NCHRP RPT 280
NCHRP RPT 280
NCHRP RPT 280
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE
gBD
HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORTL/"'
Officers
Chairman
JOHN A. CLEMENTS, President, Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility
Vice Chairman
LESTER A. HOEL, Hamilton Professor and Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering University of Virginia
Secretary
THOMAS B. DEEN, Executive Director, Transportation Research Board
Members
RAY A. BARNHART. Federal Highway Administrator, U.S Department of Transportation (ex officio)
JOSEPH M. CLAPP. Vice Chairman-Corporate Services, Roadway Services, Inc. (ex officio, Past Chairman, 1984)
LAWRENCE D. DAHMS, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Berkeley. California (ex officio. Past Chairman, 1983)
DONALD D. ENGEN, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio)
WILLIAM J. HARRIS, JR., Vice President for Research and Test Department. Association of American Railroads (ex officio)
RALPH STANLEY, Urban Mass Transportation Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
DIANE STEED, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, US. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
ALAN A. ALTSHULER, Dean. Graduate School of Public Administration, New York University
DUANE BERENTSON, Secretary. Washington State Department of Transportation
JOHN R. BORCHERT, Regents Professor. Department of Geography. University of Minnesota
ROBERT D. BUGHER, Executive Director, American Public Works Association
ERNEST E. DEAN, Executive Director, Dallas/Fort Worth Airport
MORTIMER L. DOWNEY, Deputy Executive Director for Capital Programs, New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority
JACK R. GILSTR.AP, Executive Vice President, American Public Transit Association
MARK G. GOODE, Engineer-Director, Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
WILLIAM K. HELLMAN, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation
LOWELL B. JACKSON, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation
JOHN B. KEMP, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation
ALAN F. KIEPPER, General Manager, Metropolitan Transit Authority, Houston
HAROLD C. KING, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
DARRELL V MANNING, Adjutant GeneraL Idaho National Guard, Boise
JAMES E. MARTIN, President and Chief Operating Officer, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
FUJIO MATSUDA, Executive Director, Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii
JAMES K. MITCHELL, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California
H. CARL MUNSON, JR., Vice President for Strategic Planning The Boeing Commercial Airplane Company
MILTON PIKARSKY, Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering City College of New York
WALTER W. SIMPSON, Vice President-Engineering Norfolk Southern Corporation
LEO). TROMBATORE, Director, California Department of Transportation
Field of Design
Area of Bridges
Project Panel C12-21(1)
CLELLON L. LOVEALL, Tennessee Dept. of Transportation (Chairman) WALTER PODOLNY, JR., Federal Highway Administration
JAMES COLVILLE, University of Maryland RAYMOND J. SCHUTZ, Protex Industries, Inc.
ARTHUR J. HAYWOOD, Florida Dept. of Transportation CARL E. THUNMAN, JR., Consultant
ELDON D. KLEIN, California Dept. of Transportation CRAIG A. BALLINGER, FHWA Liaison Representative
HEINZ P. KORETZKY, Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation GEORGE W. RING, III, TRB Liaison Representative
ADRIAN 0. CLARY, TRB Liaison Representative
Program Staff
ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Projects Engineer
ROBERT E. SPICHER, Deputy Director R. IAN KINGHAM, Projects Engineer
LOUIS M. MACGREGOR, Administrative Engineer HARRY A. SMITH, Projects Engineer
IAN M. FRIEDLAND, Projects Engineer HELEN MACKq,Editop
1/"ATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
REPORT 280
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION AND REPAIR
OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE
BRIDGE MEMBERS
AREAS OF INTEREST
SUMMARY .........................................................................
Introduction .......................................................
CHAPTER ONE
Background...................................................................
Commentary..................................................................
CHAPTER TWO Manual of Recommended Practice .................................. 9
Guidelines for Inspection of Damage ........................................... 9
Office Responsible for Inspection .......................................... 9
Initial Inspection and Action .............................................. 9
Inspection Sequence and Record ........................................... 9
Inspection Equipment and Skills ........................................... 10
Inspection Report ......................................................... 10
Monitoring of Repairs ..................................................... 11
Guidelines for Assessment of Damage .......................................... 11
Assessment of Damage by Whom and Where .............................. 11
Strength of Damaged Member ............................................. 11
User Inconvenience and Speed of Repairs .................................. 12
Fracture Critical Members ................................................ 12
Primary Members ......................................................... 12
Secondary Members ....................................................... 12
Minor Concrete Nicks, Spalls, and Scrapes ................................. 12
Concrete Gouges ........................................................... 12
Concrete—Cracks .......................................................... 13
Concrete—Loose or Shattered ............................................. 13
Strands or Other Prestressing Elements .................................... 13
Web Reinforcement ....................................................... 14
Member Displacements .................................................... 14
Guidelines for Selection of Repair Method ...................................... 15
External Post-Tensioning .................................................. 15
InternalSplicing ........................................................... 15
MetalSleeve Splice ........................................................ 15
Combining Splice Methods ................................................ 15
Complete Replacement .................................................... 16
Service Load Capacity ..................................................... 16
Ultimate Load Capacity ................................................... 16
Overload Capacity ........................................................ 16
Fatigue................................................................... 18
Durability................................................................ 20
Cost....................................................................... 20
Aesthetics................................................................ 21
Repair Method to Consider ................................................ 21
Guidelines for Repair of Damage ............................................... 21
Office Responsible for Repair Method ..................................... 21
Accomplishment of Work ................................................. 21
Equipment Required ...................................................... 22
Concrete Nicks, Spalls, Scrapes, and Gouges ............................... 22
Concrete Cracks .......................................................... 22
Major Loss of Concrete ................................................... 22
Prestressing Steel and Concrete Repair ..................................... 23
Post-Tensioning ........................................................... 24
Metal Sleeve Splice ........................................................ 27
Internal Strand Splices .................................................... 30
Girder Replacement ....................................................... 38
FireDamage ............................................................... 39
APPENDIX A Load Tests 41
Summary.....................................................................41
Test Girder Design ............................................................43
Component Testing ............................................................48
Single Strand Internal Splice ...............................................48
Two-Strand Internal Splice ................................................48
Concrete Corbels .........................................................50
Full-Scale Load Tests ..........................................................57
Effect of Creep on Slab Strains ............................................57
Effect of Strain Gage Accuracy ............................................57
Unusual Strain Gage Readings ............................................58
LoadTest 1 ..............................................................59
LoadTest 2 ..............................................................64
LoadTest 3 ..............................................................65
LoadTest 4 ..............................................................65
LoadTest 5 ..............................................................66
LoadTest 6 ..............................................................72
LoadTest 7 ..............................................................72
LoadTest 8 ..............................................................74
LoadTest 9 ..............................................................76
LoadTest 10 .............................................................81
APPENDIX B Notations and Definitions ............................................83
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS consultations, and Richard G. Anderson, who was responsible for over-
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project all management of the test program.
12-21(1) with Willis B. Horn and George 0. Shanafelt as co-principal Steven J. Cosper, Development Engineer, was responsible for the
investigators. W. B. Horn and G. 0. Shanafelt, self-employed consulting supervision of the testing procedures. James Chittenden, Laboratory
engineers, are the authors of this report. Superintendent, was responsible for ensuring that work was performed
The authors express appreciation to the staff members of the Concrete properly, and also for the photographic coverage. Steven Cosper and
Technology Corporation of Tacoma, Washington, where all load tests James Chittenden provided valuable assistance during all test setups
were performed. Their cooperation in the testing phase was excellent. and testing. Harold J. Jobse, Managing Director of Research and De-
Special thanks are extended to Arthur R. Anderson for his advice and velopment, assisted in the initial development of the test program.
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION AND
REPAIR OF PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE BRIDGE MEMBERS
SUMMARY This report is primarily a practical user's manual for dealing with accidentally
damaged prestressed concrete bridge members. It is the second phase of a two-phase
research program conducted under NCHRP Project 12-21. The first phase report,
NCHRP Report 226, found that 40 states reported a total of 191 bridges damaged
per year. Overheight vehicles caused 80 percent of the damages. Other reported causes
of damage were through fire and during manufacture. The types of prestressed bridge
most frequently damaged severely are precast prestressed I-beam bridges. Prestressed
box girder bridges are usually subject to minor damage only. Twenty states reported
using epoxy injection for repair-in-place. Only 9 states used steel strengthening when
repairing-in-place. The Phase I report dealt primarily with state practices used to
assess damage and make repairs. Existing techniques were evaluated and areas in need
of investigation were identified. Additionally, several promising methods of repair
were included that had not been tested.
There is no known published report that deals with the entire problem of accidental
damage to prestressed concrete bridge members. This lack of information and guide-
lines has resulted in repair techniques that are not always appropriate for particular
damage incidents. The decision to repair or replace a damaged member is often based
on an evaluation made under the emergency pressure to restore the facility to use.
The findings indicate that some repair-in-place methods do not adequately restore
members to their original condition, and some members have been replaced where
repair-in-place techniques would have been more appropriate.
The material provided in the following chapters of this report establishes guidelines
for evaluation and repair of damaged prestressed concrete bridge members. The
guidelines are based on information developed during the Phase I report plus extension
of the development and evaluation of promising methods of repair during the Phase
II research. Several methods of repair were tested as splices for severed strands of a
full-scale AASHTO Type III girder. The tested methods included adding external
post-tensioning, internal splicing of broken strands, and a metal sleeve splice. Tests
were also made with added external post-tensioning to the girder without severed
strands. This method could be used to strengthen existing girders carrying excessive
live load. Ten separate tests were made for various combinations of strengthening,
splicing, and number of severed strands. Maximum load for the first nine tests was
approximately equal to 75 percent of the calculated ultimate load capacity. The girder
was loaded to its calculated ultimate load capacity for Test No. 10. Component testing
was used to evaluate three concrete corbels with differing methods of attachment to
the girder; it was also used to evaluate two methods of internal strand splicing. The
test results are detailed in Appendix A.
The following chapters of this report are organized in a format that will facilitate
the use of the guidelines. Background information, including details of the research
effort through which the manual was developed, and commentary on the findings
that led to the development of the manual are provided in the introduction of Chapter
One.
The guidelines in Chapter Two are structured to lead to a logical and practical
format to facilitate their use in the inspection and assessment of damage, selection of
repair method, and repair of damage. Primary factors included are strength of damaged
member, user inconvenience and speed of repairs, durability of repair, strength of
repair, relative cost, and aesthetics. Methods of repair include epoxy injection, concrete
patching, preloading, internal strand splicing, adding external post-tensioning, metal
sleeve splicing, and girder replacement. Each repair technique is addressed in a thor-
ough and logical manner, with a description of its use, detailed construction proce-
dures, and the mathematical calculations required. A feature of the guidelines is the
inclusion of examples of good and poor techniques and extensive use of drawings and
photographs to supplement the text. In addition, for convenience of the user, notations
and definitions are provided in Appendix B. Pertinent references are included in
Appendix C.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
first cycle data, because of the the initial uncracked state of the Test 5—Splice four strands with the single-strand internal
girder, were not expected to and did not corroborate the data splice and preload as required. Patch the girder and release
of the initial cracked section cycles. In all nine tests, corrob- preload after patch has gained required strength. Load test.
oration of test data between load cycles was accomplished within Test 6—Reconnect and post-tension high-strength bars.
three cycles. A partial "working in" cycle was used as appro- This test is the same as Test 5 except for added external post-
priate prior to each test. Test 10 was a 100 percent ultimate tensioning. Load test.
load test with one full cycle. Test 7—Disconnect bars, break out concrete, sever the
Strains, deflections, and loads were recorded during each four strands spliced in Test 5. Load test.
cycle. Test 8—Preload not required, patch the girder, post-ten-
The maximum total load for each of the first nine tests sion external high-strength bars. Load test.
was limited to 75 percent of the calculated ultimate moment Test 9—Disconnect bars, break out concrete, sever six
capacity. This loading is the maximum overload permitted by strands out of a total of 16, patch the girder, and install the
the AASHTO "Manual for Inspection of Bridges." Stresses in metal sleeve splice. Load test.
post-tensioned high-strength bars were checked to ensure that Test 10—Load test the sleeve spliced girder to 100 percent
they did not exceed 0.9 f (see Appendix B for symbol notations of calculated ultimate moment capacity.
and definitions). Web reinforcing was furnished to limit shear
stresses to less than or equal to 75 percent ultimate shear ca-
Load strain and load deflection curves were prepared for all
pacity. Maximum deflections were limited to the maximum tests. All tests were evaluated.
deflection recorded for Test I, which was a test of the undam-
4. Prepare manual of recommended practice. This task re-
aged girder.
sulted in the manual provided in Chapter Two. This user-ori-
The test load was located at centerline of span.
ented manual is addressed to bridge engineers. It is believed
Patching portions of concrete was accomplished prior to
that portions will be useful to highway administrators, research-
certain tests as noted. No epoxy injection of girder cracks was
ers, members of repair crews, and others. It is a practical user's
performed.
guide for dealing with accidentally damaged concrete bridge
The need for preload was detrmined as a routine step in
members. The guidelines are based on information evaluated
making girder repairs. It was required and used for Test 5, the
from both Phase I and Phase II research. The manual covers
internal strand splicing test.
all aspects of the problem, including assessment and repair
procedures.
The following tests and procedures were accomplished
The outline for sections of the manual of recommended prac-
tice is as follows:
Test 1—Set up girder and instrument. Load the un-
damaged girder to 75 percent of the calculated ultimate load
capacity. Inspection of damage
Test 2—Add concrete corbels and post-tension high- Guidelines for assessment of damage
strength bars. Load test. This test consisted of a girder with no Selection of repair method
broken strands, strengthened by adding external post-tensioning. Guidelines for repair of damage
Test 3—Disconnect high strength bars and load test. This
test is the same as Test 1 except the girder was uncracked initially 5. Preparation of final report. The final task was the prepa-
during Test 1. The cracks were closed at initial loading for all ration of the manual, the major portion of which consists of the
tests. guidelines in Chapter Two. In main, information needed to use
Test 4—Break out specified concrete to sever 4 strands, the manual is included therein. The load test results of promising
equal to 25 percent of the 16-strand total. Load test. methods of repair, including applicable technical data, tables,
and charts, are provided in Appendix A. Additional information generally acceptable to determine the necessity of preliminary
of interest is contained in Appendixes B and C—notations and strengthening in order to prevent further damage to the bridge.
definitions in Appendix B and pertinent references in Appendix During final assessment of damage, a complete evaluation of
C. The commentary that follows pertains to material that may strength should be made. Stresses should be compared with the
not be required by users of the manual but provides additional design stresses. All preliminary calculations and decisions made
basis for the manual guidelines and should be reviewed by all during the inspection phase should be reviewed.
users.
Documentation
COMMENTARY
Documentation of damage assessment and repair appears to
The findings of Phase I plus the testing required by this project be disorganized. There is a tendency to rely on the knowledge
in Phase II show that repair-in-place methods performed in and expertise possessed by one or two individuals in a particular
accordance with the guidelines presented in Chapter Two can state. When these individuals retire or change jobs, substantial
be used successfully to restore strength and durability of dam- knowledge may be lost. A cross-referenced record system should
aged prestressed concrete bridge members. These techniques are be established to provide access to all damage incidents. The
less time consuming and less costly than replacement. With system should provide ready access to the inspection reports.
more bridges being designed for live-load continuity, repair-in- Damage should include type of structure, cause of damage, and
place methods for these bridges will be even less expensive when type of member. Assessment calculations, repair calculations,
compared to girder replacement. Complex engineering calcu- and repair details should be included. Good documentation will
lations are not required to develop specific repair-in-place re- build up a background of experience that can be very useful in
pairs; however, straightforward calculations should be made to future damages.
ensure that strength and durability have been restored. For all
bridge design, the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges
(1) adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Selection of Repair Method
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) sets forth the minimum
design standards and should be followed in all repair work. A principal finding of this report is that very few states use
repair-in-place techniques that require preload or strengthening
by prestressing. Many states may believe that these techniques
Inspection Procedures do not restore girder strength or that these techniques are time
consuming and costly when compared to replacement. The full-
From information gained through this research, the damage scale load tests performed in Phase II demonstrate the effec-
inspection phase should be differentiated and separated from tiveness of repair-in-place methods. External post-tensioning
the engineering assessment phase. Inspection should report the was used to restore loss of strength due to severing four strands
factual, pertinent damage information. Damage assessment (25 percent of the 16 strands total). External post-tensioning
should then be accomplished through logical engineering was also used to demonstrate its effectiveness in increasing the
calculations. load capacity of a girder without severed strands. Internal strand
It is also advised that personnel responsible for inspection splicing was developed and used to splice four severed strands.
and damage assessment develop their specific procedures prior A metal sleeve was used to splice six severed strands (37.5
to the time when it is required to respond to a damage incident. percent of the 16 strand total). The test results were completely
This will ensure more uniform treatment and more orderly satisfactory.
progress. Establishment of procedures, without pressure from The research also indicated that consideration should be given
an emergency, should result in best practices. The state bridge to the combining of repair methods for severely damaged mem-
engineer is normally responsible for the preparation of repair bers. Where many strands are damaged, internal splices could
plans. Since the bridge engineer is responsible for repair design, be installed in addition to the use of an external post-tensioning
this office should be responsible for inspection. One major com- system or a steel sleeve splice. Combining repair methods could
ponent for assessment of damage is the field inspection of dam- provide a fast repair and reduce user inconvenience and cost.
age. The bridge engineer's office should be best qualified for The scope of the project did not include fatigue testing. It
inspection of damage. Where organization constraints place the might be felt by some that the internal splice systems could be
responsibility with others, cooperative action with bridge en- subject to fatigue failure. The research indicates that internal
gineer personnel should be a requirement. The inspection of splicing systems be limited to approximately 25 percent of the
damaged prestressed concrete bridge members should be per- prestressing strands. Where more than 25 percent of the strands
formed by, and/or with direct supervision by structural bridge are internally spliced, additional external strengthening should
engineers. be installed. Internal splice repairs should be monitored by
inspection. Test results indicate that strand failures would result
in localized concrete cracking because of the configuration of
Existing Assessment of Damage the splice.
Repairs in precompressed areas are of some concern. The
The assessment of damage appeas to be largely judgmental, findings of this research indicate that. many agencies permit
supplemented by brief calculations. This procedure is adequate these repairs after the release of prestress. This means that the
during the inspection phase to determine whether to restrict concrete in the repaired areas will not be in compression and
traffic or close the bridge. These preliminary calculations are may crack with the application of additional dead and live loads.
Unless the depth of defect is very superficial, this practice could that were anticipated. Tests 1 and 3 were performed on the as-
lead to moisture penetration, corrosion of prestressing elements, cast girder and slab; however, all tests following the first cycle
and reduced structure life. One acceptable method is to apply of Test 1 were on a cracked section. Tests 2, 6, and 8 were
preload, patch, and remove preload after patch has gained re- performed with post-tensioned rods in place. Tests 4 and 7 were
quired strength. The, preferable method is to repair prior to performed with four strands severed. Test 5 was performed with
release of prestress. the four severed strands repaired with single-strand internal
splices. Tests 9 and 10 were performed with six severed strands
and the steel sleeve splice in place. The equivalent load, P 46.47
Repair of Damage kips, plotted on Figure 3, gives a moment numerically equal to
AASHTO HS-20 live loading.
Replacement and repair-in-place techniques have been de- In comparing the first cycle with the last cycle of Test 1, one
veloped and successfully used for the repair of damaged pre- can see the relationship of the uncracked beam to the cracked
stressed concrete bridge members. The full-scale and component beam. The deflections of the cracked beam (last cycle) are sig-
test rsults of Appendix A demonstrate that several methods of nificantly greater than that for the uncracked beam (first cycle)
repair can be successfully used. Most of the findings in the form throughout most of the loading range. However, the final de-
of applicable technical data, tables, and charts are included in flections under the maximum test load of 90.4 kips, for both
Appendix A. The discussion that immediately follows is a com- cycles, are very nearly equal. Test 3 was the same as the last
mentary on the tests performed and the methods of repair tested. cycle of Test 1. The load-deflection curves are nearly identical.
Tests 2, 6, and 8 show the effectiveness of external post-
Load Deflection Curves tensioning. The load-deflection curves for Tests 2 and 6 are
nearly identical, verifying the effectiveness of single-strand in-
Load-deflection data were recorded for all load tests and the ternal splices. All post-tensioned rod tests demonstrate the stiff-
data are summarized in Figure 3. The load tests are numerically ening obtained by this method of post-tensioning. For all
listed in the order they were performed. Unless otherwise note4, practical purposes the load deflection, curves for Tests 3 and 5
the load-deflection curves are for the last cycle of each test. For are identical. This corroboration also verifies the effectiveness
this discussion of the load-deflection curves, the tests are of the internal splice system. Figure 4 shows the load-deflection
grouped in relation ,to the repair system applied to the girder. curves for the last cycle of Tests 1, 3, and 5, including the
More and wider cracks developed under the applied moment existing deflection from previous cycles. These curves show the
__-O0) ,7x...528,"
Post- ten5-,o,,ed Roc/5 S(2114.7-//78'
Zn ma!3p/,ces wi 1JG)//2.Bx.i/5?
(rPost-tens,br,ed
.E- Roa's
(S,Lee / Sleeve 7ëst 10 Test /f,C"/p.37L Cgcle)
Severed Str-ar,dsj (45 Cas)
Pst-/ensionedccAi7ès7' 8 r-(P) 90.4'I./59"
('Seveed .%-onds ' (8)89 7
0889"
(1) 90.4 4 /84"
RE Th \J3)85.4tI.I29"
,tS7'ee/ Sl eeve _ l (5) 82.3l. 0G2"
-' Tests 35 (3 - As C05 i-Ci-ccked)
'5- Zrn'e,-no/ Splices!
"— Test / (Lost Cgc/e As Ccs/- C -ocked)
57. 9 -0.7&" (4 e i-er-ed St-tidS)
(7)579k- 0.757'45eve1-ed St,-a/70's)
44
kEQIivole, P Load 10 ,giVe
Mbme,,t ,'/.'me -/ca/4,' EQ,.lol
.7L0 H820 LL#I.
Tests 407,14 5eve,-ed
81,-ai- c/5)
20
Note: The knee of the Curves defines
p0/174s o'i wh,c,4 ,g'rder- crockir,g
,, / t/as'es dead food r-ed/st/-/butiop7.
(Lost Cycle) -
7e571 3
As Cast-Ct-ockeo'Seth .-
roo-
1AV Cbfc/e)
CostCd
close correlation between the as-cast girder and the internal Table 1. Ratio of test load moment to HS-20 LL + I moment.
splice system. Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test
No.1 N0.2 Ns.3 N0.9 No.5 No.6 N0.7 No.6 N0.9 No.10
Tests 4 and 7 were performed with four severed strands. The
test results were substantially identical. This girder section p testK 90.5 115.7 85.7 57.9 83.7 113.4 57.9 89.7 92.0 166.8
should obviously have the least capacity. At the test load of Moment
P test
1355 1721 1285 869 1256 1701 869 1346 1380 2502
57.9 kips the difference in deflections was less than 1/32 in. Ratio 1.95 2.07 1.85 1.25 1.80 2.44 1.25 1.93 1.98 3.59
Tests 9 and 10 show the effectiveness of the steel sleeve splice.
Notes: Maximum test load for each test is used.
This method of repair provided the greatest stiffness. Test 10
Moments are is kip feet.
was the final and ultimate load test. Under the applied load of
167 kips, the deflection was approximately 5/4 in., and the un- LL Djstrjbutios factor Sf5.5 = 7.5/5.5 1.36
6'; N test = p test (60
loaded girder had a permanent deflection of about 1X in. The M [8S20 LLOI]= 697
load deflection curve for Test 10 indicates that the girder yielded Ratio = (4 test/697
Although 20 agencies reported the use of epoxy injection, 8ond wi/b qvoxy resin Yower corner
only six of these agencies reported the use of preload. Even of box
though a vertical crack appears to be closed in the precom-
pressed zone, the entire surface area will not be in compression.
This observation is confirmed by the fact that if the entire surface
were in compression, it would not be possible to inject the crack.
Me/al 5p/lce
Thus the precompressed zone consists of compressed and non-
compressed areas. When the cracks are injected, the noncom- Jack,,,9 Corbel—..
pressed areas will be filled with epoxy resin, but they will not Pos~-/en.'o,,ed
be in compression. Upon additional loading, the compressed rod or s/rands
areas will experience reduced compression; however, the non- /1? E Lower Corner
compressed areas will immediately experience tension. If the a/box
V
crack occurs in the girder after bridge construction, the tensile
stress will be equal to the full live load stress with no reduction P05/-te'9i0ne0' 5p//ce
due to prestress. If the crack is injected prior to pouring the
roadway slab, the tensile stress will be equal to the dead load
stress of the slab plus the full live load stress. Either of the
foregoing repairs will probably lead to recracking of the repaired
area. Because epoxy resin is normally much stronger in tension
than concrete, the crack will probably occur adjacent to the Lower Corner
filled crack. of box
To determine the required preload to prevent cracking, cal-
culate the stress due to additional loads to be applied. Deduct 8,'ra,,d 5p/,ces/
allowable tension if any. Calculate load to give net stress. Apply .tni'erna/ .51,-arid 5p//ce
this load (preload) to the girder. The load may consist of one
or more loaded trucks or vertical jacking, as shown in Figures Figure 5. Box girder repairs.
25 and 26 in Chapter Two. Inject cracks with epoxy resin. When
repaired cracks have gained required strength remove preload.
This user's manual establishes guidelines for evaluation and be responsible for inspection. One major component for assess-
repair of accidentally damaged prestressed concrete bridge mem- ment of damage is the field inspection of damage. The bridge
bers. Included in the guidelines are inspection of damage, as- engineer's office should be best qualified for inspection of dam-
sessment of damage, selection of repair method, and repair of age. Where organization constraints place the responsibility with
damage. Methods of repair include epoxy injection, concrete others, cooperative action with bridge engineer personnel should
patching, preloading, internal strand splicing, adding external be a requirement.
post-tensioning, metal sleeve splicing, and girder replacement. Damage inspection should be performed by competent per-
The guidelines for assessment of damage and selection of repair sonnel. Severe damage should be inspected by competent struc-
members are structured to lead to logical and appropriate meth- tural engineers.
ods of repair. However, this manual is not a handbook. The
commentary in Chapter One explains in further depth why
certain guidelines were adopted. The guidelines are practical in Initial Inspection and Action
nature and based on the best information currently available,
including the test results of Appendix A. The authors believe The primary objectives of initial inspection should be to ensure
that sufficient research has been performed to document the safety to the user and to reduce further damage to the bridge.
effectiveness of the methods described in this chapter. No ad- When damage is severe, an experienced structural engineer
ditional research is required prior to implementation of these should make the initial inspection and determine whether to
methods in the field. restrict traffic or close the bridge. Temporary support systems,
if required, should be placed immediately to prevent further
damage. Preliminary strengthening may also be made to allow
GUIDELINES FOR INSPECTION OF DAMAGE traffic on the bridge. These preliminary actions are normally
based on judgment supplemented by brief calculations. Pre-
Best inspection and assessment of damage will be accom- stressed members will normally sustain large vertical deflections
plished by establishing standard procedures for inspection, re- without collapsing. These deflections are readily visible. If a
porting, engineering assessment, and the monitoring of severely damaged member is fracture critical, immediate steps
completed repairs. The monitoring of repairs has been included should be taken to prevent bridge collapse. When a member is
in inspection of damage to afford personnel responsible for in- damaged beyond repair, which is unusual, the engineer may
spection the opportunity to improve their damage inspection recommend at this time to replace the member.
and assessment techniques. From information gained through Few bridge closures are necessary for accidental damage to
this research project, it is recommended that personnel respon- prestressed concrete members. However, when bridge closure
sible for inspection and damage assessment develop their specific is required, sufficient time must be allowed to ensure that ad-
procedures prior to the time when it is required to respond to equate inspection and comprehensive evaluation are achieved.
a damage incident. This will better ensure uniform treatment When safety of the user is in question, the bridge should be
and more orderly progress. Establishment of procedures, with- closed until it is conclusively determined that traffic can be
out pressure from an emergency, should result in best practices. safely restored. Political and public pressure should not be al-
Fortunately, few prestressed member damages are fracture crit- lowed to cause unwarranted decisions when safety is involved.
ical. For purpose of definition in this manual fracture critical Damage inspection and evaluation involving structural safety
means that if the damaged member failed, the bridge (or span) may normally require engineering office time. Temporary sup-
would collapse. Accompanying this definition is the understand- port systems may require plan preparation and procurement of
ing that the damage inflicted poses a reasonable threat to the materials. All temporary support systems must be designed to
capacity of the member to carry the applied loads. Coordination ensure safety to the user. The time required to restore traffic
and sharing of input should occur between all personnel that will depend on severity of damage and will vary with each
will participate in the inspection and assessment process. All accident. The engineering staff should recognize the need for
departments of transportation that participated in this research expediency. Damage evaluation and plan preparation should
indicated the interest and expertise required to organize this have immediate priority. However, user safety must take prec-
area of the problem in a manner that will suit their particular edent over restoration of traffic.
needs.
All sections of this manual should be thoroughly studied prior
to starting work on any single phase. Inspection Sequence and Record
for each member should be given. All areas inspected, including or sharply bent should be described and located. If necessary,
those areas inspected that did not suffer damage, should be concrete can be carefully removed to more closely inspect strand
recorded. This procedure aids the decision-making process of damage. A rivet gun chipper is an excellent tool to be used near
what, if anything, should be done to repair a member. strands to remove concrete without damaging strands. When
all of the concrete in the bottom flange and a portion of the
web have been shattered for a considerable length, the amount
of prestress force in the strands may be in question.
Inspection Equipment and Skills Inspection must be closely correlated with damage assess-
ment. For example, it would be unproductive to take strand
Good access to the damaged area is necessary. A platform samples if the girder will require replacement.
truck with adjustable height platform or a "cherry picker" is
very useful. Check to ensure that the damaged girder or girders
can support inspection loads before putting any loads on the Inspection Report
structure. It may seem obvious, but a large amount of infor-
mation can be gained from visual inspection. Personnel assigned It is useful to develop a standard form to be used in reporting
to inspection should have good eyesight and a critical mind. damage. Items that are common to all damaged members, such
The fact should be accepted that some engineers have better as bridge name, location, and site conditions may be shown on
qualities of observation. For the best inspection, personnel a single form. A separate form sheet will generally be required
should be assessed accordingly. Significant lateral or vertical for each member. If necessary, attachments to the form can be
displacements, rotations, and cracks can often be detected by made to more fully describe the damage. The usefulness of a
eye alone. A good light is very useful for checking areas between standard form is primarily to set forth in an organized manner
girders. A simple carpenters level is useful in checking whether the results of the inspection. An inspection form also serves as
a girder is plumb. More sophisticated levels are available that a reminder for the inspector of the various items to inspect. All
will give degrees out of plumb. With good lighting, a crack of reports should be clear and legible.
only 0.004 in. (0.1 mm) wide can be detected. A magnifying Most agencies have plans for existing bridges. These plans
glass should be included with inspection equipment. With lOX are valuable to have on-hand during the bridge inspection and
magnification, small cracks can be measured. Under normal may be used to supplement the standard forms. When plans are
conditoins, cracks of 0.004 in. (0.1 mm) or greater in width can not available, more sketches may be needed. Members should
be measured. With excellent lighting, a crack width of one-half be precisely identified in accordance with the plans and/or with
the above amount can be approximated. California uses an in- clearly detailed sketches. Good photographs are very helpful in
strument called a Micro-Mike. This 20X microscope will mea- making damage assessments and subsequent repairs. All pho-
sure crack widths to 0.002 in. (0.05 mm). A flashlight and mirror tographs should be clearly labeled, giving name of object, di-
are good tools for checking inaccessible locations. rection of view, and approximate distance to object. The
The inspection team should have good camera equipment. It inspection report should not normally contain recommended
is recommended that, in addition to a conventional camera, an repair procedures. Factors that might alter solutions should be
instant photo camera be included. The instant photo camera included.
will provide immediate pictures for evaluation purposes, while A cross-referenced record system should be established to
the conventional photographs will provide the more permanent provide ready access to all damage incidents. This system should
record. Training should be provided to ensure that a sufficient provide ready access to the inspection reports. Damage cate-
number of properly descriptive pictures are taken of each dam- gories should contain type of member and cause of damage.
age. Damage assessment calculations, repair calculations, and repair
String lining can be used to determine lateral offsets and details should be included.
curvature. Vertical displacements relative to adjacent girders The contents of the inspection report should include:
can best be obtained by taking elevations along centerline of
girders at top of roadway slab. String lining along the bottom 1 .Bridge name.
of girders will give approximate relative vertical displacements. 2.Bridge location description including location map.
Many prestressed girders have different initial vertical deflec- 3.Date of damage.
tions due to time dependent effects. Casting the roadway slab 4.Date of inspection.
and diaphragms greatly reduces or eliminates subsequent dis- 5.Law enforcement accident report.
placement differences. Concrete cores can be taken to assess 6.Cause of damage.
environmental damage. They can also be taken during fabri- 7.Site conditions.
cation in areas that are suspect due to faulty casting. It is obvious a.Damage over traffic.
that strand locations must be considered. It is believed that b.Damage over water.
impact damages do not affect the strength of concrete. These c.Other.
damages will crack, loosen, or shatter concrete. In some acci- 8.Information on user inconvenience.
dents all of the concrete in the bottom flange and web of a 9.Bridge plans if available.
girder has been removed because of impact, with no apparent lO.Supplementary sketches.
damage to strands. Small concrete spalls or gouges should also 11 .Type of member.
be measured because reduced coverage may affect strand du- 12.Member identification.
rability. 1 3.Member category.
The effect of damage on prestressing elements is of prime a. Fracture critical.
importance in determining whether to repair in place or replace b.Primary.
a girder. Strands that are severed, nicked, gouged, deformed, c. Secondary.
11
14.Damage to prestressing elements. causes were fire and during manufacture. Guidelines furnished
a.Exposed. in this manual are applicable to all of the foregoing types of
b.Nicked. damage.
c.Gouged. The purpose of assessment of damage is to decide what should
d.Deformed. be done to an accidentally damaged member. One of three
Severed. decisions should be made:
Damage locations,
g.Narrative description. Do nothing.
15.Damage to concrete. Repair the member.
a.Spalls, nicks, scrapes, and gouges (give sizes). Replace the member.
b.Cracks including width, length, and configuration.
c.Loose concrete. Assessment of damage stops short of "Selection of Repair
d.Shattered concrete. Method".
Damage locations.
Narrative description.
1 6.Member displacement. Assessment of Damage by Whom and Where
a.Lateral.
b.Vertical. Preliminary assessment of damage should be made during
c.Rotation or twist. inspection of damage as described under "Guidelines for In-
d.Narrative description. spection of Damage/Initial Inspection and Action,"
17. Photographs. Final assessment of damage is preferably made by the same
18.Factors that may affect repair solutions. persons who inspected damage. Assessment of damage can also
19.Description of initial action. be made by other persons experienced in dealing with acciden-
a.Traffic restriction. tally damaged prestressed members. At least one experienced
b.Member strengthening. structural engineer should participate in the final assessment of
c.Other. damage. Final assessment of damage should be made in an office
environment away from the bridge site. The lack of adequate
time is often a critical element in the assessment and repair of
Monitoring of Repairs seriously damaged members. Personnel directly involved in as-
sessment, selection of repair, and repair should certainly be made
Follow-up inspection of repairs should be on a regular basis. aware of the importance of time. Management, however, should
All of the recommended repairs in this manual are intended to not place undue distractions or pressure on the persons directly
restore members to their required strength and durability. How- involved. The best repair decisions are made when pressure is
ever, experience has shown that restoration may not be complete limited, and generally minimize overall repair time.
for all damages. Environmental or fire damage may have an
element of doubt as to complete restoration. Concrete patches
and cracks that are repaired without the use of preload or post- Strength of Damaged Member
tensioning, may crack and affect durability. Members that are
completely restored should be inspected with the same frequency Brief calculations determining the approximate strength of
as the complete bridge. Member repairs containing reasonable the member may be made during the inspection phase. These
doubt regarding strength or durability should be inspected at calculations are normally made to determine whether to restrict
more frequent intervals. The frequency should be established by traffic or close the bridge. These preliminary calculations may
persons responsible for repair, and the bridge maintenance en- also be made to determine the necessity of temporary support
gineer should be advised. systems in order to prevent further damage to the bridge.
During assessment of damage, a complete evaluation of
strength should be made. This analysis should determine stress
GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE levels in the damaged member, and these stresses should be
compared to the design stresses and to allowable stresses. Service
These guidelines have been developed from the evaluation of load stresses and ultimate load capacity should always be com-
present techniques, full-scale and component testing, and an puted. Overload stresses and fatigue stresses should be computed
objective/subjective analysis gained from actual working ex- as appropriate. All preliminary calculations and decisions made
perience. Guidelines have not been included for established pro- during the inspection phase should be reviewed. It is important
cedures that are commonly used in this type of work. Except to assume all damaged strands as severed, and all loose or
as specifically noted, guidelines for accomplishing work have shattered concrete deleted when making these calculations.
not been repeated where information on these items is covered The existing prestress force in exposed strands, particularly
elsewhere in this manual. This manual does not endorse products if the damage is in the vicinity of an end block or a harping
or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names, if included, point, is a critical factor in assessment of damage. A nonde-
are for guidance and possible contact by those who have not structive test method to determine strand tension has been used
developed their own specifications for materials that might be by Michigan. Prestressed strands were exposed approximately
used in repair techniques. 18 ft, after loose and shattered concrete was removed from a
As noted earlier in this report, the most frequent cause of severely damaged fascia girder. The remaining force in each
damage is due to overheight vehicle impacts. Other reported strand was calculated by measuring the deflection of each strand
12
with a micrometer caliper. A small load of 20.5 lb was placed In general, repair-in-place techniques will result in less
at the center point of each exposed strand, and deflection was inconvenience to users. Because of less removal work, repair-
measured from the strand above. Assuming a straight line de- in-place techniques should also result in faster repairs.
flection of the strand, the calculation for tension is: T = P/I
4d, where / is the clear span of exposed tendon in feet; d is the
measured deflection in feet; and T is tension in the strand. Fracture Critical Members
A destructive test method can also be effective for determining
strand tension. By carefully marking and cutting out a 10 ft Fracture critical members should receive a more rigorous
length of strand, the stress can be calculated with reasonable assessment of damage than nonfracture critical members. Se-
accuracy. A 10 ft length of strand with a stress of 144 ksi will lection of repair procedures should be more conservative than
shorten approximately 0.62 in. This shortening is based on a selecting repair procedures for nonfracture critical members.
modulus of elasticity of 28,000 ksi. An electric sander is a useful Repair-to-place methods may be used, but they should be used
tool for cutting strands. Care must be taken to prevent injury in a conservative manner. Otie method of attaining conservative
due to whipping action when strands are cut. results is to apply enough strengthening to achieve zero tension
California has tried using a Kuhlman bar with a 10-in, gage in precompressed tensile zones under all conditions of loading.
length to define stress characteristics of exposed tendons. Results Consideration should be given to inspecting these repairs at
with this device have not been consistent, and they do not place more frequent intervals than nonfracture critical members.
much value on these tests at this time.
Primary Members
User Inconvenience and Speed of Repairs
Nearly all prestressed members are primary members. The
User inconvenience and speed of repairs are so interrelated guidelines in this manual have been developed for primary mem-
they are considered as one in this manual. The following are bers.
general guidelines that should be considered to address these
items:
Secondary Members
Safety to users and strength of the structure must have
primary importance. The decisions as to usability of the dam- Diaphragms in prestressed bridges are normally reinforced
aged structure, or portions thereof, should be conservative. concrete. Damage should be repaired following common pro-
Depending on the actions required by the damage, the best cedures used for the repair of reinforced concrete members.
traffic control system should be established. To reduce user Prestressed diaphragms should be repaired in the same manner
inconvenience, the establishment of the best detour route should as primary members.
be carefully considered.
Recognizing that the initial decision probably was made
only on inspection of damage, the engineering assessment should Minor Concrete Nicks, Spalls, and Scrapes
be made immediately. Should the engineering assessment de-
termine that initial traffic restrictions were too severe, they It is believed that minor nicks, spalls, and scrapes may deserve
should be revised to reduce user inconvenience. more attention than they usually get. This is particularly true
Procedures for obtaining replacement girders should be in corrosive environments. Because of the effectiveness of con-
established in advance of accident happenings. The need for any centrating strands near the bottom of prestressed girders, con-
specialized equipment and materials should be established. The crete cover is usually the minimum permitted by specifications.
work that can effectively be accomplished by state forces should Reducing this cover and scraping away the concrete surface
be known by all personnel that may be involved in assessment finish may permit the intrusion of corrosive elements to the
and repair. strands. Strong consideration should be given to cleaning these
The acceptability of various repair-in-place techniques surfaces and sealing with the two coats of a penetrating sealer.
should be established prior to an accident. Should any of the Other methods of repairing defects are described in "Guidelines
repair techniques outlined in this manual appear advantageous, for Repair of Damage."
it is recommended that they be studied at an early date. Single-
strand internal splices could be fabricated in advance. Methods
of applying preload, epoxy injection, attaching concrete patches, Concrete Gouges
casting concrete patches, removing loose and spalled concrete,
cleaning exposed strands, coating exposed strands, and sealing Two assessments are necessary, depending on how the girder
minor concrete nicks and gouges should be studied. was designed. If the girder was designed for zero tension bottom,
Replacement methods should also be studied prior to ac- a minor gouge can be assessed and repaired much the same as
cidents to facilitate fast action. a minor nick, spall, or scrape. The gouge should be cleaned and
Personnel responsible for repair designs should be trained sealed with two coats of a penetrating sealer. It may also be
prior to having to work under emergency pressures. packed with epoxy, but it must be remembered that the epoxy
The required speed of repairs may dictate replacement or has no precompression and may crack at the adjacent concrete,
repair-in-place techniques, and each agency's ability to respond due to LL + I stresses. It may be preferable to simply clean
to a particular situation may dictate the final decision. Climatic and seal minor gouges and leave them open for inspection. A
conditions may influence decisions affecting user inconvenience gouge is considered minor, if in the opinion of the engineer it
and speed of repairs. will not degrade durability if simply cleaned and sealed.
13
A gouge is assumed to have an approximate "V" or "U" epoxy injection. Epoxy resin is capable of injection into and
shape. Girders designed to carry tension (as much as 6 J) travel in a crack of only 0.002 in. (0.05 mm) wide. Cracks of
pose an additional problem. A gouge across the bottom of a lesser width are acceptable without injection. Epoxy injection
girder creates a stress raiser and the concrete may crack at a is described in detail under "Guidelines for Repair of Damage."
lower stress than 6 The crack could propagate upward to
or above the bottom layer of strands. It is recommended that
these girders be preloaded and then the gouge cleaned and Concrete—Loose or Shattered
inspected. If no crack propagation has occurred, the gouge can
be packed with epoxy grout or tilled in accordance with some
There is no specific limit on the amount of loose and shattered
other approved material. If a crack has propagated, it may be
concrete that can be removed and repaired in place. Loose and
necessary to either remove concrete to the root of the crack and
shattered concrete is usually accompanied with apparent strand
pack with epoxy grout or to inject epoxy resin in the crack and
damage, but this is not always the case. There have been inci-
epoxy grout the remainder. The preload is removed after the
dents of the entire bottom flange and web being shattered with
patch has gained the required strength. The "Guidelines for
no apparent strand damage (see Fig. 6). The only structural
Repair of Damage" contain a number of preload examples.
limitation is restoring original strength and durability. The dif-
ficulty of replacing girders that have been made continuous for
Concrete—Cracks live load is mentioned elsewhere in this report. The cost and
user inconvenience may lead to more use of repair-in-place
Cracks in prestressed members are repairable in place. Cracks methods. Extensive damage to either simple span or continuous
are categorized as to direction (longitudinal, vertical or diagonal) for live load girders can be repaired in place. Preloading is one
and as to location, within the precompressed live load tensile method of restoring compression in concrete. External post-
zone or outside (usually above) the precompressed live load tensioning is another. Metal sleeve splices can be used without
tensile zone. Even though vertical and diagonal cracks in the restoring compression, provided the concrete stress at the top
precompressed zone appear to be closed, it should not be as- of the sleeve and at the sleeve ends is within the allowable tension
sumed that the entire crack surface is in compression. If the for all loading conditions.
entire crack surface was in compression, it would not be possible
to inject the cracks. This means that epoxy resin injected into
these areas will not be in compression when LL + I loads are Strands or Other Prestressing Elements
applied and will generally recrack when live loads are applied.
The tensile stress due to live loads should be computed (do not A very high majority of the prestressed bridges in this country
deduct prestress); if the stress is greater than allowable, and it are prestressed with seven-wire strands, either 240 K or 270 K.
usually will be greater, then preload should be applied prior to This manual is, in the main, devoted to those bridges. Early
injection. Longitudinal cracks or cracks outside the precom- bridges may have had other types of prestressing elements. High-
pressed live load tensile zone do not require preload prior to strength bars or rods have been used. Single wires have had
limited use. Post-tensioned tendons consisting of a group of one severed strand. Few, if any, will allow more than three
wires or strands within a conduit have been used to prestress severed strands.
precast girders. They are presently used to prestress cast-in- There is no need for setting an arbitrary upper limit on the
place bridges. Combinations of post-tensioning and pretension- number of severed strands that can be spliced in place. The
ing have been used. Segmental bridges are a special category. limits will be controlled by the splicing technique used. Each
Harped strands are generally bundled throughout the middle splicing technique has an upper limit to its ability to restore
portion of girders. It is not possible, within the scope of this original strength and durability.
project, to provide specific guidelines for assessing damage to
all of these diverse elements. However, the principles of assess-
ment of strand damage and what to do about it will have Web Reinforcement
applicability to other prestressing systems.
Mild steel web reinforcement can normally be rcpaired in
place. Straightening bent reinforcing bars is one method. Cutting
Exposed and lap splicing with another bar is often possible. Welding bars
together has been used successfully. When welding, it is im-
Exposed strands should be carefully inspected for damage. perative that the prestressing strands be fully protected from
When these strands are undamaged, they need to be protected excessive heat or weld spatter. It may be done with asbestos
for durability. Methods for protecting strands are given under sheets. Web reinforcement is critical for ultimate loading; there-
"Guidelines for Repair of Damage." It should be remembered fore, fatigue is not a significant factor. Web reinforcement is
that concrete patches used to cover strands may crack because generally not larger than No. 4 or No. 5 bars, which expedites
of live load unless preloading is used. repair in place.
When a number of strands are exposed over long lengths
(more than a few feet), they will usually be accompanied with
loose and shattered concrete. After careful removal of the loose Member Displacements
and shattered concrete, a close inspection may reveal that many
or all of these strands have not suffered any apparent damage. Sweeping lateral curvature is seldom caused by vehicle im-
A number of engineers may have reasonable doubt as to whether pacts. This type of curvature is invariably caused during man-
these strands have been significantly degraded. A question may ufacture, storage, or construction, and becomes locked into the
also arise as to whether these strands have lost significant pre- bridge by placing diaphragms and roadway slab. When abrupt
stressing tension. As described under "Guidelines for Inspection lateral offsets occur because of impact loading, they are cause
of Damage," a length of one strand can be removed and tested. for considerable concern. Enough concrete should be removed
Also described is a method of measuring prestress. to determine the number of strands that also have an abrupt
offset. If the strand offsets are abrupt and appear to be per-
manent, the conservative approach is to assume that those
Damaged strands have excessively yielded and are no longer effective. The
metal sleeve splice is capable of splicing a large number of
A nick in one wire of a seven-wire strand is not considered strands and may be considered when the offset is small. The
serious. Even if the wire eventually cracks because of fatigue, width of sleeve would be increased to fit the girder. Girder
the failure will not cause propagation into the other wires. Other replacement would be a logical consideration.
more serious damage of strands often occurs, such as flattening, Vertical deflection is rarely affected significantly by impact
severed wires, and sharp bends. For purpose of assessment of damages. When a large percentage of strands has been severed,
damage and repair, these strands should be assumed as being downward deflection may occur. When a long length and large
severed. Closed vertical cracks in precompressed areas are an volume of concrete have been shattered with few, if any, severed
excellent indicator that covered strands in that area have not strands, upward deflection may occur. Longitudinal profiles can
yielded. The girder tests described in Appendix A required 22 be taken on the roadway surface over the damaged girder and
loading cycles to a maximum moment of approximately 75 per adjacent girder or girders. After correcting for roadway slope
cent ultimate moment. The maximum crack width varied from and other geometric factors, the deflection curves may be of
0.016 in. (0.4 mm) to 0.024 in. (0.6 mm). When test loads were limited value. Downward deflection may simply confirm the
released, all cracks closed to hairline width (approximately 0.002 fact that a large number of severed strands need to be spliced.
in. (0.05 mm)). Upward deflection may tend to confirm the fact that, although
a large volume of concrete has been lost, the strands are still
in tension. As a general rule, vertical deflections are too small
Severed to be of significant value.
Permanent twist or rotation can be caused by vehicle impacts.
It is believed that nearly all state bridge engineers have some Twist may also occur because of faulty manufacturing, storage,
minimum number of severed strands that they judge as being or construction. Twist due to impact loading will generally crack
permissible, without splicing or restoring strength. This judg- the girder longitudinally at the bottom of the top flange. It may
ment should be based on a stress calculation. It appears that also crack the girder at diaphragms. Permanent twist due to
fracture critical or nonfracture critical may be a consideration. impact loading will be concentrated in the area of impact. Gentle
More severed strands in a girder carrying sidewalk loading is increases in twist are generally caused by other factors. Per-
permissible by some states. All or nearly all states will allow manent twist may be accompanied with abrupt lateral offsets
15
at the bottom of the girder. Rotations are not justifiable cause area to restore compression in the concrete patch. The normal
for girder replacement provided the rotations are uniform in procedure would be to tension the strand splices, apply preload,
nature. Cracks caused by rotation are repairable. inject epoxy resin into cracks, patch concrete, and remove pre-
load after new concrete has gained required strength. Load Test
5 in Appendix A shows the methodology used. Load Test 5
GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF REPAIR proved the validity of restoring compression through the use of
METHOD
preload. The cracking load was not substantially less than the
cracking load for the original uncracked girder (49.7 kips com-
The purpose of these guidelines is to arrive at the best repair
pared to 55.1 kips). The difference could easily be explained by
solutions for any individual damage incident. A combination of
not having injected the cracks with epoxy resin.
repair methods may result in the best repair solution. The guide-
The amount of prestress that can be restored by preloading
lines for assessment and repair of concrete nicks, spalls, scrapes, appears to be relatively large. Twenty-five percent of the strands
gouges, and cracks are contained in "Guidelines for Assessment
were severed for Test 5 (4 out of 16). The preload required was
of Damage" and "Guidelines for Repair of Damage" and, there-
only 26.4 kips. The basis for amount and allowable preload
fore, do not need coverage in this section of the manual. Damage
should be a stress calculation. Generally, enough compression
assessment and repair of damage are interrelated. Anyone in-
can be restored to equal LL + I tension. During the tests de-
specting or assessing damage should thoroughly study the
scribed in Appendix A, the girder was test loaded to approxi-
"Guidelines for Repair of Damage."
mately twice LL + I. Cracks occurred that extended to within
a few inches of the bottom of the slab. These cracks did close
External Post-Tensioning
upon release of load. Preloading to the degree to preclude crack-
ing under this amount of overload should not be necessary and
External post-tensioning can be used to restore strength and is not desirable. Fatigue testing was not within the scope of this
durability to damaged girders. It can also be used to add strength project. Internal strand splicing as presented in this manual uses
to existing bridges that are deficient in load capacity. This commercial strand couplers. Studies made by Dr. Karl Frank
method should be suitable for splicing bundled strands or small of the University of Texas indicate that these couplers do reduce
tendons as well as a number of individual strands. The post- fatigue life. He has also made a study of methods to reduce the
tensioning elements are normally high-strength rods, 150 K fatigue susceptibility of these couplers. The improved devices
thread ear (ASTM-A722), or seven-wire strands. Concrete cor- are larger in diameter and may require staggered splices. Or-
bels cast against the girder are generally used as jacking points dinary splices should be used conservatively. Limiting splicing
(detailed in Figs. 9, 10, and 11 for splice 1 and Fig. A-13 in to 25 percent of the total number of strands may be a conserv-
Appendix A). The Washington State DOT uses a corbel similar ative figure. If all splices failed, the increase in stress would be
to Figures 13 and 14. They may extend the nonprestressed cap 33 percent.
to the girder end blocks for aesthetic reasons. A calculation
should be made to determine if preload is required. If preload Metal Sleeve Splice
is required, it should remain in place during patching of con-
crete, injection of cracks, and until required strength of concrete The metal sleeve splice detailed in this manual can be used
has been attained. Preload should be removed prior to post- to splice a large number of severed strands. It is also a good
tensioning. splice to use for repairing a girder with large volumes of loose
The strength of the jacking corbels will generally control the or shattered concrete (shown with splice 3, Figs. 15, 16, and
number of severed strands that can be spliced by post-tensioning. 17). This method may also be useful for splicing environmentally
The test results shown in Appendix A prove that corbels with damaged concrete. It will restore strength and durability. The
enough strength to splice four ' 2-in. diameter 270 K strands in plates are made of galvanized A-36 steel, which can be painted
an AASHTO Type III girder can be readily constructed. Corbel "concrete gray" after installation, for aesthetic reasons. Bond
lengths can be increased; however, most of the load transfer between sleeve and concrete is furnished by injected epoxy resin.
occurs near the face of the corbel. Corbel size and amount of The sleeve should extend 3 ft 3 in. minimum beyond the dam-
reinforcing could be increased, particularly for larger girders. aged concrete area. For splicing six strands or less, the sleeve
If corbels similar to Figures 13 and 14 are used, increase in should lap the severed strands 5 ft 3 in. minimum (see Fig. A-
stress due to live load will be transferred by bond, and stress 50). For splicing more than six strands, the sleeve should lap
at the corbel face should not increase beyond the initial jacking the severed strands 160-strand diameters, minimum, as detailed
load stress. It appears that splicing more than six to eight strands in Figure 15 Preloading is not necessary, provided the stress
might be difficult. at the top and end of the sleeve is within the allowable for all
loading conditions. The sleeve could be extended upward for
splicing web concrete. Bond stress could govern the allowable
Internal Splicing number of strands spliced.
used to splice individual strands in the same girder. The metal the allowable overload capacity of the bridge. One illustration
sleeve splice could be adequate for nearly all damages. However, of overload capacity for a repaired-in-place girder is shown in
it could be combined with other methods. Figure 7 and accompanying calculations.
It is not within the scope of this report to study the adequacy
of present bridge design procedures to carry the extra-legal loads
Complete Replacement that are operating under permits. A discussion of this subject
is given in Cassano and LeBeau (2).
Complete replacement of a member is normally the most Some agencies consider the location of a damaged member
expensive method of repair. Replacing a girder will require in assessing overload capability. If a member is located behind
removing a portion of the roadway slab. Replacement of a girder a barrier curb or under a sidewalk, it may not receive as much
made continuous for live load plus impact will be even more overload as an interior girder. This is a logical consideration.
difficult and expensive. The Minnesota DOT uses a method of For those agencies with Structural Design Language (STRUDL)
replacing simple span girders that requires a minimum of slab computer programs available, it is fairly simple to determine
and diaphragm removal. See "Guidelines for Repair of Damage" the load carried by an individual girder. No justification has
for girder replacement methods. been found to add additional overload capacity to the repaired
girder above that of adjacent girders.
Two methods shown in this report could be used to strengthen
Service Load Capacity existing spans or bridges. One is the metal sleeve splice, which
could be fabricated in segments and joined together by butt
Calculations should be made to show that repair of damaged welding. The other is the adding of additional prestress, similar
girders has essentially the same service load capacity as the to Figures 9, 10, and 11 shown with splice 1, and tested in Load
original girder. Minor differences could be accepted if justified Test 2.
(see section under "Overload Capacity").
Permit loads are loads that exceed legal limits but are allowed
Calculations should be made to show that repair of damaged
to travel on the highway under a permit issued by an authorized
girders has essentially the same ultimate load capacity as the
agency. There is variation in load permit policies from state-to-
original girder. Minor differences could be accepted if justified
state, and the details of these policies are not readily available.
(see section under "Overload Capacity").
The State Transportation Department of California has pub-
lished its permit policy (2) and the overload illustration (Fig.
Overload Capacity 7) uses this policy. California designs each new structure for
both HS-20 loadings and a loading system that has axle weights
The scope of this report is essentially limited to the repair of approximately 1.5 times HS-20 loadings. The overload moments
accidentally damaged prestressed concrete bridge members. The used in the illustration are based on California's loads and
overload capability of the repaired members should not reduce spacing of loads. The load distribution factors are assumed to
30"
Top of , -
_J ,-oadwaq slab,
f/,"4000ps'
C. 9. girder
'and slab
c.g. of /6
strands
112021709
be the same as AASHTO specifications. These factors may be 530 = 53 percent for the repaired girder, at the point
conservative. The following calculations are intended to provide of damage.
guidance in determining the effect of overload:
4. Calculate ultimate strength capacity of original girder:
Given: V. roadway slab = 4,000 psi.
girder = 5,000 psi. E. slab assumed to be 0.8 x E p* = A/bd = 16(0.153)/90(46.5) = 0.000585.
girder. f f, [1 - (0.5p*) (f'3/f')J = 270 [1.0 - (0.5)
For section properties and normal strand working loads, (0.000585) (270)/4.0] = 265 ksi.
see splice 2 under "Post-Tensioning." M = A f, d [1 - 0.6(p*) (f)/f'].
Girder spacing (S) = 7 ft 6 in. 4, Assumed to be 1.0.
Distribution = S/5.5 = 1.36. M = 2.45(265) (46.5) [1.0 - 0.6(0.000585) (265)/4.0]/
Impact = 27 percent. 12 = 2,460 ft-kip.
MLL + = 1,120 ft-kip (Overload).
5. Calculate ultimate strength capacity of repaired girder:
2. Calculate overload stress for the original girder: p* = A/bd = 19(0.153)/90(43.2) = 0.000747.
DL girder = 683 lb/ft. f = 270 [1.0 - 0.5(0.000747) (270)/(4.0)] = 263 ksi.
DL slab = 650 lb/ft. M, = 2.91(263) (43.2) [1 - 0.6(0.000747) (263)/4.0]/ 12
Total DL = 1,233 lb/ft (Not including corbel wt). = 2,670 ft-kip.
MDL = w12 / 8 = 555 ft-kip. Therefore, the ultimate strength of the repaired girder is
f,b0, (DL) = M/S = 555(12)/6,190 = 1,076 psi (t). greater than the ultimate strength of the original girder.
MLL +1 = 697 ft-kip (HS loading).
f, , (LL + I) = 697(12)/9,895 = 845 psi (t). 6. Calculate ultimate strength capacity required by 1977
f0, b., (Prestress) = P/A + M/S = 16(22 kips/strand)/ AASHTO Art. 1.6.5 (Load Factors):
559 + 16(22) (15.27)/6,190 = 1,498 psi (c). M = 1.3 [DL + 5/3 (LL + I)].
, (HS-20) = 1,076 + 845 - 1,498 = 423 psi (t). Mu = 1.3 [555 + 41.2 + (5/3) (697)] = 2,285 ft-kip.
Assume allowable f, = = 6J000 = 424 psi (t). Therefore, the ultimate strength of the original girder
f,,, (Caltrans Overload) = 1,120(12)/9,895 = 1,358 psi (2,460 ft-kip) and the ultimate strength of the repaired
(t). section (2,670 ft-kip) both exceed the ultimate strength
(Overload) = 1,076 + 1,358 - 1,498 = 936 psi (t). required by AASHTO Art. 1.6.5.
Allowable cracking stress per AASHTO Article 1.6.6 However, the AASHTO Manual for Maintenance Inspec-
7.5/ = 530 psi. tion of Bridges 1978 also allows rating of bridges with a
Therefore, the stress due to Caltrans overload exceeds the load factor method. The maximum allowable operating
allowable cracking stress by (936 - 530) (100)/530 = 77 moment = 1.3(MDL + MLL±I) = 1.3(555 + 41.2 +
percent for the girder as originally designed. 697)= 1,680 ft-kip (assume 4) = 1.0 for prestressed gir-
ders).
3. Calculate overload stress for the repaired girder: The maximum moment using Caltrans overloads = 555
a. Assume loss of concrete section to be negligible: + 41.1 + 1,120 = 1,716 ft-kip. Therefore, the Caltrans
f, (Prestress) = P/A - M/S = 13(22 kips per overload moment exceeds the allowable operating rating
strand)/559 + 13(22) (14.7)/6,190 = 1,190 psi (c). moment by (1,716 - 1,680) (100)/1,680 = 2 percent.
L (Added Post-Tensioning) = P/A + M/S = The Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges also
6(24.7 kips per strand)/l,l29 + 6(24.7) (16.9)/11,550 gives maximum allowable stresses for operating ratings.
= 350 psi (c). Article 5.4.6a (Prestressed Concrete) states that the Op-
f, (DL) = 1,076 psi (t). erating Rating shall result in moments not to exceed 75
ft (Weight of Corbels) = 41.2 ft-kip (12)/9,895 = 50 percent of the ultimate moment capacity of the member.
psi (t). In situations with wide vertical dispersion of the tendons,
f,, (Caltrans Overload) = 1,120(12)/11,550 = 1,160 the stresses shall not exceed 0.90 of the yield point stress
psi (t). in the prestressing steel in the layer of tendons nearest the
(Repaired Girder) = - 1,190 - 350 + 1,076 + extreme tension fiber of the member.
50 + 1,160 = 746 psi (t). 75 percent of the ultimate strength of the original girder
Therefore, the stress due to Caltrans overload exceeds = 0.75 (2,460) = 1,845 ft-kip. The maximum moment
the allowable cracking stress by (746 - 530) (lOO)/ using Caltrans overload = 1,716 ft-kip which would be
530 = 41 percent for the repaired girder. acceptable.
b. Assume 5-in, removal of shattered and loose concrete from The repaired girder does have vertical dispersion of
the bottom flange (Preload No. 4). Assuming preloading strands, and the approximate capacity is calculated as fol-
is not used, the only prestress at the bottom of the girder lows: the allowable steel stress in the bottom layer = 0.9
in the damaged area will be that furnished by the six post- yield point = 0.9(0.85) (270) = 207 ksi.
tensioned strands:
f (Added Post-Tensioning) = 350 psi (c). 7. Determine if section is cracked:
f1, b., (Caltrans Overload) = 1,160 psi (t). The normal working stress in the strands after losses
(Overload) = -350 + 1,160 = 810 psi (t). [0.7(270,000) -45,000] = 144 ksi. The change in strand
Therefore, the stress due to Caltrans overload exceeds stress 207 ksi - 144 ksi = 63 ksi; n for V. = 5,000
the allowable cracking stress by (810 - 530) (lOO)/ psi is 6.1.
18
SBPRE—Stress at bottom of the girder due to prestress only, Girder fatigue test series performed by Abeles and Barton
acting on the girder section (K/in.2 ), after all losses. (6) required static loading to be applied until the prestressing
steel began to yield slightly. At this point, the load was removed
INDENT NUMBER 1 DESIGN PROBLEM and complete failure was avoided. Almost complete recovery
PROBLEM 2, 6 HARPED STRANDS, 12 STRAIGHT was obtained with only slight or no visible damage in the com-
STRANDS pressive zone. The details of this test are too lengthy to describe
HARPED STRANDS RAISED here; however, the range and upper limits used indicate that
SPAN 57.33, SERIES 6, 6. GIRDER AT 6.92, 7.00 SLAB girder strands can be stressed to the yield point, and the load
WEB INCR 0.0, 0.0 IN ASPH. OVERLAY can be released and subsequently withstand a large number of
STRANDS 0.153, 270K, A = 2.75 fatigue loading cycles.
0.9 FT CURB S/5.5, AVFY = 16.00 In another fatigue test series of prestressed girders, Warner
FINAL DESIGN STRESS, BOT. CENTERLINE - 0.011 and Hulsbos (7) concluded that girder loadings causing flexural
(ALLOWED 0.0) cracks to open should not shorten girder fatigue life provided
FINAL DESIGN STRESS, TOP CENTERLINE - 1.563 the stresses induced in the strand reinforcement are smaller than
(ALLOWED —2.400) the fatigue limit. A following test series (8) of prestressed con-
FINAL DESIGN STRESS, TOP AT D/2 - 0.132 (AL- crete girders appears to verify the foregoing conclusion. This
LOWED 0.232) test series also gives an example solution of fatigue life for an
STRESS TOP AT HARP PT AT RELEASE 0.193 (AL- underreinforced prestressed concrete girder.
LOWED 0.212) Hanson et al. (9) carried out a fatigue test to obtain test
STRESS BOT. AT HARP PT. AT RELEASE - 2.714 (AL- information on the fatigue life of prestressed concrete I-beams
LOWED —3,000) that had been overloaded to cause flexural and inclined cracking
STRESS TOP AT D/2 AT RELEASE - 0.064 (AL- prior to repeated loading. Details and complete results are too
LOWED 0.212) lengthy to describe here. However, each beam was subjected to
STRESS BOT. AT D/2 AT RELEASE - 1.496 (AL- an initial static loading of approximately 80 percent of the
LOWED - 3.000) ultimate flexural capacity of the beam. This load was sufficient
(INCLUDES E. SHORTNING AND RELAXATION) to cause significant inclined cracking in both shear spans. The
GIR. CONCRETE STRENGTH AT STRAND RELEASE = beams were next subjected to repeated load cycles ranging from
5.000, AT 28 DAYS = 6.000 19 percent to 45 percent of the ultimate flexural capacity of the
WS = 0.719, WC = 0.139, E = 2,330, FCL = 10.000 specimen. Each beam sustained 2,000,000 cycles of this design
RISE IN HARPED STRANDS 28.250, FO = 3.750 loading. The equivalent tensile stress in the concrete was
COMPOSITE SECTION I = 025842., Y BOT = 33.81 6 ji The maximum flexural crack widths during this loading
FIG W = 83.04, Q SLAB = 5043. were less than 0.010 in. The cyclic loading was then stopped.
ULTIMATE MOMENT REQD 2300. AVAILABLE .2554. Subsequent cyclic loadings were applied at 48 percent to 54
ULTIMATE V AT END OF END BLOCK 148.8, V/BD = percent of the ultimate flexural capacity. These abve-design
0.682 (ALLOWED 0.731) loadings caused flexural fatigue failures at 458,000 to 1,201,000
STIRRUP SPACING AT END OF END BLOCK = 14.39 cycles.
ULTIMATE V AT CENTERLINE 49.7, STIRRUP SPAC-
ING = 116.12
GIR. D.L. END REACTION = 39.7, WITHOUT CURB OR Summary
ASPH = 35.6
BREAKDOWN OF STRESSES AT CENTERLINE SPAN The damage caused by an overheight vehicle impacting a
SBDG = 0.496; SBDS = 0.993; SBDC = 0.128; SBXML prestressed girder is complex to analyze. The effect on the fatigue
1.199, Live load plus impact stress in ksi; SBPRE = —2.827 life of the remaining strands, assuming that one or more strands
have been broken, may defy the use of a highly theoretical
analysis.
Fatigue Ljfe of Prestressed Concrete Beams The failure of a strand because of impact by a dynamic load
which also shatters surrounding concrete may be primarily a
The fatigue life of prestressing elements in girders that are shear failure or a combination of shear and flexure. Some strands
not subjected to cracking loads will be the same as bare strands may not have failed, but a visual inspection after removing loose
subjected to the same stresses. concrete may show permanent deformation. These strands
There are no known fatigue tests of beams that suffered con- should be deleted in computing girder strength. Individual wires
crete fractures because of overheight vehicle impacts. There have showing abrasion or damage should also be deleted. It is rea-
been fatigue tests of girders that have been cracked by test loads. sonable that adjacent strands may not have been stressed beyond
Rabbat et al. (4, 5) performed a series of tests primarily to the yield point. One practical way of telling whether the strands
determine the effect of repetitive loading on the behavior and have been stressed beyond the yield point is the following.
strength of girders with draped and blanketed strands. "Crack After loose concrete has been removed, a careful visual in-
formers" were placed at certain meaningful points. Cracks did spection should be made to determine whether other cracks in
occur at these points under service load tensile stresses equal the compression flange have "closed." (Closure means a hairline
to 6Vf-7, The minimum fatigue life for loadings that produced crack.) If these cracks have closed, it is reasonable to assume
a stress equivalent to 6N /f. was about 3 million cycles. The that the remaining strands have not been stressed beyond the
minimum fatigue life for loads that gave zero tension in the yield point. Although the research data available at this, time
concrete was 5,000,000 cycles. are not entirely conclusive, present data indicate that these
20
strands will have a fatigue life equal to that of the original girder damaged prestressed concrete bridge girders (PCB) to achieve
provided the following limitations are met: acceptable durability:
Repair procedures as outlined in this report are followed. All unsound concrete should be removed and surface prep-
If the original girder was designed for tension under work- aration should be such that new material placed will be com-
ing load stresses, the repair must be designed to at least with- patible with existing material. New material should have equal
stand these same tensile stresses with the same factor of safety. or better strength characteristics than original.
The maximum tensile stress in the concrete under working Epoxy bonding, epoxy grout, and epoxy injection materials
loads must not exceed 6 (AASHTO Article 1.6.6(B).) and systems should be fully tested and approved, and should
The maximum allowable prestressing steel stress due to be applied by trained personnel. Particular requirements con-
LL + I must be 10 ksi for 7-wire prestressing strands, grades cerning ambient temperatures must be observed.
240 K to 270 K. Additional reinforcement to bond new material to existing
The maximum tensile stress in the prestressing elements surfaces should be considered.
under working loads (after losses) must not exceed 0.6f. Preloading should be used (if necessary) to ensure that the
repair section will not be subject to greater tensile stress under
No recommendation is made regarding the fatigue life of live load than the original section.
accidentially cracked girders that were prestressed with high- Additional prestress force as required to ensure repaired
strength bars or rods. This is because there is sufficient fatigue stress levels are no greater than original design stress levels.
test data of girders stressed with high-strength rods or bars. It To further ensure durability, the repaired areas should be
can be concluded that damage that does not cause cracking sealed with a proven water retardant.
completely through the precompressed area containing high- Where repair design dictates, commitment should be made
strength rods should not reduce the original fatigue life. to perform periodic preventative maintenance.
The foregoing criteria for strands are expected to give a min-
imum fatigue life of approximately 3,000,000 cycles. The criteria
are practical for the most commonly encountered situations
within the scope of this study. The criteria are not intended to Cost
cover extremely short-span girders or short-span slabs that have
live load plus impact stresses that exceed 10 ksi. The repair cost of minor damage, such as nicks, spalls, scrapes,
See "Guidelines for Selection of Repair Methods" for com- gouges, cracks, and exposed strands, is relatively low. The repair
ments regarding fatigue susceptibility of internal strand splices. can normally be accomplished by agency personnel. The cost
of materials is relatively low. Most agencies have the necessary
equipment needed to make these repairs. Some traffic control
Durability. will be required. The estimate based on information and knowl-
edge gained during this project is that the repair cost of minor
A major concern expressed by bridge engineers relates to the and/or moderate damage (per girder) will not exceed 10 percent
durability of repairs to damaged girders. Various state-of-the- of the cost of replacing one girder.
art techniques used to improve durability are given in this man- The repair of severe damage, such as severed strands and
ual. It has been recognized throughout this research that du- major loss of concrete, will probably require the services of a
rability of repairs should be, as nearly as possible, equal to the contractor. The need for a contractor might depend on the type
durability of the original construction. The durability of struc- of repair (or splice) used. Splice 2 (the metal sleeve splice) and
ture components, such as roadway slab construction joints, ap- splices 4 and 5 (adding internal prestress) could all be accom-
pears to be accepted by bridge engineers in replacement projects. plished by agency personnel. Most agencies do not have the
The durability of repair-in-place projects appears to be less equipment to add external prestress, although this equipment
widely accepted. has been rented to make repairs.
Present practice substantiates the fact that epoxy mortars and Traffic control normally would be more extensive and costly
special concrete mixes are available that more than meet strength for repairing severe damage than for repairing minor and mod-
requirements of original material. It is recognized that a crack erate damage.
that has been caused by normal load cannot be structurally The number of severed strands may vary from one to as many
repaired by epoxy injection. Although the epoxy may not fail, as ten or more. The loss of concrete may vary from a small
a new crack will occur in the adjacent concrete if the member portion of concrete to most of the bottom flange. If more than
is subjected to the same load that caused the original crack. one girder per span is damaged, the cost per girder will normally
However, cracks in girders from collision are not caused by be less; however, increased traffic control may offset part or all
normal load stresses. Therefore, by applying preload prior to of the savings. Because of the foregoing variables, it is not
epoxy injection, and restoring prestress force, structural capacity possible to give precise cost data for the repair of severe damage.
can be restored which should restore durability. A study made On the basis of information and knowledge gained during
by the Kansas Department of Transportation (10) shows ef- this project, it is estimated that the repair cost of severe damage
fective use of epoxy to structurally repair stress cracks in nor- (per girder) will vary from 15 percent to 50 percent of the cost
mally reinforced concrete girders. Another study by the State of replacing one girder, depending primarily on the extent of
Highway Commission of Kansas (11) contains valuable infor- damage.
mation relative to physical properties of epoxies related to epoxy Cost information received from agencies relative to replacing
injection. damaged girders varied as given in the following tabulation
The following guidelines should be considered in repairing (costs are based on only one girder being replaced per bridge):
I1
Agency Cost per Girder Certain accidental damage to girders in completed bridges is
so severe that girder replacement is necessary. The types of
State of Washington $20,000 to $40,000
State of Iowa $30,000 girder replacements that are normally used give aesthetic results
State of Pennsylvania $100,000, that are equal to the original bridge.
State of Illinois $40,000 Most accidental bridge damages can be repaired in place.
State of Louisiana $50,000 to $55,000 These repairs should be judged on the aesthetic acceptability of
State of New Mexico $35,000 approx.
bridge details. The overall form or appearance is normally more
Province of Ontario, Canada $50,000
$48,000 average important than minor bridge details. If bridges are viewed by
pedestrians passing under the bridge, the aesthetics of details
May include higher traffic control cost. become more important. Pedestrians will have the visual time
Cost information relative to repairing girders in place is as and ability to notice details.
All of the methods of restoring strength illustrated in this
follows:
report are considered aesthetically acceptable details with the
Percent Cost of following possible exception.
Repair in Place Jacking corbels connected with post-tensioned rods may be
Agency Replacement viewed as being an undesirable aesthetic detail by pedestrians
State of Washington 50% (Major Repair) passing beneath the bridge. The motorist view of this detail
State of Illinois 10% would be of limited and short duration and, therefore, aesthet-
State of New York 50% (Major Repair) ically acceptable. Rejection of this detail for aesthetic reasons
State of South Carolina 20% should be considered when it will be seen in a near view by
State of New Mexico 15%
numerous pedestrians. However, jacking corbels can be extended
30% Average
for the full length of fascia girders and be aesthetically acceptable
Additional funds are deposited to provide for replacing epoxy patching at tO-year intervals.
for any location.
The emphasis placed on bridge aesthetics may vary between Selection of the repair method should be based on an objective
agencies, and it is acknowledged that opinions may differ as to analysis. The selection ofan appropriate repair method depends
what is poor, acceptable, or good bridge aesthetics. However, primarily on the extent and type of damage. Table 2 has been
general aesthetic guidelines are helpful in determining the aes- developed to help assess differences between repair methods used
thetic acceptability of damage repairs. to repair serious damage. Serious damage is defined as damage
Accidental damage that occurs during manufacture is nor- requiring splicing of strands and may be accompanied by damage
mally completely restored architecturally, and these beams requiring restoring major loss of concrete.
should be acceptable for their original intended use.
Splicing Tendons or
Excellent Excellent
Accomplishment of Work
Bundled Strands Limited N/A
Equipment Required mixes components and provides heat at the nozzle. Pressures
up to 150 psi should be sustainable. Pumping should begin at
Specialized equipment is needed for each method of repair. the lower end of the crack and continue until epoxy emerges
However, there are general types of equipment that are usually from the corresponding valve stem on the other side. Low trans-
needed for all repair work. Agencies that do much of their own fer pressure (approximately 15 psi) should be used in the be-
repair work generally have a hydraulically operated platform ginning, and as confidence in the structural strength of the beam
mounted on a truck. The simple access provided by free-standing concrete and epoxy paste is developed, pressures can be in-
scaffolding may be entirely adequate. In determining access, the creased as required. Other valves along the crack should be kept
high and low work elevations and foundation condition under open (without valves cores or caps) to allow observation of the
the work area are important access considerations. The least flow of fluid from the pumping station. When epoxy emerges
expensive means of good access should be used. from adjacent valves, the pumping station valve should be closed
and the pump moved to the ncxt valve indicatcd by the travel
of the epoxy. This procedure must be repeated until the crack
Concrete Nicks, Spalls, Scrapes, and Gouges
is completely filled. The epoxy should be allowed to cure without
disturbance for 24 hours at 70 F to 90 F, or longer if the ambient
Review "Guidelines for Assessment of Damage" prior to
temperature is lower. After the epoxy has been allowed to cure
repairing concrete nicks, spalls, scrapes, and gouges. As a min-
completely, the epoxy sealing paste and the valve stems should
imum, all minor nicks, spalls, scrapes, and gouges should be
be ground flush with the original concrete surface. Supervision
cleaned and sealed with two coats of a penetrating sealer. This
of this process by the manufacturer's representative should be
treatment is considered good practice to prevent the intrusion
required until the contractor is familiar with the products and
of moisture or other corrosive elements to the prestressing steel.
the operation. After completion of repair, consider sealing the
When a gouge has been assessed and found to require patch-
exterior face of the fascia girder with pigmented sealer.
ing, preload should be applied as appropriate prior to patching.
More than one type of patching has been successful. If an agency
is satisfied with a particular method of patching, continue to Major Loss of Concrete
use it. State Materials Laboratory approved epoxy mortar has
been used successfully. Agency approved epoxy adhesives have Major loss of concrete is defined as any loss that reduces
been used to prime existing concrete and then filled with epoxy clearance to prestressing steel or other reinforcing to the point
or concrete mortar. Gouge patches should attain required that, in the opinion of the Engineer, patching is required to
strength prior to removal of preload. preserve durability. No specific upper limit is placed on the
amount of concrete that can be repaired in place. Review
"Guidelines for Assessment of Damage." Loss of concrete with-
Concrete Cracks out loss of strands will generally require preloading prior to
patching. When loss of strands has occurred, preloading may
Review "Guidelines for Assessment of Damage" for preload not be required, depending on the repair method used. Internal
requirements. The following guidelines should lead to successful strand splicing must take place prior to patching and, therefore,
crack injection. Repair of structural cracks should be accom- preload will be required to restore compression in the patch.
plished by a company that has been engaged in this type of External post-tensioning may restore adequate compression in
work for at least 2 years. Certification should indicate that the the patched area, which should be determined by a stress cal-
personnel who will perform the repair are experienced in this culation. Use of the metal sleeve splice may not require pre-
work. The material for crack repair should be an epoxy resin loading, provided the sleeve adequately covers the area that will
adhesive capable of injection into and travel in a crack 0.002 be in tension. Typical calculations are included in this manual.
in. (0.05 mm) wide. All cracks to be repaired should be routed The construction of the patch itself does not depend on the
to a V-shaped cross section Y, in. deep along their entire length preceding factors. The following guidelines are recommended.
on both sides where cracks extend through. After completion Remove all damaged and shattered concrete to sound concrete
of all routing, cracks should be blown clean with a high-velocity as directed by the Engineer. One-half in. deep saw cuts should
filtered-air jet. The injection ports should be drilled with hollow be made in sound concrete to provide a minimum depth of
bits with vacuum attachment in order to remove the dust. Ex- patch. Extreme care must be used in concrete removal so that
treme care should be exercised to assure that cracks and drilled exposed prestress strands are not damaged. A chipping hammer
holes are open and not obstructed by dust or sand grains. The may be used away from strands. A rivet gun fitted with a
spacing of the entry ports for the epoxy resin adhesive should chipping tool may be used for fine work. The Engineer may
be selected so as to assure complete distribution of the material require removal of concrete adjacent to strands with hand tools
throughout the cracks. Six-in, minimum spacing and 16-in, max- only. Chemically clean all exposed strands. Exposed reinforcing
imum spacing are approximate guidelines. The entry ports may steel must be cleaned of heavy rust deposits by sand blasting.
be pressure fittings, tubeless tire valves, short lengths of 4-in. Restore bent and severed reinforcing steel. Prepared areas must
copper tubing, or plastic injection ports, as approved by the be cleaned and sand blasted free of contaminants immediately
agency. The entry ports should be sealed in place, and the prior to priming and patching with epoxy mortar. All loose
V-grooves should be sealed to a level flush with the beam surface. materials must be removed by dry sweeping and blowing out
All sealing epoxy should be applied with care to prevent leakage with clean, dry compressed air at 90 psi. When the clean and
during subsequent pumping and should be allowed to cure in dry areas have been approved by the Engineer, they must be
accordance with the manufacturer's directions. Injection should primed with an approved epoxy resin binder forming a 10 to
be accomplished with an injection pump that automatically 15 mil thickness. Exposed strands and strand splices (if any)
23
must be coated with epoxy resin. The concrete surface to be /. /8 go. Power
patched must have a temperature of at least 50 F and rising. W. W. if \ Oriveii Pi,
The epoxy surface should appear shiny and be tacky just before
new concrete is placed against it. If the concrete has absorbed Wire//es /
the adhesive, as evidenced by a dull appearance, apply another f+ N
\ \ \,ç++ \\
coat. Place approved epoxy mortar or concrete. Forms may be f i.
I
t + 4 / 1 '+++
required, depending on amount of concrete to be placed; see ++4.
Figure 8. Pneumatically placed mortar may be permitted subject p 1 11+4+ +4+ l4L++ +4+
++4++ \. )+j.++
to approval by the Engineer. Small expansion bolts (% in.) may IVIC-41
be used to help hold the patch in place, provided they can be
J
L Power t_/Mjn./I Alex.
located •to avoid strands. Strands and reinforcement will be 0P,Ve/,'°' EXP05eV 5TRAND5
present to engage larger amounts of concrete. NO EXPO.5D 5TRA/V05 No/c: Mh,.cm
'o WIVE
-C,
/4
Prestressing Steel and Concrete Repair
The repair procedure for splices 1 through 3 is similar. Recut This splice uses 4-ft-long jacking corbels located outside the
any broken ends of strands that are frayed. Use this new end damaged area. The jacking corbels should be located in an area
of strand in computing strand development length. Tie broken where holes can be drilled through the web without interference
strands in place. After removing loose concrete, epoxy grout with harped or draped strands.
the damaged area. Concrete repair areas (including the interface Between corbels the high-strength rods are protected by one
between the new repair and the existing concrete) must be ca- 2 -in. minimum inside diameter rigid plastic conduits that are
pable of withstanding the same tensile stresses that the original pressure grouted after post-tensioning. To protect exposed
girder was designed for. Strike off the external faces to the polyethylene conduits, coat with carbon black. Plastic tubes have
original shape. Repair other damage in accordance with guide- been an accepted means of blanketing strands near the ends of
lines in this report. Two of the splices require a roughened prestressed girders for many years.
surface at the interface between beams and corbels. These sur- The defined yield point of A722-75 bars is at total strain of
faces should be cleaned and roughened to a minimum depth of 0.7 percent and offset of 0.2 percent. These values are compatible
/4 in., and loose particles should be removed. Holes in webs or with ASTM-A416 strand properties. The corbel length of 4 ft
flanges should be drilled and located to avoid existing strands 0 in. was determined by using a minimum tie spacing of 7 2 in.
or reinforcing. Proceed with repairs as shown for each splice.
Post-Tensioning
Construction Procedure.
Splice 1 Apply preload as required (see Preload No. 2 under "Pre-
loading")
Description. Splice 1 (Figs. 9, 10, and 11) illustrates the use Repair concrete damage.
of two post-tensioned 1-in, diameter ASTM A722-75 smooth After concrete repair has gained required strength, remove
Grade 160 rods to restore the loss of prestress of four severed preload.
X-in. 270 K strands in an AASHTO beam Type IV. Construct jacking corbels and post-tension.
.90"
c.g. girder
t—Bearinq Plate r #4 bar
38"/oag.
,f-tensiomngand coo
oos C-b0f7 b/pk.
8" 9"
-' Jac/'ing Corbe/s,
•
see Detail '4"
4 A.s.TM
A722 - 75Rod5
&//o,n Laqer of _)
T '5bars tExpanston bolts -
ughen Surface
5fra/7d5 /2270K J2sckng Corbel Doma
(4 severed strands /60 ,5trad Diameters - Area
bottom /aqer) (Mm/mum)
AA.S/-ITO GIRDER TYPEIV ELEVATION
80/74S.
DETAIL "A'
Post - tension stress
0.6 f9 after losses
Pre tension stress
'(O.7fs -451(siJ
after losses.
L
CONDUIT SUPPORTS
Load Test 8 patch occurred at a test load of 49.7 kips, which was not sub-
stantially below the 55.1-kip cracking load of the original Un-
Load Test 8 in Appendix A was similar to splice 1 above. cracked girder. The difference could be explained by not
Two 1-in, diameter 150 K thread bars (ASTM-A722) were post- injecting the cracks. The research indicated that post-tensioning
tensioned to restore prestress lost by severing four -in. 270 K is a very successful way of repairing girder damage.
strands. All loose concrete was removed, primed with an ap-
proved bonding agent, and patched with concrete. Prior to
patching, five 3/8-in. expansion bolts were installed at an upward Splice 2
angle away from the strands in each side of the girder to help
hold the patches in place. The jacking corbels were cast in place Description. Splice 2 (l'igs. 13 and 14) illustrates the use of
against the girder (Appendix A, Figure A-13). No problems six post-tensioned /2-in. 270 K strands to restore the loss of
were encountered during fabrication, jacking, or testing (see prestress of three severed -in. 270 K strands in an AASHTO
Figs. II and 12). The jacking was incremental, 50 percent first beam Type III. The strands are post-tensioned individually and
side, 100 percent second side, and then 100 percent first side are protected from corrosion by a cast-in-place corbel which is
to preclude lateral tensile cracking of the girder flange. One of continuous for the full length of the splice.
the corbels was later tested to ultimate load, and the results are The Washington State Department of Transportation used a
shown under "Component Testing" in Appendix A. Preload similar splice to restore loss of prestress to damaged I-beams in
was not required to restore compression in the patch. Crack SR 5 Overcrossing No. 12/221 Bridge. Washington State's stan-
injection with epoxy resin was not a part of the test procedure. dard prestressed 1-beam shapes differ in shape from AASHTO
If this repair had been an actual girder repair, cracks would I-beam types.
have been epoxy injected. The first observed crack in the girder
Construction Procedure.
Apply preload if required (see Preload No. 4 under "Pre-
loading").
Repair damaged concrete and preferably cast corbels at this
stage.
After concrete has gained required strength, remove preload.
Post-tension.
90
/61
Baflom layerof
hen Sw-f"ce
strands i
4O/enq/h ea. end
(3 severed strands
in bc/lain layer)
AA3/4TO GIRDER TYPE 1ZT
v5 bars Grade G
1 field
ti,d ',/c end 2 ipira/
5"Disn,.)
inq P/ale
5"6
, 5xp0/-?.51 Of?
8c/1s.
Figure 12. Corbel construction for post-tensioned rods. Figure 13. Post-tensioned splice 2.
27
90"
20
72" Plate
6
34 ø
1 8o/t5
3"c.-c.
\
9. of eniire
C. l6
metal sleeve P/a/es
a. Top Plate Bolted and Bottom Plate Jacked into Position
Bottom Layer of
strands 72 0270K
t_
1$i __________
Metal
end of severed stranöT I o-----
Sleeve
---
Damaged Area
ELEVATION
b. Sleeve Splice Tack Welded
Figure 15. Metal sleeve splice.
Figure 16. Metal sleeve splice construction.
splice to use where loss of concrete occurs, but few if any strands in. thick metal spacers attached by tack welding to the inside
have been damaged. It will restore strength and durability. surface of the splice plates. The concrete interface must be clean.
No need has been found to recommend a maximum number The injection pressure will be nominal. No attempt has been
of strands to be spliced with this repair. The splice could be made to reduce the splice metal thickness to less than in.
extended upward to cover the entire web and most of the top (see AASHTO Article 1.7.7). If bolts must be raised to avoid
flange. Plate thicknesses and the splice development length could draped or harped strands, the top vertical plates and bolts may
be increased. It is probable that this splice could be developed require redesign.
to the point where it would splice an entire portion of a damaged The plates are galvanized A-36 metal. The inside surfaces of
beam. the plates (contact surfaces) must be scored vertically by wire
This splice does not restore prestress, although partial or full brushing prior to assembling. The brushing should be light
prestress may be restored by preloading. Preloading may not enough that it scores the surface but removes relatively little of
be necessary (see Preload No. 3). At the splice ends full original the zinc coating.
prestress will be restored. Any intermediate hairline cracks that Field welds are to be painted with zinc rich paint. For exterior
may occur are covered by the splice and should not reduce girders, the splice sleeves, in addition, should preferably receive
structure integrity or durability. one or more coats of "concrete gray" for aesthetic reasons. Even
Note that the mimimum length of the splice may be deter- though this splice is galvanized, or galvanized and painted, it
mined by the bond length required to develop the broken may require infrequent maintenance (depending on climatic con-
strands. The bond length shown agrees closely with AASHTO ditions) to ensure that its life is equal to that of the original
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges 1977. The strand girder. Agencies may opt to use galvanized or painted "weath-
is assumed to be bonded at the ends. ering steel" to prolong the life of this splice. In addition, 6-in.
Bonding of the metal sleeve to the beam would be by pressure thickness of metal loss due to corrosion may be deducted in
injection of epoxy resin. A clearance of/ in. between the metal calculating the strength of this splice.
sleeve and the beam must be maintained by the use of small 46- The plates may be either precut and welded or cut in the
29
Splice 3 Calculations.
Given:
Assume 10 severed strands in bottom layer.
Working strength per strand = [0.7(270,000) 45,000]
-
tested to ultimate load during Load Test 10 and found to be Weld P7L//5 /a
adequate. When splicing more than six strands, the lap should
be 160-strand diameters, as shown in Figure 15. The bottom
plate could be held in place with clamps, as shown in Figure F',e/d Weld
18 bottom. This method would be used with the bottom plate
being field welded. The bottom plate and vertical flange plates weld
could be held in place with clamps as shown in Figure 18 top.
This method would be used with the vertical and diagonal plates
being field welded together. Other clamping devices could be 7op De/cv7
used. Field welding should be kept to a minimum to reduce its
effect on galvanizing. The steel in Load Test 9 was galvanized,
and the inside faces were scored vertically. A spacing of >c6 in.
to the concrete was maintained by depositing 46-in. thick weld
deposits. Long-term fatigue susceptibility should be considered
when making any tack welds or weld deposits. Spacing plates
could be attached with adhesive. Six hours were required to
install and weld the plates together. Mi/s /cck welded /p/a/e
Bonding of the sleeve to the concrete was accomplished by
injecting epoxy resin between sleeve and girder. Sikastik 350 P/e/d we/a' 1 80/f
resin was used with two parts Sikadur HI-MOD LV-A and one We/a'
part Sikadur HI-MOD LV-B. Four staggered injection ports
were used in the bottom plate and three each side near the top
of the bottom flange. The ends and top of the sleeve were sealed 80tfom Dethil
with epoxy mortar; however, inspection openings were left at
intervals. When resin reached these levels, they were closed. Figure 18. Metal sleeve splice installation details.
Injection started near one bottom end of the sleeve; as resin
started flowing out of successive ports, fittings were installed
and injection followed the flow of the epoxy. The entire space modification. The transition from strand to rod is accomplished
was filled to the top of the sleeve; however, the resin did leak by using two additional steel splices.
down lX in. to the level of the transverse bolts. This leakage
could have been prevented by placing mortar around the bolts Construction Procedure.
heads and washers. The time required to mix and inject the Determine preload requirements (see section under "Pre-
resin was 46 mm. Seven gallons of resin were used. The resin loading" for guidance). If stresses permit, it is preferable to
flowed readily with the aid of a hand pump. It appeared that apply preload after stressing the splices.
the only pressure was the nominal head from bottom to top of Assemble splice, locating splice sleeves and strand grips to
sleeve. Thirteen X-in. transverse bolts were used. Because of the allow seating of the strand grips and sufficient thread length
nominal injection pressure, %-in. bolts at 1 ft 6 in. centers are in the splice sleeves. -
recommended. No problems occurred during fabrication, injec- Torque lubricated splice sleeve to approximately 22,000 lb
tion, or testing. The sleeve splice is an excellent way of repairing (the working strength of one strand). The strand grips must
a large volume of damaged concrete, or splicing a large number be prevented from rotating during torquing.
of severed strands. Repeat steps 2 and 3 for other severed strands.
Apply preload.
Repair concrete. -
Internal Strand Splices After concrete repair has gained required strength, remove
preload.
Splice 4
Splice 4 Calculations.
Description. Splice 4 (Figs. 19 and 20), illustrates a method 1. Given:
of splicing a single 2-in. 270 K strand. A number of strands Working strength per strand = [(0.7)(270,000 -
could be spliced in one girder. One advantage of this splice is 45,000)1(0.153) = 22 kips/strand.
that it restores strength internally. Combined with preloading, Splicing rod = 1-in, diameter threaded rod ASTM-A722
it should completely restore the beam to its original condition. Grade 150,f', = 150 psi.
The strand spacing is assumed to be 2 in. both vertically and An,, = 0.551 in.'
horizontally. This spacing is the predominant spacing used for f, (Allowable) = 0.6(150,000) = 90,000 psi.
2-in. strands. It is possible that this method could be used for f, (@ Working Load) = 22,000/0.551 = 40,000 psi
l 3/4-in. strand spacing also. (40,000 = 90,000).
The stressing is accomplished by torquing the splice to ap-
proximately the working strength of adjacent strands. This load 2. Calculate ultimate strengths:
may be approximately 22,000 lb for 2-in. 270 K strands. The Ultimate strength of 4-in. round 270 K strand =
severed strands must be accessible. If several strands must be 270,000(0.153) = 41,300 lb.
spliced, splicing would start with the innermost strand first. Ultimate strength of splicing rod = 150,000(0.551) =
The strand grip shown in Figure 19 does not require any 82,600 lb.
J1
-
/- Threads—_ ____________
Threads _
-f 2
r— -
L
J
L_6 Threads Engaged
End of Wed9e\
and Strand Pr/or to Torquing —
7ii-eaded to Stops
Threaded Coupling I" Neat Treated Rods 6i"Long
COMPLETED SPLICE 45TA't4-322 f's '127ksi,14,"1/ORs(
Note
Vary rod lenqths9~~i~
m:::: l
as necessary ,',,'y,,"'
e gth 5tr
I n
"
Wedge Assembly Strand
for required Steel ,So/ice (Inside Th read] '—Sprhig Cap
splice length. for Rod and Coupling) -Sprinq
.f4ND GRIP DETAIL 5 Threaded Coupling
-ta
Figure 20. Single-strand splice detailed in Figure 19 and used in load lest No. 5.
f, (at Ultimate Load) = 41,300/0.551 = 75,000 psi removed as necessary. During Load Test 4, enough concrete
(75,000 psi < 150,000 psi). was removed to sever four strands with an electric sander. Dur-
ing Load Test 5, enough additional concrete was removed to
install the four single strand splices. Concrete was removed with
Load Test 5 a chipping hammer, and for careful removal near strands, a
chipping tool attached to a rivet gun was used. The strand splices
Load Test 5 in Appendix A was similar to splice 4 above. were installed, as shown in Figure 20. Threads were lubricated
Four single-strand splices were used to splice and restore pre- with a spray-on graphite-based lubricating material. All four
stress lost by severing four 2-in. 270 K strands. Concrete was strands were tensioned to 24.1 kips per strand, which was ap-
32
36"
VVi-e,-,ch -I Special
VV—et,ch
Figure 22. Special Wrench for torquing strands in load test No. 5.
33
Construction Procedure.
I. Determine preload requirements (see section under "Pre-
loading" for guidance). If stresses permit, it is preferable to
3rd 5p/ce Shown
apply preload after stressing the splices. ,n"PLAN V/EW' EVA7/0Ns-7RAN5FERPLATE
Insert rod or bolt through transfer plates and connect sleeve, 5EC 7/ON ',4,4"
leaving ample take-up in sleeve. ( 5evereo' /rands)
Insert strands with swage fittings through transfer plates and
Figure 23. Two-strand internal splice detail.
connect strand splices.
Torque lubricated splice sleeve to approximately 44,000 lb
(the working strength of two strands). A groove has been
provided to prevent the grip nuts or bolt head from turning
when torque is applied. The transfer plates must be prevented Splice 5 Calculations.
from rotating. Given:
Repeat steps 2 through 5 with other pairs of severed strands. Working strength per -in. diameter 270 K strand
Apply preload. [0.7(270,000) 45,000] 0.153 = 22 kips/strand.
-
Repair concrete. Working stress per splicing rods, ASTM Grade 160
After concrete repair has gained required strength, remove 0.6(160,000) = 96,000 psi.
preload. One 1-in, diameter threaded rod, A = 0.551 in!
PV
.:.&
_q4,q1q
2. Calculate stresses in splice components: be taken not to apply excessive preload to the point where
Splicing two strands f = 22,000(2)10.551 = 79,900 psi cracking of the remaining girder section may occur. Examples
< 96,000 psi. of preload are shown in Figures 27 through 30.
Ultimate strength per 3/2 in. diameter 270 K strand = Dead-load weight of curb and rail base is not included in the
270,000(0.153) = 41.3 kips/strand. samples. For actual bridge repair designs, any portion of curb
Ultimate stress per splicing rod = 160,000 psi. and rail base weight carried by the beam being repaired should
Ane = 0.551 in.' be included in the calculations. Normally this weight acts on
Splicing two strands t = 41,300(2)10.551 = 149,900 psi the composite section.
< 160,000 psi. Preload may be applied either by means of a loaded vehicle
or by vertical jacking. One means of providing preload by jacking
3 Calculate stresses in transfer plate: is shown in Figures 25 and 26. Providing preload this way
ASTM-A517 1/4 X 33/2 X 2-in, thick. requires less roadway width, which could be an advantage. If
(Net width = 1/4 in. - 1 in. = 3/4 in., net thickness = 2 preload is provided by a single jack, consideration should be
in. —>'4 in. groove = 13/4 in.). given to the temporary stresses induced in other bridge elements.
S = bd2/6 = Y4(l_3/4)2/6 = 0.383 in.' Part of the jacking load will be transferred through the slab and
Working strength moment = P1/ 4 = 22(2)(2)/4 = 22 diaphragms to adjacent girders. If a conclusion is reached that
in. -kip this transfer of stress will cause excessive stress in the slab and
t = M/S = 22/0.383 = 57.4 ksi. diaphragms, more than one jack should be used, with reasonable
f (Allowable AASHTO Table 1.7.1A) = 55 ksi (O.K.) longitudinal spacing (14 ft is suggested).
Ultimate strength moment = Pj/4 = 41.3(2)(2)/4 < Measuring flexural elongation with a strain gage or similar
41.3 in.-kip. device is probably the most accurate way of determining the
f = Ma /S = 41.3/0.383 = 108 ksi. actual amount of preload being carried by the damaged beam.
f (Allowable AASHTO Table 1.7.1A), F = 100 ksi If preload is applied with a loaded truck (or trucks) having
(O.K.) weight distribution similar to AASHTO HS loadings, AASHTO
Because of dimensions, plate moment will be less than 22 distribution factors are considered to be sufficiently accurate to
in-hp. determine the preload carried by a particular girder.
The transportation departments of Florida, Washington,
Two-Strand Internal Splice Texas, Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, New York, and the
province of Ontario, Canada, have reported that they use preload
This splice, as described above, was not tested as a part of to improve damage repairs.
the girder tests. However, it was tested as a component test.
The results are shown in Appendix A. A plot of splice tension
versus torque is shown in Figure A-li. For the reasons given
in Appendix A, the single-strand splice is regarded as being 5"ee/ 8e,v's
superior. Unless clearances mandate the use of the two-strand
splice, the single-strand splice is recommended. 5tee/ Rod
5ee/ 9ea-in
8,-a-ce a5semb/,,
IiTI
Preloading
/ai'ercil/y if
Shim-_.J tecesSaP'/
Preload is simply the application of a temporary vertical load
during the repair-in-place of a damaged prestressed member.
There have been damage incidents where a significant portion
8/ockir,
of girder concrete has been lost, but few, if any, of the pre-
stressing elements severed. Preloading can be used in many
instances to restore the girder to its original condition without
adding prestress.
The section properties of the remaining cross section of the
girder should be computed. If the maximum allowable com- Damaged
pressive stress in the reduced bottom flange is exceeded, enough Girder -
preload during repair must be applied to bring this stress within
allowable limits. Assuming the beam is a simple span, the max-
imum compressive stress would occur under dead load (live load Wood Shim
would reduce the stress).
Preload may be used to restore partial or full prestress to the Sfee/ 8 came
repaired area, which may be needed to reduce or eliminate
tension under live load plus impact. The restoring of prestress
is also very valuable from a durability standpoint. The need for SECT/ON ADJACENT TO P/5R5
preload should be calculated for any girder that is repaired in (Near 5par Ero'e)
place and has a significant loss of concrete. Preloading may also
improve the repair of girders with severed strands. Care should Figure 25. Preload by vertical jacking.
35
90" • 815 psi tension minus 293 psi compression = 522 psi total
tension.
20" • Assume allowable tension = 6 Ji' = 6 15W , 424
psi.
Net tension in excess of 424 psi 522 - 424 = 98 psi.
9. girder
and slab 3. Determine if preloading plus the added post-tensioning can
[1
C. 9. 9itder and I I reduce the LL + I tensile stress to 50 psi, the same as the
slab rn/mis
q damaged girder original girder design:
. damaged area
Assume that prestress plus dead load of girder and slab
øpost-
act on the damaged girder section alone,
I
tensioned rods g
__________________ original (Prestress) = 30(22)/659 + 660(22.63)/7,610 =
girder 1,000 psi + 1,960 psi = 2,960 psi (c).
I1- I L-c.g. of 30
(Dead Load) = 1,329(12)/7,610 = 2,100 psi (t).
2,960 psi compression minus 2,100 psi tension = 860 psi
compression.
Assume that prestress plus dead load of girder and slab
act on the composite damaged girder and slab.
5i. removal of I I
shattered and remaining strands f,,, (Prestress) = 30(22)/1,127 + 660(34.33)/11,230 =
loose concrete _J 26"
/
/
586 psi + 2,018 psi = 2,604 psi (c).
L.4 severed strands
f,.t (Dead Load) = 1,329(12)/11,230 = 1,420 psi (t).
in bottom layer
2,604 psi compression minus 1,420 psi tension = 1,184
4 severed strands in the bottom layer
Splice No.! be/,q used. psi tension.
AA5//TO GIRDER TYPE JY Additional stress needed to reduce tension to 50 psi under
LL + I = 815 psi - 293 psi - 50 psi = 472 psi.
Figure 2& Preload No. 2. M = fS = 0.472(15,570)/12 = 612 ft-kip.
P 4M/E = 4(614)/85 = 28.9 kips.
j 28.9 kips preload per girder
If preloading is not used, the tensile stress in the repaired J 85-ft span
area at the bottom of the girder would be 815 psi, the f, preload at bottom of damaged section = M/S =
tensile stress due to LL + I. The normal allowable tension 612(12)/11,230 = 654 psi (t).
= 6J (AASHTO Article 1.6.6(B): 6/T = Minimum compression at bottom of damaged section =
6J005 = 424 psi. 815 psi - 424 psi = 391 psi greater 860 psi compression minus 654 psi tension = 206 psi
than allowable. Or 815 psi tension = 11.5.J', which is compression (with 28.9 kips preload).
exceedingly high (see AASHTO Article 1 .6.6B), and would
likely crack the repaired area. 4. Review result:
Overloads would increase the probability of cracking. f at bot. of repaired girder = f, (LL + I) + f (Post-
Therefore, preloading is necessary and should be placed Tensioning) + f (Preload) = 815 psi - 293 psi - 472
on the girder prior to replacing the lost concrete. The = 50 psi (t).
preload should remain on the girder until the repair has Therefore, post-tensioning plus preload restores the full
gained required compressive strength. loss of prestress due to four severed strands plus loss of
concrete section.
Preload No. 2 Calculations (Fig. 28) Procedure: Place preload prior to replacing the lost con-
1. Given: crete. Keep preload on the girder until the repair has
f girder = 5,000 psi. E. slab assumed to be 0.8 X E, gained required compressive strength. Remove preload and
girder. proceed with post-tensioning.
Note: girder, span length, girder spacing, loading and sec-
tion properties are the same as Preload No. 1. Preload No. 3 Calculations (Fig. 29)
MLL ± I = 1,058 ft-kip. 1. Given: -
MDL = 1,329 ft-kip. f girder = 5,000 psi. E. slab assumed to be 0.8' x E
Compression at the bottom of the damaged girder will not girder.
be excessive. The loads and damaged area are the same as Note: girder, span length, girder spacing, loading and sec-
Preload No. 1, and the remaining prestress is less. tion properties (prior to placing metal sleeve) are the same
as Preload No. 1.
2. Determine if preloading is required: MLL + = 1,058 ft-kip.
The only prestress at the bottom of the girder in the dam- MDL = 1,329 ft-kip.
aged area will be that furnished by the two 1-in, diameter Compression at the bottom of the damaged girder will not
post-tensioned rods. be excessive. The loads and damaged area are the same as
f,, (Post-Tensioning) = P/A + M/S = 142/1,257 + Preload No. 1, and the remaining prestress is less.
142(19.8)/15,570 = 293 psi (c). Assuming preloading is not used, there will be no prestress
f, (LL + I) = M/S = 1,058(12)/15,570 = 815 psi (t). at the bottom of the girder in the damaged area.
37
ing the girder to be lifted up and out of the structure. Sufficient Renove
to here
length of reinforcing steel is required to be left in place, extending -3/OBra'cs
from the slab and diaphragms, to provide lap requirements.
Prior to concrete removal, saw cuts are made in the slab to
obtain good break lines in sound concrete. Although some agen-
cies make the cut line at the centerline of the girder that is left
in place, most agencies cut the slab at the quarter point of the
slab away from the girder that is left in place. The authors have N
V Cu/sb/sr K
a preference for the latter location because lower stresses should p4.w000' for
be expected at this point. Removal at this location does not bracing 1(Q
involve the girder stirrups. When damage requires that removal
be accomplished in two stages, Iowa DOT designs falsework
bents to facilitate traffic movement, as shown in Figure 31.
FIRST STAGE REMOVAL 3ECO/VD STAGE REMOVAL
Olt am
2aF53
\
L e ve/
Th
" Roots
36 VF /50 -
'16"P/ar?.k—
Figure 32. Support system for removing facia girder from below. (Courtesy of Minnesota DOT)
Sole
GIRDER-HALF ELEVATION
Remove concrete
/eav/g a/I rein fo'-cemen / L
3'
Fa/sework to fl in place. Roadway
stay in p/ace t (Typ.)
until 3000 psi
NOTE: A minimum
attained. ________________ amount of transverse
deck steel at girder
ends may be cut
Provide continuous to permit p/acing
temporary support new girder.
before removal
Remove concrete and bend
Provide temporary reinforcement to permit
support at diaphragms p/acinq of new girder.
I-/ALP ROADWAY SECTION
Figure 33. Removing interior girder from below. (Courtesy of Minnesota DOT)
41
full live load plus impact stress. This tensile stress may be high
enough to cause cracking and thus reduce durability. The need
for preload should be established by a stress calculation. Ad- #3 Dowe/.
ditional reinforcement should be installed, as shown in Fig-
ure 34, where significant amount of new concrete is required.
Bonding agents and epoxy injection should be used to improve
durability. 01, !F
BEAM CORNER
38czr 31-1/n. REPAIR
BOTTOM BEAM
,bANGE REPAIR
'9 43ar
/RDER
#3 Bar
TYPICAL REPAIR
CAP CORNER5
3O' 8ac/cngIE
R. else channel
'n p/ace of back/,,g where
damaged areas are oppo5i/e.
TYPICAL BEAR/NC 5EAT
DAMAGE REPAIR
APPENDIX A
LOAD TESTS
SUMMARY load plus test load, was carried by the cracked section. The full-
scale load test results are summarized in Tables A- 1 through
The full-scale tests have been described under tasks 2 and 3 A-6 as follows:
in the "Background" discussion of Chapter One. All full-scale
load tests were successful. Loading cycles for each test were Table A- 1 shows the applied test load for each test. Figure
repeated until corroboration was attained for successive cycles. A-i shows the girder elevation.
Tests were also compared to previous similar tests. Test data Table 1 in the "Commentary" (Chapter One) shows the
were verified with calculated data; the methodology used is ratio of the applied test load moment to the AASHTO speci-
shown for Tests 1, 5, 8, and 9. The girder became a cracked fication live load moment.
section near centerline of span during the first cycle of Test 1. Table A-2 shows the ratio of measured deflections due to
Dead load redistribution did occur and the entire load, dead the maximum test loads to the computed deflections from crack
42
1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10
ra x
partiaim
!1 11 fl
30.5 31.9 19.8 30.5 30.5 26.7
Cycle
Last Cycle 90.4 114.7 85.4 57.9 82.3 112.7 57.9 89.7 92.0 166.8
A partial 'working in" cycle was used for all new tests.
Three cycles were used for all tests that had concrete patching prior to testing in order to
oitain corroboration between the 2nd and last (3rd) cycles.
Computed
1.01 0.96 0.90 0.55 0.76 0.93 A 0.72 0.73
Deflection
(in.)
A Crack widths not representative due to bursting of concrete at severed internal strand splices.
No attempt made to calculate deflections. Residual deflection after testing was 1.48 in.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N 9 10
Crack Widths *
0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 6.4
in mm.
Crack Widths
in inches. 0.020 0.016 0.020 0.020 0.028 0.028 • 0.024 0.016 0.252
*Crack width not representative due to bursting of concrete at severed internal strand
splice.
the steel sleeve were developed from strain gages attached to Table A-4. Ratio of measured moments to applied moments at centerline
the bars and sleeve, span.
First Load Cycle Last Load Cycle
the strand was accessible for torqueing. Normally strands are Test No. 6 1.04 0.98 1.05 0.98
damaged from the exterior strands inward to the interior strands. Test No. 7 1.28 1.20 1.26 1.16
The splices would be installed working from interior strands Test No. 8 1.14 1.02 1.14 1.03
toward exterior strands. A broken interior strand surrounded Test No. 9 0.88 1.00 0.88
0.98
by unbroken strands would not have enough access to permit
Test No. 10 1.12 1.05
torqueing. Test results are given in Table A-7, in "Component (one cycle Only)
Testing." Strand tension versus torque is shown in Figure 21, Measured Moments have been developed from the recorded strains at span.
and the installed splice is shown in Figures 20 and 22 in Chapter
Using oaximun strains, initial strains in top slab are not
Two.
modified for creep.
A successful two-strand splice was developed. This splice
could be used for splicing any number of pairs of strands pro- Same as (1) except initial strains in slab are modified for creep.
vided each pair was accessible for torqueing. This splice required Applied Moments Ptest(60)
kip ft. )DLM)
the use of a 1,000-ft-lb torque wrench to attain 49,400 lb of
Ratio should be n 1.0
tension in a pair of strands. This tension is approximately equal
to the working load. A 500-ft-lb torque wrench attained a tension Ratios v Measured M/ipplied U
Test - Sleeve
Stress 14.8 31.3
p
Applied Moment
m, ,i .',r q1.,, 2488
=
Strands
o(1)
209 216 179 179 213 218 235 237 217 212 195 195 263 2591 234 235 159 1541 193
of f's
f's 270
77% 8091 66% 668 1 818 81: 37% 88% 1 80% 70% 72% 73% 978968 1 87% 87% 59% 51 71%
Strands
£8 2
209 2151 172 166
o______________ 210 210 1224 223 1 205 197 1 182 179 1246 2391 202 203 123 1111 155
of f's
f's 270 77% 804 64% 61% 78% 78% 183% 83% 75% 73% 67866% 91% 89% 75% 75% 46% 414 57%
Stramds
Gag
__e 110
198 200 194 194 196 196 200 201 1 193 192 192192 199 201 199 199
Strain Gage
f's =
8 of f's
270
73% 74% 72% 72% 73% 73% 1748 74% 72% 71% 71% 71% 74% 74% 74%
"Over Range"
Strands
Gage 111
1 207 2091
_______
202 203 1 205
________
205 1211 213
I
201 200
_________
200 2130 1 212 212
_______ _______
1 209 209 1170 1701
I
181
F I I
7 of f's 77% 77%1 75% 75% 76% 76% '78% 79% 74% 74% 74% 74% 79% 79% 77% 77% 63% 6381 67%
f's = 270 I
F (.5) (2) (2) (2) i) )ij
Thread I 112
I I 112 114 11 115.5 115.5
Bars
8 of Fy
I-
k
((4) (4)
88% 88%
I.
(4) (4) I
89% 89%
(4) (4)1
91% 91%
i
-'
Steel I
Sleeve I 114.2 14.8 31,3
I I
8 of Fy I
I I I 39% 4181 87%
Fy=36
ausas VII sal;, OLIUS UT rurcms = zero kTor comparison).
Lrit aSCII. 5- a iris ,IULUCUULCeU III Lap SIOU.
Same as (1) eacept creep portion of strains deducted in top slab. Generally closer to 75% f's than (1).
5.. 5 ksi bending stress added.
Percentage should not exceed 90%.
X
DL girder moment - (0.602)(60)2 = 270.9 ft-kip.
8
= (270.9)(12)=
bottom of girder 525 psi (t).
6,190
cg. O,rdsr Slab
f. top of girder = (270.9)(12) = 641 psi (c). - .!I
5,072
(0.630)(60)2 7
DL slab moment = _________ = 283.5 ft-kip.. , c.9'. Girder
8
f, bottom of girder = (283.5)(12)= 550 psi (t). /6 straight .5trar,d5
6,190
IrH
N
f, top of girder = (283.5)(12) = 671 psi (c). LINN - C.g.Of5traiWlS
5,072
HS-20 moment = 697 ft-kip (girder spacing (S) 7 6 i-I
ft 6 in., distance = S/5.5). 5pacing2" L 22"
= (697)(12)
f, bottom of girder = 845 psi (t). Spai-, Ler,g,'h e0 ft
9,895 f'c 91ro'er = 5000 psi
(697)(12) gira'er 4000,051,
f. top of girder 27,217 - 307 psi (c). f'c slab 4000,05/
2705trards, As=0./53/s/rar'd
ffc slah assc,,,,ed ,'a be 0.8 5c gi>-o'ei-
fc top of slab = (697)(12) = 474 psi (c). MOL 270. 9X?
17,654 Mø Slab 283. 5 Xf 554.4
b. Strands tensioned to 0.7 f', A, = (0.7)(270)(0.153) = Al 115 20 14'Z
28.9 kips:
Total DL + LL stress = 1,074 + 845 = 1,919 psi - AA 5HTO G/R9ER
(t). Figure A-2 Test girder design.
Assume strand loss = 45,000 psi.
LTOP of [, 7 [\ttom of
Girder I/ ,
Girder
H
79
7 525
c /554 C,029 T550 C4
#4 ties
6 bars lu/I length- 32 to/al
4 stirrups
) /38 to/al
12'
9 #4Nafrp,
®4fota/
*1
3 bar a/ stirrups
69 tota/
VIEW AT SPAN ENDS
SECT/ON AT MID-SPAN
/6 straight strands - to/al
=- /O0"/ong
Pro v,o'e h/f/tog hoops
1C// length
/
(7)z 5tirr'ps d ()#3 7
55pa.3'=/!3"
9Sp4" 7" I
/ I /
/95a.ê/3'239"
® Ties
COMPONENT TESTING
b. Special Wrench
Single-Strand Internal Splice Figure A -8. Component test of single-strand splice.
Max.
2 rencti
orqxe
- 302 350 333 400
/4JW.n. -
at a load of 40.1 kips, equal to 262 ksi. No evidence of distress
occurred at the swage fitting.
A 6-in, long steel sleeve was used as a turnbuckle to tension
the two-strand splice. Threads were lubricated with a spray-on
graphite-based lubricant. The first test was a preliminary cycle b. Sanopling of Equipment Used
using a 500-ft-lb torque wrench. Torque was then applied with
a 1,000 ft-lb, 64-in, torque wrench. The same 16-in, long special Figure A-9. Strand break and equipment for single-strand splice.
wrench used for the single-strand splice was used to connect
the torque wrench to the turnbuckle sleeve, shown in Figure
22.
The same test data, as obtained for the single-strand splice,
were recorded for the two-strand splice. The splice was tested
to failure after the last test cycle, and failed at 81 kips with the
load in each strand being 40.5 kips. This load equates to 265
ksi in each strand. Failure mode occurred by breaking one strand
near its midpoint after one wire failed in a swage fitting allowing
that strand to slip. Figure A-lU shows the two-strand splice
Table A-8. Two-strand splice test.
being tested and the failure mode. An examination of the test
results shown in Table A-8 indicates a large decrease in tension
2nd 3rd
per ft-lb of torque between the first and last cycles. This decrease 0-iximue Torque -
500 1000 700
may have been partially due to increased abrasion of threads. leOch - It. lb.
During the second and third cycles the load per strand varied- .uxiriux Torque -
722 1227 859
Total - ft. lb.
14 percent deviation for the second cycle at 49.4-kips maximum
niximum Tension in 49,600 30,250
40,750
load, and 29 percent deviation for the third cycle at 30.25-kips Two Strands - lbs.
maximum load. This deviation caused some misalignment which Tension - lbs. for 722
40750 34,300 26,700
it. lb. of Torque
may have also decreased the tension per ft-lb of torque. Tension
Tension_- lbs. per ft. 47.5 37.0
56'
in pounds per inch of splice shortening is quite consistent; how-
ever, this consistency may be misleading. The amount of seating Thi-Os for 722 ft. lb.
3.50 2.22 2.22
strands is approximately 49 kips. It is unlikely that a pair of
ensiorm per turn in 11,460 15,450 12,030
broken strands should be prestressed to a higher load. This load
was attained during the second test cycle but not during the Oplice Shortening in
onches for 722 lbs. of 0.719 0.584 0.521
third cycle. The recess in one transfer plate became damaged
to the point where it would not keep the rod nut from turning. Tension in lbs. per 56700 58,700 51,200
prmch of Shortening
A deeper recess, or use of a square nut, may have prevented
50
Concrete Corbels
36.9 kips, three load cycles with a maximum load of 127.8 kips, f"(Cos. 25) = /4.50
and a last (fourth) load cycle with a maximum load of 186 kips. = 1227
64
Corbel 2 was subjected to the same loaditig with the exception
of two intermediate load cycles to a maximum load of 127.8
kips. The approximate capacity of the 100-ton ram used was
186 kips. The partial cycle was used as a working-in cycle and Spec/a/
to check uniform bearing at the corbel faces.
Corbel 1 developed an observable crack of 0.1 mm at the
fillet interface when the load reached 98 kips (equaling 0.77 V.
or 0.9 fr ). This crack opened to 0.2 mm at 127.8 kips, as observed
by a lox lens. The crack remained the same width at 186 kips.
This load exceeded the ultimate design load of 127.5 kips by 46
percent. A diagonal crack of 0.1 mm width across an inside Figure A-12. Torque and special wrench for two-stand splice.
corner of the top surface of the corbel occurred at 128 kips.
There was no observable change in this crack width at higher
load. A second diagonal crack of 0.1 mm width developed on
the top surface at 186 kips (see Fig. A-15). Potentiometer 171 a load of 120 kips. A crack developed at the bottom interface
indicated a longitudinal displacement of 0.002 in. during the at a load of 145 kips. Potentiometer 172 indicated a longitudinal
first two load cycles at the ultimate strength design load of 127.8 displacement of 0.010 in. during the first load cycle; at ultimate
kips. This displacement reduced to 0.001 in. when the load was strength design load of 127.8 kips this displacement reduced to
reduced to 8.55 kips. During the third load cycle the displace- 0.005 in. when the load was reduced to 8.55 kips. During the
ment was 0.004 in. at load of 127.8 kips. This displacement second cycle the displacement was 0.007 in. at load of 127.8
returned to 0.001 in. when the load was removed. During the kips. This displacement reduced to 0.005 in. when the load was
last (fourth) load cycle, the displacement was 0.006 in. at load reduced to 8.55 kips. During the last (third) load cycle, the
of 186 kips. This displacement also returned to 0,001 in. when displacement was 0.010 at load of 127.8 kips. The displacement
the load was removed. Corbel 1 is believed to have ample increased to 0.019 in. at load of 186 kips. This displacement
strength to anchor a 1-in, diameter Grade 150 K thread bar reduced to 0.002 in. when the entire load was removed. Because
(ASTM-A722). of cracking at relatively low loads and size of cracks and dis-
Corbel 2 developed an observable crack of 0.1 mm at the placements at high loads, corbel 2 is not considered adequate
fillet interface when the load reached 75 kips (equaling 0.59 f', to anchor a 1-in, diameter Grade 150 K thread bar.
or 0.69 Q. This crack opened to 0.2 mm at 127.8 kips, and Corbel 3 developed an observable crack of 0.1 mm at the
opened to 0.3 mm at 186 kips. A diagonal crack of 0.1 mm fillet interface when the load reached 98 kips (equaling 0.77 V.
width across an inside corner of the top surface of the corbel or 0.9 fr ). This crack remained the same width at 127.8 kips;
occurred at a load of 99 kips (equal to 0.91 Q. This crack however, it increased to 0.2 mm at 186 kips. No other cracks
extended along the top corner of the corbel (see Fig. A- 15) at were observed to occur in this corbel. Potentiometer 170 mdi-
52
C/77rT?7t
c? 7f2';
/,o/es, fil1. frV/7'h
epoxy /'3/'7:
57''P"P(1,O i-em1')
SECT/ON (Jnside R:24"
24 i'oja/)
abowç Span
Oversize Ho/es
-Me/a1 Pipe
W,7Lh PVC
fL' cor-be/ =5000psi Znserl--
Re/r7 19 6tao'e GO
j
Core hole larger thar
7'.
Dri// #/,oles
o'/s,de d,am. of Thread
®5 7(,C/e/d bend
Bar one end)
-
S/czr,dard Threcd8cr
Arthora,ge /
e a?e
55Ixl—\ k L.
\ I 4.". 5'
VZ 30 2 5pth4pich
5"o
P/il ho/e5
W17'h epox'
Corbe/#2 I /"t'/r
c !1 i Fr-Chamfer
N , V 0,r./j
, ew
,4,P2J401
4 /2 re9l each corbel
J (Wea&i/t.'s LJ.5ed)
(Avoid 5/frrup rei E)
Roughen Surface
(Epoxy corbel
only) Corbel No.2 J Corbel No.1
5ECT/O/V
Bearig Plai'e
j
L ---1
2"
-1
Ø' "5Tes~ af
,417c,4o,- .8c,/74,5
5 51oa 7j.3/j
2" ®Z 5pira/'-22 Spa.c 2; Z '
4'-0"Corbe/
Corbe/5000 o5/
Rein/arcing Grade 60
ELEVA 7/ON
Corbel No.2
Epox.,
-4- -4- Fforg f
GA.I8 6,4.17 GA /6G PT/72
GA.165 6,q.IG3 GA./G/ POT/71 POT/70 GA/60 GA. 16E G.4./G4
$ 2.
8075'O/77I I"deep hàJ -p, -, bè,-
F/ar,ge 2.2"Ho/e 21
L -,Vo E,00xg -No E4oxy -
Corbel No. /
t/" ,
L , a - I
Space fcrJock/n,
L Cor-bel No.3
PLAN VIEW
Figure A-15. Strain gage locations for corbel test Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
"
a. Test Nos. I and 2 b. Test No. 3
/0,000 c9saO=Ie:
9,500
9,000
8,000
Qj
7,000
6.000
a Percen, of 7to,'a/
of 1-o,'af /oada,eoc,4
c9o,ge.
Pece
Qj
5000
ofioi'a/1oad e 1 rol
c ai'eachGage. (j°
4,000
13 J
3,000
000
i.coo
0
U19 /00 120 NO /80 /80 200 220 240 260 280 30,) 320 340 360
Prjecited i'o ze,- ,
574-al,-, s ir, /1.licro,, ches
, 8,000 8000 33
7,000 6800 31
6.000
5,000
1'4' Ql 28)
,00ô '-tT/4000 çy O Per-ceni of -/o7'a/ 5i4-a,'r,s
. z øfi'o,'a/Iocdo,'
each gage.
3000
,- Rer-cer,, Of r'e,t 5,4air,$
Z ofo 'a/ loac/al'
2,000 I1 35 7DonoFi.se each gage.
i; 000 +' 01
Oi Ii ti I I I I I
0 \ 40 8O I/2a 180 200 240 280 320 .360 400 440 480
P,-ojeced Y10 .ero
57Lr0,r,5 ,, /vtic,-ojr.'che.g
diagonal crack appeared at 186 kips. The displacement at the servance was confirmed by the larger longitudinal displacements
face of the corbel increased from 0.004 in. at 127.8 kips to 0.006 that occurred at the face of corbel 2 during test loading. Because
in. at 186 kips. At 186 kips of load the amount of load transfer of the erratic behavior of the gage near the face of corbel 3
reduced to approximately 46 to 49 percent near the face of the during the last loading cycle, it was not possible to draw an
corbel. Load redistribution occurred between 127.8 kips and 186 identical curve for corbel 3. However, Figure A-19 shows that
kips. Figure A-18 is a plot of load-strain for corbel 2. The approximately 81 percent of the total load was transferred near
percentage of load transfer stays approximately constant at 50 the face of the corbel for the third cycle. The longitudinal
to 61 percent during the load cycle up to 186-kips maximum displacements and crack widths indicate that corbel 3 behavior
load. This deviation from corbel I may be partially due to the was similar to corbel 1. Corbel 2 did not have as much strength
fact that the load-strain curves for gages 166 and 167 are curved as corbels 1 and 3, and it appears that the load-strain curves
lines throughout, and appear to show that more longitudinal give confirmation. Corbel test results are given in Table A-9.
distribution was required to withstand the test loads. This ob-
56
- /27.8 xos
7000
/000 -
10 6 10 o)
0
\20 40 60 /00 /20 /40 /60 /80 200 220 240 260 .300
Projected to zero
Table A-9. Corbel test results. 0.9 (150)(0.85)(0.85) = 97.5 kips F.S. = 144.8/97.5 =
Corbel Number 1.49.
1 2 3 Shear along interface = 127.5 kips/14(48) = 190 psi.
Load at first 98 kips
Allowable = 350 psi (AASHTO Article 1.5.35 E).
98 kips 75 kips
observed crack n
0 004 n. 0)O004 i . 0( 004 . Development length No. 4 bars = 00
Crock width (0 . so lnnx) nninn)
Crack wIdth 0.008 in. 0.008 in. 0.004 in. (0.04)(0.20)(60,000) = 6.79.
at 127.8 kips (0.2 mm) (0.2 on) (0.1 on)
Crack width 0.008 in. 0.012 in. 0.008 in.
at 186 kips (0.2 mm) (0.3 mm) (0.2 mm)
Max. Longitudinal 0.004 in. 0.010 in. 0.007 in.
Minimum development length = 3.75 - 1.86 (6.79) =
displacement at (0.1 mi) (0.25 mm) (0.18 non)
2.4
127.8 kips
Max. Longitudinal 0.006 in. 0.019 in. 0.006 in.
(6.79) = 5.35 (6 in., O.K.).
displacement at (0.15 m) (0.48 non) (0.15 mm)
186 kips
Longitudinal
displacement after
0.001 in. 0.002 in. 0.001 in. 3. Check bearing on plate and spiral:
(0.025 is,) (0.051 mm) (0.025 ruin)
load removal Bearing on plate = 127.5/(5)(5.5) = 4,636 psi (O.K. for
confined concrete).
5-in, diameter spiral; A = = 19.63 in.2
Girder Corbel Calculations
Bearing on spiral = 127.5/19.63 = 6,496 psi (O.K. for
1. Given confined concrete).
4 required (SE corbel tested as corbel 3).
1-in, diameter, 150 K bar, A. = 0.85 in.' F. = 150 ksi. 4. Check No. 4 hairpin pull-out from concrete:
Pm /bar = (0.85)(150) = 127.5 kips. Tension P. = )(4))(3) J1
Note that corbels have been designed for the full value of
2. Calculate requirements of shear-friction reinforcement 1', not 0.95 P. as permitted by AASHTO Article 1.6.17.
A, = Va /f. 4o = 127.5/40 (0.85)(1.0) = 3.75 in.' Diagonal tension P. = (Anonc ) ( 4)(4)
Six No. 5 bars, A = 6(0.31) = 1,86 in.2, twelve No. 4 Diagonal distance from end of hairpin to flange corner =
bars = 2.4 in.' 7 in.
Total A = 4.26 in.' Use Grade 60 reinforcement to supply Spacing of hairpins = 7Y, in.
additional tensile force across interface (see AASHTO Ar- Distance from centerline of hairpin to edge = 3 in.
ticle 1.5.35D). for tension Pu = (7.5)(3) = 22.5 in.'
V allowed = 4.26 (40)(0.85)(1.0) = 144.8 kips. Acouw. for diagonal tension P0 = ( 7)(7.5) = 52.5 in.'
Maximum allowable test load <0.75 f',. < 0.9 f. Total P0 = ( 22.5)(0.85)(3) .0 1 :000 + (52.5)(0.85)(4)
0.75 (150)(0.85) = 95.6 kips, F.S. = 144.8/95.6 = 1.51. = 4.1 + 12.6 = 16.7 kips.
57
P. allowed for two No. 4 hairpins (Grade 60) = Component Corbel 2 Calculations
(2)(0.2)(60,000) = 24 kips.
The design of the corbels used for strengthening was con- X-in. diameter Wedjits; l 2-in. embedment; pullout =
sidered to be conservative. The three full-scale load tests 3,700 lb.
and the component test for corbel 3 confirmed the ade- a-in. diameter Wedjits; 2-in. embedment; pullout
quacy of this corbel. 5,155 lb.
Difference will have to be carried by tension in epoxy
interface.
Component Corbel 1 Calculations 2 bolts = (2)(5,155 - 3,700) = 2,910 lb.
2,910/(7.5 in.)(1.414)(7.5-in. spacing) = 36.6 psi tension.
1. Given
1-in. 4' 150 K thread bar, A = 0.85 in.', F. = 150 ksi.
P. bar = A,F, = (0.85)(150) = 127.5 kips. FULL-SCALE LOAD TESTS
2. Calculate shear carried by No. 5 bars and Wedjits: Effect of Creep on Slab Strains
Transverse No. 5 bars (Grade 60) = A, F. =
(6)(0.31)(43)(1.0) = 80.0 As the girder shortens and flexes because of the time-depen-
Carried by Wedjits = 127.5 - 80 = 47.5 kips. dent effects of prestress, stresses are induced in the slab. The
Note: f, = 43 ksi determined by trial. total strains in the slab were obtained from strain gages attached
to the slab. However, a portion of this strain is inelastic. To
3. Determine additional tension from moment = M/d, using determine the inelastic strain, creep curves (see Fig. A-20) were
two No. 5 bars only: developed from information found in Dunham (13). This source
M/d = (80 kips)(5.0 in.)/(48 in. - 2 in. - 7.5 in./2 was used because strains for low stress were given. All creep
- 3 in.) = 10.19 kips. curves other than those developed by testing for a specific case
10.19/A effective = 10.19/(2)(0.31) = 16.44 ksi. must be regarded as approximate. The effect of inelastic strain
Maximum stress in No. 5 bars = 43 + 16.44 = 59.44 is given in Table A-4. The creep modification for Test 1 was
ksi < 60 ksi. zero because of the short time in days after measured loading.
Calculations for Tests 1, 5, 8, and 9 show the methodology used.
4. Determine additional tension from moment = M/d, using
four Wedjits only.
2-in. Wedjits, 2/2-in. embedment, P. = 5,155 lb. Effect of Strain Gage Accuracy
M/d = (47.5 kips)(3.5 in.)/39.25 in. = 4.24 kips.
Additional tension per Wedjit = 4.24/4 = 1.06 kips. The investigators believe there is a practical limit to strain
Allowable tension per Wedjit = 5.16- 1.06 = 4.10 kips. gage accuracy. Strain gage locations for the load tests are shown
No. of Wedjits Required = 47.5/4.1 = 11.59 (used 12). in Figure A-21. All gage readings were in microinches. Gages
Tes'9 49 /Q -,
7e.5 *g g #7
7es1- '4-,
Tes/#2$Tes7 3
m to
- 140
120
/00
80
-
r.0 -. -
4O.-- _______
J) 20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 oo ror.
Tune ,,., Doss ofte,- L oad/r3
Nole: Deve/opeci from
C. VI. Dunham The The orQ and ProcI-ice of
Re/r,for-ced oncree' Xfc,raw 1-1/1/, 1944.
Test
.
I I'/f"J1 6a7e/I9
E/a-7'amep7c Pods
Gage Gage /41 Gage /20
I
A-Hached Prior
to Yes,' No 8
I New Gage /28
/ A 'tcched pr-lot--1
to 7èsf No.
Gage //7 oge Ha
Gages 13Z /38
Po7'en-//ome1-ep-5: Sleeve Spce
/, only.
East
5pa,-7 -107
West End-/0
Gages 137 /38 Gages /35,/3
Si'rar,o' Gages
112 and 113 on the bottom of the steel sleeve, Test 9, were set the table that gives exact corroboration. However, if the strains
at 1 and 0 (zero). About 20 min later and still at zero load, in the top slab were 10 p in. less for the last cycle, the ratio
they read 1 and 3, indicating a change in strain of 0 and 3. At would be 1.01 and the stress in the strands 206 ksi, equaling
a test load of 26.73 kips they read 110 and 118, indicating a 0.76 f',. Part of the lack of precise corroboration may be due
change in strain of 109 and 118. The deviation was 9 (or 8.26 to normal inaccuracies in strain gage readings.
percent). When the load of 26.73 kips was reduced to zero the
gages read 13 and 4, indicating a change in strain of 12 and 4.
The deviation was 8, and the percentrage of deviation would Unusual Strain Gage Readings
be large. The elapsed time from first to last readings was ap-
proximately 23 mm. The gages were spaced 14 in. apart, per Strain gages 110 and 111 were attached to two bottom strands
pendicular to the girder; therefore, temperature differential prior to release of prestress. The gage readings corroborated
could have been a minor contributing factor. At zero load for computed values initially and reached a maximum compression
the first complete load cycle the gages read 29 and 29. At strain 8 days after release of prestress, indicating further loss
maximum load of 91.97 kips they read 467 and 514, indicating of prestress. Between 8 and 9 days the gages indicated a gradual
a change of strain of 438 and 485. The deviation was 47 (or reduction in strain which was attributed to the weight of forms
10.73 percent). This deviation occurred in about 7 min and being placed for casting the slab. The strains due to pouring
cannot be explained by differential temperature. Gages 135 and the slab 9 days after release of prestress agreed reasonably well
136 were attached on opposite sides of a single thread bar for with computed values. However, immediately prior to Test 1,
Test 2. The initial readings for these gages were —20 and - 14. 34 days after release, gage 110 was reading 148 in. of compres-
After jacking and seating, the gages read, 3,354 and 3,266, sion and gage 111, 71 p in. of tension. Immediately prior to
indicating a change in strain of 3,374 and 3,280, and the de- Test 2, 50 days after release, gage 110 was reading 799 p in. of
viation was 94 (or 2.79 percent). At maximum load for the first tension and gage 111, 517 p in. of tension. During Test 5, at
complete cycle the gages read 3,710 and 3,617, indicating a maximum test load of 83.7 kips, gage 110 was reading 2,280
change in strain of 3,730 and 3,631, and the deviation was 99 u. in. of tension and gage 111, 2,072 u in. of tension. When these
(or 2.65 percent). strains were converted to stress, and stresses due to initial pre-
It is apparent that gages placed at locations that should show tension minus steel relaxation included, the result was stresses
zero deviation do, in fact, deviate. As shown in the calculations exceeding the yield point of the strands. After review of Test
for Test 1, the strains in the top slab were converted to forces, No. 5 strains and stresses it became apparent that gages 110
and the force in the strands was calculated from H (horizontal and 111 were not giving correct total strains. Prior to Test 9,
forces) = zero. The moment developed from these forces was gage 110 was reading "Data over Range." However, the change
compared to the applied moment (see Table A-4). The last load in strain during any particular test generally gave stresses that,
cycle shows a ratio of 1.05, while the first load cycle shows a when added to initial prestress minus losses, corroborated
ratio of 1.00, which corroborates the moment developed from stresses developed from other strains. The strand stresses given
the strains. The first load cycle of Test 1 is the only ratio in in Table A-6, developed from gages 110 and lii, should be
59
regarded as approximate. Gages 110 and ill were bonded to of tensile stress (see Fig. A-22). New gages 140 and 141 were
an individual wire in each strand. They were then insulated to attached to the bottom of the slab prior to Test 8 (see Fig. A-
ensure that they would not come in contact with any other steel. 21). Load strain data from these gages did not corroborate either
They were also wrapped to ensure water tightness. Concrete gage 122 or gage 123. After reviewing the behavior of gages 122
was then placed around the protected gages. Therefore, these and 123 and developing moments and stresses at centerline of
gages might have been affected by both the tension in the strand span, it became apparent that gage 123 was giving reasonable
and the strain experienced by the concrete. Because of the de- data, and gage 123 data were used in developing moments and
flection of the span and cracking of the concrete, these gages stresses at centerline of span for all tests.
might be registering, in addition to strand tension, some of the All other gages and potentiometers corroborated each other
cumulative concrete strain over time. Then it might be logical and gave realistic results.
to use change in strain with original stress plus losses to calculate
strand stress for each particular load test. It appears that to
avoid this problem, the gages should have been completely iso- Load Test 1
lated from the concrete.
Strain gages 120 and 122 were attached to the bottom of the Load Test 1 was a test of the composite girder as cast with
slab 17 days after casting the slab. Gage 120 was replaced with 16 straight strands. The calculated ultimate moment capacity
new gage 123 two days after installing, when gage 120 read of the composite girder was 2,511 ft-kip. Therefore, 75 percent
"Data over Range." Gages 122 and 123 corroborated each other of the ultimate moment was 1,883 ft-kip, including dead load
reasonably well through Test 1. However, immediately prior to moment of 554 ft-kip. The calculated maximum test load was
Test 2, gage 122 was reading 94 p in. of tensile strain, and gage 88.6 kips, which was increased slightly to 90.4 kips to facilitate
123 was reading 27 p in. of compression strain. Gage 122 con- load readings. The total applied moment was 1,910 ft-kip. The
tinued to show increasing values of tensile strain. During Test test load moment of 1,356 ft-kip (not including DLM) was
8, gage 122 showed an initial strain of 123 .L in. of tension and equivalent to 1.95 times the HS-20 LL + I service load moment
at maximum load 220 p in. of tensile strain. The 220 j. in. of of 697 ft-kip. At time of testing the girder concrete strength
tensile strain equated to 1,025 psi of tensile stress or 14 V?, (f') was 6,030 psi, and top slab strength was 4,435 psi. Test 1
which was unrealistically high. Gage 123 gave realistic values, occurred 38 days after casting the girder and 34 days after release
showing an initial value of 48 uj in. of compression strain which of strands. The slab was cast 24 days prior to Test 1. The
increased slightly during the first 47 kips of the loading cycle computed 34-day prestress loss was 28.7 ksi. Figure A-23 shows
and then gradually decreased to 18 lk in. of tensile strain at slab strength versus age. Figure A-24 shows girder strength
maximum load. The 18 p. in. of tensile strain equated to 84 psi versus age.
Figure A-22. Gages 122, 123, 140, and 141, load test No. &
60
155 4(33)
c=
R = E =/55*g(33)(-. 3,68/.E
v-
0. -
50
G00C 01/0
5000
4000
3000
2000
/000
0
0 /0 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 00 70
The first observed cracks occurred at a test load of 55.1 kips. Test I girder as cast with 16 straight strands.
This load equated to a tensile stress of about 2.7 or 4.5 -Ji— 11 Calculate load to give 75 percent of ultimate moment ca-
AASHTO specifications give the modulus of rupture pacity:
as 7.5 Ji It should be kept in mind that this was the result Calculated M. = 2,511 ft-kip.
of a single test. It was not a primary objective of this test to 75 percent M. = (0.75(2,511) = 1,883 ft-kip.
determine cracking stress. At maximum test load, eight major (0.75) Mu DLM = 1,883 - 554 = 1,329 ft-kip.
cracks were observed to extend within a few inches of the bottom = 4M = (4)(i,329)
of the top slab. The maximum crack width was 0.5 mm. Strain = 88.6 kips. Test Load was in-
le 60
data indicated tension in the bottom of the top slab. The max- creased to 90.4 kips to facilitate readings.
imum vertical deflection caused by the test was 1.19 in. The
computed deflection for the last load cycle was 1.01 in. Maxi- 2. Cracking load results:
mum moments at centerline of span were developed from strain a. Calculate stress at bottom from P.S. + DL using losses
data, and these moments were compared to the applied moments at 34 days after release (see Test Girder Design).
(see Table A-4). Maximum strand stresses were developed from
strain data. Strand stresses ranged from 73 percent to 80 percent Cr (Creep) = 10 ± t06 (11,310)
of V. (see Table A-6). 340.6
The simplified method used to calculate deflection based on = 10 + 340.6 (11,310)
deflection due to major cracks plus partial elastic deflection is
= (0.45)(1 1,310) = 5,090 psi.
approximate. It is realized that crack widths may not vary
linearly from bottom of girder to top of crack. The value of this
method was its check within 4 in., or less, of the measured SH (shrinkage) = 5,000 psi.
deflections which gave reasonable assurance that the measured
deflections were accurate. Test 7 was an exception due to the (e SH) t = -:- = 55±34 = 0.38.
effect the internal strand splices had on crack widths. The mea- SH = (0.38)(5,000) = 1,900 psi.
sured deflection for Test 7 compared well with other test loads ES (elastic shortening) = 8,340 psi.
and deflections. The following calculations show the method- CR, (steel relaxation loss) = 13,400 psi.
ology used (also see Figs. A-25 and A-26 for stress and deflection Total losses for Test 1 = 5,090 + 1,900 + 8,340 +
diagrams): 13,400 = 28,700 psi.
61
-53-(-5 a 6,rder
9
n" G
O .4~ 04 0.4 0.2,nn,
-8-(-B) a 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 10
p
Zn/f/al A/ate. Crack me5e.re,ne,'/5 were
czpprax/tnat'e far Test No.!.
[.m'eIas'/c (Ct-eep)3tains o-e Zei-oJ
-505
t (2)(3 )
#7,9 Crc/2
Final Strains
- /3,289"
Al
24.5
R452.c1 .30'
0.04 O94
q
5par
Al
C,-aaking Load = 551/ /4os - W. 4200
Croc/a,gLoad=55./
4200 +
4000
4000 Yes71 Mo. / - Res,/s All
Te5t Na.1-Resu/,s
3600
3G00 Theo,-eWcof t'ak,e 945 00qf?7O4
Zr,dica4g a raoid Theor-efico/ Sc
RGO M 23Z(/77
/
,n load wh44 /th'/e ,ncrease\ 3200
f
4000,000
496as:
3200 In Cr-ecks
from gage may beh,h%My.
730
TheoreA'ca/ E0 (. 915 0c0
2800
2800 yr.
1,000,000
800 800
400
Cl I I I I I I I I I I I I C
20 40 o 80 , 120 ,10 ,o *' 2C 20N0 2803X 0 20 40 60 80 /00 120 /40 /60 /80 200 220 240 260 280
61,-air, it, M/c,-o,½ches
S,,-ai,- it, /&f/c,-ojp,ches
Figure A-28. Load versus strain bottom of girder test No. 1, Gage
Figure A-27. Load versus strain bottom ofgirder test No. 1, Gage
113.
112.
La3, r
/.159
90.4
441
(1.thcrac
5econd Cycle
60
40
Ij
20
01' ' I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 08 to
DEf1 ECT/ON - ZNC/-/E5
Figure A-29. Test No. 1 deflections.
STRAIN -M/CROZA'C/-IES
- 8
100
-400
I
0
57
400
(//e.1131114-115) /00
800 /200
I
/48/
200
/00
I
1159 ,
300
20
80
I' ( \
If
1/9 _\ I/7 i-\)
flo
r
60
(Qncp-ocked $ec
(P/074d7Lo//4
I
,rcc/e'c5L
260)!
-
rgeica/eJi,s
I /
40 (ff0-ill) /12
t/I3 I /
/
I
(/23) /_42}1 I
(118119f2/)-26
.II /
ff4
20
iiioger co/e '
o
/
_________
Wc13:
113
so
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
DEFLECTION - 0.8
INCHES
to 42 1.4
deflection and load-strain curves for the first cycle and last cycle of the girder. The calculated ultimate moment capacity of the
of Test 1. In Figure A-30, gages 112, 113 and 114, 115 corrob- girder was 3,242 ft-kip. Thence 75 percent of the ultimate mo-
orate the cracking load of 5 5. 1 kips. Strand gages 110 and 111 ment was 2,432 ft-kip including dead load moment of 554 ft-
clearly show the change in strain when the girder became kip, giving an allowable test load moment of 1,878 ft-kip for
cracked, as do gages 118, 119, and 121 on the top of the slab. this test. However, both test load deflection, not to exceed Test
The sudden increase in strain occurs at the point where cracking 1 deflection, and allowable stress in the thread bars, not to
causes the initiation of dead load redistribution. At maximum exceed 0.9 F, controlled. The computed test load of 114 kips
test load, strain gage readings include the effect of dead load. was increased slightly to 114.7 kips to facilitate jacking load
Figure A-3 1, last cycle, shows more uniform curves for both readings. The total applied test moment, including dead load
load deflection and load strain. Due to the cracked section, the moment, was 2,275 ft-kip. The test load moment of 1,721 ft-
load-strain curves for concrete gages 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, kip (not including DLM) was equivalent to 2.47 times the HS-
and 117 became erratic after the first cycle, and were not used 20 LL + I service load moment of 697 ft-kip. At time of resting
for calculations in following tests. The only exception to this the girder concrete strength (f') was 6,300 psi, and the top slab
was in Test 5, where new gages 112 and 113 were installed on concrete strength was 5,200 psi. Test 2 occurred 54 days after
the patched section. casting the girder and 50 days after release of strands. The slab
was cast 40 days prior to Test 2. The computed 50-day prestress
Load Test 2 loss was 29.9 ksi.
At maximum load the same eight major cracks, as in Test 1,
Test 2 was a test of the same girder with 16 straight strands were observed to extend within a few inches of the bottom of
plus the addition of two external 1-in, diameter, Grade 150 the slab. The maximum crack width was 0.4 mm. Strain data
thread bars. indicated tension in the bottom of the top slab. The maximum
This test simulated the strengthening of a girder that might vertical deflection caused by the test was 1.18 in., equal to 99
be deficient because of increased live or dead loads. The bars percent of Test 1 deflection. The computed deflection for the
were post-tensioned to 84 kips each against concrete corbels last load cycle was 0.96 in. Maximum moments at centerline of
attached to both sides of the girder. One bar was temporarily span were developed from strain data and compared to the
jacked to 97.5 kips (a stress of 0.9 F) to check sufficiency of applied moments (see Table A-4). Strand stresses ranged from
corbels. The inside face of each corbel was 13 ft 0 in. from 61 percent to 75 percent of f', (see Table A-6). Thread bar
centerline of span. Each corbel was 4 ft 0 in. long (see Fig. stresses were 88 percent of F (90 percent F allowable). The
A- 13). The centroid of each bar was 1 ft 2Y, in. above the bottom methodology of developing moments and stresses from strains
57-R,4If/ M1CROINCHES
-8 0 - 400 0 400 800 /200 /00 20
I I I • I
,--505 .
904k / 184 /5'75
,- .
123(Bof,'am 5/oh) - -
90
ast cycle
( op 091/8 p
Slab /2/
;z0
11/0 -/Z
'V -/fl) 7
-8
0 I I I I I
0 02 04 0.8 1.0 1.2
D5PLEC7-/oN - INCHES
is shown in Test 8 (see Fig. A-32 for load-deflection and load- cycle was 0.90 in. Maximum moments at centerline of span were
strain curves). developed from strain data and compared to the applied mo-
ments (see Table A-4). Strand stresses ranged from 73 percent
to 78 percent of f', (see Table A-6). The methodology of de-
Load Test 3 veloping moments and stresses from strains is shown in Tests
1 and 5. The load-deflection and load-strain curves for Test 3
Test 3 was nearly identical to Test 1 with 16 straight preten- (Fig. A-33) are nearly the same as for the last cycle of Test 1.
sioned strands, except the girder had been previously cracked. Although the load-strain curve shapes for strand gages 110 and
The calculated ultimate moment capacity was 2,511 ft-kip. ill are nearly the same for Tests 1 and 3, note the shift at zero
Thence 75 percent of the ultimate moment was, 1,883 ft-kip, load that has occurred. This phenomenon is discussed elsewhere
including dead load moment of 554 ft-kip. The total applied in this appendix.
test moment was, 1,840 ft-kip equaling 98 percent of 1,883 ft-
kip. The maximum applied test load was 85.7 kips. The test
load moment of 1,286 ft-kip (not including DLM) was equivalent
to 1.85 times the HS-20 LL + I service load moment of 697 ft- Load Test 4
kip. At time of testing the girder concrete strength (f') was
6,300 psi, and the slab concrete strength was 5,200 psi. Test 3 Enough concrete was removed from the bottom flange to
occurred 54 days after casting the girder and 50 days after release sever four strands, one each side in the bottom layer and one
of strands. The slab was cast 40 days prior to Test 3. The each side in the second layer. Figure A-35 shows the approxi-
computed 50-day prestress loss was 29.9 ksi. mate amount of concrete removed. The bulk of the concrete
At maximum load the same eight cracks, as in Test 1, were was removed with a chipping hammer; fine chipping near ad-
observed to extend within a few inches of the bottom of the jacent strands was done with a rivet gun chipper. The four
slab. The maximum crack width was 0.5 mm. Strain data in- strands were cut with an electric sander. The foregoing process
dicated tension in the bottom of the slab. The maximum vertical was entirely satisfactory. The calculated ultimate strength of
deflection caused by the test was 1.15 in., equal to 97 percent the damaged 12-strand girder was 1,887 ft-kip. Thence 75 per-
of Test 1 deflection. The computed deflection for the last load cent of the ultimate moment was 1,415 ft-kip, including dead
(135-138)
57RA1A1- M/CROJNCI-1E3 3200 3600
-BOO -400 400 800 1200 IBOO 2000 2400
TO I I i I I
1993 'M
-509 (4
123
foo
80
'/9
60 /21
/35.
ito /36
/37
/38
40
20
STRAfAt - MI CROINCHES
80 I_as ~ cycle
123
60
118
"9
121
40 --
20 --
GGG
0
I I I
0.2 0.4 OG 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
DEFLECT/ON - ZNCHE5
load moment of 554 ft-kip. The total applied test moment was internal strand splices (see Fig. A-35 and Figs. 19, 20, and 22).
1,423 ft-kip equaling 101 percent of 1,415 ft-kip. The maximum These splices were used to connect the four severed strands of
applied test load was 57.9 kips. The test load moment of 869 Test 4. Each splice was torqued to 433 ft-lb, giving a post-
ft-kip (not including DLM) was equivalent to 1.25 times the tension force of 24.1 kips per strand. The computed force in
HS-20 LL + I service load moment of 697 ft-kip. At time of the 12 nonsevered strands was 24.3 kips per strand. The details
testing the girder concrete strength (f',) was 6,350 psi and the of installing the splices are a part of the manual of recommended
slab concrete strength was 5,335 psi. Test 4 occurred 56 days practice, and development of load versus torque is a part of
after casting the girder and 52 days after release of strands. The component testing. The girder was preloaded to 30.5 kips prior
slab was cast 42 days prior to Test 4. The computed 50-day to concrete patching. The calculated ultimate moment was 2,511
prestress loss of 29.9 ksi for Test 3 was also used for Test 4. ft-kip, as calculated for Tests 1 and 3. Thence 75 percent of the
At maximum load the same eight major cracks as in Test 1 ultimate moment was 1,883 ft-kip, including dead load moment
were observed to extend within a few inches of the bottom of of 554 ft-kip. The total applied test moment was 1,809 ft-kip,
the slab. The maximum crack width was 0.6 mm. Strain data equaling 96 percent of 1,883 ft-kip. The maximum applied test
indicated tension in the bottom of the slab. The maximum load was 83.7 kips. To give the required moment of 1,883 ft-
vertical deflection caused by the test was 0.79 in. This vertical kip, the test load should have been 88.6 kips. As explained in
deflection agreed exactly with the 0.79-in, maximum deflection more detail under "Strain Gage Readings" the total strains in
for Test 7, which was also a 12-strand test. The computed the strand gages were giving readings that indicated that the
deflection for the last load cycle was 0.65 in. Maximum moments maximum stress in the strands could be above the yield point.
at centerline of span were developed from strain data and com- A decision was made during testing to stop the test at a load
pared to the applied moments (see Table A-4). Strand stresses that was 4.9 kips less than the computed allowable test load. It
ranged from 74 percent to 83 percent of V. (see Table A-6). is believed that testing the girder to a total test moment of 96
The methodology of developing moments and stresses from percent allowable was a sufficient "proof test." The test load
strains is shown in Tests 1 and 5. Figure A-34 shows the load- moment of 1,256 ft-kip (not including DLM) was equivalent to
deflection and load-strain curves for this test. Note the much 1.80 times the HS-20 LL + I service load moment of 697 ft-kip.
lower vertical load at which strands 110 and 111 experienced At time of testing, the girder concrete strength (f'0) was 6,300
rapid increase of strain. Gages 118, 119, and 121 also corroborate psi and the slab concrete strength was 5,200 psi. The girder
the load at which the girder behaves as a cracked section. patch concrete strength was 5,290 psi. Test 5 occurred 61 days
after casting the girder and 57 days after release of strands. The
slab was cast 47 days prior to Test 5. The computed 57-day
Load Test 5 prestress loss was 30.3 ksi.
The first observed crack in the south girder patch occurred
Test 5 was a test of a 16-strand girder with four strands being near the end of an internal splice at a test load of 49.7 kips.
internally spliced. Enough concrete was removed to install four The crack did not develop into a major crack. The stresses
67
STRAIN MIcROINCHes
-800 -400 0 4100 OVU I(J(J FtO(I(J
80 I I I I
0.78/ 8441 -
GO I !
40 119
/21
1-0524 cycle -
20
-1 728
DEFLEC7ii i INCHES
-III,
r...
the preload prior to attaching strain gages to the bottom of the
girder in the patched area. At maximum load the same eight .4 Cq
j (vi
major cracks, as in Test 1, were observed to extend within a 0
few inches of the bottom of the slab. The total number of major S ti
and minor cracks was 22. The maximum crack width was 0.7
mm. Strain data indicated tension in the bottom of the slab.
C4
4F jjj
The maximum vertical deflection caused by the test was 1.10
in., equal to 92 percent of Test 1 deflection. The difference in
deflections was believed due to two causes. The test load was Par//on a,' cancrei'e
6.7 kips less than Test 1, and the four internal splices added
additional stiffness near centerline of span. The computed de-
flection for the last load cycle was 0.76 in. Maximum moments
at centerline of span were developed from strain data and corn- Figure A-35. Four strands severed.
pared to the applied moments (see Table A-4). Strand stresses
ranged from 71 percent to 76 percent of f'. (see Table A-6). The
following calculations show the methodology used (refer to Figs.
A-38 and A-39 for stress and deflection diagrams):
The obeved
/ I /000' ,'&- TesiL No. S wv's 4. 7
/ I Ecpac/ =/55(33) V4630,000
MOO / I f=O.000123(4,634000)=569p.s/
7es/- No.5
4001
20 40 60 80 /00120 /40 /60 /6'C 200 200 240 2,60 Z90 300 320
S/P-air? i / frn/c,-o/,-,c/ies
49.7k
The c,-ock,ç
470' 7&tNo.5 was
2800
/00
24001 Ec_______
2')E30,000,)
(4. 984 000
_. f 385/24 (980 000) 577,o.s,
/,0000o,o -
20001 24.9
79-(-54)= -25
-441 (t
?4WJ77
-7- (-5) = -2
154 248 psi)
5/ra/as
!r,e/asb€ 5'rcr/r75 Dedic/ed
,Vo Ded,c"ea'
Nt
74a3M(fs:i.97%//i 5)
f = (from DL + PS + LL+I) = 1,142 tension - 631 7. Calculate stresses from strains at centerline span (last cycle):
compression = 511 psi (t). a. Inelastic strains in top slab not deducted, Figure A-38.
Restore girder f bottom to 365 psi (t). E. slab = 4,590,000 in.4
Allowable f, on damaged section = 424 + 631 = 1,055 f top of slab = (0.000441)(4,590,000) = 2,024 psi (c).
psi (t). f bottom of slab = (0.000054)(4,590,000) = 248 psi
Stress needed to reduce tension on total section to 365 psi (t).
tension under LL + I = 845 tension - 365 tension = (2.024)(5.79)(90)
480 psi (t). F0 = = 527 kips (c).
2
f, on damaged section = 424 + 480 = 904 psi (t). = (0.248)(0.71)(90) = 8 kips (t).
480 2
M= (697) 396 ft-kip.
845 The forces in the top slab are developed from the top
= (4)(396) = 26.4 kips (Preload required). slab strains. The force in the strands is developed from
= 0.
FT strands = 527 - 8 = 519 kips.
4. Review result: 519
f,
= (16)(0.153) = 212 ksi.
Preload stress on total section = (396)(12) = 480 psi (c). M measured = (519)(41.71)
9,895 (527)(2)(5.79) = 1,974
+
f, bottom LL + I = (697)(12)/9,895 = 845 psi (t). 12 (3)(12)
f LL + I + f preload = 845 tension - 480 compression ft-kip.
= 365 psi (t).
• M applied = (82.3)(60) + 554 DLM = 1,789 ft-kip.
Design f, = 365 psi (t). (A preload of 30.5 kips was used
30.5 Measured M 1,974
to facilitate load readings. Therefore, (480) = 555 Ratio = 1.10.
Applied M 1,789
psi preload tensile stress.) b. Inelastic strains in top slab deducted, Figure A-38.
f top of slab = (0.000079)(4,590,000) = 363 psi (c).
5. Verify measured deflection due to test load No. 5: 79
From Figure A-20, e, = 115, (79) = 54 psi.
. E. girder = 5,005,000 in.4 P test = 83.7 kips. 15
Summation cracks = (4)(0.1) + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0.5 + 0.7 f bottom of slab = (0.000007)(4,590,000) = 32 psi (ç).
= 2.1 mm = 2.1/25.4 = 0.0827 in.
From Figure A-20, e, = 10, (7) = 5 psi (c).
Elastic A was computed from the diagram (Fig. A-39)
f top of slab = (0.000416)(4,590,000) = 1,909 psi (c).
as follows: f bottom of slab = (0.000056)(4,590,000) = 257 psi
Gages 112 and 113 show some increase in strain beyond (t).
the cracking load of 49.7 kips. This increase may be due F = (1.909)(5.73)(90)
to the localized effect of the four internal splices. Use the = 492 kips (C).
2
same method as previously used to compute deflection. (0.257)(0.77)(90)
FT = 9 kips (T).
P test (last cycle = 82.3 kips, R = 82.3 = 41.15 kips. 2
FT strands = 492 - 9 = 483 kips (T).
M at 24.5 ft-kip = 12,098 in.-kip, R/ = 0.6575, M/! at 483
centerline span = 12.96. 197 ksi.
= (l6)(0.153)
M (12.96)(1,000)(144) M measured = (483)(4 1.77) + (492)(2)(5.73) = 1,838
at centerline span = = 0.37 in.
5,05500 12 (3)(l2)
girder 0.37 + (l2)(30)(0.0827) = 0.37 + 0.39 = ft-kip.
M applied = 1,789 ft-kip.
0.76 in. Measured M 1,838
Measured deflection = 1.06 in. (Last cycle P = 82.7 kips), Ratio = 1.03.
Applied M = 1789
= 1.08 in. (Second cycle P = 83 kips), = 1.10 in. (First
cycle P = 83.7 kips). 8. Check stresses from strand gages 110 and 111:
Gage 110; 2,300 - 1,098 = (0.001202)(28,000) = 33.7
6. Compute prestress losses for Test 5 (57 days after release): ksi.
5706 f, = 189 - 30.3 + 33.7 = 192 ksi.
CR0 (creep) = 10 + t061'310) = 10 + 570.6(11t310) Gage 111; 2,109 - 626 = (0.001483)(28,000) = 41.5 ksi.
= 189 - 30.3 + 41.5 = 200 ksi.
= (0.53)(1 1,310) = 5,994 psi
f of 197 ksi = 192 ksi = 200 ksi.
(I) = (5,000)(57) =
SH (shrinkage) = (5,000)
(55+t) 55+t The load-deflection and load-strain curves (Figs. A-40 and
2,550 psi. A-41) for this test corroborate the results of Tests 1 and 3.
ES (elastic shortening) = 8,340 psi. Gages 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, and 115 define the cracking load
CR0 (steel relaxation loss) = 13,400 psi. in the patched section of 49.7 kips. Comparing gages 110 and
Total loss for Test 5 = 30,300 psi. 111 for the first cycle, to gages 110 and 111 for the last cycle,
71
STRAIN - MICROINCHeS
-800 - 400 0 400 800 1200 //00 2000 2400
/00 I I I I I I
114
I/8
/21 FIRST CME
(Pa,'rhed
SecWon)
112-3/9
'4 1(3-385
J2'
0 0.2
\j4
ILC-Il
04 0.G
41
08
EF4EC7'/01V - INCHES
to 12 14 I.G
STRAIN -M/CROINCWES
-800 -400 0 400 800 izao IGOO 2000 2400
1.077
44I
r54
8 1-j;;
(',°,:g)e2os-
-
;Z
-
121
' NOvcIE 1/0
(a £ast Cg/)
-'S
'' 8G2\/(Z:'r)
j(( k OEPLECT/ON - INCHE5
/.
57'RAIN-M/CROI1VCHES I
as-1 Cycle
60].
/ /35
1/0 /3G
/37
401 /38
-4
1/8
20f ./2?j;
- 8/ 3278 -\
shows the effectiveness of preloading. Note that the final read- span were developed from strain data and compared to the
ings for gages 110 and 111 for both cycles are nearly the same. applied moments (see Table A-4). Strand stresses ranged from
The close corroboration between Tests 1, 3, and 5 can be seen 66 percent to 74 percent of f', (see Table A-6). Thread bar
by referring to Figure 4 in Chapter Two. stresses were 89 percent of F, (90 percent F allowable). The
methodology of developing moments and stresses from strains
is shown in Test 8.
Load Test 6
The load-deflection and load-strain curves (Figure A-42) for
this test are nearly identical to the curves for Test 2. The strain
Test 6 was a test of the girder with 16 strands, four of which gages define the points at which cracking initiates the redistri-
had been internally spliced (same as Test 5), plus the addition bution of dead load. Note that the load-deflection curve also
of two external 1-in, diameter, Grade 150 thread bars. The post- generally defines these points.
tensioning details were the same as Test 2. The calculated girder
capacity was also the same as Test 2. A maximum test load of
113.4 kips was applied. The total applied test moment including Load Test 7
dead load moment was 2,255 ft-kip. The test load moment of
1,701 ft-kip (not including DLM) was equivalent to 2.44 times Test 7 was similar to Test 4. The four internal strand splices
the HS-20 LL + I service load moment of 697 ft-kip. At time of Test 5 were severed, leaving 12 prestressed strands. Enough
of testing the girder concrete strength, f,, was 6,300 psi and concrete was removed to gain access to the four internal strand
the slab concrete strength was 5,200 psi. Test 6 occurred on the splices. The concrete was removed with a rivet gun chipping
same day as Test 5; therefore, the prestress loss was the same tool. The splice rods were cut with an electric sander. The
30.3 ksi. concrete removed was not patched. The calculated girder
At maximum load the same eight major cracks, as in Test 1, strength and the applied test load were identical to Test 4. At
were observed to extend to within a few inches of the bottom time of testing the girder concrete strength, f', was 6,300 psi
of the slab. The maximum crack width was 0.7 mm. Strain data and the slab concrete strength was 5,200 psi. Test No. 7 occurred
indicated tension in the bottom of the top slab. The maximum on the same day as Tests 5 and 6; therefore, the prestress loss
vertical deflection caused by the test was 1.16 in., equal to 97 was the same 30.3 ksi.
percent of Test 1 deflection. The computed deflection for the At maximum load the same eight major cracks, as in Test 1,
last load cycle was 0.93 in. Maximum moments at centerline of were observed to extend within a few inches of the bottom of
73
the slab. The crack widths at the bottom of the girder near of span were developed from strain data and compared to the
centerline of span were not representative due to the bursting applied moments (see Table A-4). Strand stresses ranged from
effect when the internal splices were cut, as seen in Figure 74 percent to 91 percent of f' (see Table A-6). The methodology
A-43. The strand splice should have been cut at splice ends as of developing moments and stresses from strains is shown in
well as at centerline in order to get representative crack widths. Tests I and 5. Load-deflection and load-strain curves are shown
No attempt was made to compute vertical deflections by crack in Figure A-44. The first cycle and last cycle load-deflection
measurements plus elastic deflection. However, the maximum curves show the good corroboration obtained from the two
deflection of 0.79 in. for Test 7 checked the maximum girder cycles. Note the much lower load at which cracking resulted
deflection of 0.79 in. for Test 4. Maximum moments at centerline in increased strain due to the severed four strands.
t --r ----
0. 757' - 0.788"
25o
GO (
QL f/B
Cycle
40 \
\ cycle
"I
20
'yx U
/ltI 854
0 11
' I'
0 f 0.2\ 0.4 04 0.8 1.0 1.2 14 /4
-9_/ \..f4
0EF7- ECT/ON - INCHES
Figure A-44. Test No. 7 first and last cycle deflections and last cycle strains.
74
Load Test 8
Test 8 was a test of a 12-strand girder (4-strand splices had _/cc C1391
p5/S
been severed in Test 7), plus repair by adding two external
1- in. diameter, Grade 150 thread bars. All loose or spalled — f= C38 dOS/
14r
concrete caused by Test 7 was removed. The four internal splices l,I I
were removed. All concrete removed was patched. Four %-in.
diameter expansion bolts were used on each side of the girder 3.I I
I
to help hold the patches in place. It was determined that pre-
loading was not needed. Earlier, Tests 2 and 6 had shown that
the method used to estimate stress in the thread bars was con-
')
servative by 6 to 7 kips per bar. Therefore the initial jacking -_1951
72 , (5,; 4329psi)
load was increased 5 kips from 84 to 89 kips per bar. In order Ps = /85ks1
to avoid overstressing the bottom flange, the bars were jacked
(a?5)(vo)oz5 ksl
in increments-52.4 kips first bar, 89 kips second bar, then 89 t
kips both bars. The ultimate moment capacity of the girder with
12 strands plus 2 bars was 2,630 ft-kip; however, the required
ultimate moment of the 16-strand girder was 2,511 ft-kip. As Figure A-45. Test No. 8 stress diagram.
determined in Test 1, 75 percent of 2,511 ft-kip equals 1,883
ft-kip. The results of Tests 2 and 6 indicated that the maximum
test load could be increased to 89.7 kips with little if any over-
stress beyond 0.9 f in the thread bars. The total applied test p 75 7K
moment including dead load moment was 1,900 ft-kip equaling
101 percent of 1,883 ft-kip. The test load moment of 1,346 ft- Mair Cro'cks soon
kip (not including DLM) was equivalent to 1.93 times the HS-
i
20 LL + I service load moment of 697 ft-kip. At time of testing
the girder concrete strength, f', was 6,290 psi, and the slab .Ir Lf' J/2"T/5"t/77OA{ZZTZP'T28'
concrete strength was 5,350 psi. The girder patch concrete
strength was 5,880 psi. Test 8 occurred 68 days after casting Crackw,jl/hs aj w a a5 Ia ai o.i ai "rn.
the girder and 64 days after release of strands. The slab was (ia5/ cycle)
cast 54 days prior to Test 8. The computed 64-day prestress Girder Efevcz/io,
loss was 30.7 ksi.
The first observed crack in the girder patch occurred at a
test load of 49.7 kips, which was identical to the cracking load f3 /86K"
of Test 5, thus confirming that preload was not necessary. At
maximum load the same eight major cracks, as in Test 1, were
observed to extend to within a few inches of the bottom of the
slab. The maximum crack width was 0.6 mm. Strain data in- 485KJ4
t 24.5
dicated tension in the bottom of the slab. The maximum vertical .30'
deflection caused by the test was 0.89 in. This deflection should
not be expected to agree with Test 1 deflection because of the
I
stiffening effect of the thread bars. The computed deflection for
the last load cycle was 0.72 in. Maximum moments at centerline 04037
of span were developed from strain data and compared to the
applied moments (see Table A-4). Strand stresses ranged from M
II
74 percent to 77 percent of f', (see Table A-6). Thread bar z I
24.5' 5.51
stresses were 91 percent of f (90 percent f,, allowable).
Gages 112 and 113 were zeroed prior to jacking the thread 30 .
bars. At the start of the first complete test cycle these gages
showed —102 and - 114 in. of compressive strain. At max-
imum test load the strains were +469 and —40, respectively. Figure A-46. Test No. 8 calculated deflections.
The strains appear to be reasonable up to a test load of 47.0
kips, showing tensile strains of 45 and 63 Ix in. at that load.
Higher loading gave erratic readings. It is believed that bond 1. Given:
between concrete and strands was becoming less in the cracked Test No. 8 girder with 12 strands plus 2 thread bars.
section area. However, Test 2 calculations show that the area Ultimate moment for 12 strands (calculated in Test 4) =
having cracks does not behave as completely cracked. The con- 1,887 ft-kip.
clusion was to continue to use the same method of computing P strands = (266)(12)(0.153) = 488.4 kips.
deflections. The following calculations show the methodology c.g. equivalent compression zone = (1,887)(12) + 4.33
used (also see Figs. A-45, A-46, and A-47 for stress and de- 488.4
flection diagrams for this test): (c.g. strands) = 50.69 in. above girder bottom.
75
473( C5,)
C[-
/ -8sf- (-53)--29
7
LJZii('789ps,)
-44-(-30) =-/4
r- !ne/csWc S,4th7s
fr
473(29)444(fc C2X9p5 /)
!ne/asi'/c $tra/r75
No;,' £'edic ted
C563%
Ho '' F"73/?
NSO
73Z5A6=2O3xs/)
a = (51.5 - 50.69)(2) = 1.62 in. M = !j_ = 43.3 lb-ft;S = 0.0982 in?f = 5.5
488.4
f = 3.35 ksi, f allowable = (0.85)(4,000)
(1.62)(90)
Stress in bars will probably control. Allowable = 0.9 yield
= 3.4 ksi:
= (0.9)(0.85)(150) = 114.8 ksi.
For 12 strands plus two 1-in, diameter thread bars, assume
Maximum load in bars = (2)(0.85)(114.8) = 195 kips.
a = 2.4 in.
Allowable increase in bar stress = 114.8 - (90 - 5.5)
Max M. bars = (A bars)(f',) (d) = (2)(0.85)(150)
= 30.3 ksi.
(51.5 - 1.2 - 14.5)
761 ft-hp. f 30,300
12 =7.0 = 4,329 psi. Used to establish concrete stress
Pultimate = (150)(0.85)(2) + 488 = 743 kips.
4,329f,
= block. -- =-; f. = 1,391 psi.
= 3.44 ksi-f0 allowable = (0.85)(4,000)
(2.4)(90)
(30.3)(38.l7)
3.4 ksi. 'tT = 144 + = 185 ksi.
28
- (488)(51.5 - 4.33 - (2.4/2))
Revised M. strands - _____________________________ = T1 = (185)(12)(0.153) = 340 kips; T1 + T2 = 195 +
12 340 = 535 kips.
1,869 ft-hp. c=(
M. strands + bars = 1,869 + 761 = 2,630 ft-hp. 1.391 ± 0.386) (6.5)(90) = 520 kips (520 535
Test moment = (2,630)(0.75) - DLM = 1,973 - 554
kips).
= 1,419 ft-hp.
(340)(38.17) + (195)(28)
TotalM= +
P = 4Mi- (4)(1,419) = 94.6 kips (0.9 F in bars may 12 12
60
govern). (0.386)(6.5)(90)(5.75) (1.005)(6.5)(90)(6.83)
+
12 (2)(12) -
1,811 ft-hp.
(4)(1,811 - 554)
Allowable test load P = = 84 kips.
2. Compute allowable test load (Fig. A-45): 60
f, bottom due to post-tensioning = 409 psi (c). The maximum test load was 89.7 kips. See previous com-
f, bottom due to LL + I = 845 psi (t). ments regarding jacking bars to 89 kips each, and increas-
f, bottom in patch area = 845 - 409 = 436 psi (t). ing the test load to 89.7 kips.
AASHTO allowable = 6 -..JöOö = 424 psi (t), and since
424 436, do not preload this test. 3. Verify measured deflection due to Test Load No. 8 (see Fig.
Working stress per bar = 0.6 f'. = (0.6)(150) = 90 ksi. A-46):
Bending stress in bars due to bar weight: E, girder = 5.051,000 in.4 (same as Test 9); P test = 89.7
Wt. = 3.01 lb/ft. Supports at 12-ft centers. kips; R = 44.85 kips.
76
.M at 24.5 ft = (44.85)(24.5)(12) = 13,186 in-Up. f top of slab = (0.000444)(4,660,000) = 2,609 psi (c).
f bottom of slab = (0.000033)(4,660,000) = 154 psi
R/ = 0.7166; at centerline span = 14.13.
(t).
- M - (14.13)(1,000)(144) - (2.069)(6.05)(90)
- 0.40 in. Fc = 563 kips (C).
- El - 5,051,000 = 2
Summation cracks = (6)(0.1) = 0.5 + 0.6 = 1.7 mm = (0. l54)(0.45)(90)
FT= 3 kips (T).
0.0669 in, 2
T2 = (0.003740)(29,400)(2)(0.85) = 187 kips.
A girder = 0.40 + (12)(30)(0.669) = 0.40 + 0.32 =
187
= (2)(0.85) + 5.5 = 115.5 ksi.
0.72 in.
Measured deflection = 0.89 in. (First cycle); = 0.89 in. T1 = 563-3- 187 = 373 kips; f. = 373/(12)(0.153)
(Second cycle); = 0.89 in. (Third cycle). = 203 ksi.
The observed cracking load for Test No. 8 was 49.7 kips, (373)(4l. 12) (187)(30.95)
M measured = + +
identical to the cracking load for Test 5. This confirmed 12 12
that preload was not needed for Test 8. (563)(2)(6.05)
= 1,949 ft-kip.
(3)(12)
4. Compute prestress loss at 64 days:
640.6 M applied = 1,900 ft-kip.
CR0 (creep) = 10 + 640.6 (11,310) = (0.55)(11,310) = Measured M = 1,949 = 1.03.
6,221 psi. Ratio Applied M 11 900
SH (shrinkage) = (5,000)(64) = 2,700 psi. 6. Check stresses from strand gages 110 and 111:
(55 + 64) a. Strand gage 110:
ES (elastic shortening) = 8,340 psi. (2,884 - 1,449) = (0.001435)(28,000) = 40.2 ksi.
CR0 (steel relaxation loss) = 13,400 psi. = 189 - 30.7 (P.S. loss) + 40.2 = 199 ksi.
Total loss for Test 8 = 30.7 ksi. b. Strand gage 111:
(2,413 - 594) = (0.001819)(28,000) = 50.9 ksi.
5. Calculate stresses from strains at span (last cycle): f. = 189 - 30.7 (P.S. loss) + 50.9 = 209 ksi.
a. Inelastic strains in top slab not deducted (Fig. A-47): f, = 203 = 199 = 209 ksi.
E, slab = 4,660,000 in.4
f top of slab = (0,000473)(4,660,000) = 2,204 psi (c). The load-deflection and load-strain curves for Test 8 are
f bottom of slab = (0.000019)(4,660,000) = 89 psi (t). shown in Figure A-48. The first and second cycle deflection
• F0 = ( 2.204) (6.25)(90) = 620 kips. curves show the close corroboration obtained between cycles.
The third cycle (last cycle) was nearly identical to the second
(0.089)(0.25)(90) cycle. All strain gage curves define the point at which the
FT= lkip.
2 cracking load (approximately 50 kips) causes rapid increase in
The forces in the top slab and the thread bars are strains. Referring to Figure 3 in Chapter Two, it is seen that
developed from recorded strains. The force in the the two thread bars restored the strength of the four severed
strands is developed from Y.H = 0. strands. By comparing Test 8 to Test 1, the increased stiffness
T2 = (0.003740)(29,400)(2)(0.85) = 187 kips. is apparent.
187
(2)(0.85) + 5.5 = 110 + 5.5 (bar bending) =
=
115.5 ksi. Allowable f0 = 0.9 f = 114.8 ksi. Load Test 9
432
T1 = 620 - 187 = 432 kips; f. Test 9 had 6 out of 16 strands severed (see Fig. A-49), and
= (12)(1.153) =
the severed strands were spliced with the metal sleeve splice.
235 ksi.
The sleeve was bonded to the girder with injected epoxy resin.
M - (432)(40.92) + (187)(30.75) + (620)(2)(6.25) -
- 12 12 (3)(12)
- The strand-sleeve lap was 3 ft 3 in. in solid concrete. This lap
length was based on tension tests of the Anderson Pile Sleeve
2,167 ft-kip. Splice, and would permit a maximum stress in the strands of
Applied M = 1,900 ft-kip. 270 ksi. The sleeve was 13 ft long, placed symmetrically about
Measured M 2,167 centerline of span (see Fig. A-50). Details of the sleeve, including
= 1.14.
Ratio Applied M = installation, are presented in Chapter Two. The sleeve was over-
b. Inelastic strains in top slab deducted (Fig. A-47): designed because of the 5/ 6-in. minimum metal thickness used.
• E. slab = 4,660,000 in.4 Concrete removed to sever two additional strands (four strands
f top of slab = (0.000082)(4,660,000) = 382 psi (c). had been severed in Test 7) was patched. The ultimate moment
From Figure A-20, e0 = 127; (82X82) = 53 psi. capacity of the 16-strand girder was 2,511 ft-kip. As determined
127 in Test 1, 75 percent of 2,511 ft-kip equals 1,883 ft-kip. A
f bottom of slab = (0.0000444)(4,660,000) = 205 psi maximum test load of 92.0 kips was applied. The total applied
(c). test moment including dead load moment was 1,934 ft-kip,
44) equaling 103 percent of 1,883 ft-kip. The test load moment of
From Figure A-20, e0 = 65, = 30 psi.
65 1,380 ft-kip (not including DLM) was equivalent to 1.98 times
77
5TRAIN - MICflO!NCHE5
400 800 /200 I002000 2400
I '/rvu/38) 34(k .300 I
-473
—Jilt - -
374(:)a49 -
cycle
4:
c1c/,ed 5ec/on)
GO
K
Z- SeC`017a CcIe
cycle
-J 1 137
138
\ /
-82 3441
"
0.2 L'44 146
DEFLECT/ON - INCHES
Figure A-48. Test No. 8 first and last cycle deflections and last cycle strains.
C. Girder
4S/ab —s, q. Girder,
'-I Slab 4' Sleeve
l/L'3xYz
x P/ate
8"6 Plate
O c. g. Sleeve
—24
22"
c.g. o.10 ut7olamayealgirc/er? 5/ab
SECTION
\(
For bond area, use only the perimeter
near the bottom flange: I'
Bond Area = (38)(39) /482 sq. in. 22
Pu = 6 strar?cls (270) (0.153) = 248 Kips
Bond Stress = 248/1482 = 167psi (< 350 psi o)
fY)
6 6
r-Patched Area
1I )
Figure A-49. Six strands severed. Figure A-50. Test No. 9 sleeve splice.
78
the HS-20 LL + I service load moment of 697 ft-kip. At time f bottom from P.S. + DL = 1,674 - 1,550 = 124
of testing the girder concrete strength, f,, was 6,150 psi and psi (t).
the slab concrete strength was 5,410 psi. Test 9 occurred 80 b. Assume that prestress plus dead load of girder and slab
days after casting the girder and 76 days after release of strands. acts on the composite damaged section:
The slab was cast 66 days prior to Test 9. The computed 76- - (10)(22) (10)(22)(36.10 - 4.40) -
day prestress loss was 31.1 ksi. f bottom - 926.4 +
6,516 -
The first observed cracks opened at the ends of the splice 1,307 P.S. (c).
sleeve at a load of 73 kips or moment of 1,095 ft-kip equivalent 554
to 1.57 times HS-20 LL + I M of 697 ft-kip. At maximum load, f, bottom = 12)(6,516) = 1,020 DL (t).
(
nine cracks were observed to extend within a few inches of the f bottom from P.S. + DL = 1,307 - 1,020 = 287
top slab. Four right-hand cracks were at previous crack loca- psi (c).
tions. One of these cracks was at the east end of the sleeve. f0 allowable = 0.4 f'0 = 0.4)(5,000) = 2,000 psi.
(
Four of the left-hand cracks were at previous crack loèations; f = 124 psi (t) is not considered excessive.
in addition, a minor crack at the west end of the sleeve developed
into a crack that extended upward. The maximum crack width
3. Design calculations for steel sleeve splice (Fig. A-50):
was 0.4 mm at the left end of the sleeve. Other than at the
a. Given:
sleeve ends, major cracks did not occur outside the sleeve length.
Strain data indicated compression at the bottom of the slab, n = 7.0; E = 29,000,000 = 4,142,857 psi; A sleeve
which was a departure from previous tests. The maximum ver-
tical deflection caused by the test was 0.64 in. The computed = (7) (21.75) = 152.25 in.'; c.g. sleeve = 6.16 in.; 10
deflection was 0.77 in. sleeve = (7)(796) = 5,572 in."
Maximum moments at centerline of span were developed from Section properties nondamaged girder, slab, and sleeve:
strain data and compared to the applied moments (see Table A = 1,027 + 152 = 1,179 in.'; new c.g. = 3.47 in.
A-4). Strand stresses ranged from 41 percent to 63 percent of New I = Orig. + A orig. (d2) + I. (sleeve) + AD2
f' (see Table A-6). Maximum sleeve stresses were 14.2 ksi for (sleeve) = 427,700 in.4
the first load cycle and 14.8 ksi for the last load cycle (39 percent 427,700
S bottom of sleeve = 29.84 = 14,330 in.'
F3 and 41 percent F3, where F3 equals 36 ksi). There was no
evidence of slippage bewtween the sleeve and the girder. The f (LL + I) = (697)(12)(7)/ 14,330 = 4.1 ksi steel stress
following calculations show the methodology used (also refer (t).
to Figs. A-49, A-50, A-S 1, A-52, and A-53 when reviewing the b. Check stresses at top of sleeve, assuming P.S. + DL act
calculations): on damaged girder section only:
f0 P.S. = (10)(22)/458.9 + (10)(22)(19.34)(23.74 -
I. Given:
17.5)/94,297 = 761 psi (c).
Test No. 9 girder with six severed strands plus steel sleeve.
f DL = (554)(12)(6.24)/94,297 = 440 (t).
Computations prior to testing:
f, LL+I = (697)(12)(29.53 - 17.5)/427,700 = 235
Break out portion of concrete and sever 6 strands.
(t)
c.g. of 10 strands = (4)(2) + (2)(4) + (4)(7)/ 10 =
= 761 compression - 440 tension - 235 tension
4.40 in. (Fig. A-49)
86 psi (c).
Section properties nondamaged girder: A = 559.5 in.',
c. Assuming P.S. + DL acts on damaged composite section:
I = 125,400 in.4; S bottom = 6,190 in.3
fP.S. = (10)(22)1926.4 + (10)(22)(18.6)(36.1 - 4.4)!
Section properties girder and slab: A = 1,027 in.', I
235,239 = 789 psi (c).
= 326,600 in.', S bottom = 9,895 in.'
f DL = (554)(12)(18.6)/235,239 = 526 (t)
Section properties damaged girder: A = 458.9 in.'; new
t LL+I = (same as above)
c.g. = 3.47 in.
f. = 789 compression - 526 tension - 235 tension
I = I orig. + (A orig.)(d2) - L,. (deduction) - AD2
= 28 psi (c).
297
I = 94,297 in.4, S bottom = 3,972 in? Therefore preload is not required or desirable.
13.74
Section properties damaged girder plus slab: A = 926.4
in.'; new c.g. = 3.10 in.
I = I orig. + (A orig.) (d)2 - I (deduction) - AD2 4. Calculate required test load:
Calculated M0 of girder = 2,511 ft-kip (16 strands w!o
I = 235,239 in.', S bottom 235,239 = 6,516 in.3 sleeve).
75% M0 = 1,883 ft-kip, LL M = 1,883 - 554 (DLM)
f bottom from DL + LL + I + 16 strands (prior to
= 1,329 ft-kip.
damage) = 365 psi (t) (Allowable = 424 psi (t).)
P = 4M/E = (4)(1,329)/60 = 89 kips (same as Test 1).
2. Calculate stresses at bottom of damaged girder: 91.97 kips was used to facilitate load readings.
a. Assume that prestress plus dead load of girder and slab
acts on the damaged girder section alone: 5. Check approximate sleeve stress using section properties of
. f. bottom P.S.
(10)(222) + (10)(22)(19.34) = 1,550
458.9 3,972
nondamaged girder plus slab and steel sleeve:
M = 75% M0 = 1,883 ft-kip.
P.S. (c). f bottom = (1,883)(12)(7)/14,330 = 11.0 ksi (allowable
= (554)(12) = = 20 ksi).
f, bottom 1,674 D.L. (t).
3,972 fc 10 strand P.S. at top of sleeve = 761 psi (c).
79
-93-('-54)= -39
101 71-7
3/3(c/465ps) ____
-27-(-/8) -.9
-. 479 K
Inelastic Strains
78k Deducted
37 (C/73ps€)
-3/3 -(-39) -274 ('282.)
Inelastic 5train.s
No)' Deducted
- 479 K
_37(9)28(c/3/ ps i)
J H /90
'C' -
-
4/4 'C
(C)
. Sleeve I
aI . M1 /90#C'
Ic. I
Sleeve
I It)
- LC9 /0235'C
S frands -
/ 70'C
-
SS
- L 9 /0 Strands
Top of Sleeve
6.6
6-
I/I /37#138
( / Gages 2
/ / 0.000275 ~ 0000274
-
From Gage Ill
Strand fs = (0000427)(28,000) / 2
II. 96 ks /5/tess (29,000)(0.0002745
(Good Check)
Test 10 was a test of the same sleeve splice as Test 9, except -400 0 400 800 1200 /600
the test load was increased to a maximum of 166.8 kips. The I I
120 I
maximum capacity of the hydraulic jack was 166.8 kips. Only
one test cycle was made. The ultimate moment capacity of the 0.07" ro.35"
16-strand girder was 2,511 ft-kip, as determined in Test 1. The /12-492)
critical sections were at the ends of the sleeve splice, 6 ft 6 in.
from centerline of span. The applied moment at the sleeve ends
was 2,488 ft-kip, including dead load moment, equaling 99 per-
r
5 / ,,4f 8 /4 -38G
5 /544
-- I
cent of the calculated ultimate strength of the girder. The total
applied moment at centerline of span was 3,056 ft-kip. The test /23}- , Fir.59 Cuc/e
so-
load moment of 2,502 ft-kip (not including DLM) at centerline /37 ' ,(Pakh'ctio)
of span was equivalent to 3.59 times the HS-20 LL + I service '.38
load moment of 697 ft-kip. The test load moment at the ends
/
/ " _Las7LC6,cfe
of the sleeve was 1,960 ft-kip (not including DLM) and was
equivalent to 2.81 times the HS-20 LL + I service load moment / 1/5
of 697 ft-kip. Test No. 10 was made the same day as Test 9; /
thence concrete strengths and loss of prestress were the same /
/
as Test 9. 40
Nineteen major cracks were observed to extend to the bottom 1/1
/ /544 \
of the slab or within a few inches thereof. Seven of these cracks
118
1 -1117 1
occurred above the top of the 13-ft long sleeve. The cracks
119 /
occurred along a girder length of 26 ft, 13 ft each side centerline 20 /V /
of span. The maximum crack width was 6.4 mm, occurring at I,
a sleeve end; this crack reduced to 3.2 mm after release of the
test load. Strain data indicated tension at the bottom of the slab. 1/4-24
0 /93 /37f229 f/543
The compression stress at top of slab, centerline of span, com-
puted from strains was 3,005 psi, equaling 0.56 times the ulti- 04 0.6 0.8 10
-27--'
mate strength of the slab. This stress was the highest recorded DEPLfC77ON - INCHES
stress for any test. The maximum vertical deflection was 5.28
in., equaling 4.47 times the maximum Test 1 deflection. The
Figure A-54. Test No. 9 first and last cycle deflections and last
residual deflection after release of load was 1.48 in. Maximum
cycle strains.
moments at centerline of span were developed from strain data
and compared to the applied moments (see Table A-4) Strand
stresses ranged from 57 percent to 67 percent of V. (see Table
A-6). Maximum sleeve stress was 31.3 ksi, equal to 87 percent
of F = 36 ksi. No visible evidence of slippage between the
sleeve and the girder occurred. Bond stress on the sleeve was
calculated as follows. The only part of the perimeter of the
sleeve used was the width of bottom flange (22 in.) plus the
depth of bottom flange (2 times 7 in. = 14 in.) plus 1 in. of
each fillet, giving a perimeter of 38 in. The ultimate strength
for six severed strands was 6(0.1 53)(270) = 248 kips. Using a
bond length of 39 in. (see Fig. A-35), the bond stress was 248/
(38)(39) = 167 psi. The methodology of developing moments
and stresses from strains is shown in Test 9.
The load-deflection and load-strain curves for Test 10 are
shown in Figure A-55. At a load of 106 kips a crack formed
beyond one end of the steel sleeve splice. The applied load
reduced to about 101 kips when this crack formed. The load
held steady at this point. Following inspection, loading was
continued, as shown in Figure A-55. From about 140 kips a
rapid increase occurred in deflection. All strain gages indicated
a redistribution of load between approximately 130 to 150 kips.
This redistribution started at the bottom of the girder, working
up to the top slab. Loading ceased at 167 kips, which was about
equal to the safe capacity of the jacking floor system. There was
a permanent set of 1.48 in. when load was removed.
82
5TR14/N MlCROV.JC/-/E5 -
5OS /078-
r 677 rBG -_11l87"
IgIe
V -4?0
7-
4/ 8 112 10 20C
J
123
// /,/////i
137
-
crack ,rmed 6,4 lOG
A'
'V
- -
100
I /
I /" Leflec'/ot'
I 80 /
1119 /
1/21 /
I /
I /
I 1/5
I Ill
40 /
/
I /
I /
20/
/
f.48f'Se
o Y -8941
0.2fr )ç 41
Fqro
p 241
08
r1124
0 l.2 1.
0 1.0 -24. 12 3.0 4.0 .5.0 G.O 70
DEFLECTION - INCHES
Figure A-55. Test No. 10 deflection and strains.
83
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation WARNER, R. E., and HULSBOS, C. L., "Fatigue Properties
Officials, Standard Spec(flcations for Highway Bridges. 12th of Prestressing Strand." PCI Journal (Feb. 1966).
Edition (1977) 496 pp. WARNER, R. E., and HULSBOS, C. L., "Probable Fatigue
CASSANO, R. C., and LEBEAU, R. J., "Correlating Bridge Life of Prestress Concrete Beams." PCI Journal, Vol. II,
Design Practice with Overload Permit Policy." Transpor- No. 2 (Apr. 1966).
tation Research Record 664 (1978) pp. 230-238. HANSON, J. M., HULSBOS, C. L., and VAN HORN, D. A.,
TIDE, R. H. R., and VAN HORN, D. A., "A Statistical "Fatigue Tests of Prestressed Concrete I-Beams." J. of the
Study of the Static and Fatigue Properties of High Strength Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of
Prestressing Strand." Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report Civil Engineers (Nov. 1970).
No. 309.2, Lehigh University (June 1966). "Cracked Structural Concrete Repair Through Epoxy In-
RABBAT, B. G., KAAR, P. H., RUSSELL, H. G., and BRUCE, jection and Rebar Insertion." Kansas Department of Trans-
R. N., JR., "Fatigue Tests of Prestressed Girders with Blan- portation, Report No. FHWA-KS-RD 76-2, Interim Report
keted and Draped Strands." "Transportation Research Rec- (1977).
ord 665 (1978) pp. 13-21. "Repair of Hollow or Softened Areas in Bridge Decks by
RABBAT, B. G., KAAR, P. H., RUSSELL, H. G., and BRUCE, Rebonding with Injected Epoxy Resin or Other Polymers."
R. N., JR., "Fatigue Tests of Full-Sized Prestressed Gir- State Highway Commission of Kansas, Report No. K-F-72-
ders." Portland Cement Association, State of Louisiana, 5, Final Report (1974).
Technical Report No. 113 (June 1978). SHANAFELT, G. 0., and HORN, W. B., "Damage Evaluation
ABELES, P. W., and BARTON, F. W., "Fatigue Test on and Repair Methods for Prestressed Concrete Bridge Mem-
Damaged Prestressed Concrete Beams." Duke University, bers." NCHRP Report 226 (Nov. 1980) 66 pp.
mt. Symp. on Effects of Repeated Loading of Materials DUNHAM, C. W., "The Theory and Practice of Reinforced
and Structures (Sept. 6, 1966). Concrete." McGraw Hill (1944).
THE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD is an agency of the National
Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy
of Engineering. The Board's purpose is to stimulate research concerning the nature and per-
formance of transportation systems, to disseminate information that the research produces, and
to encourage the application of appropriate research findings. The Board's program is carried
out by more than 270 committees, task forces, and panels composed of more than 3,300
administrators, engineers, social scientists, attorneys, educators, and others concerned with
transportation; they serve without compensation. The program is supported by state transpor-
tation and highway departments, the modal administrations of the U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, the Association of American Railroads, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of
transportation.
The Transportation Research Board operates within the National Research Council. The
National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of
furthering knowledge and of advising the Federal Government. The Council operates in ac-
cordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its congres-
sional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing
membership corporation. The Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of
their services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities.
It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by Act of Congress as a private,
nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation for the furtherance of science and technology,
and to advise the Federal Government upon request within its fields of competence. Under its
corporate charter the Academy established the National Research Council in 1916, the National
Academy of Engineering in 1964, and the Institute of Medicine in 1970.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
National Research Council
U.S. POSTAGE
2101 ConstItution Avenue, N.W. PAID
Washington, D.C. 20418 WASHINGTON, D.C.
PERMIT NO. 8970
ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED
lRi' 'JUL ui
ID
1980
MAT. LAB.
000015M001
JAMES it HIL EI
RESEARCH 5CR
IDAHO TRANS DEPT Di OF HWYS
P 0 BOX 7129 3311 IN STATE ST.. 7
ID 831
BC! SE