Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

FEM modelling of unbonded post-tensioned segmental beams with dry

joints
J. Turmo a,∗ , G. Ramos b,1 , A.C. Aparicio b,1
a Civil Engineering School, University of Castilla- La Mancha UCLM, Avda. Camilo José Cela s/n, 13071 - Ciudad Real, Spain
b Department of Construction Engineering, Technical University of Catalonia UPC, C/ Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034 - Barcelona, Spain

Received 19 September 2005; received in revised form 27 February 2006; accepted 14 March 2006
Available online 19 May 2006

Abstract

This work presents a finite element method (FEM) study of the structural behavior of segmental concrete structures with external pre-stressing,
focusing on the response of these structures under combined shear and flexure. Some FEM models have been validated using experimental shear
tests conducted on 7 m long segmental beams. Three types of models with different levels of complexity are presented. The first one attempts
to reproduce the behaviour of the beams modelling the joint with its real geometry. The second model refines the previous one, introducing the
cracking observed in the experimental tests by means of a discrete crack. The third model evaluates the possibility of reproducing the experimental
test results using a flat joint model, simplifying the modelling by not reproducing the interlocking geometry of the keys.
Since this work aims to shed light on the shear flow mechanism in these types of structures, a theoretical study of the shear transference is
carried out, analyzing the stress flow that develops in the web of these types of structures after the joint opens. The arch effect is identified as
the structural response mechanism that carries the actuating vertical loads. Interesting conclusions are also extracted from the study regarding the
reinforcement of these structures.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Segmental bridges; Castellated joints; Shear strength; Dry joints; Unbonded post-tensioning

1. Introduction passive. The first example application constructed was the

Segmental concrete bridges with external pre-stressing and
dry joints are associated with a span-by-span construction
process that is thought to be the fastest of its type. For the
construction of each of the spans, the concrete segments are
placed one next to the other, suspended from a beam or
arranged in a mobile falsework, and are assembled by means
of external pre-stressing. Generally, it is not necessary to apply
any epoxy resin between the joint faces of the segments. It
is precisely the subject matter of the present work to study
externally pre-stressed segmental bridges with resin-free dry
joints. Its more remarkable characteristic is the nonexistence
of bond reinforcement crossing the joints, neither active nor
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 926 295300x3293; fax: +34 926 295391.
E-mail addresses: jose.turmo@uclm.es (J. Turmo),
gonzalo.ramos@upc.edu (G. Ramos), angel.carlos.aparicio@upc.edu
(A.C. Aparicio).
1 Tel.: +34 93 4017356, fax: +34 93 401 1036.
Long Key Bridge [1]. A more recent example can be found in
Bangkok [2].
For the Serviceability Limit State, these bridges are designed
considering that the limit state of decompression must not
be reached; hence a minimum compression σn = 0.5 MPa
is maintained in all sections and the joints remain closed.
When the overload increases up to the Ultimate Limit State,
joints open ostensibly (Fig. 1a), and the structure rapidly loses
stiffness and reaches a considerable deflection. The fact that
there is no passive reinforcement crossing the joints causes
bending moments to be carried by more active reinforcement
or by higher initial stresses in the steel tendons.
The shear transference across open joints is a more complex
matter. The universally accepted theory for evaluating the shear
strength of resin-free dry joints with shear keys considers
the shear stresses to be transferred across the joint through
two qualitatively and quantitatively different mechanisms. The
first mechanism represents the friction resistance that arises

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.03.028
 J. Turmo et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863
Fig. 1. Beam tests. Open Joint at ULS. (a) Flexural failure and (b) shear failure.
Fig. 2. Crack patterns in the vicinity of open joints and hanger
reinforcement [5].
when two flat and compressed surfaces attempt to slide against
the other; this resistance is proportional to the actuating
compression, and the corresponding proportionality factor is
the friction coefficient, µ1 . The second mechanism considers
the support effect of the castellated shear keys of the web
(Fig. 1b). These keys permit shear transfer when they are in
contact, behaving like small plain concrete corbels (the small
dimensions of the keys do not permit us to place conventional
reinforcement). The shear strength of the keys by surface area is
called cohesion, c. If compression stresses exist, then the keys
turn out to be small pre-stressed concrete corbels, increasing
the ultimate shear capacity as compression stresses increase.
Following the terminology of Fouré [3], the corresponding
proportionality factor is called internal friction, µ2 .
An issue that causes controversy among researchers is the
reinforcement of the segment in the proximity of the open joint.
Some authors support the theory indicating that it is necessary
to provide reinforcement to hang the shear force in the zone
next to the open joint [4,5]. Fig. 2 sketches the justification for
this hanger reinforcement graphically.
This paper presents a study carried out to validate some
FEM (finite element method) models for the analysis of the
behaviour of bridges with unbonded external pre-stressing. For
these validations, the four experimental shear tests on pre-
stressed concrete beams presented in [6] have been used. The
most remarkable result of these experimental tests was that
beams with shear reinforcement failed at the same load level
as the beams without shear reinforcement.
1853
Three types of models with different levels of complexity
are presented herein. The first one attempts to reproduce
the behaviour of the beams by modelling the joint with its
actual geometry. The second one refines the previous model,
introducing the cracking observed in the experimental tests
by means of a discrete crack. The third model evaluates the
possibility of reproducing the experimental test results using a
flat joint model, simplifying the modelling by not considering
the interlocking geometry of the keys.
The most important feature of the FEM models validated in
this paper is that they have been calibrated with experimental
test setups that were specifically designed for the elements to
fail in shear. Other authors have presented two-dimensional
(2D) [7] and three-dimensional (3D) [8] FEM studies of the
shear transfer in this type of bridge. However, their models
either were not calibrated or were calibrated with tests where
a flexure type of failure is induced.
In the opinion of the authors, this is the first time that a
model of these characteristics has been validated and applied
to understand the response of this type of structure under
combined flexure and shear. Furthermore, a model where
the shear cracks within the segments are taken into account
is validated for the first time. From the application of the
models, innovative conclusions have been reached regarding
the reinforcing criteria and the resistant mechanisms of these
structures once the opening of the joint takes place.
2. Experimental program
A brief summary of the experimental tests modelled in this
paper is outlined in the present section. More information about
these tests and other similar shear tests performed at UPC
are available in [6,9]. Shear tests used in this paper for the
validation of the models involve a total of four segmental beams
of 7.60 m in length, with an I-shaped cross section (Fig. 3a).
Two of the beams were cast of normal conventional concrete
(PC) and the other two of steel fiber reinforced concrete
(SFRC). The beams were provided with interlocked dry joints,
with three shear keys of 90 mm in height in each joint.
These tests involved simply supported beams with a span
of 7.20 m consisting of three segments of varying length
assembled together with external pre-stressing, to which an
external load Q1 was applied up to failure (Fig. 3b). The
following nomenclature was used in these test series:
(1) V1-PC-35: PC beam of f cm = 34 MPa with an axial pre-
stressing force of 350 kN
(2) V1-PC-70: PC beam of f cm = 34 MPa with an axial pre-
stressing force of 650 kN
(3) V1-SFRC-35: SFRC beam of f cm = 34 MPa with an axial
pre-stressing force of 290 kN
(4) V1-SFRC-70. SFRC beam of f cm = 34 MPa with an axial
pre-stressing force of 650 kN.
The objective of V1-PC tests was to verify the behavior
of an open joint when subjected to shear loading, to quantify
the influence of the axial pre-stressing force on the capacity
of the joint and the structure, and to study the efficiency of
1854 J. Turmo et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863

Fig. 3. V1 test: (a) cross section; (b) configuration and setup (dimensions in mm).

the shear reinforcement near the open joint to determine if it M by Eq. (1):
is necessary to include the hanger reinforcement proposed by
∂ M(x)
some authors [4,5]. With V1-SFRC tests, which complement V (x) = . (1)
V1-PC tests, the objective was to study the possibility ∂x
of replacing the conventional shear reinforcement by steel After flexural cracking, the exterior bending moment M in
fibres when using SFRC. With this aim, the conventional each section x of the beam is compensated by a pair of axial
reinforcement placed in V1-PC beams (Φ8 mm stirrups every forces separated by a lever arm z, including a compression and
30 cm) was completely removed in these beams (except for a tension axial force, Nc and Ns , respectively (Eq. (2)):
the reinforcement at anchorage and deviator zones, and a few
longitudinal bars placed to avoid the premature flexural failure M(x) = Ns · z = Nc · z = N · z. (2)
of the longest segment). Then, Eq. (1) can be transformed in the following manner:
The steel fibers (Dramix RC 65/35 BN) content was
60 kg/m3 (volume content of 0.75%). The BBR system was ∂ M(x) ∂(N · z) ∂(N ) ∂(z)
V (x) = = =z· +N· . (3)
used for pre-stressing by means of a small hydraulic tensioning ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x
jack. V1-75 beams were provided with eight pre-stressing In conventional concrete beams, the lever arm, z, remains
tendons and V1-35 beams with four. The pre-stressing steel approximately constant between two contiguous sections, at
grade was Y 1860 S7, with a nominal tensile strength of 1860 least during the initial loading stages. Then,
MPa, identical to grade 270 ksi proposed by ASTM A 416. The
nominal diameter of the strands was 15.24 mm (0.6 in.). Hot- ∂(z)
=0 (4)
rolled deformed steel bars of B500S quality were utilized as ∂x
passive reinforcement. This steel grade has a minimum yield and
strength of 500 MPa, a minimum tensile strength of 550 MPa,
and a minimum elongation of 12% for a five diameter gauge ∂(N )
V (x) = z · . (5)
length. ∂x
Eq. (5) represents what is traditionally known as the beam
3. Theoretical studies effect and, after cracking takes place, leads to a distribution of
tangential stresses along the length and width of the transversal
The response of conventional concrete beams under
tangential stresses cannot be studied at a sectional level. The section, as in the one shown in Fig. 4a. Hence, it is necessary
formation of a strut-and-tie mechanism for shear transmission to place stirrups to carry the tensile stresses when the web
before failure obligates us to carry out a spatial study of the of the beam cracks (strut-and-tie analogy). If, due to any
shear response. In the same manner, the structural response circumstance, the bond of the longitudinal reinforcement with
of segmental concrete beams with dry joints and external the surrounding concrete is lost, the reinforcement is unable to
pre-stressing confines us to considering just a pure sectional vary its stress from one section of the beam to another, which
analysis to evaluate the shear response. implies that:
As is known, the shear load V actuating in a section x of a ∂(N )
beam is mathematically related to the exterior bending moment =0 (6)
∂x
 J. Turmo et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863
Fig. 4. Normal and shear stresses in a conventional concrete beam (a) and in an externally post-tensioned segmental concrete beam.
and
∂(z)
V (x) = N . . (7)
∂x
Eq. (7) is known as the arch effect, and means that the shear
force is resisted by an inclination of the compressive axial force.
Generally, these two mechanisms superimpose before the beam
fails under shear.
In a segmental structure with external pre-stressing, where
there is no passive reinforcement connecting the segments and
where the pre-stressing tendons contact the concrete only at
anchor blocks and deviators, the axial force remains constant
in every cross section of the beam. Thus, the transmission of
the shear force relies on the arch effect. In this manner, an
indissoluble association of longitudinal compressive stresses
and tangential stresses takes place. The distribution of normal
and tangential stresses in a section of such structures is
represented in Fig. 4b.
4. Description of the models
To study the spatial mechanism of the shear response,
several second-order effect analyses were carried out with the
finite element commercial code Diana 8.1. With the same
aim, several 2D models were prepared with bi-dimensional
elements.
The small width of the slabs and the data obtained from
the embedded strain gages placed at the upper flange in V1-
PC tests permit the ensuring of a uniform behaviour along the
width of the slab [6,9]. Therefore, the beams were modelled
using bi-dimensional elements consisting of four nodes and
eight degrees of freedom. These elements had a width of 0.60 m
1855
Fig. 5. Model for V1 tests: one single joint and two segments.
at the slabs, 0.10 m at the webs, and 0.35 m at the web–flange
transition zone. To avoid masking the trajectory of stresses, a
width of 0.10 m was assigned to the elements at anchorages
and deviator zones, at the same time increasing the modulus of
elasticity of the material to simulate its stiffness.
The joints were modelled by two-node interface elements, to
which different constitutive equations were assigned according
to the model considered. Taking into account that the
experimental and numerical tests pointed out that the limit
state of decompression was not reached at the joint between
segments D1 and D2 (Fig. 3), the model used for the analysis
was simplified and provided with two segments instead of three
and one joint instead of two (Fig. 5). It is worth noting that
carrying out an analysis with so many sources of non-linearity
implies prioritizing between these sources and choosing the
most significant ones if convergence is to be achieved.
The beam was positioned over two point-supports that
did not allow vertical displacements. One of the supports
also impeded horizontal displacements. Loads were introduced
punctually at the upper slab. The initial pre-stressing was
introduced by applying external loads actuating at anchorages
and deviators. To simulate the evolution of the pre-stressing
along the development of the test, the cables were modelled
by bar-type elements. In this way, each pre-stressing cable
was modelled by three bar-type elements, reproducing the
polygonal path of the pre-stressing force (Fig. 6). The
inconvenience of this model is that it simulates the existence
1856 J. Turmo et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863

Fig. 6. Mesh for beam V1, including cable-type elements (in black).

of infinite friction at the deviator zones, which does not permit

the cables to slip. Experimentally, it has been proved that, when
the joints open, the loss of balance between the forces at each
side of the deviators makes the cable slip, and the increments
in deformation are distributed along the entire length of the
cable [6,9]. A modulus of elasticity of E 0p = 119 000 MPa
was assigned to the pre-stressing steel, with the objective of Fig. 7. Interface element.
modelling the free slipping of the cables at the deviators in a
simple way. This fictitious value of the modulus of elasticity
(E 0p ) can be deduced from Eq. (8), relating the cable length
between deviators crossing the joint L 1 , the total length of the
equivalent middle cable L T , and the modulus of elasticity of
the pre-stressing steel E p :
L1 4800 m
E 0p = · Ep = · 190 000 MPa = 119 543 MPa. (8)
LT 7629 m

In this manner, the stiffness of the bar-type element, EA/L,

which takes into account all the deformation increments after
the joint opening, is equal to the stiffness of the entire cable.
This method gives good results, since the increment in axial
force in the element affected by the opening of the joint
adequately approximates the increment of pre-stressing force
measured at the deviators, though it has the inconvenience that
the stress increment in the cables is not distributed along its
total length. To avoid this problem, once the increase in pre-
stressing, 1Pi , is known at the central part of the cable and
just before failure, 1Pi is distributed along the total length
of the cable. In order to do so, the structure is loaded with a
self-equilibrated system of forces actuating at anchorages and
deviators, with a magnitude equal to 1Pi and a direction equal
to that of each lateral part of the cable, as is described in [10].
This last step avoids masking the effects that the deviation
forces at the anchorages have in the stress distribution of the
structure.
The concrete material was modelled by a linear elastic
behaviour. Only the elements of the upper slab were
modelled by a plastic behaviour in compression, considering
a characteristic compressive strength f ck = 35 MPa. The
stress–strain constitutive law is the one proposed in [11].
4.1. Joint model with the real geometry
The singular nature of the union between segments is
modelled by two-node interface elements (Fig. 7). Since there
is a frictional type of behaviour between the faces of the joint,
the constitutive law considered for these interface elements
when the joint was modelled with its actual geometry was a
Coulombian friction law without cohesion (Fig. 8).
The values adopted for the characterization of the joint are
presented in Table 1, where the regular notation for this kind
of constitutive law has been used [12]. This table includes the
values adopted in the analysis for the normal and tangential
Fig. 8. Non-cohesive Coulombian friction model.
Table 1
Values of the constants used to model the behaviour of the concrete joint
kn 50 000 MN/m3
kt 50 000 MN/m3
tan φ 0, 60
c 0, 0
tan ϕ 0, 0
stiffness coefficients (kn and kt ), the friction angle (φ), the
cohesion (c), and the dilatancy angle (ϕ).
Usually, important penalty values were assigned to the
normal and tangential stiffness coefficients (kn and kt ), which
relate the normal and tangential stresses (tn and tt ) of the
joint in the elastic state to the relative normal and tangential
displacements between the joint faces (1u n and 1u t ). These
penalty values are intended to simulate the initial continuous
geometry before the decompression. Lower stiffness values
were proven to simulate the contact of two concrete surfaces
better in the case of panel tests [6,9]. When two concrete
surfaces make contact, the connection is materialized through
the contact of the different irregularities of their surfaces.
For growing compression stresses, these irregularities deform
(crush), imposing a relative approximation between the two
concrete faces. The value of tan φ is taken to be equal to
the friction coefficient between two concrete surfaces, µ1 ,
proposed by AASHTO [13]. Once the maximum shear stress
is reached, the faces of the joint slide, so the value of the angle
ϕ, or dilatancy angle, is taken to be equal to zero. The cohesion
value is equal to zero. Hence, if the joint is not compressed, it
 J. Turmo et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863
Table 2
Values of the constants used in the flat joint model
Units Flange
kn MN/m3 50 000
kt MN/m3 50 000
tan φ 0, 60
c MPa 0, 0
tan ϕ 0, 0
is not capable of transmitting either tensile or shear stresses.
Beyond this stage, when the limit state of decompression is
reached, the displacement between both sides of the joint are
not directly linked anymore.
4.2. Flat joint model
When modelling the keys with their real geometry, the main
issue is that the meshing must be adequately refined in the
surrounding area of the joint in order to reproduce the real
geometry. Then, in a real bridge, with segments 2–3 m in depth
and 40–50 m in span, with joints every 2–4 m with 30–40 keys
per joint, the required numerical capacity can be significant.
The advantage of a flat joint model is that the geometry of the
segments can be reproduced by a mesh with a smaller number
of elements, which implies a significant reduction in degrees of
freedom, which at the same time implies important savings in
computation time. Furthermore, rectangular elements and the
regularity of the mesh favour numerical convergence.
The flat joint model is composed of two-node interface
elements, with different constitutive laws depending on
the geometry that the elements were reproducing. These
constitutive laws were derived from the formulation proposed
by AASHTO [13] to evaluate the shear capacity of dry joints;
a formulation that, in [14], has proven to be the more accurate
than others [3,5,15].
A Coulombian-type friction law with no cohesion was
assigned to the interface elements modelling the joints at
the upper and bottom flanges (Fig. 8). On the other hand, a
Coulombian-type friction law with cohesion was considered for
the interface elements modelling joints at the webs (Fig. 9).
These friction laws are defined numerically in Table 2. The
AASHTO formulation differentiates the strength provided by
the area of the key, Ak , from the strength of the smooth area
between the keys, Asm . To have a simple and practical model,
it seems useful to combine these formulae and assign a mean
constitutive law to the entire web. In this manner, cohesion c0
and friction µ02 , which define the mean behaviour of the entire
web, are determined from Eqs. (9) and (10):
c · Ak
c0 =
Ak + Asm
µ2 · Ak + µ1 · Asm
µ02 = . (10)
Ak + Asm
The constitutive law governs the behaviour of the interface
elements only when compression exists. If this does not
occur, the displacements of a node and of its corresponding
1857
Web
50 000
50 000
1, 07
4, 54
0, 0
Fig. 9. Cohesive Coulombian friction model.
Table 3
Values of the constants used to model the behaviour of the discrete cracking
kn 107 MN/m3
kt 107 MN/m3
f ctm 2.6 MPa
Gf 0.105 N mm/mm2
β 0, 0
counterpart are not directly linked. Practically, this implies
discarding the contribution of the shear keys in contact under
a neutral axis, which is in line with the present standards. More
information on the joint model can be found in [6,9].
4.3. Cracking model
Since the cracking observed in the experimental tests [6,
9] corresponded to the development of one single crack that
accumulates all the deformations (Fig. 1b), a discrete crack
approach was selected for the model. The chosen model is
materialized by two-node interface elements, with a constitutive
equation based on the theory of total deformations, which
relates the stress vector to the total relative displacements
between the crack faces. In the elastic state, as after cracking,
the normal and tangential responses of the joint are decoupled.
The constitutive equation of the discrete crack is defined
numerically in Table 3, where the regular notation for this kind
of constitutive law is used [12].
In the model, the terms kn and kt of the elastic stiffness
matrix had a sufficiently high value to model the continuous
geometry before displacements but, at the same time, small
enough to avoid numerical problems during the analysis.
The tensile strength f ctm has been calculated from the mean
concrete compressive strength ( f cm = 34 MPa) according to
EC2 [16]. The value of fracture energy G f has been obtained
(9) considering the mean concrete compressive strength and the
maximum size of the aggregate (dmax = 25 mm), following the
recommendations of the Model Code [11]. The normal stress
post-peak behaviour is governed by a linear tension softening
function, though the important crack opening observed in the
experimental tests shows that the post-peak contribution of the
material is practically irrelevant. Due to this fact, common
functions have been chosen for conventional and steel fibre
1858 J. Turmo et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863
Fig. 10. Sensibility to geometrically nonlinear analysis.
reinforced concrete. After cracking, the shear stiffness of the
crack is reduced to zero (β = 0). The large crack openings
observed in the experimental tests allow us to suppose that the
tangential stresses, generated due to the relative displacement
between the crack faces, are equal to zero (Fig. 17).
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Parametric analysis
Analyzing the influence of the different parameters, it can
be observed that the model is extremely geometrically non-
linear. The inclusion of a geometrical non-linearity increases
the vertical displacements of the point-load of the model by
around 50% for the test maximum load. Fig. 10 shows the
difference between performing the analysis using the second-
order theory (V1-PC-35-NLG) or not (V1-PC-35).
The structural behaviour is extremely sensitive to the value
of initial pre-stressing. It affects both strength and flexibility.
As it was found that this was the main parameter affecting not
only the behaviour of the model but also the actual structures,
a complete sensibility analysis was performed in [10]. The
influence of the pre-stessing level can be summarized in five
main points: (a) the joint opening load is directly influenced
by the level of pre-stressing—the lower the initial pre-stressing,
the lower the joint opening load; (b) the stiffness of the structure
is not affected by the pre-stressing level while joints are closed;
(c) the stiffness of the structure is strongly influenced by the
pre-stressing force once the joints open; the higher the pre-
stressing force, the stiffer the structure; this is to say, for
the same external load actuating in the structure, the higher
the pre-stressing level, the smaller the deflection; (d) the
maximum deflection at failure is also influenced by the pre-
stressing force—the higher the pre-stressing force, the bigger
the deflection; and (e) the increase in the initial pre-stressing
force increases the strength of the structure.
The combination of interface elements with the linear elastic
material of the slabs adequately approximates the experimental
test results in terms of deformations. However, it generates very
high compression stresses around the joint that have no physical
sense. The inclusion of a plastic material in compression has
Fig. 11. Load–deflection curves from V1-35 experimental tests (V1-PC-35 and
V1-SFRC-35) and numerical analysis (V1-35-FEM-B and V1-35-FEM-A).
hardly any influence in terms of deformation, but notably
smoothens the stress field in the immediate vicinity of the joint.
The values of the axial stiffness and tangential stiffness of
the interface elements, kn and kt , were fundamental to model
correctly the load–deformation and load–stress behaviour of
shear tests on panels [6,9]. Changing the values of kn from
a penalty value of 10 000 000 MN/m3 to lower values of
50 000 MN/m3 increased deformations at failure by 100%
(Section 4.1). However, values adopted for kn and kt hardly
influence the deformation of the beam, which is fundamentally
governed by the crack opening and not by the support between
keys or the slipping of the joint. When concrete plasticity is
introduced in the slab, there is no influence of kn and kt .
The tensile cracking of the bottom slab does not affect the
modelling of the tests either. Though the tensile strength is
reached in part of the bottom flange, the zone is quite limited;
hence, it appears that the modelling of the crack does not
affect the global response of the structure. This negligible
effect would not influence actual structures made of multiple
segments at all, as the joint opening impedes flexural tensile
stresses arising [10].
5.2. Numerical analysis of beams V1 modelling the real
geometry of the joint
In this series of numerical tests, the behaviour of beams
V1 has been studied, focusing attention on the non-linearity
produced by the presence of dry joints and its effect on the
beam response. Keys and joints were modelled using their
real geometry, provided with two-node interface elements. The
mesh used to carry out the analysis can be seen in Fig. 6.
Fig. 11 shows the experimental load–displacement response
for beam V1-PC-35 and beam V1-SFRC-35. For comparison,
the same figure shows the curves obtained from the numerical
analysis; V1-35-FEM-A with an initial pre-stressing force P0 =
0.350 MN, and V1-35-FEM-B with an initial pre-stressing
force P0 = 0.290 MN. The load-joint opening responses for
V1-35 tests can be seen in Fig. 12.
It is worth noting how the numerical curve V1-35-FEM-A
reasonably approaches the experimental response of V1-SFRC-
35 and how the behaviour of V1-PC-35 is reproduced by V1-
35-FEM-B.
 J. Turmo et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863
Fig. 12. Load-joint opening curves from V1-35 experimental tests (V1-PC-35
and V1-SFRC-35) and numerical analysis (V1-35-FEM-B and V1-35-FEM-A).
Fig. 13. Deformation scheme of beam V1-PC-70 for different load levels
(0.140 MN, 0.176 MN, and 0.199 MN); experimental tests and numerical
analysis (FEM).
The initial pre-stressing force significantly influences the
decompression load, the evolution of the vertical displacement
and the crack opening; as the initial pre-stressing force
decreases, the decompression load decreases and the deflection
and final joint opening increase. The model satisfactorily
reproduces the deflection of the beam up to a load Q =
0.11 MN. At this stage, the crack development in the segment,
which is not considered in the model, makes the experimental
and numerical curves diverge from each other. However, this
deviation is not large since, as mentioned, cracking only affects
a limited part of the segment [6,9].
Also, it is worth remarking that the increments in the pre-
stressing force, measured by the load cells when the maximum
load is reached, are also well reproduced by the numerical
tests. The values of these axial force increments obtained in the
numerical tests are just a 7% higher than those measured in the
experimental tests.
The numerical study of V1-PC-70 and V1-SFRC-70 tests
was carried out in the same manner as for the V1-35 tests
analyzed above. The same bi-dimensional model was used,
varying the initial pre-stressing force. The initial pre-stressing
force P0 = 0.650 MN, introduced to perform the simulation,
was equal for both tests.
1859
For V1-70, numerical results do not approximate experimen-
tal tests as sharply as in the case of V1-35. The cracking of the
segment, which goes across the entire height of the beam, sig-
nificantly modifies the deformation behaviour of the structure.
This effect can be observed clearly from Fig. 13, which presents
the experimental and numerical (FEM) deformations of struc-
ture V1-PC-70 for different load levels (0.140 MN, 0.176 MN,
and 0.199 MN). Though, in the elastic phase, the model per-
fectly reproduces the deformation of the structure, the opening
of the joint and the diagonal cracking of the segment provoke
a peak in the deformation which the model is not capable of
reproducing. To model the behaviour of the beam adequately, it
is necessary to give an appropriate treatment to the cracking in
the web of the segment.
A selection of stress fields obtained from the analysis of
V1-35-FEM-B is presented in Fig. 14 for the hypothesis of
maximum load. Fig. 14 includes the vector field of principal
compressive stresses generated in the structure for an absolute
value higher than 2.5 MPa and lower than 35 MPa (Fig. 14a),
and for an absolute value higher than 4.5 MPa (Fig. 14b).
The same figure also presents a detail of the joint area for a
decompression stress higher than 2.5 MPa (Fig. 14c) and tensile
stresses higher than 2.5 MPa (Fig. 14d).
From Fig. 14a, it can be observed how the resistant
mechanism can be assimilated to two superposed arches: one
arch arises from an anchorage (A), goes across the open joint
(C), through the load application point (D), and finally ends at
the other anchorage (F); the other arch starts developing at the
deviator (B 0 ), goes across the open joint (C), through the load
application point, and finally ends at the second deviator (E 0 ).
Fig. 14b shows how higher principal compressive stresses
are generated in the zone where both arches superpose. In
this example, the contribution of the arches to the transference
of load is very similar. The first arch (between anchorages)
transmits 51% of the load, while the second arch (between
deviators) transmits the remaining 49%. Calculation of the
contribution of each arch to the load transference has been
carried out, verifying the amount of vertical load that each arch
compensates, as a function of the vertical reactions of each arch.
The vertical reactions are provided by the supports and forces
at deviators in the first and second arches, respectively.
From Fig. 14c, it can be observed how the principal
compressive stresses incline due to the effect of the tangential
stresses in the joint area at the compression zone.
Fig. 14d shows a detail of the field of tensile stresses, in the
perpendicular direction with respect to the cracking observed in
the experimental tests (Fig. 1b). As can be seen, tensile stresses
only appear in the immediate vicinity of the open joint and at
the anchorage zone, due to the deviation of the isostatics when
the pre-stressing force is introduced. The absence of tensile
stresses in the web of the beam strengthens the idea of an arch-
type resistant mechanism.
5.3. Numerical analysis of the beams modelling the cracking in
the web of the segment
The experimental tests on series V1-70, where a main
diagonal crack across the segment concentrating large rotations
1860 J. Turmo et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863

Fig. 14. Stress field under maximum load from test V1-35-FEM-B. (a) Principal compressive stresses |σII | > 2.5 MPa. (b) Principal compressive stresses
|σII | > 4.5 MPa. (c) Detail of the joint area; principal compressive stresses |σII | > 2.5 MPa. (d) Detail of the joint area; principal tensile stresses |σI | > 2.5 MPa.

Fig. 15. Detail of the model used for the simulation of test V1-PC-70 (a) and test V1-SFRC-70 (b). (Dry joint and discrete cracking in black.)

in its plane was observed [6,9], cannot be modelled without
considering the effect of cracking. Therefore, the mesh used for
the analysis of beams V1 was modified, introducing interface
elements that reproduced the geometry of the crack observed
in tests V1-PC-70 and V1-SFRC-70. The characteristics of the
mesh can be observed in Fig. 15a and b, showing the dry joint
and potential cracks.
As can be seen from Fig. 15, not only new interface elements
had to be included; three-node triangular elements with six
degrees of freedom were also incorporated in that zone. In
this manner, the complicated geometry of the segment in the
proximity of the joint is well covered with a dense mesh of
elements.
In the model simulating the behaviour of beam V1-PC-70, it
has been necessary to include elements capable of reproducing
the reinforcement of the segment. Thus, two-node linear
elements with four degrees of freedom were incorporated.
These elements connected the nodes of the mesh at both sides of
each potential crack (Fig. 1b), and were placed horizontally and
vertically, bridging the cracks located where the longitudinal
and transverse reinforcement was placed in the real segment.
The area of each of these elements corresponds to the area of
the real reinforcement, providing them with an elastic–perfectly
plastic behaviour, with a yielding stress of 500 MPa. It is worth
remarking that a model with such an amount of non-linearity
sources is numerically quite unstable.
For V1-PC-70-FEM, the model was not able to reproduce
the behaviour up to failure of test V1-PC-70, since, for a
load level Q 1 of approximately 80% of the ultimate load, the
calculation program diverged or was not capable of inverting
the stiffness matrix. Though the number and size of load
increments was varied repeatedly to reach the ultimate load,
the problem could not be avoided; the analysis was interrupted
shortly after achieving cracking of the segment, even though the
concrete of the upper slab had a principal compressive stress of
 J. Turmo et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863
Fig. 16. Deformation scheme of beam V1-SFRC-70 for different load levels;
0.165 MN, 0.185 MN, and 0.198 MN, from experimental tests and numerical
analysis (FEM).
23.9 MPa and the stress of the stirrup next to the joint was just
317 MPa.
In test V1-SFRC-70-FEM, the ultimate load of the
experimental test was finally reached by applying successive
variations to the size of the load increments, which were
arbitrarily chosen to avoid divergence, since reducing the
value of these increments did not necessarily imply achieving
convergence.
Fig. 16 presents the deformed configuration of the structure
for different load levels (0.165 MN, 0.185 MN, and 0.198 MN),
from experimental tests and numerical modelling (FEM). The
peak that appears at the immediate vicinity of the joint in the
deformation scheme, which the model presented in 5.2 was
unable to reproduce (Fig. 13), is know satisfactorily modelled.
A detail of the deformed geometry obtained under maximum
load in tests V1-PC-70 and V1-SFRC-70 is shown in Fig. 17a
Fig. 17. Detail of the deformation scheme under maximum load. Experimental tests V1-PC-70 (a) and V1-SFRC-70 (b). Numerical modelling V1-PC-70-FEM (c)
and V1-SFRC-70-FEM (d).
1861
and b, respectively, and compared with the results of the
numerical simulation; V1-PC-70-FEM (Fig. 17c) and V1-
SFRC-70-FEM (Fig. 17d). The same figure shows clearly how
the opening of the joint progresses along the web of the
segment, and how the keys situated above the initiation point
of the crack remain in contact.
The principal stress fields obtained from the analysis of
V1-SFRC-70-FEM are presented in Fig. 18. Fig. 18a shows
the vector field of principal compressive stresses higher than
2.5 MPa, from which it can be seen how practically the
entire beam is under compression, except in the immediate
vicinity of the load, where the isostatics are located in the
compression flange and acquire the shape of an arch. The
notorious inclination of the principal compressive stresses in
the compressed zone of the webs shows how, in this area, the
webs are responsible for the transference of tangential stresses.
On the other hand, once the crack opens, the tensile stresses
shown in Fig. 14d are freed. This extreme can be observed from
Fig. 18b, which shows the principal tensile stresses higher than
2.5 MPa. As can be seen, tensile stresses are practically absent
outside the tension fields generated to regulate the introduction
of the pre-stressing force at anchorages and deviators.
5.4. Numerical analysis of the beams using a flat joint model
A detail of the mesh utilized in this analysis can be observed
in Fig. 19, with a total of 1327 elements and 1422 nodes, in
which a flat joint model has been introduced.
Fig. 20 shows the load-deflection responses obtained with
the different models, in which the joint between segments
is modelled with its real geometry (V1-35-FEM-B) or with
a flat joint (V1-35-FEM-B-P). The analysis of these figures
allows us to appreciate the adequate behaviour of the flat
1862 J. Turmo et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863
Fig. 18. Field of principal stresses from test V1-SFRC-70-FEM-B under maximum load; compressive stresses |σII | > 2.5 MPa (a) and tensile stresses
|σI | > 2.5 MPa (b).
Fig. 19. Detail of the finite element mesh for the analysis of V1-FEM-P (flat
joint in black).
joint model; slight differences are observed only in the joint
opening phase, however they do not blur the overall good
results. Very good agreement can also be observed between the
stress fields of both models, apart from some little differences
in the vicinity of the joint mainly due to the different nature
of the contact between the two models of joints. This does
not affect the overall behaviour of either model. Basically, the
fact that the two models give such similar results implies that
the deformation and stress behaviour of the structure is, to a
great extent, governed by the opening of the joint instead of by
the support system between keys. The possibility of modelling
the geometry of the keys by means of a flat joint allows us to
simplify the models used to study real bridges significantly.
6. Conclusions
A numerical model for the analysis of segmental concrete
beams with dry joint and external pre-stressing has been
proposed. The model has satisfactorily reproduced the results
obtained in large-scale experimental tests.
The opening of the joint can be simulated by using interface
elements, to which a Coulombian-type friction behaviour is
assigned. If there is an important cracking in the web of the
segment, it becomes necessary to model the web accordingly,
since the stiffness of the structure is greatly influenced by the
Fig. 20. Load–deflection curves from V1-35. Comparison of the results from
different models.
cracking development. It is also necessary to include the non-
linear compressive behaviour of the concrete in the model,
and carry out the analysis considering the second-order effects
theory.
A flat joint model is proposed that permits the analysis of
complete bridges without the need for modelling the joints with
its real geometry, which implies much simpler models, with a
consequent reduction in computer time.
The theoretical studies and the analysis carried out confirm
that the resisting mechanism of these types of beam is spatial,
not sectional. In the presence of external vertical loads, the
structure responds with an arch-type resistant mechanism. Two
arches arise to carry the loads: one arch materializes between
the supports of the beam and another between the deviators,
which actuate like intermediate supports.
A strut model can be drawn in the concrete beam, capable of
resisting the actuating loads at the Ultimate Limit State without
the need for tension ties, which are materialized by the pre-
stressing cables. In other words, a resistant mechanism that
allows the formation of a flexure- and shear-resistant scheme
is generated in the beam, without the need for conventional
reinforcement. This reinforcement can be useful to control
cracking in service, but its efficiency in resisting shear is quite
limited, especially in the immediate vicinity of the open joint.
Though tensile stresses truly appear in this zone (Fig. 14d), the
 J. Turmo et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1852–1863
effect is local and does not contribute to the global resisting
mechanism of the structure. In fact, when the tensile strength is
reached and the beam cracks, the tensile stresses are freed and
the arch continues to support the load (Fig. 18b). The stirrups
have to be placed to control cracking, but its presence does not
imply substantial increments in shear capacity.
Acknowledgments
Partial funding of the research by the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Technology (MAT2002-00849 Project), and by the
Spanish Ministry of Public Works (Project: “Theoretical and
Experimental Study of the Shear Transference in Segmental
Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams, with External
Prestressing and Dry Joints”), is greatly appreciated. One of
the authors benefited from a scholarship from the Spanish
Ministry of Education and Culture from the year 2000 until
2003 (Scholarship for the Formation of University Professors).
The valuable comments of the anonymous reviewers of the
paper are also acknowledged.
References
[1] Muller J. Construction of the long key bridge. Journal of the Prestressed
Concrete Institute 1980;25(6):97–111.
[2] Brockmann C, Rogenhofer H. Bang Na expressway, Bangkok, Thailand—
world’s longest bridge and largest precasting operation. Journal of the
Prestressed Concrete Institute 2000;45(1):26–38.
[3] Foure B. Shear test on keyed joints between precast segments. In:
Proceedings of the workshop AFPC external prestressing in strucutres.
Saint-Rémy-lès-Chevreuse. June 1993. p. 297–319.
[4] Virlogeux M. et al. Some elements for a codification of external
prestressing and of precast segments. In: Proceedings of the workshop
1863
AFPC external prestressing in strucutres. Saint-Rémy-lès-Chevreuse.
June 1993. p. 449–66.
[5] ATEP design and construction of bridges and structures with external
prestressing. Madrid. September 1996 [in Spanish].
[6] Turmo J. Flexure and shear behavior of segmental concrete bridges
with external prestressing and dry joints. Ph.D thesis. Directed by:
Prof. Dr. Aparicio AC and Prof. Dr. Ramos G. ETSICCP de
Barcelona. Dept. Ing. de la Construcción. July 2003 [in Spanish].
http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TDX-1030103-090157/.
[7] Huang J, Eibl J. Design of segmental bridges under combined bending,
shear and torsion FE-study. In: Proceedings of the workshop AFPC
external prestressing in strucutres. Saint-Rémy-lès-Chevreuse. June 1993.
p. 335–47.
[8] Rombach G. Precast segmental box girder bridges with external
prestressing-design and construction. Rennes: INSA; February 2002.
p. 1–15.
[9] Turmo J. Study of the structural behaviour under flexure and shear of
segmental concrete bridges with external prestressing and dry joints.
Madrid: ACHE; 2006.
[10] Turmo J, Ramos G, Aparicio AC. FEM study on the structural behaviour
of segmental concrete bridges with unbonded prestressing and dry joints:
simply supported bridges. Engineering Structures 2005;27(11):1652–61.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.04.011.
[11] Model Code CEB-FIP 1990. Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos. Madrid;
1995.
[12] DIANA 8.1.User’s Manual. TNO. Delft; 2002.
[13] A.A.S.H.T.O. Guide specifications for design and construction of
segmental concrete bridges. Washington; 1998.
[14] Turmo J, Ramos G, Aparicio AC. Shear strength of dry joints
of concrete panels with and without steel fibres. Application to
precast segmental bridges. Engineering Structures 2006;28(1):23–33.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.07.001.
[15] Bakhoum MM. Shear behaviour and design of joints in precast
concrete segmental bridges. Ph.D dissertation. Massachussetts Institute of
Technology; 1991.
[16] UNE-ENV 1992-1-1:1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures.
Part 1-1. General rules and rules for building. AENOR; 1992.