations for prestressed onrete bridge girders. Task 2 outlines the differenes in the design philosophy and alulation proedures for these two speifiations. Task 3: Parametri Study A parametri study was onduted for single-span prestressed onrete bridge girders mainly to investigate the ontrolling limit states for both the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations for Highway Bridges. Both Type IV and U54 girder setions were evaluated, with 3

24 onsideration given to the effets of hanges in onrete strength, strand diameter, girder spaing, and span length. Task 4: Evaluation of the Controlling Limit States for HSC Prestressed Bridge Girders The purpose of this task is to evaluate the limiting design riteria for HSC prestressed U54 and Type IV beams using both the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations for Highway Bridges. This evaluation uses results from the parametri study. The potential impat of revised design riteria was also evaluated. Task 5: Develop Summary, Conlusions, and Reommendations This task inludes a summary of work aomplished, desription of findings, onlusions, and reommendations. Critial areas for refining urrent design provisions for HSC prestressed bridge girders are identified. 1.4 OUTLINE OF THIS REPORT This report is organized as follows. Chapter 1 provides an introdution to the projet. Chapter 2 provides a review of previous researh related to HSC prestressed bridge girders. Chapter 3 provides a review of urrent speifiations and praties for the design of prestressed onrete bridge girders, along with appliable design douments used by TxDOT. Chapter 4 desribes the results of the survey to doument relevant aspets of urrent pratie for the design of HSC prestressed bridge girders. Chapter 5 outlines a parametri study for the Texas U54 and AASHTO Type IV beams to mainly evaluate the ontrolling limit states for the design of HSC prestressed bridge girders. Chapters 6 and 7 evaluate the results of the parametri study for the U54 and Type IV beams, respetively, along with an assessment of the impat of potential revisions to design riteria. Finally, Chapter 8 provides a summary of the projet, onlusions, and reommendations for future researh. Additional information suh as the questionnaire for the survey, live load distribution fators and moments for the Standard and LRFD Speifiations, and omplete designs for the U54 and Type IV beams are presented in the appendies. 4

25 2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH 2.1 GENERAL Several studies have evaluated the use of HSC for prestressed bridge girders. Topis of importane to this projet, whih are reviewed in this hapter, inlude the use of HSC for prestressed bridge girders, flexural design of prestressed onrete bridge girders, development of the AASHTO LRFD Speifiations, allowable stress limits for prestressed onrete beams, ritial mehanial properties of HSC for design, and onrete strengths at transfer. 2.2 USE OF HSC FOR PRESTRESSED BRIDGE GIRDERS Impat of HSC Durning and Rear (1993) assessed the viability and performane of HSC for Texas bridge girders. Results showed that for AASHTO Type C and Type IV girders with a girder spaing of approximately 8.4 ft., an inrease in onrete ompressive strengths from 6000 to psi results in approximately a 20 perent inrease in the maximum span lengths. Type IV girders with 0.5 in. diameter strands an fully utilize onrete ompressive strengths up to psi. Therefore, to effetively use higher onrete strengths (above psi), 0.6 in. diameter strands should be used. They also found that when using HSC with 0.6 in. diameter strands, longer span lengths an be reahed and the girder spaing an be doubled for a given span length. This redues the number of girders in a bridge. Consequently, fewer piers and foundations are required, resulting in substantial savings. Russell (1994) reported that an inrease in ompressive strength from 6000 to psi results in a 25 perent inrease in span apaity for AASHTO Type IV girders and a 21 perent inrease in span apaity for Texas U54 girders when 0.5 in. diameter strands are used. 5

26 Adelman and Cousins (1990) evaluated the use of HSC bridge girders in Louisiana. They found that an inrease in onrete ompressive strength from 6000 to psi results in a 10 perent average inrease in span apaity for seven types of girders using 0.5 in. diameter strands. In partiular, an average of a 12 perent inrease in span apaity for the AASHTO Type IV girder, whih inluded several girder spaings, was reported Example Strutures A desription of two Texas bridges onstruted with HSC prestressed girders is given below to provide important appliations and relevant bakground of suh bridges Louetta Road Overpass, State Highway 249, Houston, Texas The Louetta Road Overpass is a high performane onrete (HPC) bridge onstruted in 1995 as a part of a researh projet onduted by TxDOT in ooperation with the University of Texas at Austin. The benefits of the use of HSC in ombination with HPC for the girder design allowed for a simple span onstrution. In addition, the bridge met aestheti onsiderations sine it used a redued number of beams and piers. HPC was used not only beause high onrete strength was required but also beause plaement of the onrete in the U-beam formwork was neessary. Thus, more workability was required and a set retarder and high-range waterreduing admixture was used. No aelerated uring was used; ement was partially replaed with fly ash. The span length of the bridge is 130 ft. with preast pretensioned U54 Beams and preast panels with a ast-in-plae (CIP) topping slab. The required onrete strengths at servie (at 56 days) were from to psi. Transfer (16-21 hours) onrete strengths were from 6900 to 8800 psi. These strengths varied aording to the requirement for eah partiular beam. The prestressing onsisted of 0.6 in. diameter strands on a 1.97 in. grid spaing, with a total of 87 strands. The maximum debonding length was 30 ft., whih is an exeption to the typial maximum debonding length of 20 ft. (Ralls 1995). Designers used a maximum allowable tensile stress at transfer of 10 f ' rather than the ode limit of 7.5 i f ' (where f' i i is in psi units). An 6

27 allowable tensile stress at servie of 8 f ' rather than the ode limit of 6 f ' for 28 days was used for design (where f' is in psi units). Testing of the atual onrete mix showed that these values are adequate (Ralls 1995) San Angelo Bridge, U.S. Route 67, San Angelo, Texas The San Angelo Bridge is an HPC bridge reently onstruted by TxDOT (from 1995 to 1998). HPC was used beause not only HSC was required but also plaement of the onrete in the I-beam was neessary (see Setion 5 for geometry). Thus, TxDOT used a set retarder and high-range water-reduing admixture. No aelerated uring was used, and ement was partially replaed with fly ash. The span length of the bridge is 153 ft., and the girders are preast pretensioned Type IV beams using preast panels with a CIP topping slab. The required onrete strengths at servie (at 56 days) were from 5800 to psi. Transfer (16-21 hours) onrete strengths were from 8900 to psi. These strengths varied aording to the requirements for eah partiular beam. The prestressing onsisted of 0.6 in diameter strands on a 2 in. grid spaing. Again, for this bridge the benefits of the use of HSC in ombination with HPC in the girder design allowed for a simple span onstrution, and aestheti onsiderations were met beause fewer beams and piers were required. 2.3 FLEXURAL DESIGN OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BRIDGE GIRDERS Design Proedure The basi flexural design proedure for prestressed onrete bridge girders is similar for both the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations. The traditional proess onsists of first satisfying servieability onditions and then heking the ultimate limit state. For flexure, the required servieability onditions to be heked onsist of ensuring that the flexural stresses do not exeed the allowable stresses at ritial load stages. The ultimate state to be heked for flexure involves verifying that the fatored moment demand does not exeed the redued 7

28 nominal moment strength. Current designs for prestressed onrete girders are typially governed by the allowable stress requirements. The LRFD Speifiations were alibrated assuming that the maximum design load effet governs designs, and the load and resistane fators were determined for ultimate onditions (Nowak 1999). The LRFD Speifiations also provide limit state design rules (Servie I, Servie III, and Strength I) for design of prestressed onrete that only work onsistently with the LRFD philosophy at the ultimate limit states (Strength I). Additional details for the design of prestressed onrete bridge girders using both the AASHTO Standard and the LRFD Speifiations are provided in Setions 3 and Current Speifiations As of 2002, AASHTO had issued two design speifiations for highway bridges: the AASHTO Standard Speifiations for Highway Bridges, 16 th Edition and 2002 Interim Revisions, and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Speifiations, 2 nd Edition and 2002 Interim Revisions (AASHTO 2002 a,b). In 2003, the Standard Speifiations for Highway Bridges, 17 th Edition, was released (AASHTO 2003). This projet referenes AASHTO (2002 a,b). The AASHTO Standard Speifiations use the ASD and the load LFD philosophies. However, the AASHTO LRFD Speifiations, referred to as load and resistane fator design, are written in a probability-based limit state format where safety is provided through the seletion of onservative load and resistane fators. The LRFD speifiations determine load and resistane fators for eah limit state onsidered and measure safety in terms of the target reliability index (Nowak and Collins 2000). Unlike the Standard Speifiations, the alibration of the LRFD Speifiations is based on reliability theory and allows for designs with a more uniform level of safety. Researh disussed in Setion 4 indiates that the departments of transportation in the United States are moving toward using the new LRFD Speifiations, although this transition is gradual. The Standard Speifiations are still widely used. Most states plan omplete implementation of the LRFD Speifiations in the period of 2004 to 2007 (Setion 4.2.1). 8

29 Three main reasons an be identified to explain the preferene for the Standard Speifiations: LRFD uses a new probability-based limit state format that designers are still relutant to use. Some studies indiate that the hoie of design speifiations has little impat on the span apabilities for a given type of beam. Experiene has shown that bridges designed under the Standard Speifiations are performing as expeted and most of them have worked well. Some important differenes exist between the flexural design provisions for the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Speifiations. The signifiant hanges in the LRFD Speifiations inlude the introdution of a new live load model, a new impat load fator, new live load distribution fators, as well as hanges in the desription of the limit states. Additional information is provided in Setion DEVELOPMENT OF THE AASHTO LRFD SPECIFICATIONS To show the importane of the statistis and parameters of resistane, this setion summarizes the alibration proedure for the AASHTO LRFD Speifiations. Load and resistane fators are determined for the ultimate limit state, and safety is measured in terms of the target reliability index (β T ), whih allows for a uniform and aeptably low probability of failure (p f ) for various groups of bridge girders. Relevant aspets of the alibration proedure are the hoie of the load and resistane statistial parameters as well as the target reliability index. It should be noted that the statistial parameters for resistane of onrete members used in the ode alibration are based on mehanial properties for NSC. Phase 1 of this study determined statistial parameters for HSC produed by Texas preasters (Hueste et al. 2003b). The AASHTO LRFD Speifiations were alibrated to provide design provisions for steel girder bridges (omposite and non-omposite), reinfored onrete bridges (T-beams), and prestressed onrete bridges (AASHTO girders) (Nowak 1999). The design provisions were developed for the ultimate limit state. However, there is still a need to onsider the allowable 9

30 stress design sine servieability limit states often govern the flexural design of prestressed onrete bridge girders. Therefore, both the servieability limit state (SLS) and the ultimate limit state (ULS) presribed by LRFD should be onsidered in the flexural design of prestressed onrete bridge girders. The objetive of the alibration proess for the LRFD Speifiations was to selet a set of values for the load and resistane fators that would provide a uniform safety level in design situations overed by the ode. The required safety level was defined by a target reliability index (β T.) The target reliability index for the ULS was taken as β T = 3.5. Although many ombinations of load and resistane fators an be used to attain the target reliability index, it is desirable to have the same load fator for eah load type for different types of onstrution. Nowak (1999) summarized the proedure for alibration of the AASHTO LRFD Speifiations as follows. 1. Development of a database of sample urrent bridges Approximately 200 bridges were seleted from various regions of the United States. The seletion was based on strutural type, material, and geographi loation. Future trends were onsidered by sending questionnaires to various departments of transportation. For eah bridge in the database, the loads indiated by the ontrat drawings were subdivided by the following weights: fatory-made elements, ast-in-plae onrete members, wearing surfae, misellaneous (railing, luminaries), HS20 live load, and dynami loads. 2. Development of a set of bridge designs for alulation purposes A simulated set of 175 bridge designs was developed based on the relative amount for the loads identified above for eah type of bridge, span, and girder spaing in the database. 3. Establishment of the statistial database for load and resistane parameters Beause the reliability indies are omputed in terms of the mean and standard deviations of load and resistane, determination of these statistial parameters was very important. Statistial parameters of load and resistane were determined on the basis of the available data, suh as truk surveys and material testing, and by simulations. 10

31 4. Estimation of the reliability indies impliit in the urrent design It was assumed that the total load (Q) is a normal random variable and the resistane (R) is a log-normal random variable. The Rakwitz and Fiessler (1978) method was used to ompute the reliability indies, β. This method is an iterative proedure based on normal approximations to non-normal distributions at a design point. For simpliity the method uses only two random variables: the resistane, R, and total load effets, Q. The mean (m Q ) and standard deviation (σ Q ) of Q were alulated using Turkstra s rule (Nowak and Collins 2000), and the resistane parameters bias (λ R ) and ovariane (V R ) were alulated using Monte Carlo simulation. One the resistane parameters (R n, λ R, and V R ) and the load parameters (m Q and σ Q ) were determined, the reliability indies were alulated for eah type of bridge girder for the moment and shear limit state. R was omputed using the equation from the AASHTO Standard Speifiations: [1.3D (L+I)]/φ, where D orresponds to the dead load demand and L+I orresponds to the live load plus impat. Also, the resistane fators (φ) were from the AASHTO Standard Speifiations. 5. Seletion of the target reliability index Reliability indies were alulated for eah simulated bridge for both moment and shear. The results gave a wide range of values for the reliability indies resulting from this phase of the alibration proess. However, this was expeted sine the designs were based on the AASHTO Standard Speifiations. From these alulated reliability indies and from past alibration of other speifiations, a target reliability index β T = 3.5 was hosen. The most important parameters that determine the reliability index are span length and girder spaing. In alibrating the LRFD Speifiations, the orresponding safety level of 3.5 determined for a simple span moment, orresponding to girder spaing of 6 ft. and span of 60 ft. was onsidered aeptable. The reliability index is a omparative indiator, where a group of bridges having a reliability index greater than a seond group is safer (β = φ 1 [ p f ], where p f is the probability of failure). 11

32 6. Computation of the load and resistane fators To ahieve a uniform safety level for all materials, spans, and girder spaings, the load and resistane fators were determined. One way to find the load and resistane fators is to selet the load fators and then alulate the resistane fators, as follows: Fatored load was defined as the average value of load, plus some number of standard deviations (k) of the load: γ i = λ i (1 + kv i ). For a given set of load fators, the value of the resistane fators an be assumed. The orresponding reliability index is omputed and ompared with the target reliability index (resistane fators are rounded to 0.05). If the values are lose, a suitable ombination of load and resistane fators has found. If lose values do not result, a new trial set of load fators has to be used and the proess is repeated until the reliability index is lose to the target value. After studies were onduted, a value for k = 2 was reommended. For prestressed onrete bridge girders, values of φ = 1.0 for the moment limit state and φ = 0.95 for the shear limit state were found. Reommended values of load fators orresponding to k = 2 are: [1.25D + 1.5D A + 1.7(L+I)]/φ, where D orresponds to the dead load demand, D A is the weight of the asphalt, and L+I orresponds to the live load plus impat. 7. Computation of reliability indies Finally, reliability indies were omputed for designs found onsidering the new alibrated LRFD load and resistane fators. Results were plotted, and they showed that the new reliability indies losely mathed the target reliability index (Nowak 1999). 12