Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed With CFRP

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25582 SHARE

   
Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP

Systems (2019)
DETAILS
84 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-48069-7 | DOI 10.17226/25582
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Abdeldjelil Belarbi, Mina Dawood, Prakash Poudel, Mahmoud Reda, Hamidreza
Tahsiri, University of Houston, Bora Gencturk, University of South California,
Sami H. Rizkalla, North Carolina State University, and Henry G. Russell, Henry
FIND RELATED TITLES G. Russell Inc.; National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation
Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Design of

Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP Systems. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25582.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP Systems
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 907

Design of Concrete
Bridge Beams Prestressed
with CFRP Systems
Abdeldjelil Belarbi
Mina Dawood
Prakash Poudel
Mahmoud Reda
Hamidreza Tahsiri
University of Houston
Houston, Texas
Bora Gencturk
University of South California
Los Angeles, California
Sami H. Rizkalla
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Henry G. Russell
Henry G. Russell Inc.
Glenview, Illinois
Subscriber Categories
Bridges and Other Structures • Materials
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2019
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 907

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 12-97
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 2572-3766 (Print)
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISSN 2572-3774 (Online)
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by ISBN 978-0-309-48069-7
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities Library of Congress Control Number 2019947685
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
© 2019 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high-
way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research published or copyrighted material used herein.
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
United States Department of Transportation.
or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation NOTICE
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and
The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer-
according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special-
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
directly to those in a position to use them. Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by program sponsors.
chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the Federal Highway and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Administration. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc-
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these
topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are
selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of
research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies
and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published research reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

http://www.national-academies.org
and then searching for TRB
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 907

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Amir N. Hanna, Senior Program Officer
Keyara Dorn, Program Coordinator
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
Sreyashi Roy, Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 12-97 PANEL

Field of Design—Area of Bridges
Paul V. Liles, Jr., Georgia DOT (retired), Atlanta, GA (Chair)
Matthew J. Chynoweth, Michigan DOT, Southfield, MI
Joshua Shannon Dietsche, Wisconsin DOT, Madison, WI
Jim Gutierrez, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
Michael B. Twiss, New York State DOT (retired), Albany, NY
Berhanu Woldemichael, Alabama DOT, Montgomery, AL
Abdul-Hamid Zureick, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Fassil Beshah, FHWA Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 12-97 at the Structural Research
Laboratory of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston. Abdeldjelil
Belarbi, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the
University of Houston Cullen College of Engineering, was the principal investigator. Technical contribu-
tions and document review were provided by Dr. Wagdy Wassef of Complex Bridge Group. Technical
assistance was provided by post-doctoral research associate, Dr. Bora Acun, and master’s students, Barry
Adkins and Faranak Forouzannia. The full-scale beams tested in this study were produced at Heldenfels
Enterprises, Inc., of San Marcos, Texas; the prisms tested in this study were produced at East Texas Precast
of Hempstead, Texas. The producers of the prestressing CFRP provided guidance and support during the
project period.

FOREWORD
By Amir N. Hanna
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
This report presents design guide specifications and material specifications for concrete
bridge beams prestressed with carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) systems. The
specifications developed in this research were reviewed by the AASHTO Committee on
Bridges and Structures and subsequently published as the AASHTO Guide Specifications
for the Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
(CFRP) Systems. The report also contains a set of design examples to illustrate the use of these
guide specifications for pretensioned and post-tensioned concrete beams with different
types and configurations of CFRP tendons. The information contained in the report will be
of immediate interest to state bridge engineers and others involved in the different aspects
of bridge design and construction.
Use of CFRP for prestressing concrete bridge girders has gained some acceptance in the
United States because of its potential for eliminating concerns associated with the corro-
sion of prestressing steel and its structural features such as high strength-to-weight and
high stiffness-to-weight ratios. The limited research demonstrating the viability of CFRP
as an alternative to prestressing steel in bridge girders and the lack of nationally accepted
design specifications have contributed to the limited application of CFRP systems in bridge
construction. Thus, research was needed to review available information, conduct analytical
and experimental investigations, and develop guide specifications for the design of concrete
beams prestressed with CFRP systems for bridge applications. Such guide specifications will
help highway agencies consider CFRP systems among the prestressing options for concrete
bridge beams.
Under NCHRP Project 12-97, “Guide Specification for the Design of Concrete Bridge
Beams Prestressed with CFRP Systems,” the research team led by the University of Houston
worked with the objective of developing a proposed guide specification, in AASHTO
LRFD format, for the design of concrete beams prestressed with CFRP systems for
bridge applications. To accomplish this objective, the research team reviewed the practices
for using CFRP in prestressing applications and conducted experimental and analytical
investigations to evaluate the behavior of beams prestressed with CFRP tendons under
static and fatigue loading as well as the effects of environmental factors on CFRP properties
and durability. Using the findings of this work, the research team developed guide specifica-
tions for the design of concrete beams prestressed with CFRP systems together with material
specifications. Recognizing that the design of concrete beams prestressed with CFRP
systems has not been addressed in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications or other
AASHTO publications, the material specifications were incorporated into the design specifi-
cations and published as the AASHTO Guide Specifications for the Design of Concrete

Bridge Beams Prestressed with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Systems. Also,
examples for the design of pretensioned and post-tensioned concrete beams with
different types and configurations of CFRP tendons were prepared to illustrate the use of
these guide specifications.
This report summarizes the work performed under NCHRP Project 12-97 and includes
Attachments A and B as well as Appendices A through F that provide further details on the
different aspects of the research. The attachments and the appendices are not reproduced
herein but are available online. Attachment A, the Proposed AASHTO LRFD Bridge Guide
Specifications and Material Specifications for Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with
CFRP Systems, is available from AASHTO. Attachment B, the design examples, is available
online at www.trb.org and can be found by searching for “NCHRP Research Report 907.”
Appendices A through F are available on the NCHRP Project 12-97 webpage at https://
apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3410.

CONTENTS
1 Summary
2 Chapter 1 Introduction
2 1.1 Background
2 1.2 Research Objective
3 1.3 Research Plan and Methodology
3 1.4 Organization of the Report
6 Chapter 2 Literature Review and Current Design Practices

6 2.1 Current Applications of CFRP in Prestressing
6 2.2 Field Applications
7 2.3 Existing Analytical Models
12 2.4 Experimental Investigations Reported in Literature
20 2.5 Current Codes, Guidelines, and Specifications
26 2.6 Factors Affecting the Design of CFRP Prestressed Beams
30 Chapter 3 Research Results

30 3.1 Introduction
30 3.2 Results of Experimental Investigation
46 3.3 Results of the Finite Element Analysis
49 3.4 Evaluation of Proposed Design Methods
52 3.5 Reliability Analysis
56 Chapter 4 Research Findings and Products

56 4.1 Prestressing CFRP Characteristics
56 4.2 Jacking Stress Limitations
58 4.3 Prestress Losses
60 4.4 Fexural Design
61 4.5 Minimum Reinforcement
61 4.6 Resistance Factors
62 4.7 Design Guidelines, Material Specifications, and Design Examples
63 Chapter 5 Summary of Findings and Recommendations

for Future Research
63 5.1 Summary of Findings
64 5.2 Recommendations for Future Research
66 Notations
68 References

73 Attachment A Proposed AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide

Specifications and Material Specifications for
Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP
Systems
74 Attachment B Design Examples
75 Appendices A Through F
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

SUMMARY
Design of Concrete Bridge Beams

Prestressed with CFRP Systems
Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) is becoming a recognized alternative to tradi-

tional construction materials in a wide range of civil engineering applications. An example of
such applications is the use of CFRP cables or bars as prestressing tendons for concrete bridge
girders, especially in aggressive environments where steel prestressing strands are susceptible
to corrosion. Compared to conventional prestressing steel, CFRP has the advantages of high
strength-to-weight and high stiffness-to-weight ratios, and resistance to electrochemical
corrosion. Despite their promise, CFRP prestressing tendons have not frequently been used
for bridge construction in the United States; their use has been hampered by the lack of
recognized design specifications.
This report describes the research conducted under NCHRP Project 12-97, “Guide
Specifications for the Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP Systems,”
to develop design guidelines for the use of prestressing CFRP materials in prestressed
concrete bridge girders. The proposed guidelines and research findings are expected to
advance and facilitate the use of CFRP systems in bridge applications. To help implement
these design guidelines, material specifications were also prepared. The specifications are
supported by a commentary explaining the background, rationale, and limitations of the
provisions contained therein. In addition, five design examples that illustrate the step-by-step
use of the proposed guide specifications are provided. The report concludes with a summary
of the research findings and recommendations for future research.
1

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Prestressing concrete bridge beams with carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) tendons has
been a research topic for the last three decades. Several researchers have shown that CFRP can be a
viable alternative to steel strands in prestressed concrete bridge applications, especially in aggres-
sive environments where steel corrosion is a concern. The advantages of prestressing CFRP result
from the inherent material properties, which include resistance to electrochemical corrosion,
high strength-to-weight, and high stiffness-to-weight ratios. A review of the literature indicated
that prestressing CFRP has been used in only about 80 demonstration bridges worldwide since
1988. Thirty-four responses to a survey of state departments of transportation (DOTs) and the
District of Columbia revealed that a major contributing factor to the limited use of this technology
in the United States is the lack of well-defined and established design specifications. Apart from
a limited number of guides, manuals, and commentaries, there are currently no comprehensive
guidelines available for the design of concrete structures prestressed with CFRP systems in
the United States.
The design of concrete bridges prestressed with CFRP systems depends on several factors includ-
ing material properties of CFRP system components, load transfer mechanisms, anchorage
properties, sustained loads and environmental conditions. The serviceability and strength
design of bonded and unbonded CFRP prestressed concrete beams is addressed in this report in
terms of stress limits for CFRP tendons. This includes harped/draped configurations, prestress
losses, flexure and shear capacity, serviceability limit states, durability, fatigue, bond, and devel-
opment and transfer lengths. The design of CFRP prestressed concrete beams requires special
consideration of the requirements associated with the use of a high-strength, elastic, brittle, and
orthotropic composite material, and its complex behavior.
1.2 Research Objective

The objective of this project was to develop design and material guide specifications in the
AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) format for the design of concrete bridge
beams prestressed with CFRP systems using either pretensioning or post-tensioning. In pursu-
ing this objective, the research team considered the following:
• Establishing guidelines for the maximum allowable jacking forces for prestressing CFRP
cables or bars with different configurations;
• Providing recommendations on the limitations of the use of anchorage systems;
• Measuring the prestress losses due to the relaxation of prestressing CFRP cables and bars and
their anchorage system as well as thermal fluctuations;

Introduction 3
• Validating the prestress losses due to concrete creep and shrinkage, elastic shortening, and
seating;
• Quantifying the transfer length, camber, and long-term deflection of beams prestressed with
CFRP cables and bars;
• Characterizing the flexural behavior of the full-scale bridge girders; and
• Calibrating the strength resistance factors for CFRP prestressed beams according to the
LRFD philosophy.
1.3 Research Plan and Methodology

The following tasks were performed to achieve the project objective:
• Review of relevant practice, data, specifications, and research findings from both foreign and
domestic sources on the prestressing of concrete girders using CFRP systems;
• Identification of parameters that influence the design of CFRP prestressed beams, and the
development of a work plan for the development of the design methods;
• Execution of an experimental program involving testing of materials, small-scale beams and
prisms, and full-scale prestressed concrete bridge beams;
• Conduct of finite element simulations, sectional analyses, and reliability analyses to further
understand the behavior at the material level and member level;
• Preparation of proposed specifications and commentary for the design of CFRP prestressed
concrete girders together with the design examples to illustrate the application of the recom-
mended design methods and specifications; and
• Preparation of a report that documents the entire research.
Figure 1.1 shows the process used to determine the critical issues that were addressed in the
project and Figure 1.2 illustrates the process used to develop the design and material guide
specifications.
1.4 Organization of the Report

This chapter presents the background, objectives, methodology, and scope of the project.
Chapter 2 summarizes earlier experimental and analytical investigations. Chapter 3 presents the
results from the experimental and analytical investigations performed in this project. Chapter 4
summarizes major research findings and discusses the applications of the proposed guide specifi-
cations. Chapter 5 presents a summary of the research and recommendations for future research
studies. In addition, Attachment A presents the Proposed AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide
Specifications and Material Specifications for Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP
Systems and Attachment B presents design examples illustrating the use of the proposed design
approach. Appendices A through F are available online and provide further details on the different
aspects of the research as follows:
• Appendix A: Review of Previous Work
• Appendix B: Parameters Influencing the Design
• Appendix C: Experimental Testing Program
• Appendix D: Test Results and Discussions
• Appendix E: Finite Element and Numerical Simulations
• Appendix F: Reliability Analysis Study

4 Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP Systems
Literature Review
Survey Field Existing Experimental Existing Analytical

Results Applications Studies Models
Compilation of
Database
Identify Parameters Comparison and
Affecting the Design of Evaluation of Existing
CFRP Prestressed Beams Design Models
a. Parameters Well Beam Detailing: Deficiency of Existing

Documented in the Database 1. Anchorage types Design Models
1. Anchorage and elastic losses 2. Straight vs. harped/draped
2. Transfer and development 3. Cables vs. bars
length 4. Pretensioned vs. post-tensioned
3. Pretensioned applications 5. Bonded vs. unbonded
4. External posttensioning
applications Research Required to
b. Parameters not Well Develop Design Methods
Documented in the Database
1. Friction and stress relaxation
losses Annotated Outline of the
2. Long-term performance Proposed LRFD Bridge
(relaxation, deformations) Design Specifications
3. Thermal effect
4. Internal post-tensioning
5. Strength resistance factors
Recommend Design
Method and Prepare Work
Plan
Research Program:
1. Conduct experimental tests
2. Develop finite element models
3. Conduct sectional analysis
4. Conduct reliability analysis
Issues to be addressed in this project
Figure 1.1. Process for determining potential critical issues.

Introduction 5
Parameters that Influence the Behavior

of CFRP Prestressed Beams
Parameters not Covered by Previous

Remaining Parameters
Experimental Studies
Provide experimental data for the calibration of

FE Models
Numerical and Analytical
Experimental Program
Program
Identify critical issues for tests and provide
details of test girders
Experimental and
Parametric Study Results
Reliability
Analysis
1. Identify Existing Analytical Models
2. Compiled Database Develop Design Methods
3. Consider Results from this Study
Development of Bridge Design and

Material Guide Specifications
Figure 1.2. Process for developing design and material guide specifications.

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review and

Current Design Practices
2.1 Current Applications of CFRP in Prestressing

A survey of state departments of transportation (DOTs) and the District of Columbia was
conducted to gather information on the state of practice of CFRP prestressing. Thirty-four DOTs
responded to the survey. Only one DOT (Michigan) reported that their bridge inventory includes
CFRP prestressed concrete bridge beams; the other DOTs reported no CFRP prestressed concrete
bridge beams in their inventory. Michigan DOT provided information on the design details of
the bridges in their inventory. According to this information, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Speci-
fications (2017; henceforth referred to as AASHTO LRFD) was used to determine the load factors,
live load distribution, allowable concrete stresses, elastic losses, and some components of long-term
losses. ACI 440.4R-04: Prestressing Concrete Structures with FRP Tendons (ACI Committee 440, 2011)
was used for shear provisions of bent CFRP bars and to determine strand stresses to avoid creep
rupture. Michigan DOT also modified the design procedures to calculate long-term losses and
shear resistance.
2.2 Field Applications

A review of the literature indicated that CFRP has been used for prestressing in about
80 demonstration bridges worldwide. Several technical committees from seven countries have
published 20 guidelines and specifications related to the internal and external use of CFRP;
these are included in the list of references. Also, technical committees, associations, engineering
societies, and manufacturers have provided information and examples of concrete bridges
prestressed with CFRP systems [e.g., ACI 440.4R-04 (2011); Manual No. 5: Prestressing Concrete
Structures with FRPs (SIMTReC, 2008; henceforth referred to as SIMTReC Manual No. 5);
Market Development Association; and CFRP manufacturers]. In addition, Khalifa et al. (1993)
compiled examples of pedestrian and road bridges constructed with CFRP tendons. Details of
some bridges that have been reported in the literature are described in the following:
• Shinmiya Bridge is the first documented CFRP prestressed bridge built in the world (Tokyo
Rope, 2000). It was constructed in Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, in 1988 as a replacement of
the old bridge that exhibited deterioration of girders caused by seawater exposure. The bridge
is 20 ft long and 23 ft wide and was built with 24 pretensioned I-girders with CFRP strands.
Although built over seawater in an aggressive environment, the Shinmiya Bridge is reported
to currently have no deterioration.
• The Beddington Trail bridge in Calgary, Canada, is the first bridge constructed in North
America with CFRP prestressed concrete girders; it was opened to traffic in 1993. The bridge
is a two-span skewed bridge with 75 ft and 63 ft spans. The spans consist of 13 bulb-tee precast
girders with a 6 in. thick concrete deck. Two types of prestressing FRP strands were used in

Literature Review and Current Design Practices 7
six precast concrete girders. CFRP cables were used in four girders and CFRP bars were used
in pretensioning the other two girders (Rizkalla and Tadros, 1994).
• The Taylor Bridge in British Columbia, Canada, was built in 1997 using prestressing CFRP.
Four out of 40 girders were prestressed with straight and draped prestressing CFRP cables or
bars. Two of the four girders had CFRP stirrups as shear reinforcement and the others had
epoxy coated steel stirrups. The bridge was designed using information from tests performed
in previous studies. Cross diaphragms were used to provide an alternate load path and avoid a
progressive collapse in case of failure of any component (Shehata and Rizkalla, 1999).
• The Bridge Street Bridge, built in the City of Southfield, Michigan, in 2001 is the first CFRP
prestressed concrete bridge built in the United States. It comprises two parallel and inde-
pendent structures with three spans skewed at an angle of 15° over its 204 ft. length (Grace
et al., 2002). One of the bridge superstructures is constructed with equally spaced AASHTO
Type III precast concrete I-girders using steel reinforcement with a continuous cast-in-place
concrete deck slab. The other bridge structure consists of four double-tee girders prestressed
with CFRP tendons in each of the three spans. The double-tee girders were pretensioned with
CFRP bars and post-tensioned (both longitudinally and transversely) with CFRP cables. The
longitudinal post-tensioning strands were draped at the bottom of the double-tee beams.
CFRP stirrups, CFRP grid reinforcement, and stainless-steel stirrups were also used as non-
prestressed reinforcement. Pretensioning strand forces, concrete strains, deflections, and
post-tensioning forces were monitored during construction. In addition, the design equations
and assumptions were verified by calculations, finite element analysis, and laboratory testing
of scaled double-tee prestressed beams.
2.3 Existing Analytical Models

This section summarizes the analytical models reported in the literature for determining
the capacity and deformability of CFRP prestressed beams, prestress losses, transfer and devel-
opment lengths of the prestressing CFRP tendons and stresses in unbonded CFRP in post-
tensioned beams.
2.3.1 Analytical Models for Flexural Capacity

Prestressed Beams with Bonded Prestressing CFRP
The concept of strain compatibility and balanced reinforcement ratio (rb) has been used in
concrete beam design for several decades. The provided reinforcement ratio compared to the
balanced ratio of a section with steel prestressing gives an indication of the expected perfor-
mance of the section. Because of the brittle nature of FRP, failure occurs either by rupturing the
FRP (r > rb) or by crushing of concrete: (r > rb); the balanced reinforcement ratio is an indica-
tor of the failure mode. The stress in the FRP depends on the location of the neutral axis, depth
of the structure, and the structural configuration (Dolan, 1991). In the case of multi-layer FRP
tendons, the farthest tendon will rupture first and hence the approach of using the moment arm
to the centroid of the group of tendons can provide an inaccurate moment capacity estimate.
Dolan and Swanson (2002) developed an equation for flexural strength of beams with vertically
distributed tendons (described in Section 2.5.6).
Prestressed Beams with Unbonded Prestressing CFRP

Although many researchers have investigated the strength of unbonded post-tensioned
beams, there is no unified approach for estimating the force in unbonded tendons. The force
in an unbonded tendon is governed by the deformation of the whole member and it is uniform
throughout the member. Hence, the principle of strain compatibility at any cross section of

unbonded beams does not accurately reflect the governing mechanics of these elements. Most
of the models reported in the literature for estimating the force in the unbonded tendons at the
ultimate load were derived for prestressing steel with the assumption that the yield strength will
not be reached and the elastic modulus of the tendon can be used to estimate the increase in
tendon stress. Thus, these models can be used for prestressing CFRP tendons or serve as a basis
for developing new models. Table 2.1 lists some equations proposed in different studies and used
in the design guidelines for estimating the stress at ultimate for an unbonded tendon.
2.3.2 Analytical Models for Deformability

Beams that are prestressed with CFRP tendons do not exhibit ductility because CFRP materials
exhibit elastic behavior and a brittle response. Ductility is a measure of a beam’s deformation at
Table 2.1. Models for estimating stresses in unbonded tendons

at the ultimate load.
Sources Model
−
= +Ω ε
Finding (perfect correlation):

.
Ω = for one-point loading
Naaman and =
.
for third-point or uniform
Alkhairi
(1991b)
Recommendation:
.
Ω = for one-point loading
.
= for third-point or uniform
where is the effective prestressing stress, Ω is the strain reduction factor, is the
total length of the prestressing tendon, and is the distance from the extreme
compression fiber to the centroid of the prestressing steel.
Adapted by: Naaman et al. (2002), ACI 440.4R-04 (2011), SIMTReC Manual No. 5
(2008), CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017), AASHTO LRFD (1994)
+ + 10,000
= + 60,000 ≤ 35
ACI
+ + 10,000
Committee 318 300ρ
(2014) = > 35
+ 30,000
where is the effective stress in prestressing reinforcement after all prestress losses
(psi), is the specified yield strength of prestressing reinforcement (psi), is the ratio
of to , and is the area of prestressed longitudinal tension reinforcement (in.2).
−
= + 900 ≤
=
1 + ⁄2
AASHTO where c is the distance from extreme compression fiber to the neutral axis (in.), is
LRFD (2017) effective tendon length (in.), is the length of the tendon between anchorages (in.),
is the number of support hinges crossed by the tendon between anchorages or
discretely bonded points, is the yield strength of prestressing steel (ksi), and is
the effective stress in prestressing steel at the section under consideration after all
losses (ksi).

ultimate to that when the reinforcement yields. Since CFRP reinforcements do not yield, ductil-
ity cannot be defined in this manner. Instead, deformability has been proposed as a measure of
the performance of beams reinforced or prestressed with FRP [ACI 440.4R-04 (2011); SIMTReC
Manual No. 5 (2008); and CAN/CSA S6-06: Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (Canadian
Standards Association, 2014)]. Deformability is a measure of a beam’s deformation at ultimate to
its deformation under service loads. Models proposed by some researchers for estimating deform-
ability index are listed in Table 2.2.
For bridge beams, where energy dissipation is not a primary consideration, deformability is
a suitable parameter for evaluating safety and performance. Deformability may be defined
based on deformation prior to failure considering parameters such as deflection at ultimate
and deflection at cracking, and a deformability index could provide a reasonable measure of the
performance of the CFRP prestressed beams (Abdelrahman et al., 1995; Zou, 2003a).
2.3.3 Analytical Models for Prestress Losses

Because of the differences in material characteristics between prestressing CFRP tendons and
prestressing steel strands, relaxation losses for prestressing CFRP tendons differ from those for
steel strands. Also, the difference in coefficients of thermal expansion for prestressing CFRP
and concrete causes a change in effective prestressing force (loss or gain) when the temperature
changes. Existing analytical models for prestress relaxation and thermal effects are presented in
the following. However, concrete creep, and shrinkage losses are primarily related to concrete
and do not depend on the prestressing strand type. Hence, these losses can be calculated in a
similar manner to that used for steel prestressing strands but using the elastic modulus of the
CFRP material (ACI 440.4R-04, 2011).
Prestress Relaxation Loss

Long-term relaxation tests on prestressing CFRP cables at the initial stress of 0.7 fpu (70% of
design tensile strength) were carried out by Enomoto et al. (1990) for a duration of 33,000 hours.
Table 2.2. Models for estimating deformability index for FRP prestressed beams.
Sources Model
= 0.5 +1
Naaman and Jeong
(1995) where is the total energy under the load-deflection curve, and is the
elastic energy at ultimate.

= ×
Jaeger et al. (1995) . .
and Mufti et al. where . is the moment at a concrete compression strain of 0.001, . is
(1996) curvature at a concrete compression strain of 0.001, is the ultimate moment,
and is curvature at ultimate.
Δ
µ=
Abdelrahman et al. Δ
(1995) where Δ is the deflection at ultimate and Δ is the equivalent deflection of an
uncracked section for the same ultimate moment.
= ×
Gowripalan et al.
(1997) where is the ultimate load, is the cracking load, is the total energy at
ultimate, and is the elastic energy at ultimate.
∆
=
∆
Zou (2003a)
where ∆ is deflection at ultimate, ∆ is the deflection at first cracking, is the
ultimate moment, and is the cracking moment.

The results showed that stress relaxation losses were linearly related to the logarithm of the time;
the best fit line was obtained by regression analysis and expressed by the following formula:
Relaxation (%) = 0.056 + 0.396 log ( 24 t ) (Eq. 2.1)
where t is time after stressing in days.

Saadatmanesh and Tannous (1999) proposed the following equation to predict the relaxation
losses of CFRP tendons:
Relaxation ( % ) = 100 × [ P1 Pu - ( a - b log ( 24 t ))] [ P1 Pu ] (Eq. 2.2)
where P1/Pu is the ratio of the tendon load 1 hour after the prestressing transfer to the ultimate
tensile capacity of the tendon, a and b are constants determined from regression analysis, and
t is the elapsed time in days.
In this model, all seating losses, including slip between the tendon and the grips, were assumed
to take place within the first hour after stress release. Therefore, the measurement of relaxation
loss starts after the first hour. The value of P1 can be calculated based on the differences of the
measured tendon strain at the time of release and 1 hour after release.
Temperature Effects
Because the longitudinal CTE of CFRP is lower than that of concrete, an increase of the
ambient temperature will potentially generate compressive stresses in the concrete and
tensile stresses in the prestressing CFRP (prestress gain). A reduction in temperature may
cause tensile stresses in the concrete and compressive stresses in the prestressing CFRP, which
leads to a prestress loss. By assuming full bond between the concrete and prestressing CFRP, and
considering strain compatibility and equilibrium, Elbadry et al. (2000) derived the following
equations for estimating the thermally induced stresses in prestressing CFRP (sf) and concrete
(sc) due to a uniform temperature change (DT) in a concentrically prestressed concrete prism:
EL
s f = (αc - α L ) DT (Eq. 2.3)
Af EL
1+
Ac Ec
Af
sc = - sf (Eq. 2.4)
Ac
where
αc = CTE of concrete;
αL = the longitudinal CTE of CFRP;
Af and Ac = cross-sectional areas of prestressing CFRP and concrete (in.2), respectively; and
EL and Ec = longitudinal modulus of elasticity of the prestressing CFRP and concrete (ksi),
respectively.
2.3.4 Analytical Models for Development and Transfer Length

Several models were proposed for determining the development length (Ld) of CFRP tendons.
By modifying the formulation in ACI 318-14: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI Committee 318, 2014) and assuming a nominal bond stress of 333 psi, Lu et al. (2000)
proposed the following model:
Ld = 1 3 f se db + 3 4 ( fr - f se ) db (Eq. 2.5)

where db is the diameter (in.), fr is the rupture strength (psi), and fse is the effective prestress (psi)
of the tendon, respectively.
Mahmoud et al. (1999) proposed the following model for estimating the transfer length, lt,
based on an experimental study of 52 CFRP pretensioned concrete beams and prisms:
f pi db
lt = (Eq. 2.6)
αt f ci′ 0.67
where
fpi = initial prestressing level in the CFRP tendon before transfer (psi),
db = diameter of the prestressing CFRP (in.),
fci = concrete strength at transfer (psi), and
αt = coefficient that varies based on the type of prestressing CFRP tendon. (It was found to be
25.3 and 10.0 for prestressing CFRP cable and bar, respectively.)
Grace (2000) proposed a different value of the constant, αt, in Equation 2.6 based on regres-
sion analysis of experimental results of two types of prestressing CFRP tendons. The proposed
values are 11.2 and 10.2 for prestressing CFRP cable and bar, respectively.
Zou (2003d) proposed the following equation to predict the transfer length of prestressing
CFRP bar with a fiber spiral indented surface condition:
480 φ
lt = (Eq. 2.7)
f ci0.5
where φ is the diameter of the prestressing CFRP (in.) and fci is the concrete cylinder strength at
transfer (psi).
2.3.5 Analytical Models for Strength Reduction Due to Harping

The induced tensile stresses due to harping of prestressing CFRP tendons, sh, can be obtained
based on the following expression (Dolan et al., 2000):
E frp r
sh = (Eq. 2.8)
Rch
where Efrp is the elastic modulus of CFRP (ksi), r is the radius of the prestressing CFRP (in.), and
Rch is the radius of curvature of the harped prestressing CFRP that can be taken as the radius of
the harping device (in.).
Quayle (2005) indicated that Equation 2.8 overestimates the harping stress and recom-
mended that the value of Rch in the equation be taken as the greater of the radius of the harp-
ing device or the natural radius of curvature of the harped tendon, Rn, as estimated by the
following equation:
r2 E frp π
Rn = (Eq. 2.9)
2 P (1 - cos q)
where r is the radius of the prestressing CFRP (in.), P is the prestressing force in the CFRP
tendon (kips), and q is the harping angle.

2.4 Experimental Investigations Reported in Literature

2.4.1 Flexural Behavior of CFRP Prestressed Beams
Due to the relatively low modulus of elasticity of CFRP compared to that of steel, larger curvatures
and deflections are induced under the same level of flexural load for beams prestressed with
CFRP tendons than those prestressed with steel tendons (ACI 440.4R-04, 2011). Deformation of
CFRP prestressed beams that fail due to the rupture of CFRP tendons is smaller than that of the
prestressed steel beams as the CFRP tendons do not yield and elongation at rupture is consider-
ably smaller than that of steel tendons (Abdelrahman and Rizkalla, 1997).
Prestressed Beams with Bonded Prestressing CFRP

The general design approach for prestressed beams is to meet the strength and serviceability
requirements by providing prestressing tendons of sufficient number and size to ensure flexur-
ally dominant behavior, while satisfying the serviceability requirements. Steel prestressed beams
that are designed for flexure deform elastically until concrete cracks and exhibits increased
deformations after steel yielding until either the steel tendon ruptures or the concrete crushes.
However, beams with prestressing CFRP tendons do not exhibit yielding; hence, the deforma-
tions after the cracking of concrete increase linearly with load and one of the two modes of
failure will occur: rupture of the CFRP tendon or crushing of the concrete. Because of the linear-
elastic nature of prestressing CFRP tendons and their low rupture strain compared to steel (∼2%
for prestressing CFRP tendons and ∼6% for prestressing steel), the deformation at ultimate
load for beams with bonded CFRP tendons is less than that for beams with prestressing steel if
both are designed to fail by rupture of the prestressing tendons. However, to fail by crushing of
concrete, the deflections of both beams at the time of failure will be comparable (Abdelrahman,
1995). The level of prestressing, prestressing reinforcement ratio, and the presence of unstressed
reinforcement in the tensile zone has a significant effect on the deformation of the beams pre-
tensioned with CFRP bars (Abdelrahman and Rizkalla, 1997). The sudden brittle failure of the
CFRP prestressed beams can be addressed by arranging the prestressing CFRP tendons in layers
along the depth of the member. Although this arrangement will reduce the ultimate capacity
(for the same prestressing reinforcement ratio), the beam will exhibit a significant deformation
after the ultimate capacity is reached due to progressive rupture of successive layers of CFRP
(Abdelrahman and Rizkalla, 1997; Grace et al., 2013).
Prestressed Beams with Unbonded Prestressing CFRP

The flexural behavior of post-tensioned beams with unbonded CFRP tendons has not been
studied as extensively as that of prestressed beams with bonded CFRP tendons. The failure of
unbonded post-tensioned beams is generally attributed to concrete crushing even if the pre-
stressing reinforcement levels are significantly below the balanced ratio for the corresponding
bonded post-tensioned concrete beams (Lee et al., 2017). The unbonded tendons lead to release
of stresses at critical sections and lower average stress along the tendon’s length, and thus a lower
load in the tendon than their bonded counterpart is achieved. Therefore, the ultimate strength
of the bonded beams is higher than that of the unbonded beams.
Few experimental studies are reported in the literature on the internal applications of unbonded
prestressing CFRP tendons. The majority of the studies considered a beam length ranging from
6.6 ft. to 10.5 ft. with a depth ranging from 6 to 16 in. The results showed that unbonded beams
have an energy absorption comparable to steel counterparts (Kato and Hayashida, 1993;
Kakizawa et al., 1993; Maissen and De Smet, 1995; Maissen and De Smet, 1998; Jo et al., 2004;
and Heo et al., 2013). Heo et al. (2013) found that concrete crushing was always associated with
the ultimate load regardless of the type of auxiliary (unstressed) reinforcement used. Maissen and
De Smet (1998) showed that continuous beams with unbonded prestressing CFRP tendons

can provide the same level of deformability as those with steel strands. However, the beams
prestressed with bonded CFRP tendons do not redistribute the moment as there is no reserved
capacity once the cable ruptures at the plastic hinge above the center support.
Another type of prestressing is the unbonded post-tensioning of beams by tendons placed out-
side the cross section of the member. Mutsuyoshi and Machida (1993), Grace and Abdel-Sayed
(1998), Elrefai et al. (2007), Du and Au (2009), and Ghallab (2013) investigated the flexural
behavior of beams with external prestressing CFRP. The results were similar to those prestressed
with steel tendons. Grace et al. (2001) investigated the behavior of multi-span continuous CFRP
prestressed concrete bridges with external longitudinal post-tensioning using draped tendons
and bonded transverse post-tensioning, and reported that a progressive failure of CFRP tendons
was observed at the ultimate load stage.
A listing of previous experimental studies is presented in Table 2.3. The shaded cells indicate
the parameter considered in the cited reference. For example, Mutsuyoshi et al. (1990) tested
seven rectangular post-tensioned beams (bonded and unbonded) having depths less than 10 in.,
span length less than 15 ft., a straight tendon profile, and two jacking stress levels: 30% to 60%
and more than 60% of the tensile strength were applied. Different modes of failure were observed.
As shown in the table, the reported tests were conducted on rectangular beams with depths
less than 20 in. and spans less than 30 ft. Although these members do not necessarily exhibit the
behavior that can be expected from full-scale bridge beams, the data was used to supplement
those obtained from the tests performed in this project on full-scale bridge beams representing
current design and construction practices.
2.4.2 Durability
Durability of prestressing CFRP is affected by environmental and mechanical factors. Envi-
ronmental factors include moisture and saline environment, alkaline environment, high tem-
perature and fire, freeze–thaw cycles, and ultraviolet exposure. Mechanical effects include creep
rupture and fatigue. The influence of these factors, individually or in combination, on the
properties of CFRP materials has been studied extensively by many researchers.
Environmental Factors
Fluid ingress has no effect on carbon fibers but it affects the resin matrix and fiber-matrix inter-
face and thus such exposure affects the performance of CFRP composites. For unidirectional carbon
composites, this exposure usually leads to a large reduction in compressive and transverse shear
strength and a small reduction in tensile strength (Dejke, 2001). Hancox and Mayer (1994) reported
minimal weight gain and tensile strength loss for carbon/epoxy specimens exposed to 65% humid-
ity for more than 4 months and immersed in boiling water for more than 3 weeks. A study of
specimens exposed to saltwater indicated a reduction in bond strength (Ghosh and Karbhari, 2004).
Benmokrane et al. (2015) evaluated the durability performance of prestressing CFRP cables
exposed to elevated temperature and an alkaline environment. The pH of the alkaline solution
was kept above 12 to simulate the environment inside the concrete. Four temperatures (72° F,
104° F, 122° F, and 140° F) and four exposure durations (1,000 hours, 3,000 hours, 5,000 hours,
and 7,000 hours) were used. The extreme exposure condition (140° F and 7,000 hours) resulted
in a 7% reduction in the tensile strength of the CFRP cable.
Tanks et al. (2016) evaluated the durability of prestressing CFRP cables loaded to 75% of
ultimate tensile capacity in a simulated concrete environment. After 2,000 hours of immersion
in a solution with a pH of 12.7 at 140° F, the prestressing CFRP cables retained 96% of their
uniaxial tensile capacity.

Table 2.3. Summary of experimental studies on beams prestressed with CFRP.
Beam Details Prestressing Details

Failure Mode
# of Prestressed CFRP tests

Section Jacking Tendon
Section Shape Beam Span Bond Type
Depth Stress Profile
Flexural Compression
Tee or double Tee
Flexural Tension
Post-tensioned
Pretensioned
0.3 ffu -0.6 f fu
Rectangular
Unbonded
15 - 30 ft.
I' shaped
10" -20"
Bonded
Straight
≤ 0.3 ffu
> 0.6 ffu
Draped
Harped
≤ 15 ft.
> 30 ft.
Shear
Other
> 20"
≤ 10"
Box
Authors
Mutsuyoshi et al. (1990) 7
Kakizawa et al. (1993) 14
Kato and Hayashida (1993) 14
Yonekura et al. (1994) 10
Zhao (1994) 2
Abdelrahman et al. (1995) 4
Currier (1995) 1
Arockiasamy et al. (1995) 9
Bryan and Green (1996) 6
Fam et al. (1997) 5
Abdelrahman and Rizkalla (1997) 8
Maissen (1997) 2
Park and Naaman (1999) 11
Mahmoud et al. (1999) 39
Stoll et al. (2000) 2
Svecova and Razaqpur (2000 ) 7
Burke and Dolan (2001) 4
Dolan and Swanson (2002) 3
Salib et al. (2002) 4
Zou (2003a) 8
Jo et al. (2004) 7
Grace et al. (2004) 3
Beam Details Prestressing Details
Section Jacking Tendon Failure Mode
Section Shape Beam Span Bond Type
Depth Stress Profile
Flexural Compression
Tee or double Tee
Flexural Tension
# of valid test
Rectangular
0.3 ffu-0.6 f fu
Unbonded
I' shaped
15 -30 ft
10" -20"
Bonded
Straight
≤ 0.3 f fu
Draped
Harped
h ≤ 10"
>0.6 ffu
> 30 ft
≤ 15 ft
Shear
Other
> 20"
Post
Box
Pre
Authors
Balázs and Borosnyói (2004) 3

Aziz et al. (2005) 1
Braimah et al. (2006) 3
Mertol et al. (2006) 9
Liang et al. (2011) 4
Noel and Soudki (2011) 3
Saiedi et al. (2011) 5
Wang et al. (2011) 4
Du et al. (2011) 9
Elrefai et al. (2012) 14
Nabipay and Svecova (2012) 6
Roberts et al. (2012) 5
Heo et al. (2013) 7
Sevil (2016) 2
Selvachandran et al. (2017 ) 4
The shaded boxes indicate that the parameter under consideration applies to the corresponding reference.
The effect of freeze–thaw cycles on prestressing CFRP tendons was studied solely and/or in
combination with other environmental effects by various researchers (Mashima and Iwamoto,
1993; Tannous, 1997; Micelli and Nanni, 2004; Mertol et al., 2006). No physical damage to the
prestressing CFRP tendons or measurable change in the mechanical properties was observed.
The influence of the freeze and thaw cycles on the bond strength of prestressing CFRP tendons
was also studied and was found to be insignificant. Prestressing CFRP exposed to ultraviolet
(UV) radiation combined with environmental effects showed no significant damage and no
decrease in physical and mechanical properties (Micelli and Nanni, 2004).
Mechanical Effects
Creep and Creep Rupture. ACI 440.1R-15: Guide for the Design and Construction of Struc-
tural Concrete Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars (ACI Committee 440, 2015)
defines creep rupture as a sudden failure of FRP material when subjected to a constant tension
over a period of time (referred to as the endurance time). As the ratio of sustained tensile stress
to the initial strength of the FRP increases, the time to rupture (i.e., endurance time) decreases.
The creep rupture endurance time can also irreversibly decrease under adverse environmental
conditions such as elevated temperature, ultraviolet radiation, high alkalinity and wet/dry cycles.
Limited data are currently available for endurance times beyond 10,000 hours. The extraction of
generalized design criteria is hindered by the lack of standard creep test methods and the variety
of constituents and processes used to produce FRP products. These factors have led to the use of
conservative design criteria.
Yamaguchi et al. (1997) conducted creep rupture tests on 0.25 in. diameter prestressing
CFRP bars in air at room temperature for 100 hours. The ratio of stress at creep rupture to
the initial strength of CFRP was linearly extrapolated to 500,000 hours (57 years) and found
to be 0.93.
Saadatmanesh and Tannous (1999) investigated the creep deformation of two types of
commercial prestressing CFRP—a bar and a cable. The specimens were tested in three envi-
ronmental conditions—air and at room temperature solutions with a pH of 3 and 12. The
applied stress was fixed at 40% of the ultimate tensile strength. The results indicated higher
creep strain in the larger-diameter bars and those immersed in the acidic solution; the CFRP
bars tested in the air had the lowest creep strains. The recorded creep strain after 3,000 hours
ranged from 0.002% to 0.037%.
Dolan et al. (2000) conducted a study on creep rupture of aramid and carbon tendons encased
in concrete surrounded by saltwater and subjected to a constant load of 50% to 80% of the
ultimate capacity for more than 12,000 hours (1.4 years). The residual strength of the CFRP
and aramid FRP (AFRP) were, respectively, 90% and 80% of their initial static capacities.
The extrapolated strengths for CFRP and AFRP after 100 years of exposure were, respectively,
70% and 55% of the tendon’s initial ultimate strengths.
Tokyo Rope (2000) conducted 1,000 hour creep tests on prestressing CFRP cables subjected
to a constant load of 65% of the CFRP ultimate tensile strength. The tensile rupture strength
of CFRP cables in an indoor environment was extrapolated to 100 years of exposure time and
found to be 85% of the initial ultimate tensile strength.
Fatigue. The behavior of prestressing CFRP under fatigue loading has been studied by few
researchers (Uomoto et al., 1995; Saadatmanesh and Tannous, 1999); the fatigue behavior of
CFRP prestressed beams has been studied by others (Abdelrahman et al. 1995; Bryan and Green,
1996; Saiedi et al., 2011). Abdelrahman et al. (1995) tested four beams with two types of bonded
prestressing CFRP (cable and bar) under monotonic and fatigue loading ranging from 70%

to 100% of the cracking load. The beams survived 2 million cycles with little effect on beam
stiffness. The load carrying capacity of the beams after the 2 million cycles was comparable to
that of similar beams under monotonic loading. Dolan et al. (2000) also observed that a beam
pretensioned with CFRP tendons experienced no reduction in capacity due to fatigue loading.
Extreme environmental condition did not affect the load carrying capacity of CFRP prestressed
beams nor caused any deterioration (Mertol et al., 2006).
Bryan and Green (1996) and Saiedi et al. (2011) studied the behavior of bonded CFRP beams
at a low temperature (-17°F) with and without fatigue loading. After cracking, no continuity was
found between the strain at the concrete surface and the strain in the CFRP bar. It was determined
that the bar had debonded from the concrete over some length of the cracked region. The low
temperature resulted in slight increase of the cracking load and deflection of the beams. It was also
found that concrete-CFRP bond can be weakened by cyclic loading, low temperature, sustained
and monotonic loading, and high prestressing levels. The stiffness of the CFRP prestressed beam
decreased by about 25% after 1 million cycles.
Very few studies investigated the fatigue behavior of beams post-tensioned with internal
unbonded CFRP tendons. Failures of these beams occurred at the anchorage-tendon assembly
resulting in premature failure of the tendon (Braimah et al., 2006).
2.4.3 Prestress Losses

Prestress losses refer to the changes in the tensile stress of a prestressing tendon from the
time when the strand is initially tensioned to the end of the service life of the prestressed ele-
ments due to effects other than applied loads. An accurate prestress loss prediction is required
to ensure serviceability. Beams designed based on underestimated prestress losses may exhibit
tensile cracking and large deformation under service loads, while overestimation of losses may
lead to uneconomical design or excessive camber. The sources of prestress losses are strongly
interrelated, and determination of each loss component is extremely difficult due to this inter-
dependency (PCI Committee on Prestress Losses, 1975). Prestress losses in CFRP prestressed
concrete beams are classified into two categories that consider the source and time of occur-
rence (ACI 440.4R-04, 2011). These are short-term losses (elastic shortening, anchorage seating
at the transfer of prestressing, and frictional losses) and long-term losses (creep and shrinkage
of the concrete, long-term anchorage loss for beams with unbonded prestressing only, relax-
ation of tendons, and temperature effects).
Prestress losses from elastic shortening, concrete creep, and shrinkage in CFRP prestressed
beams are calculated in manners similar to those used for steel prestressed concrete beams.
Losses due to the relaxation of tendons, long-term anchorage loss, and temperature effects
require special considerations.
Relaxation of CFRP Tendons

Stress relaxation of CFRP composites depends on the factors that affect the viscoelastic
behavior of prestressing CFRP (e.g., type of prestressing tendon; volume fraction of the carbon
fibers; alignment of the carbon fibers; type and modulus of elasticity of the matrix resin; environ-
mental conditions such as humidity, temperature, and exposure to aqueous solutions; and the
level of initial prestressing).
Table 2.4 lists details of previously conducted relaxation tests on prestressing CFRP tendons.
As shown, only a few relaxation tests have been conducted, all had relatively short test durations
(less than 3,000 hours), and none addressed the effect of anchorages or length of the prestressing
CFRP tendons.

Table 2.4. Reported investigations on stress relaxation of prestressing CFRP.
Initial
Test CFRP
Temperature Stress Number
Sources CFRP Type Duration Length
(°F) Level of Tests
(Hours) (ft.)
(% of fpu)
68, 140, 176,
Enomoto et al. (1990) 0.5 in. cable 1,000 70 N/A 15
212
Saadatmanesh and 0.3 in. cable –22, 77 and
3,000 40 and 60 1.3 24
Tannous (1999) 0.3 in. bar 140
Stress relaxation of the prestressing CFRP tendons was found to be linearly related to the
logarithm of the time and to have a direct relationship to the level of initial prestressing. There-
fore, several analytical models were developed by using the curve fitting methods (presented
in Section 2.3.3). By extrapolating the test results, the stress relaxation of prestressing CFRP
tendons after 1 million hours (i.e., 114 years of service life) was estimated to be between 2%
and 12% of the initial prestressing level. Overall, little information is available on the effect of
long-term anchorage loss in grouted anchors due to the interaction of the expansive material
(grout) and prestressing CFRP inside the steel anchor or creep of the expansive material. In
addition, the effect of the length of the prestressing CFRP tendons on the stress relaxation of
prestressing CFRP systems has not been assessed.
Temperature Effects
Thermally induced losses occur primarily due to a difference in the CTE of CFRP and con-
crete (Bryan and Green, 1996). This difference results in a loss or gain in prestressing force
when temperature changes. The longitudinal CTE depends on the properties of the fibers and
the transverse coefficient is related to the properties of the resin. A higher transversal CTE of
prestressing CFRP than that of the concrete results in radial pressure and circumferential ten-
sile stresses at the interface between the prestressing CFRP and concrete when the temperature
increases. These stresses may cause the formation of cracks in the radial direction across the
boundary of prestressing CFRP and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. The occurrence of
such cracks depends on the type of CFRP reinforcement, type of concrete, presence of transverse
reinforcement, and geometry of the cross section (e.g., concrete clear cover thickness). Splitting
tensile cracks could lead to the deterioration of bond between prestressing CFRP and concrete.
The effects of thermal exposure on the performance of concrete structures prestressed with
CFRP systems are incorporated in design guidelines by considering the CFRP material prop-
erties. Vogel and Svecova (2007) investigated the bond strength deterioration of concrete
beams with prestressing CFRP and GFRP bars exposed to thirty thermal cycles ranging between
-40°F and 104°F. The concrete strength was 7.2 ksi and the minimum concrete cover was in
Radial stresses
Radial cracks
Figure 2.1. Formation of the

cracks due to circumferential
tensile stresses.

accordance with CAN/CSA S806-12: Design and Construction of Building Components with Fibre-
Reinforced Polymers (Canadian Standards Association, 2017) specifications for all test beams.
Jacking stresses were 30% and 60% of the ultimate tensile strength for the GFRP and CFRP bars,
respectively. The bond performance was evaluated from development length testing on both
weathered and control beams (un-weathered). The results indicated that prestressing CFRP
and GFRP bars exhibited sufficient bond and no deterioration occurred due to the differential
swelling between FRP and concrete. In another study, Saiedi et al. (2011) investigated the com-
bined effect of thermal and fatigue loading on beams prestressed with CFRP tendons. Bond
performance of the prestressing CFRP was also evaluated in specimens subjected to a constant
load level at room temperature and at a low temperature of –27°C. The results showed that the
low temperature exposure has no effect on the long-term deflection of the beams subjected to
sustained loads but the flexural strength of the beams was 19% less than that of similar control
specimens at room temperature due to premature bond failure.
Overall, several research studies and design guidelines have recognized the thermal effects on
the mechanical performance of FRP reinforcements and FRP-reinforced concrete structures.
However, limited studies addressed the thermal effects on prestressed concrete structures with
CFRP tendons. Also, the effect of thermal fluctuation cycles on bond characteristics and con-
crete-CFRP interface has not been adequately investigated; further experimental and analytical
examinations appear necessary.
2.4.4 Harping Characteristics of Prestressing CFRP

Application of prestressing CFRP materials with harped strand profiles requires that the CFRP
tendons be bent around hold-down points. The resulting curvature and bearing against the
hold-down assembly causes stress concentrations and localized bending. Because of the brittle-
ness of CFRP materials, these stress concentrations may lead to failure of the harped tendons
before the desired jacking load levels are reached, and the friction between the prestressing CFRP
and the hold-down device can degrade the tendon tensile capacity. Previous studies have iden-
tified several parameters that affect the capacity of harped prestressing CFRP tendons; these
are type, size, and strength of prestressing CFRP; deviator type and size; harping angle; and
interface characteristics (presence or absence of lubrication or cushioning material). Table 2.5
lists the details of the previously conducted harping tests on CFRP tendons.
These investigations have resulted in the following findings:
• Increasing the deviator size or reducing the harping angle increases the tensile strength reten-
tion of the harped CFRP tendon,
• Use of cushioning material between the CFRP tendon and the deviator increases the tensile
strength retention of the harped prestressing tendon,
• Harped CFRP prestressing cables retained higher tensile capacity than harped CFRP pre-
stressing bars, and
• For CFRP prestressing bars, use of a deviator plate with a minimum diameter of 40 in. and
jacking stresses of no more than 45% of the design tensile strength of the prestressing CFRP
bar are expected to provide acceptable performance.
2.4.5 Long-term Deflection Behavior of Pretensioned Beams

The long-term deflection behavior of beams pretensioned with FRP tendons depends on
the type of FRP, level of sustained load, concrete strength, the age of loading, environmental
condition, and the level of prestressing. The lower modulus of elasticity of CFRP tendons in
comparison to that of prestressing steel results in lower long-term prestress losses for CFRP

Table 2.5. Reported investigations on harped prestressing CFRP.
Deviator
Cushion Harping Number of
Sources CFRP Type Diameter
Material Angle (°) Tests
(in.)
Mutsuyoshi and
0.5 in. cable 16 NO 11 6
Machida (1993)
Adachi et al. *
0.5 in. cable 20 YES 10 N/A
(1997)
Jerrett (1997) 0.3 in. bar 1, 2, and 20 NO 5 and 7 N/A
Grace and Abdel- 0.5 in. cable ** 3, 5, and

2 and 20 YES 18
Sayed (1998) 0.4 in. bar 10
2.25, 4.5, 9,
Dolan et al. (2000) 0.3 in. bar 18, 36, and NO 5 16
72
2, 3, 5, 6,
0.25 in. cable 4, 8, 20, 40, 22
Quayle (2005) NO 9, 10, and
0.37 in. bar and 80
15
Soudki and Noel
0.5 in. bar 20 and 40 NO 2 N/A
(2010)
*Polyethylene sheets
**Material type not specified
prestressed beams. For the same level of initial prestressing force, CFRP prestressed beams
have similar deflection to those of prestressed steel beams (Braimah et al., 2006; Zou, 2003b,
Zou, 2003c). The long-term deflection of the CFRP prestressed beams decreases as the concrete
strength increases (Zou, 2003b, Zou 2003c).
2.5 Current Codes, Guidelines, and Specifications

A review of the available guidelines for designing CFRP prestressed bridge beams is provided
in this section. These are (1) SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008), (2) CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017),
(3) CAN/CSA S6-06 (2014), (4) ACI 440.4R-04 (2011), (5) “Recommendation for Design and
Construction of Concrete Structures using Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials” pub-
lished in the Concrete Engineering Series 23 (JSCE, 1997; henceforth referred to as JSCE CES 23),
and (6) Model Code 2010 published in fib Bulletin No. 65 and No. 66 (2012; henceforth referred
to as fib Model Code 2010)). The review compared the following provisions:
• Environmental reduction factors,
• Stress limits for prestressing CFRP tendons,
• Prestress relaxation losses,
• Temperature effects,
• Transfer and flexural bond lengths,
• Flexural design,
• Minimum reinforcement, and
• Strength reduction factors.
2.5.1 Environmental Reduction Factors

Environmental reduction factors that account for reduction in the design tensile strength
of prestressing CFRP exposed to environmental effects such as moisture, saline, and alkaline
environments; high temperature; freeze-thaw cycles; and ultraviolet exposure is considered in

Table 2.6. Environmental reduction factors.
Environmental
References Exposure Condition Reduction
Factor
Interior exposure 0.95
Exterior exposure (e.g.,
bridges, piers and unenclosed 0.85
ACI 440.2R-08 (2008) parking garages)
Aggressive environment (e.g.,
chemical plants and wastewater 0.85
treatment facilities)
Concrete not exposed to earth 1.00
ACI 440.1R-15 (2015)
Concrete exposed to earth 0.9
Guide for the Design and Interior exposure 0.95
Construction of Externally Bonded
FRP Systems for Strengthening Exterior exposure 0.85
Existing Structures (National
Research Council, Rome, Italy, 2004) Aggressive environment 0.85
SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008) Aggressive environment 0.75*
*Includes material resistance factor combining both strength reduction and environment reduction factor.
some design guidelines (see Table 2.6). ACI 440.2R-08: Guide for the Design and Construction of
Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI Committee 440, 2008)
and Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening
Existing Structures (National Research Council, Rome, Italy, 2004) are design guidelines appli-
cable for strengthening of concrete structures using FRP, ACI 440.1R-15 (2015) is applicable for
FRP-reinforced concrete, and SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008) is applicable for FRP prestressed
concrete.
2.5.2 Stress Limits for Prestressing CFRP Tendons

Current design guidelines define the maximum permissible jacking stress for prestressing
CFRPs as a percentage of the design tensile capacity. This limit is set to prevent creep rupture and
anchorage failure and to provide reserve strain capacity to resist applied loads. Generally, stress
limits for prestressing CFRP are lower than those for prestressing steel. For straight prestressing
CFRP, the stress limits at jacking and at transfer range from 65% to 75% and from 60% to 65% of
the design tensile strength, respectively (Burke and Dolan, 2001). The stress limits for prestressing
CFRP at jacking and transfer reported in the literature are listed in Table 2.7.
Table 2.7. Stress limits for prestressing CFRP tendons

(% of design stress).
References At Jacking At Transfer

ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) 65 60
CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017) 70 65
CAN/CSA S6-06 (2014) 70 65
SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008) 70 60
JSCE CES 23 (1997) 70 65
fib Model Code 2010 (2012) - 75

2.5.3 Prestress Relaxation Losses

For evaluating the relaxation loss (RL), CAN/CSA S6-06 (2014) states that the amount of
prestress relaxation should be evaluated based on the type of CFRP tendon and comply with
the manufacturer’s specifications. fib Model Code 2010 (2012) estimates a prestress relaxation
loss of 2% to 10% for CFRP tendons after 50 years of loading. SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008)
and ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) divide the relaxation loss into three components (relaxation of the
polymer, RL1; straightening of the fibers, RL2; and relaxation of the fibers, RL3) after Dolan
et al. (2000). Each component is determined based on the material properties of the CFRP
tendons as follows:
RL = RL1 + RL2 + RL3 (% of initial prestress level ) (Eq. 2.10a)
RL1 = nr × ur (Eq. 2.10b)
RL2 = 1.0 - 2.0% (Eq. 2.10c)
RL3 = 0.0 - 5.0% (Eq. 2.10d)
where nr and ur are the modular ratio of resin to the fiber and the volume fraction of the resin,
respectively.
SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008), according to CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017), provides the fol-
lowing empirical expression to calculate the prestress relaxation loss in prestressing CFRP
tendons as:
RL (%) = 0.231 + 0.345 log (t ) (Eq. 2.11)
where t is time in days.
2.5.4 Temperature Effects

The temperature effects on the prestressing force (loss/gain) are considered in SIMTReC
Manual No. 5 (2008), CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017), and JSCE CES 23 (1997) as a linear function
of the modulus of elasticity of CFRP, Efrp, and the difference between the coefficients of thermal
expansion of the concrete, αc, and the CFRP, αfrp, as follows:
DPT = DT ( α frp - α c ) E frp (Eq. 2.12)
where DT is the temperature change.

CAN/CSA S6-06 (2014), ACI 440.4R-04 (2011), and fib Model Code 2010 (2012) do not
consider temperature induced prestressing loss.
2.5.5 Transfer and Flexural Bond Lengths

The development length for pretensioned beams is defined in CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017) and
SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008) as the summation of the transfer and the flexural bond lengths.
JSCE CES 23 (1997) and CAN/CSA S6-06 (2014) provide expressions for directly calculating the
development length. ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) provides procedures for estimating the development
length in addition to the transfer and flexural bond length components. fib Model Code 2010
(2012) refers to fib Bulletins 65 and 66 for calculating the development and transfer lengths of

prestressing CFRP tendons. ACI 440.4R-04 (2011), CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017), and SIMTReC
Manual No. 5 (2008) use the following formulation, adopted from Mahmoud et al. (1999), for
estimating the transfer length:
f pi db
lt = (Eq. 2.13)
αt f ci′ 0.67
where fpi is the initial prestressing level in the CFRP tendons (psi), db is the diameter of the tendon
(in.), f ci′ is the concrete strength at transfer (psi), and αt is a coefficient based on the type of the
CFRP tendons.
The flexural bond length is defined as the embedment length beyond the transfer length that
is required to develop the full tensile strength of the prestressing CFRP. ACI 440.4R-04 (2011),
CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017) and SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008) estimate the flexural bond length
in a similar manner to that used for the transfer length by considering the diameter and design
tensile strength of the prestressing tendons, fpu, as follows:
( f pu - f pe ) db
l fb = (Eq. 2.14)
α fb f ci′ 0.67
where fpe is the effective stress in prestressing CFRP after losses (psi), db is the diameter of the
tendon (in.), f ci′ is the concrete strength at transfer (psi), and αfb is a coefficient based on the type
of CFRP tendons (e.g., 14.8 for prestressing CFRP cables and 5.3 for prestressing CFRP bars).
Table 2.8 lists the equations provided by JSCE CES 23 (1997), CAN/CSA S6-06 (2014), and
ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) for estimating the development length. These equations consider the
effects of tendon surface properties, location and the contribution of transverse reinforcement.
2.5.6 Flexural Design

Prestressed Beams with Bonded Prestressed CFRP Tendons
The flexural design of CFRP prestressed beams described in all guidelines is based on the
strength and serviceability design approach. The objective is to meet the strength and service-
ability requirements for a selected cross section by providing a sufficient number of prestressing
tendons. This design approach assumes that the tendons are perfectly bonded to the surrounding
Table 2.8. Equations for estimating development length.
References Development Length Model

k1 k 4 f FRPu
l d = 0.45 A
E f cr
CAN/CSA S6-06 d cs + K tr FRP
Es
(2014)
where k1 is the bar location factor, k4 is the bar surface factor, and Ktr is the transverse
reinforcement index
f
ld = α1 d
JSCE CES23 4 fbod
(1997) where fd is the design tensile strength of CFRP and fbod is the design bond strength of
concrete
1 3
ACI 440.4R-04 ld = f pe d b + f pu − f pe d b
3 4
(2011) where fpe is the effective stress in prestressing CFRP after losses (psi) and db is the
diameter of the tendon (in.)

concrete (i.e., strain compatibility is satisfied). The design is performed by considering two failure
modes: rupture of CFRP tendons and crushing of concrete. The ultimate strain of the outermost
fiber of concrete in compression, ecu, is defined as 0.003 in ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) and as 0.0035 in
CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017), CAN/CSA S6-06 (2014), SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008), JSCE CES
23 (1997), and fib Model Code 2010 (2012).
Because of the brittle nature of prestressing CFRP tendons, for multiple layers of prestress-
ing tendons, the failure occurs when the bottom tendon reaches its tensile capacity (Dolan and
Swanson, 2002). The strain in each layer of tendons due to the applied load is proportional to its
distance from the neutral axis. Dolan and Swanson (2002) developed an equation for estimat-
ing the depth ratio (ratio of depth of each individual tendon to the depth of bottom tendon) to
calculate the flexural strength of a beam with multiple layers.
The flexural resistance of a beam prestressed with CFRP is determined based on whether the
critical section is compression-controlled (concrete crushing) (Figure 2.2a) or tension-controlled
(CFRP rupture) (Figure 2.2b). The flexural behavior of beams prestressed with CFRP tendons is
considered in a similar manner to that of beams prestressed with steel tendons. The design equa-
tions are based on equilibrium and strain compatibility.
For rectangular or T-sections with multiple layers of prestressing tendons, the location of
neural axis and CFRP cable stress are computed using the following set of equations:
For a T-section:
∑ x=1 Apx f px - α1 f c′(b - bw ) h f

np
c= (Eq. 2.15a)
α1 f c′β1bw
(a) Compression-controlled
(b) Tension-controlled
Figure 2.2. Stress and strain of a typical I-section with

three layers of prestressing CFRP.

For a rectangular section:
∑ x=1 Apx f px
np
c= (Eq. 2.15b)
α1 f c′β1b
The magnitude of c may be determined via an iterative solution by considering the equations
of compatibility as follows:
d px - c
e px = e pe + ecc (Eq. 2.16a)
c
f px = E f epx (Eq. 2.16b)
For compression-controlled (concrete crushing) sections:
ecc = ecu (Eq. 2.16c)
For tension-controlled (CFRP rupture) sections:
e p1 = e pu (Eq. 2.16d)
c
ecc = (e pu - e pe ) (Eq. 2.16e)
d p1 - c
where
c = distance from the extreme compression fiber to the neutral axis (in.);
x = prestressing CFRP layer number, with 1 being closest to the tension face;
np = total number of prestressing CFRP layers;
Apx = area of prestressing CFRP in layer x (in.2);
fpx = stress in the CFRP in layer x (ksi);
b = effective width of the compression face of the member (in.) [for a flanged section
in compression, the effective width of the flange as specified in Article 4.6.2.6 of
the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2017)];
bw = web width (in.);
hf = depth of compression flange (in.);
α1and β1 = stress-block factors calculated according to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Speci-
fications (2017);
epx = total strain in the CFRP at layer x (in./in.);
epe = strain in the prestressing CFRP due to effective prestress (in./in.);
ecc = strain in the concrete compression zone (in./in.);
ecu = failure strain of concrete in compression (in./in.);
dpx = distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of prestressing CFRP
in layer x (in.); and
Ef = modulus of elasticity of prestressing CFRP (ksi).
For CFRP prestressed tension-controlled sections, the failure is governed by rupture of the
CFRP. For design purposes, a design failure mode—tension-controlled (CFRP rupture) or
compression-controlled (concrete crushing)—is first selected. The failure mode conditions are
then applied, and the strains and stresses in the materials and the corresponding moment in the
section are obtained by iterative solution of the equilibrium and strain compatibility equations
for the location of the neutral axis.

Prestressed Beams with Unbonded Prestressed CFRP Tendons

The design strength of post-tensioned beams with unbonded tendons is determined by
estimating the stress in the tendon at failure, fp, which is calculated as the summation of the
effective prestress, fpe, and the additional stress due to loading, Dfp (fp = fpe + Dfp). Because there
is no bond between the tendons and the concrete in unbonded post-tensioned beams, the strain
compatibility concept does not apply and the unbonded tendon stresses depend on the deforma-
tion of the whole member and are calculated using an iterative method.
The bond reduction coefficient, W, that was originally proposed for prestressing steel
[Naaman and Alkhairi (1991b), ACI 440.4R-04 (2011); SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008)] can
be applied to beams prestressed with unbonded CFRP tendons by considering the properties of
CFRP (Naaman et al., 2002). The bond reduction coefficient at ultimate depends on factors such
as loading conditions and span-to-depth ratio. Another approach for calculating the additional
stress due to loading is by estimating the total deformation of the tendon between the anchorage
ends as the summation of deformations in elastic and plastic zones at the tendon level. However,
because the deformations of the elastic zones are very small compared to those in the plastic
zone, they can be neglected. This approach was investigated by several researchers (MacGregor,
1989; Harajli and Kanj, 1992; Lee et al., 1999; Harajli, 2006; Ozkul et al., 2008; Harajli, 2011) and
adopted by AASHTO LRFD (2017).
2.5.7 Minimum Reinforcement

For tension-controlled members, AASHTO LRFD (2017) states that the total amount of pre-
stressed and non-prestressed steel reinforcement should develop a factored flexural resistance,
Mr, at least equal to the lesser of (1.33Mu and Mcr) where Mu is the factored moment, and Mcr
is the cracking moment. The calculation of the factored flexural resistance should consider the
flexural cracking strength of concrete, variability of prestressing, and the ratio of the nominal
yield stress of reinforcement to ultimate.
A minimum amount of prestressed and non-prestressed reinforcement sufficient to develop a
factored flexural resistance of φMn greater than the smaller of 1.5 times the cracking strength or,
in case of a tension-controlled section, 1.5 times the moment due to factored loads is required by
ACI 440.4R-04 (2011). This requirement was based on CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017), and considers
the load factors noted in the Canadian design specifications.
2.5.8 Strength Reduction Factors

In principle, resistance factors or strength reduction factors (φ) in the LRFD formulation
are adopted and calibrated (along with the load factors) such that properly designed members
will exhibit a probability of failure approaching a target value. Existing design guidelines for
CFRP prestressed members define this factor either based on the failure mode (i.e., CFRP
rupture if r ≤ rb or crushing of concrete if r > rb) or the sectional and material properties
(i.e., strain in the extreme tension reinforcement) of the member. The φ factors for beams
prestressed with CFRP tendons included in different guidelines are listed in Table 2.9. These
guidelines use different approaches regarding the resistance factors and different load factors.
2.6 Factors Affecting the Design of CFRP

Prestressed Beams
The factors affecting the design of CFRP prestressed beams were investigated by reviewing the
database of existing experimental studies and evaluating the performance of existing design models.

Table 2.9. Resistance factors for concrete beams prestressed with CFRP.
References e cfrp Prestress Construction Method

0.85*
ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) Both bonded and unbonded
0.65**
CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017) 0.85 Pretensioned
0.85 Post-tensioned, bonded
SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008)
0.80 Post-tensioned, unbonded
CAN/CSA S6-06 (2014) 0.80 Both bonded and unbonded
JSCE CES 23 (1997) 0.77–0.87 Both bonded and unbonded
*For failure by CFRP rupture.

**For failure by concrete crushing.
2.6.1 Database of Experimental Investigations

A database of experiments on CFRP prestressed beams was compiled (Table 2.3). The data-
base includes 264 beams that were reported in 41 publications (journals, research reports,
proceedings of international symposia and conferences, and dissertations). The database was
compiled to assess the current state of experimental research, identify the parameters influenc-
ing the design of concrete beams prestressed with CFRP that have been investigated, validate
the different analytical models, and help with the calibration of the strength reduction factor for
CFRP prestressed beams.
2.6.2 Performance Evaluation of Existing Design Models

The data reported for sixty beams (43 beams with bonded and 17 beams with unbonded
CFRP tendons) were used to perform flexural capacity predictions according to the existing
design models/guidelines. The predicted flexural capacities of these beams were compared with
the reported ultimate moment at failure. For bonded CFRP prestressed beams, all the data
required to predict the capacity were reported for 29 beams, and sufficient information to make
reasonable assumptions for capacity calculations was available for 14 beams. The sectional analysis
was performed based on the mechanics of the problem and using four published models in North
America [SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008), CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017), CAN/CSA S6-06 (2014),
ACI 440.4R-04 (2011)]. Since the three Canadian guidelines (SIMTReC Manual No. 5, CAN/CSA
S806-12, CAN/CSA S6-06) are essentially the same, only predictions from SIMTReC Manual No. 5
(2008) are presented. For unbonded CFRP prestressed beams, complete data were reported for
17 beams. The models in ACI 440.4R-04 (2011), AASHTO LRFD (2017), and ACI 318-14 (2014)
were used to estimate the capacities. As noted earlier, the ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) approach to
estimate the stress at ultimate for unbonded tendon is similar to that of AASHTO LRFD (1994).
Bonded CFRP Prestressed Beams

Figures 2.3 through 2.5 compare the experimental and predicted moment capacity values.
These figures indicate that the predicted values for the small-scale beams are in good agreement
with the experimental moment capacity. The predictions based on ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) and
SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008) provided comparable mean and coefficient of variation (COV)
values. The mean values of prediction/experiment were 1.13, 1.13 and 1.11, and the COV val-
ues were 0.13, 0.14 and 0.15 for analytical prediction using the Whitney stress-block factors α 1
and β1 (see Section 4.4), ACI 440.4R-04 (2011), and SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008), respec-
tively. All predictions were comparable because the flexural capacity is calculated based on a
sectional analysis that satisfies equilibrium and compatibility. The primary differences between
the guidelines are the predictions of the ultimate strain and stress-strain relationship of concrete.

ze
Si
m
ea
eB
th
in
se
ea
cr
In
Figure 2.3. Experimental moment capacities versus predicted values by analytical

procedure for bonded CFRP prestressed beams.
Predicted Moment (kip-ft.)

ze
Si
m
ea
eB
th
in
se
ea
cr
In
Experimental Moment (kip-ft.) Experimental Moment (kip-ft.)
Figure 2.4. Experimental moment capacities versus predicted values by

ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) for bonded CFRP prestressed beams.

ze
Si
m
ea
eB
th
in
se
ea
cr
In
Figure 2.5. Experimental moment capacities versus predicted values by SIMTReC

Manual No. 5 (2008) for bonded CFRP prestressed.



(a) ACI 440-4R-04 (2011) (b) AASHTO LRFD (2017)

Experimental Moment (kip-ft.)
(c) ACI 318-14 (2014)
Figure 2.6. Experimental moment capacities versus predicted values for unbonded
CFRP prestressed beams.
The relatively low COV values (0.13 to 0.15) indicate that the current model formulations for
flexure can reasonably predict the capacity. Further examination of the database and the figures
indicated the availability of a limited number of experimental studies on full-scale beams.
Unbonded CFRP Prestressed Beams

The models in ACI 440.4R-04 (2011), AASHTO LRFD (2017), and ACI 318-14 (2014) for steel
unbonded post-tensioned design were used to estimate the capacities of the unbonded CFRP pre-
stressed beams and the increase in cable stress. For these models, the ultimate concrete strain was
taken as 0.003. It was found that the three models have comparable mean and COV. The mean
values of experiment/prediction were 1.04, 1.17, and 1.17, and the COV values were 0.11, 0.12,
and 0.10 for ACI 440.4R-04 (2011), AASHTO LRFD (2017), and ACI 318-14 (2014), respectively.
Figure 2.6 indicates that the predictions for the small-scale beams were closer to the experimental
moment capacity than for large-scale beams. Only Heo et al. (2013) reported the increase in the
stress of internal unbonded prestressing CFRP cables at ultimate; these results are insufficient to
make a conclusive assessment.

CHAPTER 3
Research Results
3.1 Introduction
The parameters that influence the behavior and design of CFRP prestressed beams were inves-
tigated in experimental and analytical programs. The experimental program included testing
of material samples, small-scale beams and prism, and full-scale beams to validate the existing
models and to develop design guide specifications. The factors investigated were prestress relax-
ation loss, creep and shrinkage loss, thermal fluctuation loss, harping characteristics of prestress-
ing CFRP, type of prestressing materials, use of prestressing CFRP for internal post-tensioning
applications, transfer and development length, and long-term deflection behavior of CFRP pre-
stressed beams. The analytical investigations were conducted to evaluate the appropriateness of
the proposed design and material guide specifications. It included probabilistic investigations to
determine strength reduction factors and numerical simulations using the finite element method
to broaden the range of parameters, and to support the results of the experimental program.
3.2 Results of Experimental Investigation

3.2.1 Full-scale Beam Testing
The experimental program included design, construction, testing, and analysis of 12 full-scale,
AASHTO Type I CFRP prestressed concrete beams. Two types of CFRP prestressing tendons
were included: 0.5 in. diameter solid circular CFRP bars, and 0.6 in. and 0.76 in. diameter CFRP
cables that consisted of seven individual wires twisted together into a single strand (similar to
steel prestressing strand). Five beams were post-tensioned and seven beams were pretensioned.
Concrete strength at the time of prestress transfer was between 5.5 and 6 ksi. Two flexural loading
conditions were considered: monotonic and cyclic fatigue. The test matrix for the flexure tests
is provided in Table 3.1 (details on the construction of the beams are provided in Appendix C).
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show schematics for pretensioned and post-tensioned test beams, respec-
tively. The Beam ID presented in Table 3.1 starts with the type of prestressing tendon (C for CFRP
cable and B for CFRP bar), followed by the type of prestressing (Pr for pretensioned, Po for bonded
post-tensioned, and Pou for unbonded post-tensioned beams), profile of the prestressing tendon
(S for straight and D for draped tendons), followed by the type of loading (M for static monotonic
loading and F for cyclic fatigue loading), and then concluded by the repetition number if more
than one test was conducted. For example, Beam CPoDM#01 is prestressed with CFRP cables
(C) in a bonded post-tensioned configuration (Po) with draped (D) cables, subjected to static
monotonic loading (M) and is the first repetition among multiple similar beams (#01).
The post-tensioned beams were constructed either with straight or a combination of straight
and parabolic draped prestressing CFRP cables with 0.76 in. diameter. Two beams were grouted
30

Research Results 31
Table 3.1. Test matrix for full-scale beams.
Type of
Type of Prestressing Number of
Prestressing Type of Loading Beam ID
Prestressing CFRP Profile Beams
CFRP
Monotonic (M) 2 CPrSM(#)
Pretension
Straight (S) Flexural fatigue
(Pr) 1 CPrSF
(F)
Post-tension
Draped (D) Monotonic (M) 2 CPoDM(#)
CFRP Cable (Po)
(C) Flexural fatigue
1 CPouSF
Post-tension, Straight (S) (F)
unbonded Monotonic (M) 1 CPouSM
(Pou) Flexural fatigue
Draped (D) 1 CPouDF
(F)
Monotonic (M) 2 BPrSM(#)
Pretension (Pr) Straight (S) Flexural fatigue
1 BPrSF
CFRP Bar (F)
(B) Pretension,
partially Straight (S) Monotonic (M) 1 BPrpSM
debonded (Prp)
(a) cross-sectional dimensions (b) elevation and reinforcement details
Figure 3.1. Schematic drawing of typical full-scale pretensioned beams with straight cables and bars.
(a) cross-sectional dimensions (b) elevation and reinforcement details
Figure 3.2. Schematic drawing of typical full-scale post-tensioned beams with straight and draped cables.

Figure 3.3. Test setup for flexure tests.
to investigate the fully bonded case and the other three beams were unbonded. Unbonded post-
tensioning was only used for beams with CFRP cables.
Eight prestressed CFRP beams were tested monotonically to failure, and four beams were
tested under flexural fatigue loading up to 2.3 million cycles followed by monotonic loading to
failure. All beams were tested under four-point loading using a servo-hydraulic actuator and a
spreader beam as illustrated in Figure 3.3. The beams were simply supported and instrumented to
monitor the behavior under different types of loading. Load cells, LVDTs, string potentiometers,
and strain gages were used in different configurations to measure the applied load, deforma-
tions, crack widths, and strains, respectively. Non-contact measurement systems were also used
to monitor the local and/or global behavior of the beams. Concrete strength of the beams at the
time of testing ranged from 9 to 12 ksi.
Load-Deflection Behavior
Figure 3.4 shows the load-deflection relationships for all of the CFRP pretensioned beams. As
shown, the beams tested under monotonic loading failed at comparable loads. As designed, the
BPrSM#01 CPrSM#02
BPrSM#02
BPrpSM
CPrSM#0
CPrSF
BPrSF
Figure 3.4. Load versus deflection of

pretensioned beams.

Research Results 33
combined tensile capacity of the reinforcement (the number of cables multiplied by the rupture
load of one cable) was similar regardless of the type of prestressing CFRP. However, the beams
prestressed with CFRP bars had slightly higher stiffness than those prestressed with CFRP cables
because of the difference in their material properties. Beam CPrSM#2 had a higher cracking load
than Beam CPrSM#1 because of its higher effective prestressing force and the concrete strength
on the day of testing. Although both beams failed at similar ultimate loads (∼5 kips difference),
the deflection of Beam CPrSM#2 was slightly lower than that of Beam CPrSM#1. The lower
effective prestressing force (by 11%) resulted in a lower cracking load (by 15%). The cracking
load for Beam BPrSM#1 was 12% lower than that for Beam BPrSM#2 because of the 8% lower
effective prestressing force. Both beams failed at similar ultimate loads (∼1 kip difference) with
Beam BPrSM#1 having higher deflection than BPrSM#2.
The load-deflection curves obtained from the monotonic tests of the five post-tensioned
beams are presented in Figure 3.5. The three unbonded post-tensioned beams had compara-
ble capacities. The load capacity of Beam CPouSF was 10% less than that of the similar Beam
CPouSM that was tested under static monotonic loading. The load capacity of Beam CPouDF
with draped cables was higher than that for the comparable Beam CPouSF with straight cables
because of its higher effective prestressing force. The three unbonded CFRP post-tensioned
beams failed due to concrete crushing. Once the ultimate load was reached, the beams showed a
15% drop in capacity but the load was maintained until the rupture of the prestressing tendon.
The effect of bond condition can be seen in Figure 3.5 by comparing the beams with bonded cables
(CPoDM#01 and CPoDM#02) to the corresponding beam with unbonded cables (CPouDF). The
beams with bonded cables had a 22% higher capacity. The influence of the effective prestressing
force can be observed by comparing the two bonded post-tensioned beams (CPoDM#01 and
CPoDM#02). The beam with a higher effective prestressing force (CPoDM#1) had a higher cracking
load and less deflection than Beam CPoDM#02 but both beams had similar peak loads.
Table 3.2 summarizes the results of the full-scale beam tests, including the ultimate load and
deflection, and the cracking load and concrete strength (on the day of testing) for the girder and
deck (detailed discussion of the results is provided in Appendix D).
Fatigue Behavior
Four beams prestressed with CFRP systems (CPrSF, BPrSF, CPouSF, and CPouDF) were
subjected to constant-amplitude fatigue loading. Two beams were pretensioned; one with CFRP
cables (CPrSF) and one with CFRP bars (BPrSF). The other two beams were post-tensioned
Figure 3.5. Load versus deflection of

post-tensioned beams.

Table 3.2. Results of full-scale beam tests.
Concrete Ultimate Deflection

Strength (ksi) Cracking Failure
Beam ID Load at Ultimate
Load (kips) Mode
Girder Deck (kips) Load (in.)
CPrSM#01 11.2 4.2 75 206 8.0

CPrSM#02 12.2 11.7 88 214 7.6
CPrSF 10.9 10.2 76 210 7.7
CFRP
BPrSM#01 9.4 10.4 76 207 6.0
rupture
BPrSM#02 11.0 8.9 86 209 5.8
BPrSF 9.4 10.1 84 207 5.6
BPrpSM 10.8 8.3 85 209 5.2
CPouSM 10.4 9.7 61 135 9.9
Concrete
CPouSF 10.9 8.2 65 122 7.4
crushing
CPouDF 10.9 9.8 72 143 8.9
CPoDM#01 81 175 5.2 CFRP
10.9 11.5
CPoDM#02 63 174 6.7 rupture
with unbonded CFRP cables: one with a straight cable (CPouSF) and one with both straight and
draped cables (CPouDF). All beams were subjected to 2.3 million load cycles (±1,000 cycles) at
a frequency of 1 Hz. Before the application of cyclic fatigue loading, the beams were cracked
to simulate accidental overloading. For the pretensioned beams, the fatigue load cycle varied
from 9.5% to 34% of the ultimate capacity. The upper limit of fatigue loading is the loading that
induces the tensile limit of 6√f′c psi in the extreme concrete bottom fiber under service loading
conditions (AASHTO LRFD, 2017). The gross moment of inertia was used for the calculation.
The lower limit was computed by subtracting the fatigue truck moment [calculated according to
AASHTO LRFD (2017) Article 3.6.1.1 considering a girder distribution factor of one] from the
upper limit. For the post-tensioned beams, this range was between 10% to 53% of the ultimate
capacity. The upper limit of fatigue loading for post-tensioned beams was chosen as the cracking
load. The lower limit was computed in a manner similar to that for pretensioned beams (details
are presented in Appendix C). The repeated loading was paused during the test to conduct
monotonic tests to monitor the changes in stiffness, prestressing force, and crack width. None
of the beams exhibited any indication of failure during the fatigue cycles and were subsequently
loaded monotonically to failure.
Figure 3.6 shows the effect of repeated loading on the stiffness of the beams. As shown, the
repeated loading had little effect on the stiffness (less than 1.5% for pretensioned beams and
less than 3.5% for post-tensioned beams). After completion of each fatigue test, the beams were
subjected to static monotonic loading up to failure. Table 3.2 shows that the ultimate loads
determined from the tests conducted after the fatigue loading were close to those obtained for
the corresponding monotonically loaded beams (within 1% and 10% for pretensioned and
post-tensioned beams, respectively). This variation may be attributed to differences in concrete
strengths of the decks and girders of the different beams at the time of testing.
Crack Distribution, Spacing, and Crack Width

The monotonic tests of the full-scale beams were conducted in increments to allow monitor-
ing of crack propagation and measuring crack widths. The cracks in pretensioned and bonded
post-tensioned beams were distributed over up to the quarter-span of the beam on either side

Research Results 35
Figure 3.6. Effect of repeated loading on

beam stiffness.
of the midspan. However, the cracks in the unbonded post-tensioned beams were concentrated
in a few wide cracks near the constant moment region; these forked as the load was increased.
The maximum crack widths in the pretensioned and the bonded post-tensioned beams were
0.06 in. and 0.12 in, respectively, and 0.83 in. in the unbonded post-tensioned beams (detailed
information is provided in Appendix D).
3.2.2 Prestress Losses

Prestress Relaxation
Stress relaxation of prestressing CFRP materials was examined over 1 year to assess the effects
of the type of the prestressing CFRP system (CFRP cable and bar), initial stress level [0.5, 0.6,
and 0.7 times the design tensile strength of prestressing CFRP ( fpu)], and the length of the speci-
mens (10 ft., 15 ft., and 20 ft.). The anchorage loss was quantified using specimens with 1 in. of
prestressing CFRP between two end anchors to obtain stress relaxation losses of the prestressing
CFRP cables and bars. Socket type anchors (threaded steel pipes) with highly expansive materials
(HEM) were used to provide uniform expansive pressure inside the anchors to enhance the bond
and reduce the slippage between the prestressing CFRP and steel socket. The test specimen is
illustrated schematically in Figure 3.7.
First the prestressing CFRP cables or bars were cut to the desired length. Then, the pre-
stressing CFRP was centered and fixed inside of the socket type anchors. The HEM was
poured into the sockets in a vertical position and cured for 24 hours in the laboratory. For
prestressing CFRP cables, the steel sockets and HEM were provided by the manufacturers of
the CFRP cables. However, for prestressing CFRP bars, the anchorage system was produced
by the research team. Further information on specimen preparation and test procedure are
provided in Appendix C.
Prestressing CFRP cable or bar HEM

0.5 f
Socket type anchor pu
0.6 f
pu
Clear length [10, 15, and 20 ft.] 0.7 f
pu
Figure 3.7. Schematic representations of relaxation test specimens.

10, 15, or 20 ft.

Threaded anchor
Prestressing CFRP Steel HSS reaction frame with nut
Load cell
strand
Dead end Jacking end

Strain gage
Figure 3.8. Schematic illustration of test setup.
After preparation of the anchorage systems, the specimen was inserted inside a steel
hollow structural section. During the test, the prestressing CFRP cable or bar was subjected to
a sustained load under a constant strain condition in a self-reacting configuration as shown
schematically in Figure 3.8. Figure 3.9 shows the relaxation test setup for specimens with
various lengths.
Figure 3.10 shows the stress ratios versus time (including long-term anchorage losses) for
all 15 ft. long prestressing CFRP cables and bars for three levels of initial prestressing (0.5, 0.6,
and 0.7 fpu). The figure shows similar relaxation loss for all specimens of the same type (cables
or bars), length, and level of initial prestressing. A linear relationship between stress ratio and
the logarithm of the time was observed for all the specimens; higher initial prestressing levels
resulted in higher relaxation losses.
Test results also showed that the stress relaxation loss of prestressing CFRP cables and bars
with 0.6 fpu initial prestressing and different lengths was independent of the length of the speci-
mens (details of the tests and results are presented in Appendices C and D).
Anchorage losses (attributed to the gradual slip of the prestressing CFRP and expansive material
inside the steel anchors, or socket, and creep of the expansive material) were determined for three
anchorage specimens of each of the CFRP prestressing cables and bars for an initial prestressing
level of 0.6 fpu. These losses were subtracted from the total prestress relaxation losses of longer
specimens (10, 15, and 20 ft.) to determine losses related to prestressing CFRP. Figure 3.11 shows
the average stress ratio versus time for both prestressing CFRP cables and bars for three tests
(anchorage seating losses that occur during and immediately after stressing are not included).
15 ft.
10 ft.
20 ft.
Figure 3.9. Relaxation test setup for specimens

with various lengths.

Research Results 37
Initial prestressing ~0.7 fpu

Three test repetitions
(a) Prestressing CFRP Cable (b) Prestressing CFRP bar
Figure 3.10. Stress ratio versus time for 15 ft. long prestressing CFRP at
different initial prestressing level.
The test results were used to develop expressions to calculate the stress relaxation of prestress-
ing CFRP cable and bar systems (DfpR). Equations 3.1 and 3.2 were developed for post-tensioning
applications in which socket type anchors were permanently installed as part of the system.
For CFRP Cables (Ø = 0.6 in.):
  f pt  
Df pR = 0.020   − 0.0066 log ( 24 t ) f pu (Eq. 3.1)
  f pu  
For CFRP Bars (Ø = 0.5 in.):
  f pt  
Df pR = 0.016   − 0.0057  log ( 24 t ) f pu (Eq. 3.2)
  f pu  
where fpt is the stress in prestressing CFRP immediately after transfer (ksi), fpu is the design tensile
strength of prestressing CFRP (ksi), and t is the time after prestress transfer (days).
Figure 3.11. Average stress ratios of the

anchorage systems versus time for prestressing
CFRP cables and bars.

The anchorage losses (presented in Figure 3.11) were subtracted from the total stress relaxation
of prestressing CFRP systems to obtain the stress relaxation of the prestressing CFRP cables and
bars. Equations 3.3 and 3.4 were developed for pretentioning applications in which the anchors
were not permanently installed as part of the system (e.g., for precast, prestressed concrete beams).
For CFRP cables (Ø = 0.6 in.):
  f pt  
Df pR = 0.019   − 0.0066 log ( 24 t ) f pu (Eq. 3.3)
  f pu  
For CFRP bars (Ø = 0.5 in.):
  f pt  
Df pR = 0.013   − 0.0057  log ( 24 t ) f pu (Eq. 3.4)
  f pu  
The stress relaxation losses versus time for prestressing CFRP cables and bars stressed initially
to 0.60 fpu computed according to these equations are presented in Figure 3.12. The figure also
shows the relaxation losses predicted according to the models proposed by Saadatmanesh and
Tannous (1999) and Enomoto et al. (1990) for prestressing CFRP cables with initial prestressing
of 0.6 and 0.7 fpu as well as those predicted by the AASHTO LRFD (2014) formulation for stress
relieved and low relaxation steel strands. As shown, the stress relaxation loss of prestressing
CFRP bars is less than that of FRP cables due to the differences in fiber content, fiber alignment,
and fiber-matrix interface characteristics. The unwinding of the twisted cables may have also
contributed to this difference.
Concrete Creep, Shrinkage, and Thermal Fluctuation

Concrete creep and shrinkage measurements were made on 6 in. × 6 in., 10 ft. long concrete
prisms to investigate the effect of prestressing CFRP types (cables and bars) and jacking stress
Figure 3.12. Stress relaxation loss versus time for CFRP cables and
bars and prestressing steel.

Research Results 39
DEMEC target point
Transfer zone Constant strain zone
Figure 3.13. Prism specimen instrumented with DEMEC

target points.
levels (0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 times the design tensile strength of the prestressing CFRP, fpu). The
influence of confinement due to transverse reinforcement on transfer length and the thermally
induced prestressing losses was also studied.
Twenty-seven concrete beams pretensioned with each type of prestressing CFRP tendon
(cables and bars) were fabricated using a self-consolidating concrete mixture. Each prism was
pretensioned with a single prestressing CFRP tendon placed at the center of the cross section.
The prisms were instrumented with strain gages and thermocouples bonded to the prestressing
tendon to monitor the change in strain and temperature. Simultaneously, twenty 4 × 4 × 12 in.
plain concrete prisms were cast using the same batch of concrete to measure the concrete shrink-
age strain; these shrinkage strains were subtracted from the combined creep and shrinkage losses
measured for the CFRP prestressed prisms to quantify the creep losses.
The average concrete compressive strength at transfer and at 28 days were 5.4 and 12 ksi,
respectively. The strain profile of the prestressed concrete was obtained from 16 demountable
mechanical strain gage points (DEMEC target points) attached to the concrete surface of each
creep prism at 8 in. spacing, as shown in Figure 3.13. The concrete strain was calculated from the
difference between the measurements before and after the transfer of prestressing force. Also,
two sets DEMEC target points were also attached to each shrinkage specimen at 8 in. spacing to
measure the shrinkage strains.
After prestress transfer, the specimens were stored for 1 year under laboratory conditions,
and concrete strain measurements were taken periodically to determine concrete creep and
shrinkage. The concrete longitudinal compressive strains increased with time due to prestress-
ing losses caused by concrete creep and shrinkage. Details of specimen fabrication and test pro-
cedures are provided in Appendix C.
Figure 3.14 shows the average concrete total creep and shrinkage strains (obtained from the
constant strain zone of the CFRP prestressed prisms) versus time for CFRP prestressed prisms
Concrete total strain

Strain (in./in.)
Strain (in./in.)
Concrete shrinkage strain
200
(a) Prestressing CFRP cable (b) Prestressing CFRP bar
Figure 3.14. Concrete total strain (creep and shrinkage) and shrinkage strain versus
time in CFRP prestressed prisms.

at three prestressing levels. As shown, high concrete creep and shrinkage rates occurred during
the first 100 days after prestress transfer; creep and shrinkage strains became constant as time
passed. Details of the experimental results are provided in Appendix D.
The creep and shrinkage strains predicted according to AASHTO LRFD (2017) and those
measured at different times for beams prestressed at three levels of initial prestressing with
CFRP cables and bars are shown in Figure 3.15. As shown, the measured concrete creep and
shrinkage strains were within 5% of the predicted values. However, the total measured con-
crete creep and shrinkage strains at the initial stage (after 3 days of prestress transfer and
before 3 days of prestress removal) were higher than the predicted values because of the high
rate of drying shrinkage due to diffusion of the concrete moisture immediately after removing
the forms. The R2 values for the regression analysis lines were 0.845 and 0.918 for the prestress-
ing CFRP cables and bars, respectively, indicating a good agreement. Thus, the method pre-
sented in AASHTO LRFD (2017) can be used to estimate the prestress losses due to concrete
creep and shrinkage.
To study thermal effects on the CFRP prestressed prisms, the prisms were subjected to
thermal cycles after completion of the creep and shrinkage tests. The prisms were placed in an
environment-controlled chamber and subjected to 30 temperature cycles. Each cycle consisted
of 3 hours of heating to 140°F, 3 hours at 140°F, 3 hours of cooling down to 0°F, and 3 hours at
0°F. All prisms were instrumented with thermocouples to monitor the internal temperature of
concrete during the thermal cycles; the temperature and strain of the prestressed CFRP cables
and bars were monitored to determine the thermally induced prestress loss (or gain). Figure 3.16
shows the average strain profile for beams prestressed with CFRP cables with 0.6 f pu initial
prestressing, with and without spiral reinforcement. More details are provided in Appendix D.
The transfer length for the prisms prestressed with CFRP cables and bars increased after the
thermal fluctuation cycles by 8 to 16 in. and 16 to 24 in., respectively. This increase is attributed
to the bond deterioration and formation of tensile cracks at the interface between prestressing
CFRP and concrete due to the higher transverse CTE of the prestressing CFRP relative to that
of the concrete.
The concrete strain within the constant strain zones did not change due to cyclic thermal
loading indicating that the effective prestressing force was not affected by the 30 thermal cycles.
However, the concrete compressive strains for the prisms prestressed with CFRP bars at initial
(a) Prestressing CFRP Cable (b) Prestressing CFRP Bar
Figure 3.15. Average measured creep and shrinkage strains versus total predicted
strain for CFRP prestressed prisms.

Research Results 41
Transfer length increase
16 in. 16 in.
8 in. 8 in.
(a) With spiral reinforcement (b) Without spiral reinforcement
Figure 3.16. Average strain profiles of test prisms (CFRP cables with 0.6 fpu
initial prestressing).
prestressing levels of 0.6 fpu and 0.7 fpu decreased by 0.0002 and 0.0003 in./in., respectively. There
was also a reduction in the longitudinal strain of the prestressing CFRP bars inside the concrete
prisms with initial prestressing of 0.6 fpu and 0.7 fpu indicating an average loss of the prestressing
force of 30% to 40% of the jacking stress in prisms prestressed with CFRP bars. Also, the observed
change in the length of the prestressing CFRP bar protruding beyond the end of the prism indi-
cated slippage of the CFRP bars inside the concrete beams at the end zone. More information is
provided in Appendix D.
By assuming total bond between the prestressing CFRP and concrete, an increase of the tem-
perature will result in compressive stresses in concrete and tensile stresses in the prestressing
CFRP (prestressing gain) because of the lower longitudinal CTE of prestressing CFRP com-
pared to that of the concrete, and a reduction in temperature will result in tensile stresses in
the concrete and compressive stresses in the prestressing CFRP that would lead to a prestress-
ing loss. Concrete longitudinal strain was measured every 10 cycles at 14°F, 68°F, 104°F, and
140°F for both CFRP prestressed prisms and plain concrete prisms to determine the longitudi-
nal elongation/contraction due to temperature change. Figure 3.17 shows the average change
of strain versus temperature change, DT, for the plain concrete prisms and those prestressed
with CFRP cables. The longitudinal coefficient of thermal expansion for the CFRP prestressed
∆ = . × ×∆ ∆ = . × ×∆
=0.983 =0.982
(a) Plain concrete prisms (b) CFRP prestressed beams
Figure 3.17. Change in concrete strain due to temperature change.

prisms and plain concrete specimens were 6.64 × 10-6 and 6.80 × 10-6 (/°F), respectively. The
lower CTE of the prestressing CFRP compared to that of plain concrete resulted in less thermal
expansion for the prestressed prisms.
The forces induced in the prestressing CFRP cables inside the concrete prisms (Fcfrp) and in the
prestressed concrete (Fc) due to a temperature change (DT) are as follows:
Fcfrp = (αcm − αcfrp ) DT Ecfrp Acfrp (Eq. 3.5)
Fc = (αcm − αc ) DT Ec Ac (Eq. 3.6)
where αcm, αcfrp, and αc are the longitudinal coefficients of thermal expansion of the prism with
prestressing CFRP cables (composite), CFRP cables, and plain concrete, respectively.
For equilibrium:
Fc + Fcfrp = 0 (Eq. 3.7)
From Equations 3.5 through 3.7, the longitudinal coefficients of thermal expansion of the
composite prisms can be expressed as follows:
Ecfrp Acfrp Ec Ac
αcm = αcfrp × + αc × (Eq. 3.8)
Ec Ac + Ecfrp Acfrp Ec Ac + Ecfrp Acfrp
where Ecfrp and Ec are the modulus of elasticity of the prestressing CFRP tendon and concrete
(ksi), respectively, and Acfrp and Ac are the cross-sectional areas of the prestressing CFRP tendon
and concrete (in2), respectively.
Friction Losses
According to AASHTO LRFD (2017), the prestress loss due to friction (ΔfpF) can be obtained
from the following equation:
Df pF = f pj (1 − e −(µα+kx ) ) (Eq. 3.9)
where µ is the coefficient of friction, k is the wobble friction coefficient per unit length of
tendon (1/ft.), fpj is the jacking stress (ksi), α is the total angular change between the jacking
point and dead end (rad.), and x is the total length of prestressing CFRP from the jacking end
to dead end (ft.).
Friction tests were conducted on two full-scale post-tensioned beams to quantify the wobble
coefficient, k, and the friction coefficient, µ, of prestressing CFRP cables in polypropylene ducts.
Polypropylene ducts with an inner diameter of 2.0 in. were used in the fabrication of the post-
tensioned beams with 0.76 in. diameter prestressing CFRP cables. Oversized ducts were used to
accommodate the socket anchors that were pre-installed onto the CFRP cables.
The friction tests were conducted on straight prestressing CFRP (α = 0). Two load cells were
used to monitor the prestressing force at both jacking and dead ends of the prestressing CFRP
during jacking. After determining the wobble coefficient of friction, the friction tests were con-
ducted on three draped prestressing CFRP cables. The total angular change, α, of the draped
prestressing CFRP cable between the jacking side and dead end was 0.17 rad. Test results showed
average values of the wobble friction coefficient and coefficient of friction of 0.00022/ft. and
0.19, respectively.

Research Results 43
3.2.3 Harping Characteristics of the Prestressing CFRP

The hold-down device geometry, harping angle, and type of prestressing CFRP were con-
sidered in this study. The radius of curvature of the prestressing CFRP was varied by changing
the diameter of the hold-down point (deviators) and the harping angle. Three harping angles
that represent the range of commonly used harping angles were considered. Because the ten-
sile capacity of prestressing CFRP bars drastically decreased for harping angles higher than
15 degrees (Quayle, 2005; Soudki and Noel, 2010), the harping angles for the prestressing CFRP
bars were limited to 15 degrees. Details of the test setup and specimen configuration are shown
schematically in Figure 3.18. The test frame was designed for testing different types of prestress-
ing CFRP tendons with different harping angles and different types of hold-down devices. The
load was applied using a hydraulic jack; the harping angle of the prestressing CFRP was varied
by raising or lowering the dead-end anchor of the specimen until the desired harping angle was
achieved. A wedge and sleeve type anchorage system was used.
The feasibility of using 1 in. diameter steel and 2 in. diameter plastic deviators, as commonly
used for steel strands, was examined. The initial test results showed higher retention of tensile
capacity in prestressing CFRP cables than in the CFRP bars for all harping configurations, but
both were considered unsatisfactory for CFRP prestressing applications. Premature failure of
prestressing CFRP tendons occurred due to the highly concentrated contact pressure at the
location of the 1 and 2 in. diameter deviators and resulted in large reductions (up to 93%) of the
tensile capacity, with more reduction in the prestressing CFRP bars than in the cables. A 20 in.
diameter deviator was then used to reduce the contact pressure and increase the tensile capac-
ity, but premature failure of the prestressing CFRP bars occurred at stresses less than 60% of
the design tensile capacity of the material (see Figure 3.19), suggesting that harped prestressing
CFRP bars should not be used in prestressed bridge girders. Further testing was carried out on
CFRP cables. A summary of the results is presented in Table 3.3.
Two harping devices were fabricated (see Figure 3.20) to increase the contact surface between
the CFRP cables and the deviator and decrease the curvature of the depressed strand to avoid
local failure of the CFRP at the deviator location.
Test results showed that harping devices using 20 in. and 40 in. diameter deviators caused
no local failure of the prestressing CFRP cable and increased the harping capacity to 93.6%
and 113.0% of the design tensile capacity of the CFRP cables, respectively (compared to 29.8%
and 55.7% for 1 and 2 in. diameter deviators, respectively, as shown in Table 3.3). Test results
are presented in Table 3.4.
Test results showed higher retention of tensile capacity in harped prestressing CFRP cables
than bars for all test configurations. In addition to the lower retention capacity, CFRP bars
exhibited premature failure in the form of splitting cracks at the location of deviators suggesting
Back to back steel channels Wedge and sleeve grips

Anchor
Hydraulic jack Deviator
Harping angle
Alignment wedge
Load cell Strain gage location
Jacking End Dead End
Figure 3.18. Schematic representation of test specimen and test setup.

20 in. diameter
Harping device
Premature failure initiated by

splitting
Figure 3.19. Application of 20 in. diameter deviator

on CFRP bars with 5 degree harping angle.
Table 3.3. Summary of harping test results.
Deviator Harping Breaking % of Design

Prestressing Angle
Diameter Load Tensile
Tendon *
(in.) (Degree) (kips) Strength
1.0 15 3.3 6.7

CFRP Bar
2.0 5 15.6 31.2
Ø = 0.50 in.
20.0 5 22.1 44.2
1.0 15 18.2 29.8
CFRP Cable
2.0 5 33.9 55.7
Ø = 0.60 in.
20.0 5 42.1 69.2
*Based on manufacturer provided values.
2.5 in.
(a) 20 in. diameter deviator (b) 40 in. diameter deviator
Figure 3.20. Newly designed harping devices.

Research Results 45
Table 3.4. Harping test results on prestressing CFRP cables.
Deviator Harping Angle Breaking Load % of Design % of Ultimate

Tensile Tensile
Diameter (degrees) (kips) Strength* Strength
10 56.8 93.6 73.1

20 in.
15 56.1 92.4 72.2
(steel)
20 55.8 91.9 71.9
10 68.6 113.0 88.3

40 in.
15 64.1 105.6 82.6
(steel)
20 61.3 101.0 79.0
*Based on manufacturer provided value.
a need to limit their application in prestressed concrete beams. However, the harping devices
used in the tests provided a tensile capacity retention of more than 92% of the design tensile
strength of prestressing CFRP cables for harping angles between 10° and 20°.
3.2.4 Transfer Length

To evaluate the transfer lengths of CFRP cables and bars under various jacking stresses, con-
crete strains at both ends (live and dead) were measured for five full-scale pretensioned bridge
girders and 54 pretensioned prisms. The transfer length was estimated from the concrete strain
profiles using the 95% Average Maximum Strain Method (AMS). In this method, the strain
profiles along the length of the beams and prisms were plotted; AMS was determined by com-
puting the average of all the strains within the constant strain zone. The transfer length was then
determined as the intersection of the 95% AMS line with the strain profile at each end of the test
specimens, as shown in Figure 3.21 for the full-scale beams pretensioned with CFRP cables and
bars. More detailed results are provided in Appendix D.
The transfer length was calculated using the equation provided by Mahmoud et al. (1999) and
compared to the experimental results (see Figure 3.22). The transfer length coefficient (αt) was
Strain (in./in.)
Strain (in./in.)
L (in.) L (in.)
(a) Prestressing CFRP cable (b) Prestressing CFRP bar
Figure 3.21. Strain profile and transfer length determinations of full-scale CFRP
prestressed beams.

lt=40-50 db
Figure 3.22. Experimental versus calculated

transfer length for CFRP prestressed beams.
then calculated using the experimental transfer length for all test specimens according to Equa-
tion 3.10 (the average values were 1.0 and 1.3 for prestressing CFRP bars and cables, respectively):
f pi
αt = 0.67 db (Eq. 3.10)
lt f ci′
where fpi is the initial prestressing level in the CFRP tendons (ksi), d b is the diameter of the
tendon (in.), f ′ci is the concrete strength at transfer (ksi), and lt is the experimental transfer
length value (in.).
The experimentally determined transfer length values were within 5% of the predicted values.
The transfer lengths for the prestressing CFRP cables and bars were 40 to 50 times the diameter
of the prestressing tendon, which is less than the transfer length prediction for steel tendons by
AASHTO LRFD (2017) of lt = 60db.
The effect of thermal fluctuation cycles on the transfer length of the prestressing CFRP cables
and bars was also studied in CFRP prestressed concrete prisms. After 30 thermal cycles with tem-
peratures ranging between 0°F to 140°F (see Section 3.2.2), the transfer length was longer than
that for un-weathered specimens by 70% and 100% of the initial transfer length for prestressing
CFRP cables and bars, respectively. This difference is attributed to the degradation of the bond
between prestressing CFRP and concrete caused by the difference in the CTE for prestressing
CFRP tendons and concrete.
3.3 Results of the Finite Element Analysis

3.3.1 Verification of Finite Element Model
The finite element analyses were conducted to study a wider range of parameters than were
considered in the tests. A three-dimensional finite element model (FEM) was built using the
commercial finite element program ATENA-GID 5.3.3 (Cervenka Consulting, 2013).
The results obtained from the full-scale beam tests were used to calibrate the FEM. Load-
deflection relationship, crack distribution, and crack width were determined from the finite
element analysis (FEA) for each full-scale beam and compared to those obtained from the tests.
Figures 3.23 and 3.24 show the comparison for two pretensioned and one post-tensioned beams,

Research Results 47
(a) CPrSM#01 (b) BPrSM#01
Figure 3.23. Experimental and FEA predicted load versus deflection for beams
pretensioned with CFRP cables and bars.
and Table 3.5 shows a comparison of the ultimate loads and deflections; these indicate that the
FEA estimates are in good agreement with the experimental results. More details are provided
in Appendix E.
3.3.2 Parametric Study

Prestressed Beams with Bonded CFRP
A parametric study was conducted using the FEMs calibrated models to investigate the effect
of the parameters identified in studies by Kakizawa et al. (1993), Fam et al. (1997), Abdelrahman
and Rizkalla (1997), and Zou (2003a) as influencing the behavior of the pretensioned beams
(i.e., level of prestressing, composite action, area of prestressing CFRP, and shear span-to-depth
ratio). The study predicted the behavior of the prestressed beams having the same number of
prestressing CFRP tendons as the test beams but different levels of prestressing, modulus of
elasticity, and composite deck; and different locations of the load application. The results, listed
in Table 3.6, indicate the following:
• Increasing the effective prestressing ratio increases the cracking load and decreases the mid-
span deflection but does not affect the ultimate load;
• Removing the composite deck changes the mode of failure from rupture of the prestressing
CFRP tendons to concrete crushing, and decreases the cracking load and the ultimate load
by nearly 40%;
(a) CPouSF (b) CPouDM#01
Figure 3.24. Experimental and FEA predicted load versus deflection for unbonded
and bonded post-tensioned beams.

Table 3.5. Experimental results and FEA estimates for ultimate load
and deflection.
Experimental FEA
∆
Beam ID Load, Deflection, Load, Deflection,
∆
(kips) ∆ (in.) (kips) ∆ (in.)
CPrSM#01 206 8.0 202 8.5 1.02 0.94

CPrSM#02 214 7.6 210 7.5 1.02 1.01
CPrSF 210 7.7 209 7.6 1.00 1.01
BPrSM#01 207 6.0 205 5.7 1.00 1.05
BPrSM#02 209 5.8 204 5.4 1.02 1.07
BPrpSM 209 5.2 208 5.2 1.01 1.01
BPrSF 207 5.6 208 5.4 0.99 1.03
CPouSM 135 9.9 129 9.4 1.05 1.05
CPouSF 122 7.4 122 8.5 1.00 0.87
CPouDF 143 8.9 145 10.1 0.99 0.88
CPoDM#01 175 5.2 173 5.3 1.01 0.98
CPoDM#02 174 6.7 173 6.6 1.01 1.02
Table 3.6. Results of parametric study of beams prestressed

with bonded CFRP tendons.
Peak
Failure
Beam ID Parameter Load Deflection Mode
(kips) (in.)
S1-PR-50 50% 201.3 8.3 RP
S1-PR-60 Effective 60% 200.5 7.1 RP
prestressing
S1-PR-70 ratio 70% 199.0 5.9 RP
S1-PR-78 78% 197.6 5.0 RP
S2-PR-50 With deck 201.3 8.3 RP
S2-PR50-NC Composite Without deck 114.6 8.4 CC
S2-PR60 deck With deck 200.5 7.1 RP
S2-PR60-NC Without deck 119.3 7.5 CC
S3-PR60 6 200.5 7.1 RP
a/d ratio
S3-PR60-a/d-4 4 297.7 9.2 RP
S4-PR-78-E1 Modulus of 17,650 ksi 197.6 5.0 RP
elasticity of
S4-PR-78-E2 CFRP 22,000 ksi 195.4 4.2 RP
S5-PR-78 0.43ρb 197.6 5.0 RP

S5-PR-78-RR1 0.54ρb 238.3 5.2 RP
S5-PR-78-RR2 Reinforcement 0.76ρb 315.6 5.7 RP
S5-PR-78-RR3 index 0.87ρb 350 5.8 RP
S5-PR-78-RR4 ρb 380.3 6 RP
S5-PR-78-RR5 1.1 ρb 392.5 5.9 CC
S6-PR-78 6 ksi 197.6 5.0 RP
S6-PR-78-D4 4 ksi 191.5 5.1 RP
Concrete
S6-PR-78-D9 strength 9 ksi 202.0 4.9 RP
S6-PR-78-D9-
9 ksi 206.2 4.9 RP
G15
ρb = balanced reinforcement ratio
NC = non-composite
RP = rupture of prestressing CFRP
CC = concrete crushing

Research Results 49
• Reducing the span-to-depth (a/d) ratio from 6.05 to 4.0 (1/3 reduction) did not affect the ulti-
mate moment capacity of the section but increased the deflection of the beams by 30 percent;
• Changing the modulus of elasticity of the prestressing CFRP tendons did not affect the initial
elastic behavior or the ultimate load of the pretensioned beams, but increasing the modulus
of elasticity of the prestressing CFRP reduced the net midspan deflection after cracking;
• Reinforcement ratio and level of prestressing had similar effect on the cracking behavior of the
beams (i.e., increasing the reinforcement ratio above the balanced ratio changed the mode of
failure from rupture of the CFRP tendons to concrete crushing); and
• Concrete strengths of the deck and girder did not significantly influence the strength and
deflection of the prestressed beams.
Details of the parametric study results are presented in Appendix E; these results were used in
evaluating the proposed equations for the design of bonded CFRP prestressed beams.
Prestressed Beams with Unbonded CFRP

The parametric study of unbonded post-tensioned beams considered the parameters that
influence the force in the unbonded prestressing CFRP. The parameters identified in studies by
Naaman and Alkhairi (1991a), Lee et al. (1999), Harajli (2006), Ozkul et al. (2008), Au et al.
(2009), and Lee et al. (2017) as affecting the behavior of the post-tensioned beams with pre-
stressing steel were considered and their effect on post-tensioned beams with prestressing
CFRP systems was investigated. These parameters were loading type, cable profile, effective
prestressing ratio, unstressed bonded reinforcement, span-to-depth ratio, reinforcement ratio,
and concrete strength. The results, shown in Table 3.7, indicated the following:
• Increasing the distance between the loading points increased capacity and deformability of the
beams and increases the cable stress with a larger increase for straight cables,
• Increasing the level of prestressing increased the cracking load of the beams but did not affect
the ultimate capacity or deformation,
• Adding auxiliary bonded reinforcement (steel or CFRP) increased the capacity significantly
with higher ultimate capacity obtained with CFRP but the presence of unstressed reinforce-
ment had no effect on the ultimate deflection,
• Post-cracking stiffness of the beams with auxiliary bonded reinforcement was higher than
that for the fully unbonded CFRP (5% to 10% difference),
• Crack width at the ultimate was lower for bonded reinforcement,
• Increasing the reinforcement index increased the cracking and peak loads of the beams but
decreased the net deflection at the peak load and the change in stress of unbonded cables,
• Increasing the span-to-depth ratio did not affect the moment capacity but increased the
deflection and cable stress significantly, and
• Increasing the compressive strength of the deck increased the capacity and deflection of the
beams.
More details are presented in Appendix E. The results of this study were used in evaluating the
performance of the proposed design equations for bonded CFRP prestressed beams.
3.4 Evaluation of Proposed Design Methods

The method for the design of beams prestressed with CFRP tendons described in Section 2.5.6
follows the approach used in AASHTO LRFD (2017) but recognizes the failure mode related to
CFRP. For beams prestressed with bonded CFRP tendons, strain compatibility and equilibrium
equations are used as in the case of steel prestressed sections, except that CFRP rupture is gov-
erned by the extreme layer of CFRP. In addition, the concrete strain at the extreme compres-
sion fiber when the CFRP ruptures is less than 0.003 in./in.—the ultimate value stipulated in

Table 3.7. Results of parametric study of post-tensioned beams

with unbonded CFRP tendons.
Peak
ID Parameters Moment
Load Deflection
Capacity
(kips) (in.)
(kip-ft.)
S-P Single Load 105 7.0 1011
S-2P-60 2P-60" 138 9.6 1159
S-2P-90 Loading type 2P-90" 160 11.2 1237
S-2P-115.5 2P-115.5" 193 14.8 1396
S-2P-154 2P-154'' 199 12.4 1279
D-P Single Load 120 10.3 1158
D-2P-90 Cable profile 2P-60" 145 10.1 1214
D-2P-60 2P-90" 168 11.9 1302
S-PR-40 0.4 fpu 140 10.6 1170

Effective
S-PR-50 prestressing 0.5 fpu 155 10.3 1298
ratio
S-PR-60 0.6 fpu 171 10.3 1432
S-PR-70 0.7 fpu 185 9.7 1545
0.004 Act*
S-B-St 224 10.8 1876
Auxiliary Steel
bonded 0.004 Act*
S-B-CFRP 270 10.7 2261
reinforcement CFRP
S-B-Non Non 171 10.3 1432
S-RI-08 0.083 70 11.7 585
S-RI-11 0.110 870 11.5 7290
S- RI-13 Reinforcement 0.138 98 11.0 818

index
S-RI-19 0.193 127 10.0 1062
S-RI-27 0.275 171 10.3 1432
S-RI-55 0.550 284 8.0 2379
S-L/d-10 10 277 3.5 1437
S-L/d-12.5 12.5 213 5.2 1397
Span-to-depth
S-L/d-15.8 15.8 171 10.3 1427
ratio
S-L/d-17.5 17.5 148 11.3 1368
S- L/d-20 20 125 14.9 1326
S-C-6.5 6.5 150 7.1 1256
S-C-7.5 7.5 162 8.7 1358
Concrete
S-C-8.5 strength 8.5 166 9.3 1386
(ksi)
S-C-10.5 10.5 168 9.5 1410
S-C-11.5 11.5 170 10.0 1422
*Act is the area of concrete cross section between the flexural face and centroid of gross
section.

Research Results 51
AASHTO LRFD (2017). Using Whitney’s stress block, the two factors, α1 and β1, provided in
AASHTO LRFD (2017) may not be applicable; another approach to calculate the stress-block
factors is proposed; details are provided in Appendix E.
The results from the FEA (included in Appendix E), the tests performed in this project, and
those reported in the literature were used to evaluate the proposed design methods. The FEM
was first calibrated using the results of the large-scale tests conducted in this study, and then used
to generate data points for different material properties, prestressing force, and dimensional
properties. Figure 3.25 shows the moment capacities of the test beams versus those predicted
using the proposed design methods. As shown in the figure, the design equations provide close
but slightly conservative values when compared to those obtained from the tests and FEA.
For prestressed beams with unbonded CFRP tendons, two design models [ACI 440.4R-04
(2011) and AASHTO LRFD (2017)] were selected to predict the capacities of all beams included
in the parametric study. ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) uses a strain reduction approach to account for
the incompatibility between the prestressing CFRP and concrete. However, the approach used
in AASHTO LRFD (2017) assumes a failure mechanism to calculate the increase in unbonded
tendon strain based on the total deformation of the tendon between the anchorage ends. For
both models, the concrete compressive strain at failure was taken as 0.003. Figure 3.26 shows
the moment capacities of the beams included in the database and the FEA versus those pre-
dicted using the design models. The ratio of the mean of the experimental or FEA values to
the predicted values is 1.2 with a COV of 0.06 for the ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) model and 1.4
with a COV of 0.21 for the AASHTO LRFD (2017) model. The figure shows no correlation
of either ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) or AASHTO LRFD (2017) predictions with the experimental
and FEA results.
Figure 3.27 shows the increase in stress for the unbonded cables reported in the literature
and those obtained from FEA versus those predicted by ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) and AASHTO
LRFD (2017). The results show some correlation of ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) predictions with the
experimental and FEA data but no correlation of AASHTO LRFD (2017) predictions with the
experimental and FEA data.
Moment Capacity from the Design
Equations (kip-ft.)
Moment Capacity from Testing or FEA (kip-ft.)
Figure 3.25. Moment capacities calculated

according to proposed design methods
versus those obtained from FEA and tests
for bonded pretensioned beams.


Equations (kip-ft.)
Equations (kip-ft.)
Moment Capacity from Testing or FEA Moment Capacity from Testing or FEA
(kip-ft.) (kip-ft.)
(a) ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) (b) AASHTO LRFD (2017)
Figure 3.26. Moment capacities calculated according to ACI 440.4R-04 and

AASHTO LRFD versus FEA and experimentally obtained results for unbonded
post-tensioned beams.
3.5 Reliability Analysis

A Monte Carlo Simulation approach was used to calibrate the strength reduction factor for
CFRP prestressed beams failing due to the rupture of the CFRP tendons. A total of five bridges
with different span lengths, roadway widths, girder positions, and number of girders were con-
sidered; these are listed in Table 3.8. Concrete strength (6 ksi for deck and 9 ksi for girder) and
the thickness of the deck were the same for all bridges. An earlier study (Forouzannia et al.,
2016) suggested that changing the concrete strength of the deck from 4 to 8 ksi resulted in a
minimal change (1.5%) in the nominal moment capacity and the deck thickness has a minor
effect on moment capacity (6.3%). Therefore, a uniform deck thickness of 8 in. was selected
for all design cases. The ratio of dead load to live load for the beams ranged from 0.6 to 1.77.
The girders were designed according to the CFRP proposed in the design and material guide
(a) ACI 440.4R-04 (2011) (b) AASHTO LRFD (2017)
Figure 3.27. Increase in stress for unbonded tendons obtained from reported
tests and FEA versus predicted values.

Research Results 53
Table 3.8. Bridge data for calibration

of resistance factors.
Span Girder
Section No. of Roadway
Length Spacing
Type Girders Width (ft.)
(ft.) (ft.)
Type I 40 6 5 30
Type I 60 6 5 30
Type III 80 9 7 60
Type IV 100 8 5 38
BT72 140 6 12 72
specifications (developed in this project) using the load combinations from the AASHTO LRFD
(2017) specifications.
Because the loads are independent of reinforcement type, the data available in the
literature for random load effects was used (Nowak, 1993; Nowak 1994; Nowak 1999; Moses,
2001). The dead loads used in the design were categorized as the weight of factory-made
elements (girder), cast-in-place elements (diaphragm), wearing surface (asphalt), and mis-
cellaneous elements (railings and luminaries). All dead loads (see Table 3.9) were assumed
to be normally distributed random variables with the bias and COV values adopted from
Nowak (1999). The live load model specified in AASHTO LRFD (2017), HL-93 loading
(Design Truck/Tandem + Design Lane Load) was used. The descriptors for the random
variables in the model are listed in Table 3.9.
The descriptors for the random variables for the resistance model are listed in Table 3.10.
The resistance models involve properties of concrete (e.g., compressive strength, failure strain),
CFRP (e.g., rupture strength, Young’s modulus), and related statistical parameters. Different
distributions and statistical parameters for the rupture strength of the CFRP are found in the lit-
erature; there are inconsistencies in reporting the strength of the materials by the manufacturers.
The guide specification prepared in this project recommends the use of a two-parameter Weibull
distribution to characterize the strength of CFRP by the value computed according to ASTM
D7290 (2017). Statistical parameters for concrete have been derived in previous studies using
large data-sets and were combined with the data obtained from the material tests performed in
Table 3.9. Descriptors of random variable for load model.
Variable Distribution Bias COV Reference

Type
Factory-Made Normal 1.03 0.08 Nowak (1999)
Elements
Cast-in-Place Normal 1.05 0.10 Nowak (1999)
Elements
Wearing Surface Normal 1.00 0.25 Nowak (1999)
Live Load plus Impact Normal 1.28* 0.18 Nowak (1999)

Girder Distribution Normal 1.11 0.10 BridgeTech,
Factor (Interior) Inc., et al.
(2007)
*Average value of bias factors (1.2 to 1.35 for span lengths of 50 to 170 ft). In the Monte
Carlo Simulation, this value is taken according to the span length.

Table 3.10. Descriptors of random variable

for resistance model.
Variable Distribution Bias COV Reference
Model error Normal 1.15 0.14 Current Study
Height of Normal 1.00 0.03 Okeil et al.

deck (2012)
Height of Normal 1.00 0.03 Okeil et al.

girder (2012)
Web Normal 1.01 0.04 Okeil et al.

thickness (2012)
Prestressing Normal 1.00 0.03 Shield et al.

CFRP area (2011)
Current study
1.17* 0.04
CFRP tensile (cable)
Weibull
strength Current study
1.12* 0.03
(bar)
CFRP Normal 0.97 0.14 Forouzannia et
modulus of al. (2016)
elasticity
Concrete Normal Eq. 0.10 Nowak and
strength 3.11 Szersen (2003)
*Mean/Design Value calculated for CFRP.
this project and used to validate the distribution models and parameters selected for the reli-
ability analysis. Other parameters such as the CFRP prestressing level, width and effective depth
of the beam, and CFRP bar/strand cross-sectional area were taken as random variables with
biases, COVs, and distribution models based on available literature. The bias and COVs for these
parameters are well-documented in previous studies (Nowak, 1999; Shield et al., 2011; Okeil
et al., 2012). Nowak and Szersen (2003) proposed the following equation for the bias factor of
concrete compressive strength:
λ f c′ = − 0.0081 f c′3 + 0.15091 f c′2 − 0.9338 f c′ + 3.0649 f c′ (Eq. 3.11)
where f ′c is the concrete compressive strength in ksi.

The professional factor accounts for the epistemic uncertainty in the prediction model, which
depends on the failure mode and design objective. A database of CFRP prestressed concrete
beam tests reported in the literature was compiled and supplemented with tests performed
in this project and grouped by objective and failure mode. The database of 44 beams from
11 research studies (including this project) was used to calculate the professional factor. The
dominant failure mode of all the beams was the rupture of the CFRP (41 beams failed by CFRP
rupture and three beams failed by concrete crushing). The bias and COV for the professional
factor were calculated as 1.15 and 0.14, respectively.
The reliability index was calculated by changing the resistance factor for each of the bridges
included in the design space. Figure 3.28 shows an example of the reliability index versus the
resistance factor for one of the beams. The resistance factor for the target reliability index was
obtained by linear interpolation between data points.
Resistance factors of 0.85 and 0.80 for reliability indices of 3.8 and 4.0, respectively, were
found to be appropriate for interior girders failing due to CFRP rupture. However, because of

Research Results 55
= 4.0
= 0.8
Figure 3.28. Reliability index versus resistance

factors (Type BT72).
the nature of failure of CFRP prestressed beams (with a drop of all applied load after failure),
a lower resistance factor of 0.75 seems appropriate. For compression-controlled failures (con-
crete crushing), the resistance factor of 0.75 stipulated in AASHTO LRFD (2017) provisions
seems appropriate for beams prestressed with CFRP tendons because of their similar behavior.
A resistance factor of 0.75 for tension-controlled beams (CFRP rupture) seems also appropriate
although somewhat conservative based on the analysis but it eliminates the need for the transi-
tion region between the modes of failure.

CHAPTER 4
Research Findings and Products
4.1 Prestressing CFRP Characteristics

4.1.1 Tensile Strength and Strain
The tensile strength used in design ( fpu) is a characteristic value computed according to ASTM
D7290 (2017) which represents 80% lower confidence bound on the 5th-percentile value of a spec-
ified population. This combination of confidence bound and the percentile level will result in the
resistance factor for LRFD that is similar to other civil engineering materials (ASTM D7290, 2017).
4.1.2 Durability
There is a reduction in strength when CFRP is exposed to various environmental conditions.
Durability tests were performed on one type of prestressing CFRP product. However, other
types are available and others may become available in the future. Since the proposed specifica-
tions were intended to include a wide range of CFRP, it was necessary to use an environmental
coefficient that is relevant to the materials reported in the literature and those commercially
available. For prestressing CFRP enclosed in a concrete element, long-term exposure to environ-
mental effects is not of a concern, but when prestressing CFRP is used externally to strengthen
concrete elements and it is exposed to environmental effects, a reduction of the design tensile
strength of prestressing CFRP of 10% is suggested.
4.2 Jacking Stress Limitations

The limitation on jacking stress is controlled by the strain reserved for flexure after stressing.
4.2.1 Strain Reserved for Flexure

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show the design strength (fpu), rupture strength (fpr), strength not accounted
for in the design (fpr – fpu), stress immediately prior to transfer of 70% (fpbt), effective prestress (fpe),
prestress loss (fpbt – fpe), and extreme service stress for the prestressing CFRP cables and bars used
in this research. As shown, the reserved strain after jacking (esr) is 0.0046 and 0.0036 for prestress-
ing CFRP cables and bars, respectively. Also, a larger percentage of the design strength of the
prestressing CFRP cable is not accounted for in the design than that for the prestressing CFRP bar.
4.2.2 Creep Rupture

The literature review revealed limited investigations on the creep of FRP composites for limited
test durations (12,000 hours), large variations of creep rupture stress, and linear extrapolation of
56

Research Findings and Products 57
*Extreme case refers to the occurrence of service load on a cracked girder.
Figure 4.1. Stress-strain relationship of prestressing CFRP cables.
*Extreme case refers to the occurrence of service load on a cracked girder.
Figure 4.2. Stress-strain relationship of prestressing CFRP bars.

test data that may not represent the long-term behavior of the materials. The creep rupture limit
of the CFRP reported in the literature ranges from 70% to 93% of the ultimate tensile strength.
4.2.3 Recommendation for Stress Limits

Based on consideration for the reserved strain and creep rupture, the maximum stress
prior to transfer should be calculated to provide a reserved strain esr ≥ 0.004 for flexure irre-
spective of the strength and modulus of elasticity of the CFRP. The recommended maximum
stress immediately prior to transfer is the modulus of elasticity of prestressing CFRP times
the lesser of the difference between the design strain and 0.004, and 70% of the design strain,
as follows:
f pbt = E f × min (epu − 0.004, 0.7epu ) (Eq. 4.1)
The maximum jacking stress and stress at service for available CFRP prestressing cables and
bars are provided in Table 4.1 as a percentage of the design strength.
4.3 Prestress Losses

4.3.1 Prestress Relaxation Loss
Based on relaxation test results presented in Chapter 3, the stress relaxation of prestressing
CFRP cable and bar systems (DfpR) can be estimated using Equations 4.2 through 4.5. Equa-
tions 4.2 and 4.3 are for applications in which the anchorage is a permanent part of the CFRP
prestressing system, such as for post-tensioning applications. Equations 4.4 and 4.5 are for appli-
cations in which the anchorage is not a permanent part of the CFRP prestressing system, such
as for precast, pretensioning applications.
For post-tensioning with 0.6 in. diameter CFRP cables:
  f pt  
Df pR = 0.020   − 0.0066 log ( 24 t ) f pu (Eq. 4.2)
  f pu  
For post-tensioning with 0.5 in. diameter CFRP bars:
  f pt  
Df pR = 0.016   − 0.0057  log ( 24 t ) f pu (Eq. 4.3)
  f pu  
where fpt is the stress in prestressing CFRP immediately after tensioning (ksi), fpu is the tensile
strength of prestressing CFRP (ksi), and t is the time immediately after prestress transfer (days).
Table 4.1. Stress limits for prestressing CFRP,

% of design strength.
Immediately
Prestressing At service after
prior to
Tendon Type all losses
transfer
CFRP cable 70% 65%
CFRP bar 65% 60%

For pretensioning with 0.6 in. diameter CFRP cables:
  f pt  
Df pR = 0.019   − 0.0066 log ( 24 t ) f pu (Eq. 4.4)
  f pu  
For pretensioning with 0.5 in. diameter CFRP bars:
  f pt  
Df pR = 0.013   − 0.0057  log ( 24 t ) f pu (Eq. 4.5)
  f pu  
4.3.2 Temperature Effects

In this study several CFRP prestressed prisms were exposed to 30 thermal loading cycles
each varying from 0°F to 140°F, which is a relatively severe temperature condition for pre-
stressed concrete structures. The CFRP cables did not exhibit any thermally induced prestress
loss but the CFRP bars showed a prestress loss of 30% to 40% depending on the level of
jacking forces. Also, the transfer length for the CFRP prestressing cables and bars increased
by 70% and 100% of the initial values, respectively, after the thermal cycles. This increase
is attributed to the deterioration of bond between prestressing CFRP and concrete at the
transfer zone.
Because the CFRP prestressed prisms may have not provided the behavior that can be expected
from full-scale bridge beams with larger cross section and span length, a further investigation
of long-term performance of large-scale CFRP prestressed beams due to thermal cyclic loading
was necessary. It was found that the instantaneous change of temperature, DT, affects the pre-
stressing level in the CFRP tendons because of the different coefficients of thermal expansion
for the CFRP and concrete. An increase in temperature results in prestress gain and a reduction
in temperature results in prestress loss. The gain in the prestressing force due to temperature
change has no detrimental effect and may be disregarded; the thermally induced loss (DfpTH) can
be calculated as follows:
Df pTH = DT (αcfrp − αcm ) Ecfrp ≥ 0 (Eq. 4.6)
where
Ecfrp Acfrp Ec Ac
αcm = αcfrp + αc (Eq. 4.7)
Ec Ac + Ecfrp Acfrp Ec Ac + Ecfrp Acfrp
where
Ecfrp and Ec = modulus of elasticity of the prestressing CFRP and concrete, respectively;
Acfrp and Ac = cross-sectional areas of the prestressing CFRP and concrete, respectively;
and
αcfrp and αc = longitudinal coefficient of thermal expansions of the CFRP and concrete,
respectively.
DT is the expected temperature change at the time of prestress transfer and can be deter-
mined in accordance with Articles 3.12.2 and 3.12.3 of the AASHTO LRFD (2017). Maximum
and minimum temperature conditions should be considered for estimating the thermally
induced losses.

4.4 Flexural Design

4.4.1 Prestressed Beams with Bonded Prestressing CFRP
Failure of bonded CFRP prestressed beams may result from the rupture of prestressing
CFRP if r > rb or crushing of concrete if r > rb. When failure is initiated by concrete crushing,
the concrete strain will reach the ultimate strain ecu of 0.003; and therefore the stress-block
factors from AASHTO LRFD (2017) can be used. However, when failure is initiated by rup-
ture of the prestressing CFRP, the concrete strain will be lower than the ultimate strain; and
therefore the stress-block factors need to be modified. The following simplified approach
is proposed for calculating the rectangular stress-block factors, α 1 and β1, for concrete with
strengths between 5 and 15 ksi.
The value of β1 (factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular compressive stress block to
neutral axis) is calculated as follows:
ecc
4−
β1 =
6−2
ecc (
e′c 1.1 − f c′ ≥ 0.65
50 ) (Eq. 4.8)
e′c
The value of α1 (factor taken as the ratio of equivalent concrete compressive stress to the
compressive strength of concrete) is calculated as follows:
 1   ecc 1  ecc  2 
α1 =    −    1 −

 β1   e′c 3 e′c 
f c′
60 ( ) (Eq. 4.9)
In Equations 4.8 and 4.9, f ′c is the specified concrete strength (ksi), ecc is the compressive con-
crete strain at the flexural compressive face, and e′c is the strain corresponding to f ′c, calculated
as follows:
(
e′c = 1.6 +
f c′
11 )× 10−3 (Eq. 4.10)
NCHRP Report 595 (Rizkalla, 2007) provides more detailed information on the stress-block
factors for high-strength concrete. Also, the analytical study conducted in this project indicates
that the provisions for α1 and β1 provided in AASHTO LRFD (2017) for ecc < 0.003 give a good
approximation of the values obtained from Equations 4.9 and 4.10 (3% difference). Additional
information is presented in Appendix E.
4.4.2 Prestressed Beams with Unbonded Prestressing CFRP

The design equation developed by Namaan and Alkhairi (1991b) to calculate the force in the
unbonded prestressing tendons was adopted for the proposed specifications. The equation
uses a strain reduction factor (Wu) to account for the lack of bond between the tendon and
the concrete:
 d ps − c 
f ps = f pe + Wu E ps e cu  (Eq. 4.11)
 c 

1.5
where Wu = for one-point loading
 L 
 
 d ps 
3.0
= for third-point or uniformly distributed loading
 L 
 
 d ps 
This equation was also adopted by ACI 440.4R-04 (2011), SIMTReC Manual No. 5 (2008),
and CAN/CSA S806-12 (2017). The equation was used to calculate the force in the prestressing
CFRP at ultimate for the beams reported in the test database, the full-scale beams tested in this
research, and the beams considered in the numerical parametric study. The mean force obtained
from the tests and FEA was 1.2 times the value predicted by this equation with a COV of 0.26.
4.5 Minimum Reinforcement

Figure 4.3 shows the cracking load obtained from tests versus the cracking load calculated
according to the AASHTO LRFD (2017) provisions to satisfy the minimum reinforcement. The
average calculated cracking load for the minimum reinforcement requirement is 1.35 times that
obtained from the tests.
4.6 Resistance Factors

A study conducted as the part of this research found that for a reliability index of 4, a resis-
tance factor of 0.8 is appropriate for bonded girders failing due to CFRP rupture. However,
because of the tendency of brittle failure of the CFRP prestressed beams, a resistance factor of
0.75 is recommended. The resistance factor of 0.75 stipulated in AASHTO LRFD (2017) for
compression-controlled (concrete crushing) beams prestressed with steel tendons is proposed
for beams prestressed with CFRP because of the similarity in behavior. A resistance factor of 0.75
is also stipulated for tension-controlled beams (although more conservative than that obtained
from the reliability analysis) to eliminate the need for a transition region between the two modes
Figure 4.3. Experimentally measured versus

calculated cracking load (according to AASHTO
LRFD, 2017) for minimum reinforcement.

of failure. The resistance factor provision for concrete crushing of 0.75 also applies to fully
unbonded CFRP because failure of the beams results from concrete crushing.
4.7 Design Guidelines, Materials Specifications,

and Design Examples
The research produced two primary products: (1) design guidelines and (2) material specifi-
cations. In addition, design examples were prepared to illustrate use of the guidelines.
4.7.1 Design Guidelines

Recommended design guidelines for concrete bridge beams prestressed with CFRP systems
were developed based on the research findings. These guidelines were provided to the AASHTO
Committee on Bridges and Structures for consideration and publication as the AASHTO Guide
Specifications for the Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (CFRP) Systems.
4.7.2 Material Specifications

Recommended material specifications were also developed based on the research find-
ings. These material specifications were also provided to the AASHTO Committee on Bridges
and Structures for consideration and incorporation in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for
the Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
Systems.
4.7.3 Design Examples

Five examples were prepared to illustrate the use of the proposed design approach. Three
design examples considered pretensioned beams: one beam prestressed with CFRP cables in a
single layer, one beam prestressed with straight CFRP cables in multiple layers, and one beam
prestressed with harped CFRP cables. The examples provide the calculation for uncracked and
cracked sections. The other two design examples are for unbonded post-tensioned beams: one
beam prestressed with CFRP in a single layer and one beam prestressed with draped CFRP bars
in multiple layers. One of the examples for unbonded post-tensioned beams also illustrated
the design of the anchorage zone based on the provisions in AASHTO LRFD (2017). These
examples are available online at www.trb.org and can be found by searching for “NCHRP
Research Report 907.”

CHAPTER 5
Summary of Findings
and Recommendations
for Future Research
5.1 Summary of Findings
This research effort produced recommended design and material guide specifications for the
design of concrete beams prestressed with CFRP systems for bridge applications. These design
and material guide specifications were provided to the AASHTO Committee on Bridges and
Structures. The following are some of the highlights of the research findings:
• Anchorage:
– All anchorage used in this project attained either the design tensile capacity (for anchorage
that was an integral part of the prestressing system) or the jacking stress (for anchorage that
was used only for stressing and removed at transfer) of the prestressing CFRP cables and bars
during material testing and field applications.
• Prestress losses:
– The measured anchorage seating loss for socket type anchors were less than 1.0% of the
jacking stress.
– The equations for calculating the elastic shortening losses for pretensioned and post-
tensioned applications with steel tendons (AASHTO LRFD, 2017) are applicable for calcu-
lating elastic shortening losses for beams prestressed with CFRP systems.
– The stress relaxation losses of the prestressing CFRP cables and bars are independent of the
length of the CFRP tendons.
– A linear relationship exists between stress relaxation of prestressing CFRP tendons and the
logarithm of time.
– Stress relaxation equations were developed for CFRP systems in which the anchorage is a
permanent, integral part of the prestressing system and for systems in which the anchorage
is not a permanent part of the prestressing system.
– The current AASHTO LRFD (2017) equations for estimating creep and shrinkage losses are
appropriate for beams prestressed with CFRP tendons.
– The transfer length of the prestressing CFRP increased by 16 in. and 24 in. for prestressed
prisms with prestressing CFRP cables and bars, respectively. For prestressing CFRP cables,
the bond deterioration did not cause further loss of prestressing force. However, the bond
deterioration due to thermal fluctuation in the case of prestressing CFRP bars resulted in
up to a 40% reduction of the prestressing force and slippage of the prestressing CFRP bars.
– The current AASHTO equation for calculating the friction losses in post-tensioned beams
with prestressing CFRP cables is appropriate. A wobble coefficient of 0.0004 (1/ft.) and
coefficient of friction of 0.2 are proposed for CFRP cables in polypropylene ducts.
• Harping of prestressing CFRP:
– Prestressing CFRP cables exhibited higher retention of tensile capacities than CFRP bars.
– Premature failure (splitting) and significant reduction of the tensile capacity of the pre-
stressing CFRP bars occurred with harping angles greater than 10°.
63

– Harped prestressing CFRP bars retained a small portion of the ultimate tensile strength.
– The 1 in. steel and 2 in. plastic deviators that are commonly used for prestressing with steel
tendons were not suitable for prestressing CFRP cables.
– When 20 in. and 40 in. diameter deviators were used, prestressing CFRP cables retained
more than 90% and 100% of their design tensile strengths, respectively, for harping angles
up to 20°.
• Transfer of CFRP cables and bars:
– Transfer lengths for prestressing CFRP cables and bars ranged between 40 to 50 times the
diameter of the prestressing CFRP.
– Limiting the level of prestress immediately prior to transfer to 70% and 65% of the design
tensile strength of the CFRP cables and bars, respectively, would help prevent creep rupture
failure and provide sufficient reserved strain to resist flexural loads.
• Full-scale beam performance:
– The 2.3 million loading cycles did not affect the stiffness or the strength of the CFRP
prestressed beams.
– The unbonded post-tensioned beams exhibited greater deformability compared to the
bonded post-tensioned and pretensioned beams.
• Flexural design:
– The behavior of pretensioned CFRP beams depended on the modulus of elasticity of
prestressing CFRP, concrete strength of the deck, reinforcement ratio, and prestressing
level.
– The span-to-depth ratio, concrete strength, prestressing ratio, and cable profile were the
primary parameters that affected the increase of the unbonded tendon stress.
– A minimum amount of bonded reinforcement was required to control the crack width and
distribution, and to avoid the tied-arch behavior of unbonded post-tensioned beams.
5.2 Recommendations for Future Research

The following research is recommended to further enhance the findings reported within
this project:
• Evaluating the application of prestressing CFRP in continuous prestressed beams. This
project investigated the behavior and design procedures for simply supported beams; research
to evaluate the application and design procedures for continuous beams prestressing CFRP
systems, especially unbonded post-tensioned beams is needed.
• External applications for post-tensioned beams. Applicability of the design of unbonded post-
tensioned beams to beams strengthened with external CFRP post-tensioning reinforcement
has not been evaluated. Research is needed to evaluate the applicability of these procedures
for CFRP systems that are used for external strengthening.
• Shear behavior of prestressed beams with prestressing CFRP systems. This project investigated
the behavior of simply supported prestressed beams, reinforced in shear with steel reinforce-
ment, under flexural monotonic and fatigue loading. Research is needed to evaluate the shear
behavior of prestressed beams with prestressing CFRP systems and transverse reinforcement
with FRP.
• Harping issues for prestressing CFRP. This project showed that the application of the pre-
stressing CFRP in harped configurations requires use of large diameter harping devices with
large contact surfaces between the deviators and the prestressing tendons. The feasibility of
using deviators with large diameters (e.g., 20 and 40 in.) in precast plants needs to be inves-
tigated. Also, the use of cushioning materials, such as Teflon or other polymers, between
the prestressing CFRP and steel deviator is expected to enhance the harping tensile capacity
retention of the prestressing CFRP systems. An experimental investigation of the cushioning

Summary of Findings and Recommendations for Future Research 65
material types and their use with harped CFRP cables or bars will be helpful. In addition, use
of the prestressing CFRP systems with deviated or harped profiles in pre-tensioned or external
post-tensioned beams needs to evaluated in experimental and analytical investigation of the
flexural behavior of the CFRP prestressed beams with harped strand profiles.
• Stress Relaxation. Stress relaxation loss of prestressing CFRP systems was evaluated under
laboratory temperature and humidity conditions; the effects of environmental conditions
and the variety of anchorage details on stress relaxation of prestressing CFRP systems needs
to be investigated.
• Thermal fluctuation effects. Thermal fluctuation cycles lead to deterioration of the bond
between prestressing CFRP and concrete, resulting in reduction of the prestressing force. The
effect of concrete cover, CFRP embedment length, and the effects of concrete compressive and
tensile strength on such deteriorations needs to be investigated. Also, the bond performance
between prestressing CFRP and concrete and its effect on development lengths needs to be
evaluated on large specimens resembling bridge beams.

Notations
Af , Acfrp Cross-sectional area of the FRP reinforcement, in.2

Ac Cross-sectional area of the concrete, in.2
a, b Constants determined from the regression analysis (Saadatmanesh and Tannous, 1999)
c Distance from the extreme compression fiber to the neutral axis, in.
db Nominal prestressing CFRP diameter, in.
dps Distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of the prestressing
steel, in.
Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete, ksi
EL Longitudinal modulus of elasticity of the prestressing CFRP, ksi (Elbadry et al., 2000)
Ef , Efrp Modulus of elasticity of the prestressing FRP, ksi
Eps Elastic modulus of the prestressing steel tendon, ksi
Etot Total energy under the load-deflection curve (Naaman and Jeong, 1995)
Eela Elastic energy at the ultimate (Naaman and Jeong, 1995)
Fcfrp Induced forces in prestressing CFRP inside the concrete due to temperature change, kip
Fc Induced forces in the CFRP prestressed concrete due to temperature change, kip
f c′ Concrete compressive strength, ksi
f ci′ Concrete compressive strength at time of prestress transfer, ksi
fps Stress in the prestressing steel tendon at ultimate, ksi
fpy Yielding strength of prestressing steel tendon, ksi (AASHTO LRFD, 2017)
fpi Initial prestressing level in the prestressing CFRP prior to transfer, ksi
fpj Jacking stress, ksi (AASHTO LRFD, 2017)
fpt Stress in prestressing CFRP prior to transfer, ksi
fpu Design tensile strength of prestressing CFRP system, ksi
fpr Rupture tensile strength of prestressing CFRP, ksi
fse Effective stress in prestressing steel strand after losses, psi
k wobble friction coefficient per unit length of tendon, 1/ft. (AASHTO LRFD, 2017)
L Length of the tendon between anchorages, in.
le Effective tendon length, in.
li Length of tendon between anchorages, in.
ld Development length, in.
lt Transfer length, in.
Mu Factored moment at the section, kip-ft.
Mcr Cracking moment, kip-ft. (Zou, 2003a)
M0.001 Moment at concrete compression strain of 0.001, kip-ft.
nr Modular ratio of the resin to the fiber (Dolan et al., 2000)
Ns Number of support hinges crossed by the tendon between anchorages or discretely
bonded points
P Prestressing force in the prestressing CFRP, kip (Saadatmanesh and Tannous, 1999)
66

Notations 67
P1 Load in prestressing CFRP after 1 hour from transfer, kip (Saadatmanesh and
Tannous, 1999)
Pu Ultimate tensile capacity of the prestressing CFRP, kip (Saadatmanesh and Tannous,
1999)
r Radius of prestressing CFRP, in. (Dolan et al., 2000)
Rch Radius of curvature of the harping device, in. (Dolan et al., 2000)
RL Total prestress relaxation loss, % (Dolan et al., 2000)
RL1 Relaxation of the polymer, % (Dolan et al., 2000)
RL2 Relaxation due to straightening of fibers, % (Dolan et al., 2000)
RL3 Relaxation of fibers, % (Dolan et al., 2000)
t Time after prestress transfer, days
α The total angular change between the jacking point and dead end, rad (AASHTO
LRFD, 2017)
α1 Stress-block factor
αc Thermal expansion coefficient of plain concrete, 1/°F
αcm Thermal expansion coefficient of CFRP prestressed concrete, 1/°F
αcfrp Longitudinal coefficient of thermal expansions of the prestressing CFRP, 1/°F
αt Coefficient for transfer length measurements based on the type of prestressing CFRP
β1 Stress-block factor
βT Target reliability index
Dcr Deflection at first cracking, in. (Zou, 2003a)
Du Deflection of prestressed beam at ultimate, in. (Abdelrahman et al., 1995)
Dl Equivalent deflection of an uncracked section for the same ultimate moment level, in.
(Abdelrahman et al., 1995)
DfpR Prestress relaxation loss, ksi
DPT Loss due to temperature change, ksi
DfpF Loss due to friction, ksi (AASHTO LRFD, 2017)
DT Temperature change, °F
µ Coefficient of friction
µ Ductility index by taking into account deformation parameters (Abdelrahman
et al., 1995)
µen Ductility index by taking into account energy parameters (Naaman and Jeong, 1995)
ur Volume fraction of the resin (Dolan et al., 2000)
φ Diameter of the prestressing CFRP
Øu Curvature at ultimate
Ø0.001 Curvature at concrete strain of 0.001
rp Prestressing steel ratio (ACI Committee 318, 2014)
sh Stress increase due to harping, ksi (Dolan et al., 2000)
sf Thermally induced stresses in prestressing FRP, ksi (Elbadry et al., 2000)
sc Thermally induced stresses in prestressed concrete, ksi (Elbadry et al., 2000)
Wu Strain or bond reduction coefficient at ultimate
ecu Ultimate strain of the outermost fiber of concrete in compression
ecc Concrete strain
e′c Strain in the concrete when the compressive stress reaches f ′c
esr Reserved strain after jacking

References
AASHTO LRFD. 1994. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 1st edition, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO LRFD. 2017. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th edition, Washington, D.C.
Abdelrahman, A. A. 1995. Serviceability of Concrete Beams Prestressed by Fiber Reinforced Plastic Tendons,
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Abdelrahman, A. A., and S. H. Rizkalla. 1997. Serviceability of Concrete Beams Prestressed by Carbon. ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No. 4. pp. 447–457.
Abdelrahman, A. A., G. Tadros, and S. H. Rizkalla. 1995. Test Model for First Canadian Smart Highway Bridge.
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 4, pp. 451–458.
ACI Committee 318. 2014. ACI 318-14: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
ACI Committee 440. 2015. ACI 440.1R-15: Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced
with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
ACI Committee 440. 2008. ACI 440.2R-08: Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP
Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
ACI Committee 440. 2011. ACI 440.4R-04: Prestressing Concrete Structures with FRP Tendons (Reapproved 2011).
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Adachi, Y., M. Hayashida, H. Sakai, M. Mashima, and T. Miyagawa. 1997. Strengthening of Prestressed Con-
crete Segmental T-Beam Bridge using FRP External Prestressing Systems. Proceedings of Non-Metallic
(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Sapporo, Japan, pp. 695–702.
Arockiasamy, M., M. Zhuang, and K. Sandepudi. 1995. Durability Studies on Prestressed Concrete Beams
with CFRP Tendons. Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Proceedings of the Second
International RILEM Symposium, Ghent, Belgium, Vol. 29, pp. 456.
ASTM D7290. 2017. Standard Practice for Evaluating Material Property Characteristic Values for Polymeric
Composites for Civil Engineering Structural Application, American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
Au, F. T. K., K. H. E. Chan, A. K. H. Kwan, and J. S. Du. 2009. Flexural Ductility of Prestressed Concrete Beams
with Unbonded Tendons. Computers and Concrete, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 451–472.
Aziz, M. A., G. Abdel-Sayed, F. Ghrib, N. F. Grace, and M. K. Madugula. 2005. Analysis of Concrete Beams
Prestressed and Post-Tensioned with Externally Unbonded Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Tendons.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 1138–1151.
Balázs, G. L., and A. Borosnyói. 2004. Prestressing with CFRP Tendons. Proceeding of High Performance Materials
in Bridges, pp. 349–358.
Benmokrane, B., A. H. Ali, H. M. Mohamed, M. Robert, and A. ElSafty. 2015. Durability Performance and Service
Life of CFCC® Tendons Exposed to Elevated Temperature and Alkaline Environment. Journal of Composites
for Construction, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 349–358.
Braimah, A., M. F. Green, and T. I. Campbell. 2006. Fatigue Behaviour of Concrete Beams Post-Tensioned
with Unbonded Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer Tendons. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 33,
No. 9, pp. 1140–1155.
BridgeTech, Inc., Tennessee Technological University, Mertz, D. 2007. NCHRP Report 592: Simplified Live Load
Distribution Factor Equations. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
Bryan, P. E., and M. F. Green. 1996. Low Temperature Behaviour of CFRP Prestressed Concrete Beams. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 464–470.
Burke, C. R., and C. W. Dolan. 2001. Flexural Design of Prestressed Concrete Beams using FRP Tendons.
PCI Journal, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 76–87.
68

References 69
Canadian Standards Association. 2014. CAN/CSA S6-06: Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Standards Association. 2017. CAN/CSA S806-12: Design and Construction of Building Components with
Fibre-Reinforced Polymers. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Cervenka Consulting. 2013. ATENA [Software]. Prague, Czech Republic. www.cervenka.cz.
Currier, J. B. 1995. Deformation of Prestressed Concrete Beams with FRP Tendons. M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Dejke, V. 2001. Durability of FRP Reinforcement in Concrete: Literature Review and Experiments.
Dolan, C. W., and D. Swanson. 2002. Development of Flexural Capacity of a FRP Prestressed Beam with
Vertically Distributed Tendons. Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 1–6.
Dolan, C. W., H. R. Hamilton, C. E. Bakis, and A. Nanni. 2000. Design Recommendations for Concrete Structures
Prestressed with FRP Tendons. Report DTFH61-96-C-00019, Department of Civil and Architectural
Engineering, University of Wyoming.
Dolan, C. W. 1991. Kevlar Reinforced Prestressing for Bridge Decks, Transportation Research Record, No. 1290,
pp. 68–76. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1991/1290vol1/1290-008.pdf.
Du, J. S., and F. T. K. Au. 2009. Estimation of Ultimate Stress in External FRP Tendons. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers—Structures and Buildings, Vol. 162, No. 4, pp. 213–220.
Du, X. L., Z. H. Wang, and J. B. Liu. 2011. Flexural Capacity of Concrete Beams Prestressed with Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Tendons. Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 168, pp. 1353–1362.
Elbadry, M. M., H. Abdalla, and A. Ghali. 2000. Effects of Temperature on the Behaviour of Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members: Experimental Studies. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 993–1004.
Elrefai, A., J. S. West, and K. Soudki. 2007. Performance of CFRP Tendon–Anchor Assembly under Fatigue
Loading. Composite Structures, Vol. 80, No. 3, pp. 352–360.
Elrefai, A., J. West, and K. Soudki. 2012. Fatigue of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with Externally
Post-Tensioned CFRP Tendons. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 29, pp. 246–256.
Enomoto, T., T. Harada, K. Ushijima, and M. Khin. 1990. Long-Term Relaxation Characteristics of CFRP Cables.
Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Construction Materials: Performance, Innovations and Structural
Implications, Vol. 9, pp. 1205–1210.
Fam, A. Z., S. H. Rizkalla, and G. Tadros. 1997. Behavior of CFRP for Prestressing and Shear Reinforcements of
Concrete Highway Bridges. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 77–86.
fib. 2012. Model Code 2010—Final Draft, Volume 1. fib Bulletin No. 65, Comite Euro-International du Beton, Paris.
fib. 2012. Model Code 2010—Final Draft, Volume 2. fib Bulletin No. 66, Comite Euro-International du
Beton, Paris.
Forouzannia, F., B. Gencturk, M. Dawood, and A. Belarbi. 2016. Calibration of Flexural Resistance Factors for
Load and Resistance Factor Design of Concrete Bridge Girders Prestressed with Carbon Fiber–Reinforced
Polymers. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 20, No. 2.
Ghallab, A. 2013. Calculating Ultimate Tendon Stress in Externally Prestressed Continuous Concrete Beams
using Simplified Formulas. Engineering Structures, Vol. 46, pp. 417–430.
Ghosh, K. K., and V. M. Karbhari. 2004. Use of Thermography as a NDE Tool for Detecting Damage in FRP
Rehabilitated Concrete Structures. Proceedings of the Joint American Society for Composites/American Society
for Testing and Materials, Committee D30 Nineteenth Technical Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.
Gowripalan, N., X. W. Zou, and R. I. Gilbert. 1997. Flexural Behaviour of Prestressed Beams Using Aramid Fibre
Reinforced Plastic (AFRP) Tendons. Australian Civil Engineering Transactions, Vol. 39, No. 2/3, pp. 71–76.
Grace, N. F., and G. Abdel-Sayed. 1998. Behavior of Externally Draped CFRP Tendons in Prestressed Concrete
Bridges. PCI Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 88–101.
Grace, N. F. 2000. Transfer Length of CFRP/CFCC Strands for Double-T Girders. PCI Journal, Vol. 45, No. 5,
pp. 110–126.
Grace, N. F., T. Enomoto, S. Sachidanandan, S. Puravankara. 2006. Use of CFRP/CFCC Reinforcement in
Prestressed Concrete Box-Beam Bridges. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 103, pp. 123–132.
Grace, N. F., T. Enomoto, A. Abdela-Mohti, and Y. Tokal. 2008. Flexural Behavior of Precast Concrete Box Beams
Post-Tensioned with Unbonded, Carbon-Fiber-Composite Cables. PCI Journal, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 62–82.
Grace, N. F., T. Enomoto, P. Baah, and M. Bebawy. 2012. Flexural Behavior of CFRP Precast Prestressed Decked
Bulb T-Beams. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 225–234.
Grace, N. F., E. Jensen, V. Matsagar, and P. Penjendra. 2013. Performance of an AASHTO Beam Bridge Prestressed
with CFRP Tendons. Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 110–121.
Grace, N. F., F. C. Navarre, R. B. Nacey, W. Bonus, and L. Collavino. 2002. Design-Construction of Bridge Street
Bridge—First CFRP Bridge in the United States. PCI Journal, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 20–35.
Grace, N. F., S. B. Singh, M. M. Shinouda, and S. S. Mathew. 2004. Flexural Response of CFRP Prestressed
Concrete Box Beams for Highway Bridges. PCI Journal, Vol. 49, No. 1.

Grace, N. F., S. B. Singh, M. M. Shinouda, and S. S. Mathew. 2005. Concrete Beams Prestressed with CFRP.
Concrete International, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 60–64.
Grace, N. F., B. M. Tang, and G. A. Sayed. 2001. New Approach to Multi-Span CFRP Continuous Prestressed
Bridges, Proceedings on International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Hong Kong, China,
pp. 1177–1184.
Hancox, N. L., and R. M. Mayer. 1994. Design Data for Reinforced Plastics: A Guide for Engineers and Designers.
Chapman and Hall, London.
Harajli, M. H., and M. Y. Kanj 1992. Ultimate Flexural Strength of Concrete Members Prestressed with Unbonded
Tendons. Structural Journal, Vol. 88, No. 6, pp. 663–674.
Harajli, M. H. 2006. On the Stress in Unbonded Tendons at Ultimate: Critical Assessment and Proposed Changes.
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 103, No. 6, pp. 803–812.
Harajli, M. H. 2011. Proposed Modification of AASHTO-LRFD for Computing Stress in Unbonded Tendons at
Ultimate. Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 828–838.
Heo, S., S. Shin, and C. Lee. 2013. Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams Internally Prestressed with
Unbonded Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Tendons. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 17,
No. 2, pp. 167–175.
Jaeger, L. G., A. A. Mufti, and G. Tadros. 1995. Balanced Section, Ductility and Deformability in Concrete with
FRP Reinforcement. Research Report. Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada.
Jerrett, C. V. 1997. Performance of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Tendons and their Use for
Strengthening of Prestressed Concrete Beams (No. 97-007D). Department of Civil Engineering, North
Carolina State University at Raleigh, North Carolina.
Jo, B. W., G. H. Tae, and B. Y. Kwon. 2004. Ductility Evaluation of Prestressed Concrete Beams with CFRP
Tendons. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp. 843–859.
JSCE. 1997. Recommendation for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures using Continuous Fiber Reinforc-
ing Materials. Concrete Engineering Series 23, ed. by A. Machida, Research Committee on Continuous Fiber
Reinforcing Materials, Tokyo, Japan.
Kakizawa, T., S. Ohno, and T. Yonezawa. 1993. Flexural Behavior and Energy Absorption of Carbon FRP Reinforced
Concrete Beams. ACI Special Publication 138, pp. 585–598.
Kato, T., and N. Hayashida. 1993. Flexural Characteristics of Prestressed Concrete Beams with CFRP Tendons.
ACI Special Publication 138, pp. 419–440.
Khalifa, M. A., S. S. Kuska, and J. Krieger. 1993. Bridges Constructed using Fiber Reinforced Plastics. Concrete
International, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 43–47.
Lee, L. H., J. H. Moon, and J. H. Lim. 1999. Proposed Methodology for Computing of Unbonded Tendon Stress
at Flexural Failure. Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No. 6, pp. 1040–1048.
Lee, C., S. Shin, and H. Lee. 2017. Balanced Ratio of Concrete Beams Internally Prestressed with Unbonded CFRP
Tendons. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1–16.
Liang, Y. J., C. S. Sun, and F. Ansari. 2011. Damage Assessment and Ductility Evaluation of Post Tensioned Beams
with Hybrid FRP Tendons. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 15, pp. 274–283.
Lu, Z., T. E. Boothby, C. E. Bakis, and A. Nanni. 2000. Transfer and Development Lengths of FRP Prestressing
Tendons. PCI Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 84–95.
MacGregor, R. J. G. 1989. Strength and Ductility of Externally Post-Tensioned Segmental Box Girders. PhD
dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
Mahmoud, Z. I., S. H. Rizkalla, and E. R. Zaghloul. 1999. Transfer and Development Lengths of Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Polymers Prestressing Reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 594–602.
Maissen, A. 1997. Concrete Beams Prestressed with CFRP Strands. Structural Engineering International, Vol. 7,
No. 4, pp. 284–287.
Maissen, A., and C. A. M. De Smet. 1995. Comparison of Concrete Beams Prestressed with Carbon Fibre
Reinforced Plastic and Steel Strands. RILEM Proceedings, Chapman and Hall, Ghent, Belgium.
Maissen, A., and C. A. M. De Smet. 1998. Prestressed Concrete using Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP)
Strands. Materials and Structures, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 175–177.
Mashima, M., and K. Iwamoto. 1993. Bond Characteristics of FRP Rod and Concrete after Freezing and Thawing
Deterioration. ACI Special Publication 138, pp. 51–70.
Mertol, H. C., S. Rizkalla, P. Scott, J. M. Lees, and R. El-Hacha. 2006. Durability and Fatigue Behavior of High-
Strength Concrete Beams Prestressed with CFRP Bars. ACI Special Publication 245, pp. 1–20.
Micelli, F., and A. Nanni. 2004. Durability of FRP rods for concrete structures. Construction and Building Materials,
Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 491–503.
Moses, F. 2001. NCHRP Report 454: Calibration of Load Factor for LRFR Bridge Evaluation. TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Mufti, A. A., J. P. Newhook, and G. Tadros. 1996. Deformability versus Ductility in Concrete Beams with FRP
Reinforcement. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges
and Structures, ACMBS-II, Montreal, Canada, pp. 189–199.

References 71
Mutsuyoshi, H., and A. Machida. 1993. Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Beams using FRP as External Cable.
ACI Special Publication 138, pp. 401–418.
Mutsuyoshi, H., A. Machida, and N. Shiratori. 1990. Application of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Cables to Concrete
Structures. Symposium of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Bruxelles,
Belgium, pp. 623–628.
Naaman, A. E., and F. M. Alkhairi. 1991a. Stress at Ultimate in Unbonded Post-Tensioning Tendons: Part 1—
Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 641–651.
Naaman, A. E., and F. M. Alkhairi. 1991b. Stress at Ultimate in Unbonded Post-Tensioning Tendons:
Part 2—Proposed Methodology. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 88, No. 6, pp. 683–692.
Naaman, A. E., and S. M. Jeong. 1995. Structural Ductility of Beams Prestressed with FRP Tendons. Proceedings
2nd International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, pp. 379–386.
Naaman, A. E., N. Burns, C. French, W. L. Gamble, and A. H. Mattock. 2002. Stresses in Unbonded Prestressing
Tendons at Ultimate: Recommendation. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 520–531.
Nabipay, P., and D. Svecova. 2012. Shear Resistance of Concrete T-Beams Prestressed with CFRP Cables. Proceedings,
Composites in Civil Engineering, pp. 1–8.
National Research Council. 2004. Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for
Strengthening Existing Structures. Rome, Italy.
Noel, M., and K. Soudki. 2011. Evaluation of FRP Posttensioned Slab Bridge Strips using AASHTO-LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications. Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 839–846.
Nowak, A. S., and M. M. Szersen. 2003. Calibration of Design Code for Buildings (ACI 318): Part 1—Statistical
Models for Resistance. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 100, No. 3, pp. 377–382.
Nowak, A. S. 1993. Live Load Model for Highway Bridges. Structural Safety, Vol. 13, No. 1–2, pp. 53–66.
Nowak, A. S. 1994. Load Model for Bridge Design Code. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp. 36–49.
Nowak, A. S. 1999. NCHRP Report 368: Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
Okeil, A. M., A. Belarbi, and D. A. Kuchma. 2012. Reliability Assessment of FRP-Strengthened Concrete Bridge
Girders in Shear. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 91–100.
Ozkul, O., H. Nassif, P. Tanchan, and M. Harajli. 2008. Rational Approach for Predicting Stress in Beams with
Unbonded Tendons. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp. 338–347.
Park, S. Y., and A. E. Naaman. 1999. Shear Behavior of Concrete Beams Prestressed with FRP Tendons. PCI
Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 74–85.
PCI Committee on Prestress Losses. 1975. Recommendations for Estimating Prestress Losses. PCI Journal,
Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 43–75.
Quayle, T. G. 2005. Tensile-Flexural Behavior of Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Prestressing Tendons
Subjected to Harped Profiles. M.S. Thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Rizkalla, S., A. Mirmiran, P. Zia, H. Russell, and R. Mast. 2007. NCHRP Report 595: Application of the LRFD Bridge
Design Specification to High-Strength Structural Concrete: Flexure and Compression Provisions. Transporta-
tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
Rizkalla, S. H., and G. Tadros. 1994. First Smart Highway Bridge in Canada. Concrete International, Vol. 16,
No. 6, pp. 42–44.
Roberts, E. E., J. M. Lees, and N. A. Hoult. 2012. Flexural Fatigue Performance of CFRP Prestressed Concrete
Poles. Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 575–587.
Saadatmanesh, H., and F. E. Tannous. 1999. Relaxation, Creep, and Fatigue Behavior of Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Plastic Tendons. ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 96, No. 2, pp. 143–153.
Salib, S., G. Abdel-Sayed, and N. Grace. 2002. An Analytical Approach towards the Strength of Concrete
Beams Reinforced and/or Prestressed with FRP Bars. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 2,
pp. 301–315.
Saiedi, R., A. Fam, and M. F. Green. 2011. Behavior of CFRP-Prestressed Concrete Beams Under High-Cycle
Fatigue at Low Temperature. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 482–489.
Selvachandran, P., S. Anandakumar, and K. L. Muthuramu. 2017. Influence of Deformability Behavior in
Prestressed Concrete Beams using Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Tendon. PCI Journal, Vol. 62,
No. 1, pp. 66–77.
Sevil Y. T. 2016. Behaviour of Precast Concrete Beams Prestressed with CFRP Strands. Gradevinar, Vol. 68,
No. 10, pp. 775–786.
Shehata, E., and S. Rizkalla. 1999. Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Bridges. Journal of Intelligent Material
Systems and Structures, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 304–313.
Shield, C. K., T. V. Galambos, and P. Gulbrandsen. 2011. On the History and Reliability of the Flexural Strength
of FRP Reinforced Concrete Members in ACI 440.1 R. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Farmington Hills, Michigan.

SIMTReC. 2008. Manual No. 5: Prestressing Concrete Structures with FRPs. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Soudki, K., and M. Noël. 2010. Tensile Capacity of Draped CFRP Tendons. Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Stoll, F., J. E. Saliba, and L. E. Casper. 2000. Experimental Study of CFRP-Prestressed High-Strength Concrete
Bridge Beams. Composite Structures, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 191–200.
Svecova, D., and A. G. Razaqpur. 2000. Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Carbon Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Prestressed Prisms. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 731–738.
Tanks, J. D., S. R. Sharp, D. K. Harris, and C. Ozyildirim. 2016. Durability of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(CFRP) Strands in a Simulated Concrete Environment. Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting
(No. 16-4506).
Tannous, F. E. 1997. Durability of Non-Metallic Reinforcing Bars and Prestressing Tendons. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Tokyo Rope. 2000. CFCC, Carbon Fiber Composite Cable, Product Circular No. 991-2T-SA, Tokyo Rope
Manufacturing Co., Tokyo.
Uomoto, T., T. Nishimura, and H. Ohga. 1995. Static and Fatigue Strength of FRP Rods for Concrete Reinforcement.
Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Proceedings of the Second International RILEM
Symposium, CRC Press, Ghent, Belgium, pp. 100–107.
Vogel, H., and D. Svecova. 2007. Thermal Compatibility and Bond Strength of FRP Reinforcement in Prestressed
Concrete Applications. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 459–468.
Wang, Z. H., X. L. Du, and J. B. Liu. 2011. Shear Behavior of CFRP Prestressed Concrete Beams without Stirrups.
Advanced Material Research, Vol. 266, pp. 126–129.
Yamaguchi, T., Y. Kato, T. Nishimura, and T. Uomoto. 1997. Creep Rupture of FRP Rods Made of Aramid, Carbon
and Glass Fibers. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3), 2, Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 179–186.
Yonekura, A., E. Tazawa, P. Zhou, and H. Sumi. 1994. Mechanical Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Beams with FRP
Rods Subjected to Combined Bending and Torsional Moments. Transaction of the Japan Concrete Institute,
Vol. 16, pp. 217–224.
Zhao, L. 1994. Behavior of Carbon Fiber Composite Tendon Prestressed Concrete Planks under Static and
Fatigue Loading. Masters Abstracts International, Vol. 45, No. 5.
Zou, P. X. 2003a. Flexural Behavior and Deformability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Prestressed Concrete Beams.
Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 275–284.
Zou, P. X. 2003b. Long-Term Deflection and Cracking Behavior of Concrete Beams Prestressed with Carbon
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Tendons. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 187–193.
Zou, P. X. W. 2003c. Theoretical Study on Short-Term and Long-Term Deflections of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Prestressed Concrete Beams. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 285–291.
Zou, P. X. W. 2003d. Long-Term Properties and Transfer Length of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers. Journal of
Composites for Construction, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 10–19.

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed AASHTO LRFD Bridge

Design Guide Specifications
and Material Specifications for
Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed
with CFRP Systems
The proposed AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specifications and Material Specifica-
tions for Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP Systems prepared by the NCHRP
Project 12-97 research team at the University of Houston is not reproduced herein. These
guide specifications were provided to the AASHTO Committee on Bridges and Structures
for consideration, and were subsequently published as the AASHTO Guide Specifications for
the Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
Systems, 1st Edition (CFRP-1).
73

ATTACHMENT B
Design Examples
The design examples were prepared by the NCHRP Project 12-97 research team at the
University of Houston to illustrate the use of the proposed design approach. These design
examples are not reproduced herein; they are available online at www.trb.org and can be found
by searching for “NCHRP Research Report 907.”
74

APPENDICES A THROUGH F
Appendices A through F are not reproduced herein; they are available online and provide
details on the different aspects of this research.
The appendices were prepared by the NCHRP Project 12-97 research team at the University
of Houston.
• Appendix A: Review of Previous Work
• Appendix B: Parameters Influencing the Design
• Appendix C: Experimental Testing Program
• Appendix D: Test Results and Discussions
• Appendix E: Finite Element and Numerical Simulations
• Appendix F: Reliability Analysis Study
These appendices are available on the NCHRP Project 12-97 webpage at https://apps.trb.org/
cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3410.
75


Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
ISBN 978-0-309-48069-7
NON-PROFIT ORG.
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
90000
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
9 780309 480697

Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed With CFRP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed With CFRP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25582 SHARE

Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP

84 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Design of

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 907

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 907

Published research reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 907

NCHRP PROJECT 12-97 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Chapter 2 Literature Review and Current Design Practices

30 Chapter 3 Research Results

56 Chapter 4 Research Findings and Products

63 Chapter 5 Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

73 Attachment A Proposed AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Design of Concrete Bridge Beams

Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) is becoming a recognized alternative to tradi-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.2 Research Objective

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.3 Research Plan and Methodology

1.4 Organization of the Report

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP Systems

Survey Field Existing Experimental Existing Analytical

a. Parameters Well Beam Detailing: Deficiency of Existing

Issues to be addressed in this project

Figure 1.1. Process for determining potential critical issues.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Parameters that Influence the Behavior

Parameters not Covered by Previous

Provide experimental data for the calibration of

Development of Bridge Design and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review and

2.1 Current Applications of CFRP in Prestressing

2.2 Field Applications

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review and Current Design Practices 7

2.3 Existing Analytical Models

2.3.1 Analytical Models for Flexural Capacity

Prestressed Beams with Unbonded Prestressing CFRP

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP Systems

2.3.2 Analytical Models for Deformability

Table 2.1. Models for estimating stresses in unbonded tendons

Finding (perfect correlation):

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review and Current Design Practices 9

63 Chapter 5 Summary of Findings and Recommendations

73 Attachment A Proposed AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide