Prestress Losses in

Continuous Composite
Bridges
Mohamed H. Soliman
Research Assistant
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario, Canada

John B. Kennedy
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario, Canada

D uring the last 30 years composite con-

struction of concrete slab-on-steel gir-
ders has been widely used to form the
superstructure of bridges. Generally, such
construction has been applied only to sim-
ple spans or to the sagging moment regions
of continuous spans since transverse cracks
will inevitably develop in the region of in-
termediate supports.
Such transverse cracking, caused by the
presence of large negative (hogging) mo-
ments, reduces significantly the stiffness of
the bridge and leads to costly maintenance.
Moreover, even in the case of simple span
bridges, extensive damage to the expansion
joints can occur due to seepage of deicing
salt-laden water. Fig. 1 shows an example
of such damage in one of the many expan-
sion joints on the Gardiner Expressway in
Toronto, Canada.
Several researchers 1-3 have proposed to
prestress part of the concrete deck in the
vicinity of the intermediate supports of con-
tinuous bridges as shown in Fig. 2(a). A re-
cent study 2 has shown that such prestressing
increases substantially the cracking load in
addition to the stiffness of such bridges.
For proper design it is essential to esti-
mate accurately the anticipated losses in the
prestressing force due to creep, shrinkage
and steel relaxation.'`' The objective of this
paper is to propose a simple method to-
gether with design aids by which these long-
term losses can be reliably estimated. The
results from this simple method are com-
pared to those from an elaborate method of
solution requiring the use of a computer.
In this paper it is assumed that prestress-
ing of the concrete deck is carried out on
the composite sections (with the connection
between the concrete and steel beams re-
alized prior to prestressing). Previous
experience' has shown that the alternative
scheme of prestressing a free-to-slide con-

84
crete deck can lead to problems not only in
construction but also in bridge mainte- Synopsis
nance. Design aids are developed to esti-
mate the long-term losses in the pres-
tressing force in continuous composite
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES concrete-on-steel girder bridges. The
prestressed portions of the concrete
Two analytical methods are presented to deck are in the vicinity of the inter-
estimate the losses in the prestressing force mediate supports.
in continuous composite bridges. The first The use of the design aids and ac-
method is an iterative approach requiring counting for the reduced relaxation in
the use of a computer, while the second the prestressing steel are illustrated
method is a one-step explicit solution with with a numerical example. The results
design aids suitable for design office use. are compared to those from an itera-
Both methods are based on well-estab- tive method of solution requiring a
lished principles used by other inves- computer.
tigators3,4.6- s and are dependent on the
following assumptions: plane sections re-
main plane after any change in the stresses;
curvature and axial strain at any cross sec-
tion of the bridge can be related to the ap- in which
plied forces. i, j = time interval number; when
used with time-dependent
parameters they indicate time
Iterative Method at the middle of intervals i, j,
In this method, time is divided into in- respectively
tervals the length of which is assumed to
increase with tine;"" each interval such as
t is subdivided into t '2, t and tj.f1/ 2 , i.e.,
a beginning, middle and end of interval j,
as shown in Fig. 3. Any stress variation is
assumed to take place at the midpoint of the
interval, while the creep and shrinkage
strains as well as the relaxation stress of the
prestressing steel are determined at the be-
ginning and end of the interval.
During any interval j, the incremental
axial strain, AE., and the incremental cur-
vature, AK, , can be expressed, respectively,
.1 4
as :

Deg = —a (1 + 4J *'12J) +
A
1 AN.
E ` (^,+ v2.. – ; ii2.) +
A€ ,, h . (1)
A

.AM
AK = (1 + ^^+u2,,) +

Fig. 1. Damage at one of the expansion

-1 AM
( 4',+v2., – 4;- "2. ) (2)
joints in the Gardiner Expressway in
E .I z Toronto (Courtesy of A. Tork)

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1986 85

 AN,, = change in axial force on the
concrete, N _
D& , hj = incremental axial shrinkage
strain
A "= effective area of concrete deck
I, = moment of inertia of concrete
deck about its own neutral axis
•j+I/2., = creep coefficient at the end of
the jth interval for stress ap-
plied at the middle of the ith

Transverse cracks

(a) Composite Concrete deck-on-steel girder

Bridge - Reinforced concrete deck

Non-prestressed Prestressed deck

deck Np ` Np

(b) Composite Concrete deck-on-steel girder

Bridge - Part of deck prestressed

Centroid of
Reinforcing steel
p y =o
Prestressing tendon

Concrete deck

do
J
ys _ _ N.A. of Composite
Sectio
of steel girder

(c) Cross-section

Fig. 2. Geometry of a continuous two-span composite bridge showing a longitudinal

section with (a) cracked reinforced concrete deck, (b) uncracked prestressed concrete
deck and its cross section in (c).

86
 N
1-I/2 I 1+1/2
Fig. 3. Definition of the time interval used in the iterative method of solution.
interval
OM, = change in moment M carried
by the concrete deck
E ,= modulus of elasticity of con-
crete
Using Eqs. (1) and (2) at any time j, six
equations can be generated relating the fol-
lowing unknowns:" changes in the normal
force acting on the concrete deck and on the
steel girder, AN, and ANq, respectively;
changes in the induced force in the pre-
stressing steel and in the nonprestressed
reinforcing steel, ON and ON,,, , respec-
tively; and, changes in the bending mo-
ments acting on the concrete deck and the
steel girder, OM,. and OMs, respectively.
The six equations are derived from the
following conditions:
1. The suns of the changes in the forces
at any section is zero for equilibrium.
2. The change in the bending moment at
any section is equal to that due to the change
in the prestressing force N.
3. Compatibility of curvature and strain
at the interface between the steel section
and the concrete deck.
4. Compatibility of strains at the center
of gravity of the steel section in the concrete
PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1986
Time
J-1/2 J
+y2
deck.
5. Compatibility of strains at the center
of gravity of the prestressing steel in the
concrete deck.
6. Compatibility of strains at the center
of gravity of the nonprestressed reinforcing
steel in the concrete deck.
These six equations were solved for each
time interval up to time t = 10,000 days
(considered to be infinity) yielding the long-
term losses in the prestressing force. A
computer program was written to treat two-
span and three-span continuous composite
bridges. Values for the concrete creep
coefficient, 4, and shrinkage strain, es,,,
were based on the recommendations of
ACI Committee 209" and CEB-FIB.18
Furthermore, the reduction in the stress re-
laxation in the prestressing steel was con-
sidered based on the 1975 PCI recommen-
dations. 12
The main steps in the computer program
for an analysis by the iterative method are
as follows:
1. Read in the following data: Age of con-
crete at the beginning, middle and end of
each time interval; material properties of
steels and concrete (including slump, rela-
87
tive humidity, water content, curing pe- in which
riod, etc.); section properties; initial E , = concrete elastic modulus at
prestressing force N„0 and long-term mo- age t
ment due to sustained loading. (, r = creep coefficient at time T
2. Initiate sectional forces, N,^, Ns, NP, N with load applied at concrete
M,, M at time of transfer. age t
3. For each time interval: 6 4.O = concrete shrinkage strain at
(a) Determine the creep coefficient 4) time T
as a function of age of concrete at If the stress is continuously varying with
time of loading and of period of time, then the total strain becomes:
loading.
(b) Compute the shrinkage strain and
convert it to an equivalent normal
E T.r = E (I+4),)+
force N ,,, acting on the concrete deck J
when considering the continuity of r, (1 + 4r.r) afr dt' + e ti^^ (4)
at'
the structure.
(c) Compute the relaxation stress in the The difficulty of continually varying
prestressing steel based on the 1975 stress and concrete characteristics with
PCI recommendation 12 with the in- time is surmounted by the use of the creep
itial steel tendon stress f,, given by: relaxation coefficient introduced first
by Trost' 6 and then refined by Bazant. 6 In
effect, this coefficient accounts for the re-
(N,,, — AN„)IA„
duction in creep deformation at time T =
oo due to continuous change in the applied

where AN,, = 0 at the first time interval (i prestressing force caused by the long-term
= 1). losses.
(d) Based on the six conditional equa- Thus, at time T = , Eq. (4) can be writ-
tions mentioned above formulate ten as:
the matrix equation with the six
unknowns AN, AN ,, AN,,, AN,,,,,
Ex r = (1 + 4k,) +
AM and AM,.
(e) Solve the matrix equation to deter-
f' (1 + 'n 4r) + E.,h(:,
mine the unknowns and in partic- A (5)
ular AN .
4. Print the long-term loss in the pre- Two different 9's are possible'° depend-
stressing steel for each time interval. ing on whether the strain is associated with
Results based on the iterative method us- flexure (q ,,,) or with axial force (i ,). Values
ing the computer program were generated; of q ,,, (or ii„) are obtained from Fig. 4 for
they are discussed in connection with the different values of 4) ,,, (or i„ ) given by:'6
illustrative bridge design example pre-
sented later on.
and
One-Step Method = a ,, 4)_.i
The total strain in the concrete of age T where
and loaded at age t with a stress f , when T
cx =
>> t, can be shown to be:'''fi 1+E,I

EI
f,
E T.r — E (1 + 4)T,) + Esh(Tl
(3) and
r

88
 Age at Loading = 10 days
Concrete Age = 10,000days
08

N
Age at Loading = 7 days
0.6 Concrete Age =10,000days

F //
0
0.5

0.4

0 3I,
1 I I 1 I i

0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5

0m,n
Fig. 4. Relationship between the flexural and thrust relaxation coefficients q
and creep factor b.

1 N
a=/ hex. = A E fix ' +
A E (1 + ^„ ^__,) + A E (6)
in which
A = area of steel girder and
= modulus of elasticity of steel
+ AM"„ (1 + ^,,, ^_.,) (7)
E
girder .
OK
I, = moment of inertia (about =EL
its own centroid) of steel
girder in which
= distance from centroid of steel N, = initial axial force on concrete
ys
girder to centroid of concrete deck
deck AN + A d<Mer
The coefficients a and a reflect the fact mnA, ml,
that creep is influenced by the restraining M^1 = moment at critical section (see
action of the steel girder, '° ignoring that of Fig. 5) due to long-term loads
the nonprestressed steel in the deck which A, = area of composite section
was shown to be relatively small. Dealing I, = moment of inertia of compos-
only with long-term strains by omitting the ite section
elastic strain in Eq. (5), the changes in m = modular ratio
the strain e and curvature K can be written d = distance from neutral axis of
as: composite section to centroid

PC I JOURNAUJanuary-February 1986 89
 NP =D.L±0.3L.L.
N ,—WJt
o Po
(a)
T !

(b)

(c)

ili

(d)

Fig 5. (a) Long-term (It) loading on bridge; bending moment due to

(b) applied prestressing force; (c) w it ; and (d) combined
loading (b) and (c).

of concrete deck AN— = change in axial forces carried

ON- = change in N , at time T = 00
N,,, = axial shrinkage force in con-
crete deck assumed to deform
freely
M0 = initial moment resisted by
concrete deck
AM = change in M,,„ at T = 00
Results from the iterative solution indi-
cated that the effect of nonprestressed steel
in the concrete deck is relatively small (less
than 0.7 percent) and, therefore, was ig-
nored in this analysis in order to arrive at
an easy-to-use method of analysis and more
tractable design aids. Thus, applying the
equilibrium conditions to the changes in the
forces and in the moments on the composite
section yields, respectively:
ON . +RNs + N = 0.0 (8)
AM , + OM + (AN ,0 )y, (9)
+ (AN ,,) y„ = OMer
in which
by steel section
ONE,,, = change in axial forces carried
by prestressing steel
OM q„ = change in moment carried by
steel section
y„ = distance from center of gravity
of prestressing steel to cen-
troid of concrete deck
OMet = change in moment at critical
section (see Fig. 5) due to long-
term losses in prestressing
force, given by (ON ,, ) k, where
A is a continuity factor derived
in Appendix A.
Such a moment change was ignored in
Refs. 7 and 19. It should be remarked that
results from the iterative solution program
showed that the largest prestressing losses
were incurred at the cross sections coincid-
ing with the ends of the prestressed deck(s)
due to the presence of a sagging moment.
Invoking compatibility of curvature and

90
 strains at the interface between the con- from Table 3. The expressions for the factors
crete deck and the steel section, will lead iii, E, C, 'y, p and p., incorporating and
to: ,q ,, , are given in Appendix B.
The numerical values for the factors in
M o
Eq. (13) have been determined for two- and
+ - (1 + i1^, 4 _.^) AM-
EJ three-span continuous composite bridges
(10) having various cross sections (see Tables 1
to 3). For brevity, only a limited number of
N AN
--°(1 + "1„4J) + steel sections were considered. However,
(t, . 7 +
AE values for steel sections not listed in the
AM N
+ N .O, = As tables can be determined by interpolation.
.o,
(11)
E ll s A,E, AsE, The influence of the bending moment car-
ried by the concrete deck (M,.,,) was found
to be relatively insignificant and therefore
11 4_) +
A E fi x•' + A E - (1 + was omitted from Eq. (13).
It should be noted that the results in Ta-
AM .- + N +N (12) bles 1 and 2 are based on a prestressed deck
Ell s ACE, A,,E,, AE of length ranging from 0.21 to 0.351 which
in which is the normal range for this type of construc-
A„ = area of prestressing steel tion, I being the length of one span. For
E , = elastic modulus of prestressing brevity, only the most common concrete deck
steel thicknesses of 8 and 9 in. have been consid-
N „ = prestressing steel relaxation force ered in Tables 1 to 3. However, these re-
at time T =oo sults can be linearly extrapolated for thinner
It should be remarked that the above decks, say 7 in. thick, to give slightly over-
analysis could have been dealt with in terms estimated prestressing losses and, there-
of only two unknowns; however, such a fore, be conservative.
method would perforce require the use of To account for the "reduced" relaxation
one q only since it cannot account for both of the prestressing steel, the value of z, ob-
r) and -q. This would lead to an unneces- tained from Fig. B1, must be reduced by a
sary approximation which was circum- factor a ,. as suggested by Tadros et al` and
vented by the use of the method adopted Dilger. 8 They have shown that a , is a func-
herein. tion of the ratio:
A long-handed solution of Eqs. (8) to (12)
yielded the following explicit expression for H _ Loss due to creep and shrinkage
the long-term losses in the prestressing force Initial prestressing force
at time T = oo:
_ AN,('PIA)
(15)
N,,,,
AN -`i[(1-. - A ) +(I+A)-yp ] N
and the ratio:
°° W(10)3
(13) Initial prestress f
= _ ^ 16
in which Ultimate strength fN,,

N =N , +w (14) Fig. 6 (taken from Ref. 8) gives a , as a

function of fl and (3. Thus, the "reduced" z
to be used in Eq. (13) becomes:
where w = N ,51(fix ) and A zlirN,.
The values of z (without considering the z' = a ,z (17)
"reduced" relaxation of the prestressing steel)
are obtained from Fig. B1 and that for where z is determined from Fig. B1. This

PCI JOURNAUJanuary-February 1986 91

CD
N)

Table 1. Factors to estimate the long-term prestress losses for 8 in. concrete deck.
w x 10" µ
For (A ,/A,m) x 100 =
Relative Section Two Span Three Span
Humidity No. p y (1, 1) (1, 1.21, 1) 0.1 percent 0.2 percent 0.3 percent 0.4 percent 0.5 percent

36 x 300 5.709 1.629 16.009 -3.800 470880. 375732. -118.025 -60.174 -40.891 -31.249 -25.464
36 x 260 5.712 1.735 16.039 -4.411 435395. 346299. -139.457 -71.050 -48.247 -36.846 -30.005
36 x 230 5.798 1.851 16.069 -5.046 405336. 321457. -163.137 -83.052 -56.358 -43.010 -35.002

36 x 210 5.902 1.931 16.101 -5.837 384704. 303237. -187.576 -95.489 -64.794 -49.446 -40.238
36 x 182 5.966 2.099 16.079 -6.759 351480. 276407. -222.873 -113.363 -76.860 -58.609 -47.658
36 x 160 5.999 2.268 16.127 -7.782 322073. 252716. -261.372 -132.868 -90.033 -68.616 -55.766
36 x 135 5.984 2.519 16.150 -9.626 286479. 223890. -324.098 -164.656 -111.509 -84.935 -68.991

33 x 241 5.507 1.802 16.082 -5.121 417091. 330752. -155.180 -79.034 -53.652 -40.961 -33.347
50 percent 33 x 201 5.570 1.985 16.139 -6.249 373631. 295127. -194.372 -98.901 -67.078 -51.166 -41.619

33 x 152 5.748 2.350 16.262 -8.766 311199. 243973. -282.367 -143.498 -97.208 -74.063 -60.176
33 x 130 5.646 2.575 16.222 -10.558 279088. 218144. -337.543 -171.467 -116.108 -88.429 -71.821
33 x 118 5.684 2.760 16.292 -11.940 259688. 202589. -385.312 -195.655 -132.436 -100.826 -81.861

30 x 211 5.161 1.938 16.043 -6.518 385082. 304188. -185.016 -94.163 -63.879 -48.737 -39.651
30 x 173 5.198 2.159 16.260 -8.082 339014. 266855. -236.216 -120.120 -81.422 -62.073 -50.463

30 x 132 5.264 2.551 16.306 -11.447 282341. 220564. -337.703 -171.564 -116.184 -88.494 -71.880
30 x 116 5.287 2.786 16.407 -13.293 256927. 200352. -397.529 -201.856 -136.632 -104.019 -84.452
30 x 99 5.259 3.125 16.441 -16.269 227306. 176804. - 487.100 - 247.207 -167.243 - 127.260 - 103.271

Note: 1. For any section not listed above and falling between any two listed sections (such as WF36 >
factors may be estimated by averaging (e.g., p = (5.709 + 5.712)/2 = 5.7105 for WF36 x 2
2. The values listed are valid only for prestressed deck of length (0.2 to 0.35)1.
 Table 1 (cont.) Factors to estimate the long-term prestress losses for 8 in. concrete deck.
w x 10 µ
Relative Section Two Span Three Span
For (k /Am) x 100 =
No. p 0.1 percent 0.2 percent 0.3 percent 0.4 percent 0.5 percent
Humidity 5 y (1, 1) (1, 1.21, 1)

36 x 3(H) 5.599 1.692 14.302 -3.800 427244. 414107. -112.192 -57.133 -38.780 -29.603 -24.098
36 x 260 5.569 1.803 14.332 -4.411 395047. 381667. -132.414 -67.386 -45.711 -34.873 -28.370
36 x 230 5.706 1.938 14,362 -5.046 367774. 354289. - 156.403 -79.526 -53.901 -41.088 -33.400

36 x 210 5.746 2.015 14.393 -5.837 349054. 334208. -178.802 -90.920 -61.626 -46.979 -38.191
36 x 182 5.758 2.183 14.437 -6.759 318909. 304638. -211.763 -107.609 -72.891 -55.532 -45.116
36 x 160 5.721 2.350 14.486 -7.782 292227. 278527. -246.402 -125.157 -84.742 -64.535 -52.411
36 x 135 5.656 2.616 14.405 -9.626 259931. 246756. -303.512 -154.076 -104.264 -79.358 -64.414

33 x 241 5.364 1.875 14.375 -5.121 378439. 364533. -147.556 -75.067 -50.904 -38.823 -31.574
70 percent
33 x 201 5.418 2.073 14.432 -6.249 339007. 325269. -185.270 -94.166 -63.798 -48.614 -39.504

33 x 152 5.410 2.435 14.442 -8.766 282360. 268891. -263.002 -133.551 -90.401 -68.826 -55.881
33 x 130 5.336 2.675 14.477 -10.558 253225. 240425. -316.252 -160.525 -108.616 -82.661 -67.088
33 x 118 5.345 2.869 14.492 -11.940 235623. 223281. -359.635 -182.476 -123.423 -93.896 -76.180

30 x 211 5.062 2.035 14.467 -6.518 349397. 335256. -177.737 -90.359 -61.232 -46.669 -37.931
30 x 173 4.957 2.249 14.440 -8.082 307597. 294110. -221.946 -112.756 -76.359 -58.161 -47.242

30 x 132 4.995 2.649 14.617 -11.447 256176. 243091. -317.727 -161.287 -109.140 -83.067 -67.423
30 x 116 4.972 2.897 14.607 -13.293 233118. 220815. -371.219 -188.351 -127.394 -96.916 -78.630
30 x 99 4.981 :3.255 14.771 -16.269 206241. 194861. -458.917 -232.729 -157.333 -119.635 -97.016

Note: 1. For any section not listed above and falling between any two listed sections (such as WF36 x 280 falls between WF36 x 3(X) and WF36 x 260), the appropriate
factors may be estimated by averaging (e.g., p = (5.709 + 5.712)/2 = 5.7105 for WF36 x 280).
2. The values listed are valid only for prestressed deck of length (0.2 to 0.35)!.

cD
w
Table 2. Factors to estimate the long-term prestress losses for 9 in. concrete deck.
w x 10" µ
Section Two Span Three Span For (A /A,m) x 100
Relative
Humidity No. p y (l, 1) (1, 1.21, 1) 0.1 percent 0.2 percent 0.3 percent 0.4 percent 0.5 percent

36 x 3(X) 4.782 1.838 9.916 -3.885 553092. 482647. -79.408 -40.430 -27.437 -20.940 -17.043
36 x 260 4.787 1.978 9.945 -4.511 507078. 441358. -94.050 -47.8,51 -32.451 -24.751 -20.131
36 x 230 4.834 2.127 9.976 -5.161 468703. 407013. -109.857 -55.857 -37.857 -28.857 -23.457
36 x 210 4.920 2.233 10.007 -5.968 442565. 382201. - 126.716 -64.423 -43.658 -33.276 -'27.047
36 x 182 4.896 2.439 9.971 -6.912 101226. 345928. -148.768 -75.586 -51.192 -38.995 -31.677
:36 x 160 4.924 2.661 10.020 -7.959 :365159. 314326. -174.609 -88.667 -60.020 -45.697 -37.103
36 x 135 4.874 2.966 10.108 -9.847 :322125. 276422. -215.517 -109.398 -74.025 -56.338 -45.726

33 x 241 4.594 2.062 9.989 -5.243 483608. 419840. -104.625 -53.217 -36.081 -27.513 -22.372
50 percent
33 x 201 4.558 2.289 9.966 -6.399 428790. 371122. -129.161 -65.648 - 44.477 -33.891 - 27.540

33 x 152 4.648 2.746 10.088 -8.978 351931. 302775. -186.503 -94.696 -64.093 -48.792 -39.611
33 x 130 4.605 3.038 10.180 -10.815 313277. 268938. -224.940 -114.170 -77.246 -58.785 -47.708
33 x 118 4.636 3.277 10.250 -12.233 290194. 248779. -257.009 -130.399 -88.195 -67.093 -54.432
30 x 211 4.265 2.229 10.001 -6.686 443091. 383455. -124.378 -63.230 -42.847 -32.656 -26.541
30 x 173 4.263 2.518 10.086 -8.293 385896, 333125. -157.754 -80.135 -54.262 -41.326 -33.564

30 x 132 4.300 3.007 10.264 -11.746 317124. 272125. -225.960 -114.696 -77.608 -59.064 -47.937
30 x 116 4.285 3.311 10.285 -13.643 286893. 245924. -264.064 -133.976 -90.613 -68.932 -55.923
30 x 99 4.210 3.716 10.370 -16.701 252079. 215750. -320.486 -162.550 -109.905 -83.582 -67.788

Note: 1. For any section not listed above and falling between any two listed sections
Factors may be estimated by averaging (e.g., p = (5.709 + 5.712)/2 = 5.7101
2. The values listed are valid only for prestressed deck of length (0.2 to 0.35)/.
 Table 2 (cont.). Factors to estimate the long-term prestress losses for 9 in. concrete deck.
w x 10:1 µ
For (A /A,m) x 100 =
Relative Section Ts C) Span Three Span
No. p ! (1, 1 (1, 1.21, 1) 0.1 percent 0.2 percent 0.3 percent 0. 1 percent 0.5 percent
[lwnidity ry

36 x :300 4.582 1.904 8.822 -3.885 503939. 439754. -74.582 -37.936 -25.720 - 19.612 -15.948
:36 x 260 4.583 2.055 8.851 -4.511 462014. 402134. -88.473 -44.970 -30.469 -23.219 - 18.868
36 x 230 4.578 2.207 8.848 -5.161 427050. 370842. -102,589 -52.116 -35.292 -26.879 -21.832

36 x 210 4.633 2.313 8.879 -5.968 403234. 348235. -118.003 -59.944 -40.590 -30.914 -25.108
36 x 182 4.594 2.514 8.923 -6.912 365569. 315185. -138.512 -70.329 -47.601 -36.237 -29.419
36 x 160 4.629 2.765 8.903 -7.959 332708. 286392. -162.827 -82.621 -55.885 -42.518 -34.497
36 x 135 4.581 3.090 8.991 -9.847 293497. 251857. -201.310 -102.107 -69.040 -52.506 -42.585

33 x 241 4.427 2.157 8.861 -5.243 440630. 382529. -98.984 -50.292 -34.062 -25.947 -21.078
(1 percent 8.918 -6.399 390684. 338141. -121.306 -61.605 -41.705 -31.755 -25.785
33 x 201 4.328 2.37:3
33 x 152 4.369 2.856 8.972 -8.978 320655. 275868. -174.044 -88.301 -59.720 -45.430 -36.856
33 x 130 4.294 3.166 8.995 -10.815 285437. 245037. -208.582 -105.785 -71.520 -54.387 -44.107
33 x 118 4.318 3.417 9.066 -12.233 264405. 226670. -238.320 -120.825 -81.661 -62.078 -50.329

30 x 211 4.018 2.309 8.884 -6.686 403713. 349378. -115.885 -58.865 -39.858 -30.354 -24.652
30 x 173 4.011 2.615 8.970 -8.293 351601. 303520. -147.183 -74.706 -50.547 -38.467 -31.220

30 x 132 4.010 :3.132 9.079 - 11.746 288941. 247942. -209,604 -106.311 -71.880 -54.664 -44.335
30 x 116 3.980 :3.426 9.181 - 13.643 261397. 224069. -244.597 -124.022 -83.831 -63.735 -51.678
3.955 3.883 9.277 -16.701 229677. 196576. -300.329 -152.212 -102.840 -78.154 -63.342
30 x 99

Note: 1. For any section not listed above and falling between any two listed sections (such as WF36 x 280 falls between WF36 x 300 and WF36 x 260), the appropriate
factors may be estimated by averaging (e.g., p = (5.709 + 5.712)/2 = 5.7105 for WF36 x 280).
2. The values listed are valid only for prestressed deck of length (0.2 to 0.35) 1.

(D
01
Table 3. Values for k, under different rel-
ative humidity (RH) and slab thickness t.
Deck Ill
Thickness, ==5 RH = 60 RH = 70
t percent percent
8 in. 70.04 65.37 60.10
9 in. 54.02 50.86 46.61
procedure in addition to the use of Tables
1 to 3 as design aids are illustrated in the
following example.
DESIGN EXAMPLE
It is required to estimate, at a relative
humidity of 50 percent, the prestress losses
in a continuous two-span composite con-
crete-steel girder bridge with a portion of
its deck prestressed as shown in Fig. 7. The
geometric and material properties as well as
the loading are also given in Fig. 7.
The applied prestressing force, N = 880
kips per composite beam. The length of the
prestressed deck is 0.251. The width of the
bridge is 32 ft with five equally spaced WF33
x 221 steel beams.
The total dead load = 1.45 kips per ft.
The total sustained (long-term) load, w, , =
dead load + (0.3) live load = 1.75 kips per
ft. From structural analysis the bending mo-
ment, due to w,,, is shown in Fig. 5(c); and
that due to the prestressing force is shown
in Fig. 5(b). By superposition, the net
bending moment diagram is shown in Fig.
5(d) where the largest positive moment M„
= 301 kip-ft at sections coinciding with the
ends of the prestressed concrete deck.
The appropriate values for the various pa-
rameters in Eq. (13) are determined from
Tables 1 and 3. It should be noted that since
the chosen section of WF33 X 221 is not
listed in Table 1, interpolation is used. Thus,

1.0

W
0
0.8
V

Z
0 0.6
I-
V
D \80
Q
c 0.4
Z
0
I-
X 0.2
W
Q'

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

JL
Fig. 6. Relaxation reduction factor a, as a function of parameter (1 for
different values of (3 (from Ref. 8).

96
 17.5
No

Longitudinal Section of Bridge

4..
.8 . 8 8

c NA
-- - ys
Y
Non Prestressed
Steel J 33.93

4-WF 33x221 Prestressing

tendons
Cross-Section

Loadings
Concrete weight = 145 lb/ft3
Surfacing weight = 60 lb/ft2
Girder weight = 200 lb/ft
U. D. L. L. =1000lb/ft

Material Properties
Ec =3.9x10 3 ksi; E s = 29x10 3 ksi ; m=7.44;
fpy =230 ksi; fc = 8.0 ksi; fpu=270ksi

Geometric Properties
Ac =768in 2 ; A t =168.3in 2 ; Ap=4.65in 2 ; dc=8.lin; yp=0;
ys =20.98in; y=29.85in; S= 757in 3 ; I t =30885in4;
OT vo = 2.95; A p /mA t -0.37'6 ; Anp=6.00 in2

Fig. 7. Data for estimating the loss in prestressing force in a continuous two-span
composite bridge cited in the design example.

for N in Eq. (14): for sections 33 X 241 and 33 x 201 in Table

A . = 768 in. 2; Nr„ = 880 kips; rn = 7.44; 1.
A, = 168.3 in.'; M,, = (301) (12) kip-in.; d^
Thus-
= 8.1 in.; 1, = 30885 in. ;; (w x 10) for a
steel section 33 x 221 and an 8 in. concrete x
(W103) 417091 + 373631
= = 395361
deck is estimated by averaging the values 2

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1986 97

from which w = 395.4 kips. N = N + w
Using the definition of N,,,, given by Eq.
= 637.8 + 395.4
(7):
= 1033.2 kips
A^Nu^ AdM
N =--+ Now A = z/(tiN ,), in which z = 97 X 10'
mA, ml
from Fig. B1; and = 70.036 from Table
_ (768)(880) 3. Thus, A = 1.345.
For Eq. (13): Averaging the values for
(7.44) (168.3) +
sections 33 X 241 and 33 X 201 in Table 1
(768) (8.1) (301) (12) yields: p = 5.539; = 1.89; = 16.11; -y
(7.44) (30885) _ - 5.685; and µ = -50.35.
Thus, using Eq. (13) and without ac-
= 637.8 kips
counting for the "reduced" relaxation in the
Thus, from Eq. (14): prestressing steel:

_ 70.036[(1 - 1.89 - 1.89x 1.345)16. 11 + (1 + 1.345)(5.539)(- 5.685)](1033.2)

^Nv (-50.35) (10:')
= 185.8 kips

Hence, the percentage long-term losses steel, respectively.

in the prestressing force is (185.8/880)(100)
or 21 percent. The corresponding percent-
age losses estimated by the iterative method
using the computer solution program were
20.7 and 20.0 percent without and with al-
lowing for the nonprestressed reinforcing
To account for the "reduced" relaxation,
a reduced value of z and hence A must be
used in Eq. (13). First, the loss in prestress-
ing force due to creep and shrinkage only is
estimated from Eq. (13) by putting A = 0
(since z will be zero). Thus:

70.036[(1-1.89)16.11 + (5.539)(-5.685)]1033.2
_ (-50.35)(10)
= 65.9 kips

Hence, from Eq. (15):

65.9 Thus, with fl = 0.075 and 13 = 0.70, Fig.
6 gives a, = 0.8, and hence z' = 0.8z and
H = 880 = 0.075
the factor A in Eq. (13) will be reduced by
and 13 from Eq. (16) is:
the same factor a = 0.8; using Eq. (13)
R
f (880/4.65)
= 0.70 again:
= fF 270

_ 70.036[{1-1.89-1.89(1.345)(0.8)116.11+11+(1.345)(0.8)1(5.539)(-5.685)1(1033.2)
NN W (-50.35)(10)
= 161.4 kips

yielding a percentage of (161.4/880)(100) or duced" relaxation of the prestressing steel

18.3 percent. the percentage long-term losses in the pre-
Thus, by taking into account the "re- stressing steel is reduced by approximately

98
C-)
C-
0
C
X
z
C
v
C
Losses estimated using the one step
T
<U
20.0 rmethod t'= ca
C-
C
v

OD
15.0
W
Q) a
Notation RH A in 2 An in2
C 10.0 Excluding Steel Relaxation
----- 507. 4.65 0.00
a)
--- 50 7 4.65 6.00
a) --- 70 4.65 0.00
a. 5.0
--- 5090 5.00 0.00
50' 4.65 0.00
0.0
0 1200 2400 3600 4800 6000

Time in days
Fig. 8. Percent losses in prestressing force with time under various conditions.
Table 4. Comparison of results for various composite bridges.
Percent Losses
Number of Span Length, 1, and
M^^ and Npo by
Spans Steel Section Iterative One-Step
Method Method
f = 50 ft; WF36 M,, = 116.5 kip -ft 15.5 17.6
x 182 N,0 = 490 kips
f = 60 ft; WF36 M, = 232.5 kip -ft 16.8 18.3
Two Equal x 135 Noo = 700 kips
Spans e = 70 ft; WF33 M1t = 301 kip -ft 16.5 18.3
X 221 N, = 880 kips 20.7* 21.1*
e = 80 ft; WF36 M1, = 463 kip-ft 16.5 18.1
x 300 N,,,= 1115 kips
f = 50 ft; WF33 M1, = 111 kip-ft 15.4 16.9
Three Spans x 118 N, = 445 kips
(1, 1.21, l) C = 60 ft; WF36 M,, = 188 kip-ft 15.7 17.3
x 160 N,, = 560 kips
C = 70 ft; WF36 M,, = 294 kip-ft 16.1 18.6
x 210 N^ = 725 kips
C = 80 ft; WF36 M,, = 515 kip-ft 16.4 18.4
x 260 Npo = 920 kips

Note: In all cases: t = 8 in.; w = 96 in.; u.d. Dead load = 1.45 kips per ft; u.d. Live load = 1
kip per ft. *Losses without accounting for reduced relaxation of steel.

3 percent. The corresponding losses by the
iterative method using the computer pro-
gram are 16.5 and 15.9 percent without and
with allowing for the nonprestressed rein-
forcing steel, respectively.
DISCUSSION
The percentage loss in the prestressing
force versus time was studied under various
conditions by means of the iterative method.
Fig. 8 shows the variations in these losses
with relative humidity, area of prestressing
steel, and area of nonprestressed steel in
the concrete deck, according to the ACI
Code." The reduction in the relaxation in
the prestressing steel was taken into ac-
count in calculating these losses.
The comparison of results shows that the
losses become smaller as the relative hu-
midity increases, as expected. Under the
same applied prestressing force, an increase
in the area of the prestressed steel tends to
reduce the prestress losses. The reason for
this is that the stress ratio of initial pre-
stressing stress to yield stress (f, ,,/f,,) de-
creases, thus effecting a reduction in the
losses due to the relaxation of the prestress-
ing steel (see Fig. B1).
Fig. 8 also shows that, unlike the situa-
tion in concrete-concrete bridges, the influ-
ence of nonprestressed steel in the concrete
deck on the losses is relatively small here.
This is due to the fact that the area of non-
prestressed steel in the concrete deck is
usually a small proportion of the steel girder
area which provides the major restraining
force.
It can be also observed that the result
based on the one-step method is in fair
agreement with that estimated by the iter-
ative method. Comparison of results on
prestress losses based on the CEB Code,1e
for brevity given elsewhere, 13 shows that such
losses are only slightly higher than those
based on the ACI Code."
Glodowski and Lorenzetti 1 ° indicated that
steel relaxation has an important influence
on the prestress losses in prestressed con-
crete structures. Fig. 8 also shows this in-

100
fluence for the composite concrete deck-on-
steel girder structure used in the design ex-
ample treated earlier. Here it is observed
that the losses due to steel relaxation are a
major component of the total losses.
To demonstrate the adequacy of the one-
step method and use of the design aids in
estimating the prestress losses, results based
on both methods were obtained for two- and
three-span continuous bridges with differ-
ent spans and cross sections. From a com-
parison of the results given in Table 4, it is
evident that the one-step method and the
developed design aids can be reliably used
to estimate conservatively the prestress losses
in composite concrete-steel girder bridges
with portions of the concrete deck pre-
stressed in the vicinity of the piers.
From this study it can be concluded that:
1. The long-term prestress losses in con-
tinuous composite concrete-steel girder
bridges with prestressed decks can be read-
NOTE: Discussion of this paper is invited. Please submit your
comments to PCI Headquarters by September 1, 1986.
PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1986
ily estimated by means of a simple easy-to-
use method.
2. The long-term losses are significantly
influenced by the relaxation of the pre-
stressing steel; smaller losses can be ex-
pected where low relaxation prestressing
steel is used. Furthermore, it appears that
these losses are not much influenced by the
presence of nonprestressed steel in the con-
crete deck.
3. The use of the CEB charts and ACI
recommendations for the estimation of creep
coefficients and shrinkage strain leads to al-
most identical values for the long-term
prestressing losses.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research work was supported by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada under Grant No. 1896.
101
 REFERENCES
1. Johnson, R. P., and Buckby, R. J., Compos-
ite Structures of Steel and Concrete, Vol. 2,
Granada Publishing Ltd., 1979.
2. Kennedy, J.B., and Grace, N. F., "Pre-
stressed Decks in Continuous Composite
Bridges," Journal of the Structural Division.
ASCE, V. 108, No. 11, 1982.
3. Roik, K., "Methods of Prestressing Contin-
uous Composite Girders," Proceedings,
Conference on Steel, June 1968, BSSA, Lon-
don, 1969.
4. Tadros, M. K., Ghali, A., and Dilger, W.,
"Time Dependent Prestress Losses and De-
flection in Prestressed Concrete Members,"
PCI JOURNAL, V. 20, No. 3, May-June 1975,
pp. 86-98.
5. Dorton, R. A., Holowka, M., and King, J.
P. C., "The Conestogo River Bridge — De-
sign and Testing," Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, V. 4, 1977.
6. Bazant, Z. P., "Prediction of Concrete Creep
Effect Using Age-Adjusted Effective Modu-
lus," ACI Journal, V. 69, No. 4, 1972.
7. Dilger, W., and Neville, A.M., "Effect of
Creep and Shrinkage in Composite Mem-
bers," Proceedings, Second Australian Con-
ference on Mechanics of Structures and
Materials, Adelaide, Australia, 1969.
8. Dilger, W., "Creep Analysis of Prestressed
Concrete Structures Using Creep Trans-
formed Section Properties," PCI JOURNAL,
V. 27, No. 1, 1982, pp. 98-118.
9. Ghali, A., Sisodiya, R. G., and Tadros, G.
S., "Displacements and Losses in Multistage
Prestressed Members," Journal of the Struc-
tural Division, ASCE, V. 100, No. ST11, No-
vember 1974.
10. Knowles, P. R., Composite Steel Concrete
Construction, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, N.Y., 1973.
11. Neville, A. M., and Dilger, W., Creep of
Concrete: Plain, Reinforced and Prestressed,
North Holland Publishing Co., 1970.
12. PCI Committee on Prestress Losses, "Rec-
102
ommendations for Estimating Prestress
Losses," PCI JOURNAL, V. 20, No. 4, 1975,
43-75; and discussion in V. 21, No, 2, 1976,
pp. 108-126.
13. Soliman, Mohamed H., "Long-Term Losses
in Prestressed and Thermal Effect in Com-
posite Steel Concrete Structures with Pre-
stressed Concrete Decks," MASc Thesis,
University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario,
Canada, 1985.
14. Tadros, M. K., Ghali, A., and Dilger, W.,
"Time Dependent Analysis of Composite
Frames," Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, ST4, April 1977.
15. Tadros, M. K., Ghali, A., and Dilger, W.,
"Effect of Non-Prestressed Steel on Prestress
Loss and Deflection," PCI JOURNAL, V. 22,
No. 2, March-April 1977, pp. 50-63.
16. Trost, H., "Implications of the Superposition
Principle and Creep and Relaxation Prob-
lems for Concrete and Prestressed Concrete"
(in German) Beton - and Stahlbetonbau,
Berlin - Wilmersdorf, V. 62, No. 10, 1967.
17. ACI Subcommittee 209, "Prediction of Creep,
Shrinkage and Temperature Effect, 2," ACI
Report 209 R-82, Detroit, Michigan, October
1982.
18. CEB-FIP, "International Recommendations
for Design and Construction of Concrete
Structure — Principles and Recommenda-
tions," Comit6 Europeen du Beton — Fed-
eration International de la Pre-Contrainte, FIP
6th Congress, Prague, June 1970, Cement &
Concrete Association, London, England.
19. Ghali, A., and Tadros, M. K., "Partially Pre-
stressed Concrete Structure," Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 111, No.
8, August 1985.
20. Glodowski, R. J., and Lorenzetti, J. J., "A
Method for Predicting Prestress Losses in a
Prestressed Concrete Structure," PCI
JOURNAL, V. 17, No. 2, March-April 1972,
pp. 17-31.
 APPENDIX A - DETERMINATION OF
CONTINUITY FACTOR
This continuity factor A is found using uous condition, the final long-term bending
the unit load method. 13 Let AM be the moment may be expressed as:
change in the bending moment with the in-
AM,, = AMo + AM,X
termediate support(s) assumed removed and
the structure made simply supported; and At the ends of the prestressed deck (see
AM, be the redundant bending moment with Fig. 5) this becomes:
the intermediate support(s) replaced by a
AM,, = AM o + AM,X, f3'
unit force X,. Thus, with the structure as-
sumed to he brought to its original contin- where

( AN ,0 d„ . AM, dl
J AM"AM ' dl —
EI J EI
=
X J (AM`)2 dl f (AM ' )2 dl
EI EI

and 13'1 is the length of the unprestressed deck in one span (see Fig. 5). Thus:

d OM,

AM, = AN , • d, — ON,,,, dl AM . R'

(OM )2
EI

This may be rewritten as:

d`AM' dl
El
AM,, = AN„,, d , R']
J (AM,)'
dl AM
El

Or:

AMet = AN ,,,, - A

in which A is the continuity factor.

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1986 103

 APPENDIX B - FACTORS FOR DETERMINING
EQ. (13)

The explicit expressions for determining 1 + (1 + I „ ^,, 7)

the factors in Eq. (13) are as follows: [Ej, ELI

= ^a,7
EA ys

ry= EI,

+ (1 + i„ 4..7)
_ EA _ Y, ( 1 + "1 ^x.7) A
(1 + T l,, -,7)
P (1 + r l„-,7) I,

1 (1 + -,7) 1 (1 + I, ^x,7)

_ 1 + ii _ G A .= + E,A,, ) \E A,, + E ft,

EA 1 + T I,. 4 7

LL ErA
( 1(1 + ^1 4 7) l( /.,

x \E SI .9 + ELI, / + \ESIa

J ' (1 + ^h ^m7) (E,,A,, + (1+

x (1 +” 1L 4)-,7) E,I
E,1, + (1 + 11, x7)
EA,_

Note that the expression for the factor z is given in Fig, B1.

Z _ 0_lfpo log t
o ( fpo -0.551
Ep io \ f py /
0.8
t.= 240,000 hours

0.7

O6
.2 4 6 8 10(x10")
z
Fig. B1. Values for the coefficient z defining the factor A in Eq. (13).

104
 APPENDIX C — NOTATION

A = area of section rameters they indicate time at

E = modulus of elasticity middle of intervals i, j, re-
f = stress spectively
I = moment of intertia i — V2 = beginning of interval i, j
M = moment acting on section i + V2 = end of interval i, j
N = normal force acting on section m, n = flexural and axial, respectively
w = uniformly distributed load r = steel relaxation reduction
z = factor defined in Fig. B1 T, t = age of concrete and time of load-
a = reduction factor ing, respectively
A = increment p = prestressing steel
E = strain It = long term
= creep coefficient np = nonprestressing steel
= thrust relaxation coefficient sh = shrinkage
X = continuity factor o = initial
K = curvature of beam under loading 00 = very long period
13 = ratio between initial and ulti-
mate prestressing stress in the
tendons
(3'l = length of unprestressed deck in
one span Metric (SI) Conversion
fl = ratio given in Refs. 4 and 8 Factors
,, i;, ^, -y, p, p, are factors defined in Ap-
pendix B. 1 in. = 25.4 mm
1 in.z = 645.2 mm2
1 in. 4 = 416231 mm4
Subscripts
1 kip = 4.448 kN
C = concrete 1 psi = 6.895 kPa
s = steel 1 kip-ft = 1356 N.m
t = time 1 kip/ft = 14.58 kN/m
t' = variable time t - t' T 1 ft = 0.305 m
i, j = time interval numbers, when
used with time dependent pa-

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1986 105