Restraint Moments in Bridges

with Full-Span Prestressed

Concrete Form Panels
Robert J. Peterman
Ph.D., P.E.
Post-Doctoral Resea rc h Associate
School of Civil Engineerin g
Purdue University
W est Lafayette, Indi ana
An experimental investigation was carried out to evaluate the
restraint moments generated at interior piers of bridges constructed
with full -span prestressed concrete form panels . These moments
result from the restraint of time-dependent deformations after
adjacent spans are made continuous through a composite cast-in-
place concrete topping. The experimenta lly determined moments
from this investigation were compared with values ca lculated using
current design methods for continuous prestressed concrete girders.
It was concluded that these design methods, which ignore cracking
of the cast-in-p lace topping, g reatly overestimate the negative
restraint moments in composite construction with shallow prestressed
members. A new method for ca lculating restraint moments in bridges
with sha llow prestressed members, which includes provisions for
cracking, is presented. Numerical design examples are included to
illustrate the proposed method.

n bridge construction, the reduction The full-span, simply-supported panels

I of on-site concrete formwork often

leads to savings in the total struc-
ture cost. For multiple span bridges
with 40 ft (12.2 m) spans or less, the
most economical structure is often a
continuous reinforced concrete slab
without girders.
Julio A. Ramirez One alternative to this structure uti-
lizes full- span, precast, prestressed
Ph.D., P.E.
concrete panels. These panels, which
Professor
School of Civil Engineering span adjacent piers, are placed side by
Purdue University side and serve as stay-in-place form-
West Lafayette, Indi ana work for a composite cast-in-place
(CIP) concrete topping (see Figs. 1 and
2 for an example of such a bridge).
support their own weight, the weight
of the composite topping and construc-
tion loads.
The panels act compositely with the
CIP topping, and the panel reinforce-
ment serves as the positive moment re-
inforcement for superimposed loads
applied after the topping has hardened.
Mild steel reinforcement is placed in
the CIP topping over the piers to han-
dle negative moments in the continu-
ous structure.
The Florida Department of Trans-
portation was a pioneer in the use of
full-span form panels in the 1970s.

54 PCI JOURNAL
Unfortunately, very regular cracking
was observed in the first bridges built
with this approach. 1 This cracking was
attributed to differential shrinkage be-
tween the precast panels and CIP top-
ping, as well as traffic loading. How-
ever, since the 1970s, the state-of-
the-art of precast/prestressed concrete
technology has advanced significantly.
With the advent of high performance
concrete, improved production meth-
ods and better quality control, together
with modern design and construction
methods , full -span precast panels are
more attractive today than at earlier
times. Full-scale durability testing has
Fig. 1. Three-span bridge utilizing full-span prestressed concrete form panels.
shown that multi-span bridges con-
structed with full-span prestressed
concrete panels can provide excellent
long-term performance. 2
In order to reduce construction costs,
the Indiana Department of Transporta-
tion (INDOT) recognized the advan-
tages of using full-span, prestressed
concrete panels for many bridges that
need replacement. However, before
implementing this system more
widely, further research was needed to
evaluate the response of these multi-
span bridges to time-dependent effects
(differential shrinkage and creep). This
paper presents the results of an experi-
mental investigation that evaluated the
moments produced at interior piers by
the restraint of these time-dependent Fig. 2. Underside of bridge in Fig. 1 showing longitudinal precast panels.
deformations.
perimental testing of two full-scale ous ends are not allowed to rotate and
SIGNIFICANCE a negative restraint moment is pro-
bridge specimens.
OF RESEARCH duced . The corresponding deformed
In multi-span, continuous pre- shape of a two-span bridge, neglecting
cast, prestressed concrete bridges, TIME-DEPENDENT EFFECTS gravity effects, is shown in Fig. 4. For
the restraint of time-dependent defor- In composite construction using pre- an actual two-span bridge, the result is
mations will cause moments at interior cast concrete sections , the precast a decrease in the reactions at the dis-
piers. These restraint moments can members are often fabricated several continuous ends and an increase in the
produce stresses that are higher than months before they are installed in the reactions at the center pier.
those due to gravity loading alone and field. Consequently, most of the con- The effect of creep due to prestress-
can lead to premature cracking of the crete drying shrinkage in these mem- ing will usually have the opposite ef-
concrete. The design engineer must bers wi II have occurred before the fect as that due to differential shrink-
estimate the magnitude of these re- composite CIP concrete is cast. As the age between the precast panels and
straint moments and detail steel rein- fresh CIP concrete cures, its shrinkage CIP topping. For prestressed concrete
forcement accordingly. will then be partially restrained by the bridge members, the center of the pre-
This paper proposes a method for precast members to which it has been stress force usually lies below the neu-
the calculation of moments caused by bonded. For simple-span construction tral axis of the section. This eccentric-
the restraint of time-dependent defor- where member ends are free to rotate, ity of force causes the members to
mations in bridges with full-span , pre- this restraining force will cause the bow upwards (commonly referred to
stressed concrete form panels. Numer- composite section to deform, as indi- as camber) and will produce rotations
ical design examples are included to cated in Fig. 3. at the member ends. This camber will
demonstrate the proposed method . On the other hand, in the case of generally increase with time due to
This method was verified by the ex- continuous construction, the continu- creep of the concrete under the sus-

January-February 1998 55
 uniform differential shrinkage moment
in a composite concrete section at any
CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE
time is given by:

M5 = £ 5 EdAd(ec +~) (1 )

where
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PANELS £5 = differential shrinkage strain
(assumed uniform over thickness
of slab)
Ed= modulu s of elasticity of CIP
concrete
Ad = cross-sectional area of CIP slab
h =CIP slab thickness
ec = distance between top of precast
DEFORMATION DUE TO DIFFERENTIAL SHRINKAGE member and centroid of compos-
ite section
The restraint moment at the center
Fig. 3. Deformation due to differential shrinkage in simp le-span composite support of a two-span continuous
construction. bridge is calculated as:

(2)
~M (1- e-1/J J
2 s 1/J

DEFORMATION DUE TO DIFFERENTIAL SHRINKAGE
Fig. 4. Deform at ion due to differential shrinkage in composite, two-span continuous
bridge.
tained, eccentric prestressing force.
When these members are made contin-
uous in the field , additional end rota-
tions due to creep are restrained and
positive moments result at the interior
piers.
Also, for continuous construction
using precast concrete members ,
forces resulting from the restraint of
creep deformations due to gravity
loads acting on the precast members
will be in the same direction as the
forces that would be produced if the
same loads had been applied after the
structure was made continuous. 3 Thus,
the restraint of creep deformations due
to the weight of the precast panels and
·... .. :. •·;.: •·.·.
CIP topping will produce negative
moments at interior piers.
PCA Method
In the 1960s, the Portland Cement
Association (PCA) conducted experi-
mental and analytical research to de-
termine the long-term effects of creep
and shrinkage at the conti nuous sup-
port of a two-span composite bridge
(see Mattock 3) . This investigation was
later extended by Freyermuth ," who
proposed a procedure for the design of
continuity connections between adja-
cent precast, prestressed girders in
multi-span bridges . As suggested by
both Mattock and Freyerm uth ,3.. the
where
MP = moment caused by prestressing
force about centroid of com-
posite member
Md = midspan moment due to dead
load
e = base of Naperian logarithm
(2.7183)
1/J = creep coefficient = ratio of
creep strain to elastic strain at
time of investigation
Eq. (2) shows that the total restraint
moment at the pier is equal to the sum
of the three components of shrinkage,
dead load creep, and creep due to pre-
stress. In this equation, the shrinkage
moment and the moment caused by
the eccentric prestressing force are
each mu ltiplied by the factor (3/2).
This is the multiplier used to obtain
the moment at the center support of a
two-span continuous beam due to an
applied uniform moment.
The moment due to dead load, on
the other hand, only has a multiplier of
1. This is because the moment at the
center support of a two-span beam
with uniform loading in both spans is
equal to the midspan moment of a uni-
formly loaded simply supported beam
of eq ual span length. The restraint
components due to dead load and pre-
stressing are then mu ltiplied by the
factor (1 - e·~), which is equal to zero

56 PCI JOURNAL
when rp is zero and increases with in-
creasi ng values of ¢. The component
due to differential shrinkage is multi-
plied by the factor (1 - e·¢)11/>, which
approaches unity as rp approaches zero
and decreases with increasing values
of 1/> (see Fig. 5).
Mattock 3 concluded that the defor-
mati ons due to creep and differential
shrinkage did not influence the ulti -
mate load-carrying capacity of the
continuous girders considered in the
study, and that the influence of creep
and shrinkage is restricted to deforma-
tions and the possibility of cracking at
the service load level.
CTL M ethod
In the 1980s, another method for the
analysis of precast, prestressed beams
made continuous was developed by
Oesterle, Glikin and Larson 5 at Con-
struction Technology Laboratories,
Inc. (CTL). This method takes into ac-
count the stiffness and length of con-
nection at the continuous supports .
Al so, the equation used to calculate
moments due to shrinkage accounts
for restraining action by the precast
members and by the steel reinforce-
ment in the CIP slab. The computer
program BRlDGERM was developed
at CTL to calculate time-dependent re-
straint moments for multi-span bridges
using precast, prestressed members.
The analysis in BRIDGERM is con-
ducted by superimposing incremental
restraint moments over a series of time
intervals. For each time step, the three
components of the restraint moment
(differential shrinkage, creep due to
dead load, and creep due to prestress)
are calculated using the rate of creep
method. The rate of creep method as-
sumes that the rate of creep dEcldt is
known and that the creep after time T
is given by:
T dE
Creep=J-
c dt (3)
0 dt
The calculated increment of re-
straint moment is then added to the
sum at the preceding time step to de-
termine the restraint moment at the
end of an interv al. Different time-
dependent functions for creep and
shrinkage of both the prestressed con-
crete members and the CIP slab were
used.
January-February 1998
1.0
0.9 1\ _,..-- 1----
\ / ~
en
....
0
0 0.8
ro
\ v/ (~e-+)
LL
c. 0.7 '\
Q)
~ 0.6
- 0.5
(.)
c I ""-
Q)
E I (1-e-+)/<1>
0
-
0.4
""' t--....
I ~
---
I
~
c
·n; 0.3
- 0.2 I
....
en r---_
0.1 I
Q)
0::
1/
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
~ = & creep I & elastic
Fi g. 5. Variations in restraint moment c reep effect factors .
BRIDGERM uses the following culation procedure. The second part of
equation to calculate the incremental this equation is a reduction factor that
moment due to differential shrinkage: accounts for the restraining effect that
the prestressed member has on the
shrinkage of the CIP slab. This reduc-
tion factor was not used in the PCA
method. Restraint moments due to dif-
ferential shrinkage, dead load creep,
and prestress creep are then calculated
(4)
using the PCA approach [Eq.(2)], with
where
appropriate modifications for a time-
dEs; = [E,d;- Esd(i - I )] - [Espi- Esp(i - I)]
step implementation.
Esdi = shrinkage strain in CIP slab at
For the calculation of restraint mo-
time t; (modified for the effect
ments due to prestress-induced creep,
of restraint by the steel rein-
the prestress force is adjusted at each
forcement usin g the formula
time step to account for losses due to
suggested by Di sc hin ge~)
shrinkage, creep, and relaxation. This
ESfJ; = shrinkage strain in prestressed
is done by estimating the prestress loss
member at time t ;
occurring during each time step using
EP = modulus of elasticity of pre-
the procedure recommended by the
stressed member
PCI Committee on Prestress Losses. 7
AP = cross-sectional area of pre-
The stress in the prestressed strand at
stressed member
the end of each time step is then equal
Ed; = modulus of elasticity of CIP
to the stress at the beginning of the
concrete at time t;
time step minus the losses occurring
Ad= cross-sectional area of CIP slab
during that interval.
h = CIP slab thickness
ec = distance between top of precast
member and centroid of com- EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
posite section To evaluate the restraint moments in
The first part of Eq.(4) is similar to bridges constructed with full-span,
that used in the PCA method , with prestres se d concrete panels, two
modification for use in a time-step cal- bridges, each with two spans, were
57
 42'-6"
Hydraulic Hydraulic
Cast-In-Place Actuator ,_ ,
8 3
<t ,_ ,
8 3
Actuator

•(o~~~·:-.· : - · · ~·. o·.P·. ·.P·. i.·n.7=;~.·

..··.·... . ·.··. :.· ."

Precast Panels x 21 '-0" Long

!. ·.. ·. . ·. ·. ·. ·. ·..·. .· .· .· ·..· ·.;-·. ·.:·.·.:__r,·~·
· · .· .· .·.· ··'.· · .··.·.· .· ·.· . .·.· ·.·.·.· ·.· . .·. .·.·. . . . . ...·.·...·..·.·.·.·.·.····... . . . . . . . ,. . ,. ,. . ..!.f. . . . . ......................................................·...............·... ....,. .yzj

(2) Per Span

6" 20'-0" 20'-0" 6"
1'-6"

Note: 1 ft =0.305 m; 1 in. =25.4 mm

Fig. 6. Laboratory test setup.

Table 1. Specimen details. H. Kettelhut Structures Laboratory at

Prestressed Cast-in-place Purdue University and placed on
Prestressed steel Mild steel concrete concrete supports consisting of plates and
reinforcement reinforcement strength at strength at rollers. The supports at the center
Specimen ratio (pp) ratio (p) 28 days (psi) 28 days (psi) pier modeled pin connections, while
Bridge 1 0.0027 0.0036 7440 6150 the supports at discontinuous ends
Bridge 2 0.0014 0.0030 8150 6300 represented roller connections. Form-
work was then built to contain the
Note: 1000 psi = 6.895 MPa.
wet CIP concrete topping. The
epoxy-coated bars in the CIP topping
had a clear cover of at least 2 1/z in.
fabricated and tested in the Karl H. #4 bars (13 mm diameter) at the pier
(64 mm), as specified by AASHT0 9
Kettelhut Structural Laboratory at Pur- with a reinforcement ratio, p, equal to
[2 in. (50 mm) + 112 in. (13 mm)
due University. Each span of a bridge 0.0036. Bridge 2 had six #6 bars
wearing surface].
consisted of two prestressed concrete (19 mm diameter) at the pier with
form panels measuring 21 ft (6.4 m) p = 0.0030.
long, 4ft (1.22 m) wide, and 6 in. (150 Longitudinal bars were also placed Instrumentation
mm) thick, topped with a 6 in. (150 in the CIP topping elsewhere for The discontinuous end reactions of
mm) thick composite CIP slab. Fig. 6 shrinkage and temperature control. each bridge were monitored through-
shows the geometric characteristics of These consisted of #4 bars at 16 in. out the CIP concrete curing period
the test setup. (410 mm) spacings. Fig. 7 shows a and during testing using load cells.
Table 1 shows the differences in re- cross-sectional view of the test bridges. The load cells were used to determine
inforcement of the two test bridges. In addition to the longitudinal steel, the internal moments of the two-span,
The prestressed panels in Bridge 1 transverse mild steel was used in both statically-indeterminate structure.
contained eight 1/z in. special (12.7 the prestressed panels and CIP topping. Load cell readings were monitored
mm) uncoated low-relaxation strands, For shrinkage and temperature control, throughout the cure period of the CIP
while the panels in Bridge 2 contained #4 bars at 18 in. (460 mm) spacings top slab to study the combined effects
four such strands. Each strand had an were used in the prestressed panels. of creep and shrinkage. Load cell
area of 0.167 sq in. (108 mm 2) and a Likewise, #4 epoxy-coated bars at 12 readings were also recorded during
minimum ultimate stress of 270 ksi in. (305 mm) spacings were used in the the service loading phase of the pro-
(1860 MPa). This corresponds to are- CIP slab, as recommended by Buckner ject and during the final loading to
inforcement ratio, pP, of 0.0027 for and Turner. 8 failure.
Bridge 1 and 0.0014 for Bridge 2. Electrical resistance strain gauges
The higher ratio represents an aver- Specimen Fabrication were used to measure strains in the
age value that could be expected in The four panels for each bridge were concrete and steel in both bridge spec-
this type of structure, while the lower cast simultaneously in one prestressing imens. Strain gauges were installed on
ratio is based on a practical minimum bed, separated by wooden header the prestressing strands and on the
number of strands per panel. For both blocks. For both bridges, the prestress longitudinal epoxy-coated reinforcing
bridges, the reinforcement in the CIP force was transferred to the panels in the CIP topping at the center pier.
topping over the pier was approxi- 7 days after the concrete was cast. In addition, concrete surface strains
mately equal to the minimum amount After the panels were allowed to were measured at the center pier using
of 200/fY' Bridge 1 contained sixteen cure, they were shipped to the Karl a Whittemore gauge.
58 PCI JOURNAL
 #4 Bars x 7'-6" Long 16 - #4 Bars x 15'-0" Long (Bridge 1)
Epoxy Coated, Grade 60 6- #6 Bars x 15'-0" Long (Bridge 2)
Epoxy Coated, Grade 60

112"cp..Special 270 ksi Low-Lax Strand (0.167 in2)

(8) Per Panel in Bridge 1
(4) Per Panel In Bridge 2

Note: 1 in.= 25.4 mm , 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa , 1 in2 = 645 mm2

Fig. 7. Cross section of test specimen .

Loading
After the CIP topping had cured,
each bridge was subjected to repeated
loading using two hydraulic actuators
(one per span). The actuators were lo-
cated at a distance of 8 ft 3 in. (2.51
m) from the center of the middle pier
and were centered over the precast
panel joints. This location was close to
the loading point that produced the
maximum negative moment over the
center pier. Load was applied to the
deck through 1/z in . (13 mm) thick
neoprene bearing pads measuring
10 x 13 in. (250 x 330 mm) in area,
simulating a tire footprint, as in the
study by Buckner and Turner. 8 At the
conclusion of the testing, each bridge
was loaded to failure using the same
loading setup.
This paper presents the findings per-
taining to restraint moments occurring
during the cure period and initial load-
ings of each bridge. The strength of
this structural system and behavior
under repeated loadings will be dis-
cussed in a subsequent paper titled
"Behavior and Strength of Bridges
with Full-Span Prestressed Concrete
Form Panels."
DETERMINATION OF
RESTRAINT MOMENTS
The reactions at the discontinuous
ends of each test bridge were moni-
tored throughout the cure period (50
days for Bridge 1 and 44 days for
Bridge 2). For a two-span bridge
with simply supported ends , the re-
straint moment at the center pier is
January-February 1998
equal to the change in end reaction
times the span length [20 ft (6.1 m)
for the test bridges]. End reactions
were monitored on an approximately
daily basis for Bridge 1 and at half
hour intervals for Bridge 2. These
end reactions are also graphed in
Figs. 8 and 9, respectively.
Restraint Moments in Bridge 1
Fig. 8 show s that the end reactions
in Bridge 1 decreased rapidly during
the first few days and then stabi-
lized. This decrease corresponds to a
negative restraint moment at the in-
terior support, indicating that the
differential shrinkage and creep due
to dead load were the dominant
time-dependent effects occurring
during this period . This figure also
shows a sli ght increase in the reac-
tion between Days 1 and 3. This is
attributed to the curing procedure
used.
After the CIP concrete had set
(Day 0), the entire bridge was cov -
ered with visqueen. The visqueen ex-
tended to the floor and allowed the
underside of the panels to be warmed
due to the heat of hydration of the
CIP topping . This did not represent
actual field conditions , however,
where the panel bottoms would be
exposed to the environment. After
one day, the bottom of the visqueen
was adjusted to allow air flow be-
neath the panels, better representing
conditions in the field.
The increase in the end reactions be-
tween Days 1 and 3 is believed to be
due to a thermal bowing effect, where
the panels tend to camber upward due
to the cooling of the underside of the
panel. This bowing, and the corre-
sponding end rotations, is resisted by
the continuity connection at the center
pier, creating a positive restraint mo-
ment and a corresponding increase in
the end reaction.
Fig. 8 shows two other large
changes in end reactions (between
Days 13 and 14 and between Days 18
and 20). These changes correspond to
observed cracking in the CIP concrete
deck. On Day 14 of the cure period, a
transverse crack was observed that ex-
tended completely across the bridge.
The crack was located at the west sup-
port point of the center pier. Load cell
readings indicate the west restraint
moment at Day 13 was 94 kip-ft (127
kN-m). This corresponded to a top
fiber stress of 490 psi (3.4 MPa) based
on gross section properties.
Two flexure beams, made from the
CIP concrete used in Bridge 1, were
tested on Day 14 and had moduli of
rupture of 520 and 600 psi (3 .6 and
4.1 MPa) . A second transverse crack
occurred near the east support point of
the center pier and was noticed after
Day 20 of the cure period. The large
change in the east end reaction shown
in Fig. 8 corresponds to this crack. It
is evident that the observed cracks
were flexural cracks due to the nega-
tive restraint moments at the center
support. The cracking reduced the
stiffness at the center pier and the re-
straint moments decreased. The loca-
tions of the two cracks are shown in
Fig. 10.
59
Restraint Moments in Bridge 2 11, was measured during the cure pe- lieved as the increase in the CIP con-
riod by placing a temperature probe in crete temperature slowed, and the re-
Fig. 9 shows that the observed be- the wet concrete. The concrete tem- sulting temperature differential
havior of Bridge 2 was similar to that perature at the time of placement was decreased.
of Bridge 1. The only exception was about 60° F (15.6° C) and increased to A si milar increase in end reactions
the response during the first day . Fig. 84° F (28.9° C) within 18 hours due to may also have occurred in Bridge 1,
9 shows a rapid increase in the end re- the surrounding air temperature and but wou ld not have been detected
action during the first 10 hours after hydration of the cement. from daily readings. During the cure
casting. The initial increase is believed This temperature was likely to be period of Bridge 2, end reactions were
to be due to a temperature differential larger than the temperature at the bot- recorded every half hour during the
between the CIP topping and the pre- tom of the panels, causing a thermal first week and hourly for the remain-
cast panels. bowing that was resisted by a positive der of the testing. This allowed for the
The temperature of the CIP concrete restraint moment and increased end re- detection of the initial increase . If
in Bridge 2, which is plotted in Fig. actions. This restraint moment was re- readings had been taken only once per
day during the cure period of Bridge
2, as was done for Bridge 1, the initial
increase in end reactions would not
Bridge 1 (Topping Cast on 3/28194) have been observed.
14 .-----------------------------------------, After the initial increase, the end re-
actions decreased until Day 5 and then
13 stabilized. The first crack, which ex-
j-- West End --- East End
tended transversely across the entire
(i) 12
a.
g bridge near the east support point of the
B11 +H~----------------------- ----------· center pier, was observed on Day 6.
13 Another crack was observed at the west
m10
a::
support at the center pier the following
"'C day. Two additional transverse cracks,
.n 9 each located about 1 ft (0.305 m) away
from the first two cracks, were noticed
8
on Day 13. These, and other cracks oc-
7 +---+---+---1---+---1---4---~--,_--~~
curring during the cure period of
Bridge 2, are shown in Fig. 12.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time Since Topping Was Cast (days) The negative restraint moment at the
west support point of the center pier,
prior to cracking on Day 5, was 73 kip-
Fi g. 8. End reactions during CIP concrete cure period of Bridge 1. ft (99 kN-m) . Thi s corresponded to a
Note: 1 kip= 4.448 kN.
top fiber stress of 380 psi (2.6 MPa)
based on gross section properties. Two
flexure beams , made from the CIP
concrete used in Bridge 2, were tested
Bridge 2 (Topping Cast on 12111/95) on Day 6 and had moduli of rupture of
14 .---------------------------------------. 510 and 570 psi (3.5 and 3.9 MPa).
These numbers suggest that the cracks
13 were primarily due to flexure.
j- West End -East End
Comparison of
Experimental Restraint Moments
with Predicted Results
Restraint moments for each bridge
were calculated using both the PCA
method and the CTL method (with the
8 ---·--------·----· program BRIDGERM) .. These meth-
ods are dependent on the ultimate
7 +---~---+--~----+---~---r--~----~~ shrinkage and creep coefficients of the
0 10 20 30 40 concrete and on the relationship of
Time Since Topping Was Cast (days)
shrinkage and creep with time. The
time-dependent relationships of
Fig. 9. End reactions during CIP concrete cure period of Bridge 2. shrinkage and creep have been studied
Note: 1 kip= 4.448 kN . by many researchers, and various

60 PCI JOURNAL
models of these relationships, with
ll
varying degrees of complexity, have PIER
I
been proposed. The studies have re- '
vealed the difficulty in accurately pre-
dicting these relationships, as there is N
considerable scatter in the data per-
taining to identical concrete mixtures. b
For this reason, it was believed that a I

simple model of these relationships

would suffice.
io
1
One of the simplest expressions was
presented by Corley and Sozen 10 and
assumes the time-dependent relation-
KEY
ships for creep and shrinkage are the - CRACKS DURING CURE PERIOD
same. For periods of less than 2 years, - CRACKS DURING INITIAL LOADING 1 '- 6"
the proportion "R" of the total time-
dependent effect occurring at time t (in Fig . 10. Cracks occurring during cure period and initial loading of Bridge 1 (plan
days) is obtained from the expression: view). Note: 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 in.= 25.4 mm.

R=0.131n(t+l) (5)

This model was used in the follow- Bridge 2 (Topping Cast on 12/11/95)
ing calculations for the relationships 85
of shrinkage and creep with time.
Shrinkage strains for the CIP con- Li:' 80
Ul
crete used in Bridge 2 were measured Q)

using a Whittemore gauge. These ~

measurements were made on three ~75
~
small beams cast at the time of the ~
CIP topping. A curve was fit through .a!! 70
Q)
the mean values for these beams using Q.
the above expression and a strong cor- ~ 65
1-
relation was found (see Fig. 13). This
relationship assumes a shrinkage
60
strain at 2 years of 0.00082 and was
0 10 20 30 40
used in the PCA method of analysis. Time Since Topping Was Cast (days)
The ultimate shrinkage strai n of the
precast concrete was assumed to be Fig. 11. CIP concrete temperature during cure period (Bridge 2).
0.00060. Note: oc = (°F- 32) x 5/9.
Program BRIDGERM uses time-
dependent relationships for shrinkage
and creep as recommended by ACI ll
PIER
Committee 209." In this BRIDGERM
program, an ultimate shrinkage strain
of 0.00090 was used for the CIP con-
crete in both bridges. In both analyses,
the ultimate creep coefficients for
Bridge 1 and Bridge 2 were assumed b
I
to be 2.1 and 2.3, respectively. These io
values were estimated from relation-
ships recommended by ACI Commit-
tee 209 based on average temperature
and relative humidity values recorded
during the cure period of each bridge.
Values of the prestress force at the KEY
time of continuity connection were es- - CRACKS DURING CURE PERIOD 1'-6"
timated using the PCI Committee Re- - CRACKS DURING INITIAL LOADING

port on Prestress Losses .7 The esti-

mated strand stresses were 177 ksi Fig. 12. Cracks occurr ing during cure period and init ial load ing of Bridge 2 (plan
(1220 MPa) for Bridge 1 and 181 ksi view). Note: 1 ft = 0.3 05 m; 1 in . = 25.4 mm.

January-February 1998 61
 Ed = modulus of elasticity of CIP
0.0000 deck
Ad =area of CIP deck
-0.0001 Using the P-method, the restraint
- - Average of 3 Beams
c: -0.0002
moment at the center pier of a two-
-~
-Shrinkage= 125 x ln(t+1) x 10~
span, symmetric bridge is calculated
U5 -0.0003 as:
'0
~
:I -0.0004
VI
nl
Q)
~ -0.0005
M, = [-iaMP-a(Md)precast ] X

-0.0006 [.1(1-e-¢1 )]-a(Md)CIP X

-0.0007
0 50 100 150 (l- e-<n )-%aMsC-; - <h J 2
Time (days)
(6)
Fig . 13. Curve fit through shrinkage beam data from CIP concrete used in Bridge 2. where
2/d

(1250 MPa) for Bridge 2 just prior to
casting the CIP slab. The strand
stresses correspond to prestress losses
of 13 and 11 percent, respectively .
Stresses increased due to the weight of
the CIP concrete and were estimated
at 179 and 183 ksi (1230 and 1260
MPa), respectively, immediately after
the topping was cast. These values
were used in the calculation of re-
straint moments due to prestress-
induced creep.
Figs. 14 and 15 plot the observed re-
straint moments with those predicted
by the PCA and CTL methods for
Bridge 1 and Bridge 2, respectively.
The figures show that both methods
considerably overestimate the negative
restraint moment. For each bridge, the
PCA estimated moment is higher than
the CTL moment. This is because the
PCA method calculates the shrinkage
moment based on differential "unre-
strained" shrinkage values , while the
CTL method considers the restraining
effects of the precast members and the
steel in the CIP topping. Neither
method, however, considers the effect
of cracking in the calculation of re-
straint moments.
These methods were developed
from studies of continuous bridges
using prestressed girders in which the
CIP slab thickness is only a small frac-
tion of the composite depth . For
bridges using full-span , longitudinal
precast panels, however, the s lab
thickness can be a significant percent-
age of the composite depth (50 percent
for the two bridges tested). Therefore,
62
cracking that occurs in the CIP slab at
the piers of these bridges greatly re-
duces the stiffness of the section and
the corresponding restraint moments.
Oesterle et aU recommend that the de-
sign negative restraint moment be lim-
ited to 125 percent of the calculated
cracking moment in the case where
BRIDGERM-calculated negative re-
straint moments become excessive.
P-Method
The authors propose a modified
restraint-moment calculation method
that accounts for the length and stiff-
ness (which may decrease due to
cracking) of the diaphragm, the differ-
ent initiation times for creep, and the
restraint of CIP concrete shrinkage.
This method, which was developed by
Peterman and will be referred to as the
P-method, estimates the differential
shrinkage moment using Eq. (1) multi-
plied by the following factors to ac-
count for restraint by the precast mem-
ber and reinforcement in the CIP slab:
where
EP = modulus of elasticity of precast
panels
AP = area of precast panels
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel re-
inforcement in CIP deck
A 5 = area of steel reinforcement in
CIP deck
a= Ld
2/d 3/m
- +- -
Ld Lm
Id = moment of inertia of di-
aphragm region (area
between support points
at center pier)
Ld = length of diaphragm re-
gion
Im = moment of inertia of
main spans
Lm =length of main spans
MP = moment caused by pre-
stressing force about
centroid of composite
member
M s = differential shrinkage
moment, adj usted for re-
straint of precast panels
and steel reinforcement
(Md)precast = midspan moment due to
dead load of precast
panels
(Md)cfp = midspan moment due to
dead load of CIP top-
ping
I/J 1 = creep coefficient for
creep effects initiating
when prestress force is
transferred to precast
panels
ljJ 2 = creep coefficient for
creep effects initiating
when CIP topping is cast
L1(1 - e·ll1) = c hange in expres sion
( 1 - e·\11) occurring from
time CIP topping is cast
to time corresponding to
restraint moment calcu-
lation
PCI JOURNAL
 Eq. (6) is the closed-form solution
for the restraint moment at the center
pier of a two-span symmetric bridge.
The parameter a is a coefficient that
accounts for the relative stiffnesses of
the diaphragm region and main spans.
The PCA method , which assumes a
knife-edged support at the center pier
and a constant member stiffness, has
an inherent value of a equal to one.
For a two-span bridge with 20 ft (6.1
m) spans, a distance between center
bearing points of 1.5 ft (0.46 m), and a
constant Ef (see Fig. 6), the value of a
is 0.90. This is the value used for the
analysis of the two test bridges prior to
cracking.
The coefficient a appears in each
term of Eq. (6) and could be factored
out to produce a simpler expression.
However, the authors prefer to write
the equation in this manner because
the multiplier of each term will not be
constant for unsymmetric two-span
bridges or bridges with more than two
spans. Appendix B contains example
calculations using the P-method for
both a two- and three-span bridge.
Creep due to the weight of the pre-
cast panels and the eccentric prestress
force begins when the prestress force is
transferred to the panels. Terms in Eq.
(6) related to these parameters utilize
the creep coefficient 1/> 1• Creep due to
the weight of the CIP topping and dif-
ferential shrinkage initiates when the
structure is made continuous. Terms in
Eq. (6) related to these parameters uti-
lize the creep coefficient ¢>2.
The effect of cracking is modeled
by checking the restraint moment ob-
tained using Eq . (6) with the calcu-
lated cracking moment at that section
for each time of interest. If the calcu-
lated restraint moment exceeds the
cracking moment, the restraint mo -
ments are recalculated using a new
value for a that accounts for the re-
duced stiffness at the cracked section
(diaphragm region). Once cracking oc-
curs, all subsequent calculations are
based on the new value of a.
The value of a used after cracking
was based on a two-span bridge with a
stiffness ft r within the main spans and
f er-top between the center supports Utr
is the moment of inertia of the gross
transformal section; f er-top is the mo-
ment of inertia based on a crack depth
January-February 1998
Bridge 1 (Topping Cast on 3/28/94)
0 ~~------------------------------------·
-50
,......-100
4f
.&-150
~
"E -200
Q)
E -250
0
:a -300
-350
~00 +---r---~_,---+---r--~--~--+---r-~
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time Since Topping Was Cast (days)
----- East Span (Test) --- West Span (Test) __._ PCA Method
- CTL Method - P-Method
Fig. 14. Experimenta lly determined restra int moments and values ca lcu lated using
PCA, CTL and P-methods (Bridge 1 ). Note: 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m.
Bridge 2 (Topping Cast on 12/11/95)
0 ~-----------------------------------,
,. . . -;~~ ts~~::~~~~~==~~~::~-~-=-~::::
4f
.&-150
__
::::.
"E -200
Q)
E
0
-250
:?! -300
-350
~00 +---~--~--~--~---+---+---+---1--~
0 10 20 30 40
Time Since Topping Was Cast (days)
----- East Span (Test) --- West Span (Test) --- PCA Method
- CTL Method - P-Method
Fig. 15 . Experimental ly determined restraint moments and va lues ca lcu lated using
PCA, CTL and P-methods (Bridge 2) . Note : 1 kip-ft = 1 .356 kN -m.
equal to the thickness of the CIP top- root of the CIP concrete compressive
ping). The section between the center strength lfc') for Bridge 1 and Bridge
supports was assumed to be cracked to 2, respectively.
a depth equal to the topping thickness Figs. 14 and 15 plot the observed re-
because most cracking that occurred straint moments with those predicted
during the CIP concrete cure period using the P-method for Bridge 1 and
extended through the full depth of the Bridge 2, respectively. Fig. 14 shows a
CIP slab and then stopped. good correlation between estimated
For Bridge 1, f er-top was equal to and observed restraint moments for
0.15ftr and the corresponding value of Bridge 1, in both magnitude and antic-
a was 0.57. For Bridge 2, f er-top was ipated time of cracking. The P-method
equal to 0.19ftr and a was 0.63 . The predicted initial cracki ng on Day 16,
moduli of rupture used in the calcula- while actual cracking was observed on
tions were 7.5 and 6 times the square Day 14.
63
 additional cracks, which opened
throughout the cure period, continued

1o" 1 o" 10"

"'-
1'-
to decrease the stiffness of the nega-
tive moment region and may explain
- ~,: ~
~
"
1 1 . 1. .. .... 1.
N

.
why restraint moments in Bridge 2
--',---
. . were nearly constant after initial
to
--',---
l ;
.;._.a . .
.....- · ··, 13 ' • • ·II
•· EV • •
~
. Ill ·
i:J' i:i .. cracking .
Throughout the cure period of
: ~ Ill
·• Ill Ill
Bridge 2, mean strains at the pier were
to
--',---
Ill Ill .
. 4.
Ill
measured using a Whittemore gauge
~ )==;
:"'¢ with a gauge length of 10 in . (250
.....___
6" mm). These measurements were taken
6" 6" n
on both vertical sides of the bridge.
Fig . 16 shows the locations where
readings were taken . The points were
secured to the face of the bridge im-
Fig. 16. Location of Whittemore points at center pier (Bridge 2) . mediately after the moist curing ended
Note: 1 in.= 25.4 mm. (after 96 hours). The points were lo-
cated on the top surface, at the level of
the #6 bars in the CIP topping, 1 in.
(25 mm) above and below the inter-
Bridge 2 North Side (30" Gauge Length) face, and at the level of the prestressed
steel.
Top Surface
The three 10 in . (250 mm) gauge
readings at each depth were then aver-
Mild Steel __j_______ - aged to determine the mean strains oc-

l" Above Interface

I
- :! ---------·+--------- ---
curring over a 30 in. (760 mrn) gauge
length at that level. These strains were
! plotted about the depth of the bridge to
l " Below Interface I
------·-r-----------·r------····
I
.. give the mean strain distributions act-
I '
lI ing at the pier at various times. The
I I
strain distributions on the north side of
Prestressed Steel ~--~~'--'1- -1----_j_.___ _j_ ___ __
I[ I! Bridge 2 are shown in Fig. 17. In this
figure , the actual mean strains have
been represented by straight lines de-
-Q.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 termined from linear regression analy-
Strain
ses. These strain distributions clearly
/--- 6 Days --- 10 Days _._ 20 Days -- 44 Days show that curvatures at the pier con-
tinued to increase throughout the en-
tire cure period, even though a corre-
Fig. 17. Mean strain distributions during CIP concrete cure period of Bridge 2 sponding increase in the restraint
(north face).
moments did not occur.

Fig. 15 demonstrates a strong corre- CIP concrete shrinkage beams showed Initial Loadings of Bridge 1
lation, up to the point of cracking, be- that the top concrete continued to Bridge 1 was initially loaded to 20
tween the actual test data for Bridge 2 shrink at an approximately steady rate kips (89 kN) per span on May 17,
and the response calculated using the until about Day 20 of the cure period 1994, after 50 days of curing. This ser-
P-method. The P-method predicted a (see Fig. 13). vice load was equal to a 16 kip (71
considerable decrease in negative mo- A distinctive characteristic of kN) wheel load with an impact factor
ment due to cracking and predicted Bridge 2 is the number of cracks that of 1.25. Measurements of applied load
that negative moments would increase occurred during the cure period. This and end reactions were recorded at
with time after the initial reduction is best seen by comparing the cracking l kip (4.448 kN) increments during
due to cracking. However, neither of of Bridge 2 with that of Bridge 1 (see the loading and unloading stages.
these behaviors was observed for Figs. 10 and 12). Bridge 1 had essen- Two large transverse cracks in the
Bridge 2. tially two transverse cracks occur dur- CIP topping, in addition to those ob-
Instead, negative moment increased ing the CIP concrete cure period , served during the cure period, oc-
steadily until cracking then remained while Bridge 2 had about eight trans- curred during this first loading. The
essentially constant during the rest of verse cracks occur during approxi- first crack occurred at a load of 13
the cure period. The corresponding mately the same time interval. These kips (58 kN) and was located on the
64 PCI JOURNAL
 south side of the deck, just west of the
center pier. The second crack, occur-
ring at about 19.9 kips (88.5 kN), was
located at the diaphragm and extended
across the entire width of the bridge.
These two cracks are shown in Fig.
10, along with the cracks that occurred
previously during the cure period.
The continuity moments (restraint
moments at the center pier) were de-
termined by statics from the values of
the discontinuous end reactions and
the applied load in each span. The val-
ues of the continuity moments during
the initial loading of Bridge 1 are
shown in Fig. 18. The initial moments
were -87 and -82 kip-ft (-118 and -111
kN-m) at the east and west sides of the
center pier, respectively. Fig . 18
shows that the magnitude of the conti-
nuity moments increased with increas-
ing load until cracking.
As a result of cracking at 13 kips
(58 kN), the continuity moments went
from -118 to -113 kip-ft (-160 to -153
kN-m) on the east side of the pier and
from -112 to -104 kip-ft (-152 to -141
kN-m) on the west side of the pier.
These moments again increased with
increasing load until cracking at 19.9
kips (88.5 kN). This cracking reduced
the moment magnitudes from -122 and
-113 kip-ft (-165 and -153 kN-m) on
the east and west sides of the pier at
19 kips (85 kN) of applied load to -90
and -94 kip-ft (-122 and -127 kN-m)
on the east and west sides of the pier
at 20 kips (89 kN) of applied load.
After unloading, the restraint moments
were -43 kip-ft (-58 kN-m) on both
sides of the pier. Thus, the initial load-
ing (and resulting cracking) of the
bridge reduced the moments due to the
restraint of time-dependent deforma-
tions by roughly 50 percent.
Fig. 19 shows the change in conti-
nuity moments during the initial
loading for Bridge 1 compared with
the val ues predicted by the models
used in the PCA method , the CTL
method, and the P-method. The PCA
method assumes a knife-edged sup-
port at interior piers and a constant
member stiffness . The CTL method
also assumes a constant member
stiffness, but accounts for the length
of the diaphragm.
The P-method accounts for both the
length of the diaphragm and the re-
January-February 1998
Bridge 1 - Initial Loading
20
~ 15
~
'C
as
.3 10
~
a.
a.
c:( 5
0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140
Moment (kip-ft)
1---- Moment at Pier (West) __..._ Moment at Pier (East)
Fig. 18. Continuity moments during the initial load ing of Bridge 1.
Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 kip-ft = 1 .3 56 kN-m .
Bridge 1 - Initial Loading
- ------, -·------
" ""
" ""
~15 ""
g
"0
Ill
3 10
"0
.~ - - Moment at Pier (West)
c..
Q. --- Moment at Pier (East)
<( 5 - - PCA Method
-- - CTL Method
--- · P-Method(lcr)
0~~~~-r+-r+~~~~~~~~
0 -20 -40 -60 -80
Moment (kip-ft)
Fig . 19 . Change in continuity moments d uring initial loading of Bridge 1.
Note: 1 kip= 4.448 kN ; 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m.
duced stiffness of the diaphragm due are well below the moments predicted
to cracking. These three models are il- by all three methods. This is because
lustrated in Fig. 20. For superimposed the additional cracking releases part of
loading, the CTL method is identical the restraint moment that was previ-
to the P-method with a diaphragm ously carried by the concrete in ten-
stiffness equal to that of the main sion . The result is an apparent di-
spans. aphragm stiffness that is less than f er·
Fig. 19 shows that the increase in Fig. 21 shows the changes in conti-
continuity moments during the first nuity moment during the second load-
loading, and before cracking, falls be- ing of Bridge 1. The figure shows that
tween the values predicted by the CTL these continuity moments can be pre-
method, having a constant member dicted using the P-method with a di-
stiffness, and the P-method with the aphragm stiffness between f e r and
moment of inertia of the diaphragm f er-top, where f er-top is the moment of
equal to the cracked transformed mo- inertia of the section calculated assum-
ment of inertia Ucr). After cracking, ing a crack depth equal to the depth of
however, the actual restraint moments the CIP topping. This is because there
65
 PCA Method

CTL Method

P-Method

Fig. 20. Models used to calculate moments due to superimposed loading.

The continuity moments during the

Bridge 1 - Second Loading initial loading of Bridge 2, which were
determined in a similar manner as for
20
Bridge 1, are shown in Fig. 22. The
initial moments were -61 kip-ft (-83
~ 15 kN-m) at the west side of the pier and
g -64 kip-ft (-87 kN-m) on the east side
,co of the pier. These moments increased
.3 10 in magnitude with applied load until
~ ---- Moment at Pier (West) additional cracking at 8 kips (36 kN).
c.
a.
_____.._ Moment at Pier {East) Prior to this cracking, the continuity
<( 5 - - PCA Method
moments were 74 and 75 kip-ft (100
--- CTL Method
---- P-Method {ler) and 102 kN-m) at the east and west
- --- P-Method (ler-top) sides of the center pier, respectively.
o~~-r~~r+-r~~=+~~~~~~ These moments decreased to 67 and
0 -20 -40 -60 -80 66 kip-ft (91 and 89 kN-m) because of
Moment {kip-ft) the cracking. The moment magnitudes
then became larger as the load was in-
Fig. 21. Changes in continuity moments during second loading of Bridge 1. creased to 20 kips (89 kN).
Note: 1 kip= 4.448 kN ; 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m . During this additional loading, the
rate of moment increase on the west
side of the pier was greater than for
were no additional cracks that opened kN) increments during the loading and the moment on the east side, as the
since the first loading. All subsequent unloading processes. Only one new newly formed crack was at the east
loadings prior to the final loading to crack was observed during this initial side of the diaphragm. At 20 kips (89
failure produced similar continuity loading. This crack, which occurred at kN), the moments at the east and west
moments. a load of 8 kips (36 kN), was located sides of the pier were -89 and -83
at the east side of the diaphragm re- kip-ft (-121 and -113 kN-m), respec-
Initial Loadings of Bridge 2 gion on the south side of the deck. The tively . After unloading, the restraint
depths of this new crack and one exist- moments were -44 kip-ft (-60 kN-m)
Bridge 2 was initially loaded to 20 ing crack at the pier increased to about on both sides of the pier. This was es-
kips (89 kN) per span on January 24, 9 in. (230 mrn) as the load increased to sentially the same value as the mo-
1996, after 44 days of curing. Mea- 20 kips (89 kN). The cracking corre- ments in Bridge 1 after the initial load-
surements of applied load and end re- sponding to this initial loading is ing to 20 kips (89 kN) (see Fig. 18).
actions were recorded at 1 kip (4.448 shown in Fig 12. Thus, while Bridge 1 had initial re-
66 PCI JOURNAL
 straint moments that were about 30 Bridge 2 - Initial Loading
percent higher than those for Bridge 2,
20
the superimposed loading served to
"equabze" the two structures in terms
of remaining continuity moments at "[ 15 -1--- - - - -
service load. ~
"C
Fig. 23 shows the change in conti- Ill

nuity moments during the initial load- .3

"C
10
ing of Bridge 2, along with the values .!!!
c.
c.
predicted using the PCA, CTL, and
<{ 5
P-methods. As with Bridge 1, all three
methods overestimate the increase in
moments because the restraint mo-
ments are released by additional 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140
cracking. Initially, the change in conti- Moment (kip-ft)
nuity moments falls between the val-
ues predicted by the CTL method and
/-+- Moment at Pier (West) -- Moment at Pier (East) I
the P-method (assuming a fully Fig. 22. Continuity moments during the initial load ing of Bridge 2.
cracked diaphragm region). At about 4 Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 kip-ft = 1 .356 kN-m.
kips (18 kN) of applied load there is a
decrease in the continuity moments
(towards the values predicted by the Bridge 2 - Initial Loading
P-method).
Because there were no observed 20
cracks with this loading,. this was be-
lieved to be caused by an increase in
the depth of existing cracks. Between
4 and 8 kips (18 and 36 kN), the ob- "0
cu
served increase in continuity moments ..9 10
is represented by the line correspond-
~ - Moment at Pier (West)
ing to the P-method. The cracking at c.
a. - Moment at Pier (East)
8 kips (36 kN) of applied load further <( 5 -PCAMethod
reduces the continuity moments, with --- CTL Method
the largest change occurring at the east - ·- · P-Method (lcr)
side of the pier (the side closest to the 0 ~~~~~+-~~~~+=~~~~
crack). 0 -20 -40 -60 -80
The change in continuity moments Moment (kip-ft)
during the second loading of Bridge 2 Fig. 23. Change in continuity moments during the in itial loading of Bridge 2.
is shown in Fig. 24. During this load- Note: 1 kip= 4.448 kN; 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m .
ing, and all other loadings prior to fail-
ure, the change in continuity moments
is basically linear with applied load. Bridge 2 - Second Loading
The increase in moments at the west
side of the pier is best represented by 20
the P-method, with a diaphragm stiff-
ness based on a crack depth equal to
the CIP topping thickness. The in-
crease in moments at the east side of
the pier due to applied load, however,
can be better represented by the - Moment at Pier (West)
P-method assuming a fully cracked - Moment at Pier (East)
diaphragm. - PCAMethod
-- - CTL Method
- ·- · P-Method (lcr)
CONCLUSIONS - · · - P-Method (lcr-~o )
o~~-+~~~-+-r~~~~~~~-.~
Based on the test results reported in
0 -20 -40 -60 -80
this paper, the following conclusions
Moment (kip-ft)
can be drawn:
1. Both the PCA and CTL methods Fig. 24. Change in continuity moments during the second loading of Bridge 2.
considerably overestimated the nega- Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 kip-ft = 1 .356 kN-m.

January-February 1998 67
tive moments due to the restraint of
time-dependent deformations in
bridges with full-span prestressed
concrete panels. The two-bridge av-
erage ratio of calculated to experi-
mentally determined restraint mo-
ments at the end of the CIP concrete
cure period was 4. 76 for the PCA
method and 2.39 for the CTL
method. The P-method presented in
this paper was more accurate in esti-
mating these restraint moments. This
average ratio of calculated to experi-
mental restraint moments using this
method was 1.39.
2. The restraint moments in each
test bridge decreased during the initial
loading due to additional cracking at
the diaphragm. There was a 49 percent
decrease in the restraint moments of
Bridge 1 and a 30 percent decrease in
the restraint moments of Bridge 2 dur-
ing their corresponding first loadings.
The restraint moments remaining after
the initial loading were approximately
equal to 32 and 38 percent of the cal-
culated cracking moments at the cen-
ter pier for Bridges 1 and 2, respec-
tively, based on a modulus of rupture
equal to 7.5fj;.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are
made concerning the design for restraint
moments in multi-span bridges using
full-span precast concrete form panels:
1. The calculation of restraint mo-
ments at interior piers due to time-
dependent effects should include pro-
visions for possible cracking of the
CIP concrete and the restraint of CIP
concrete shrinkage due to the precast
panels and steel reinforcement. This
can be done using the P-method pro-
posed in this paper.
2. The design moments at service
load should include the calculated mo-
ments due to the restraint of time-
dependent effects. However, because
superimposed loading will likely
cause a decrease in negative restraint
moments due to cracking, the reduc-
tion of positive midspan moments due
to negative restraint moments should
be based on a decreased value of the
calculated restraint moment. Based on
the two bridges tested in this study,
the value of the negative restraint mo-
ments used to decrease positive mo-
ments should not exceed about 30 per-
cent of the calculated cracking
moment at the pier.
3. Design service load moments due
to superimposed loading should be
calculated using cracked section prop-
erties at the diaphragm if calculation
of restraint moments indicates crack-
ing is likely.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to express their appreciation to the Indiana
Department of Transportation (INDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHW A) for providing funding for this project.
Specifically, Hasmukh Patel, Tom Seeman and Tony Zander from
INDOT and Larry O'Donnell from FHWA served as key
resources within these organizations.

1. Hays, C., Cox, R., and Obranic, G.,
"Full Span Form Panels for Short
Span Highway Bridges (Final Report
U 17F)," Department of Civil Engi-
neering, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL, 1980.
2. Peterman, R. , and Ramirez, J., "Test-
ing of Multi-Span Bridges with Full-
Span Precast Prestressed Concrete
Panels (Phase !-Final Report FHW A!
IN/JHRP-96-17)," Purdue University
for INDOT and FHWA (Project HPR-
2097), West Lafayette, IN, May 1997.
3. Mattock, A., "Precast-Prestressed Con-
crete Bridges 5: Creep and Shrinkage
Studies ," Journal of the PCA
Research, Portland Cement Associa-
tion, Skokie, IL, May 1961, pp. 32-66.
4. Freyermuth, C., "Design of Continu-
ous Highway Bridges with Precast,
Prestressed Concrete Girders ," PCI
JOURNAL, V. 14, No.2, April 1969,
pp. 14-39.
REFERENCES
5. Oesterle, R., Glikin, J., and Larson, S.,
"Design of Simple-Span Precast Pre-
stressed Bridge Girders Made Contin-
uous (Final Report)," Construction
Technology Laboratories, Inc. for Na-
tional Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research
Board (NCHRP Project 12-29),
Skokie, IL, May 1989.
6. Dischinger, F., "Investigations on Re-
sistance to Buckling, Elastic Deforma-
tion and Creep of Concrete in Arch
Bridges (Untersuchungen Uber die
Knicksicherheit, die Elastiche Verfor-
mung und das Kriechen des Betons
bei Bogenbruecken)," Der Bauinge-
nieur, V. 18, No. 39/40, October 1937,
pp. 595-621, and V. 20, No. 47/48,
December 1939, Berlin, Germany.
7. PCI Committee on Prestress Losses,
"Recommendations for Estimating Pre-
stress Losses," PCI JOURNAL, V. 20,
No.4, July-August 1975, pp. 43-75.
8. Buckner C., and Turner, H., "Perfor-
mance Tests of Full Span Panel Form
Bridges (Final Report 80-l c)," Re-
search and Development Section,
Louisiana Department of Transporta-
tion and Development, Baton Rouge,
LA, 1981.
9. AASHTO, LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, Customary U.S. Units
First Edition, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of-
ficials (NCHRP Project 12-29), Wash-
ington, D.C., May 1989.
10. Corley, W., and Sozen, M., "Time De-
pendent Deflections of Reinforced
Concrete Beams," ACI Journal, V. 63,
No. 3, March 1966, pp. 373-386.
11. ACI Committee 209, "Prediction of
Creep , Shrinkage, and Temperature
Effects in Concrete Structures," Spe-
cial Publication SP-76, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 1982, pp. 193-300.

68 PCI JOURNAL
 APPENDIX A- NOTATION
Ad = area of CIP slab
AP = cross-sectional area of precast panels
As = area of steel reinforcement in CIP deck
e = base of Naperian logarithm (2.7183)
ec = distance between top of precast member and
centroid of composite section
Ed = modulus of elasticity of CIP concrete deck
EP = modulus of elasticity of prestressed member
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement in
CIP deck
t: = specified compressive strength of concrete
h = CIP slab thickness
Icr = moment of inertia of cracked, transformed
section
Id = moment of inertia of diaphragm region (area
between support points at center pier)
I m = moment of inertia of main spans
I 1, = moment of inertia of gross, transformed section
Ld = length of diaphragm region
Lm = length of main spans
(Md)ciP = midspan moment due to dead load of CIP topping
APPENDIX B - DESIGN EXAMPLES
The proposed design method is illustrated using two numer-
ical design examples. The first example is for a two-span con-
tinuous bridge constructed with full-span precast, prestressed
form panels while the second example is for a three-span con-
tinuous bridge constructed with the same type of panels.
EXAMPLE 1
A two-span continuous bridge is constructed with 12 in.
(305 mm) deep full-span precast, prestressed concrete form
panels (see Figs. Bl, B2, and B3). The 12 in. (305 mm)
panel thickness was chosen in order to eliminate the need
for shoring during construction.
Determine the moment at the interior pier due to the re-
straint of time-dependent deformations 28 days after conti-
nuity is established.
The structure is made continuous by casting a 6 in. (152
mm) concrete topping and diaphragm. Assume the bridge is
located near Denver, Colorado (average relative humidity""
55 percent), and that the cast-in-place (CIP) topping is cast
when the precast panels are 90 days old. Assume the bridge
is free to rotate at the ends after the topping is cast.
Other Design Assumptions
Precast Panels:
• Assume normal weight concrete,fc'= 6000 psi (41.4 MPa).
• Use eight 1h in. (12.7 mm) special 270 ksi (1862 MPa)
low-relaxation strands per panel.
• Strands are located 10 in. (254 mm) from top of precast
panels.
• Panels are 25ft 6 in. (7.77 m) long, supported 3 in. (76.2
mrn) from each end (see Fig. B3).
• Strands are initially pulled to 0.75/pu-
January-February 1998
(Md)precast = midspan moment due to dead load of precast
panels
MP = moment caused by prestressing force about
centroid of composite member
M, = differential shrinkage moment, adjusted for re-
straint of precast panels and steel reinforcement
e_, =differential shrinkage strain (assumed uniform
over thickness of slab)
Esh = shrinkage strain
(Esh)u =ultimate shrinkage strain
1/J = creep coefficient = ratio of creep strain to elas-
tic strain at time of investigation
1/Ju = ultimate creep coefficient
I/J 1 = creep coefficient for creep effects initiating
when prestress force is transferred to precast
panels
I/J2 = creep coefficient for creep effects initiating
when CIP topping is cast
L1(1 - e· ~I) =change in expression (1 - e·~ l) occurring from
time CIP topping is cast to time corresponding
to restraint moment calculation
CIP Topping: Normal weight concrete, t:
= 4000 psi
(27.6 MPa).
Creep and shrinkage are assumed to vary according to the
expression proposed by Corley and So zen.10
Using the approach outlined in Ref. 7, the stress in the
strand 28 days after the CIP topping is cast is estimated as
180.6 ksi (1245 MPa). This accounts for all losses as well as
the increase in stress due to the weight of the CIP
topping.
From Ref. 11, the following parameters are estimated:
- Ultimate creep coefficient = 1/Ju = 2.1
- Ultimate shrinkage strain in the precast concrete:
(Esh)u = 0.00056
- Ultimate shrinkage strain in the CIP concrete:
(t:,h)u = 0.00069
The restraint moment per panel will be calculated [mo-
ment per 48 in. (1219 mm) wide strip].
The composite section properties are found by transform-
ing the 6000 psi (41.4 MPa) precast concrete into equivalent
4000 psi (27.6 MPa) concrete (see Fig. B4).
Composite Section Properties:
Y1 = 9.39 in. (239 mm)
Yb = 8.61 in. (219 mm)
I= 25,900 in. 4 (1.08 x 10 10 mm4)
S1 = 2758 in. 3 (4.52 X 107 mm 3)
Sb = 3008 in.3 (4.93 X 107 mm 3)
Calculate the moment due to eccentric prestressing:
The prestress force per panel (28 days after topping is cast)
= 180.6 X 8 X 0.167 = 241.3 kips (1073 kN)
MP = 241.3 x (8.61- 2) = 1595 kip-in. (180 kN-m)
69
 25'-6" Long Precast Panels

Fig. 81. Elevation of two-span bridge.

#5 Bars @ 6" o.c. 3" 12" 3"

48" Wide Precast Panels ./

'--- - (8) - 1/2" Special Strands Per Panel

(270 ksi Low-Lax)

Fig. 82 . Typica l cross section of deck. Fig. 83 . Detai l at center pier.

Calculate the dead load moments for a 25ft (7.62 m) Therefore:

span: Ms = cs(3605)(288)(12.39)
2 2
( M d ) precasr = wl = (12)(48) (150) 25.0

l ~0)(2.48) l
8 144 8

Jl
X X
1
= 46, 880 lb - ft = 563 kip- in. (63 .6 k:N- m) I + (441 5)(576) lr I+ (29,
2 2 (3605)(288) (3605)(288)
(M ) = wl = (6)(48) X (1 5 0) X 25.0
d CIP 8 144 8 = 3,487, 700 kip- in. x (t:s)
= 23, 440 lb - ft = 281 kip- in. (31.8 kN- m) [394110 kN- m x (t:s) ]

Estimate the differential shrinkage strain at 28 days

Calculate the uniform shrinkage moment: after the CIP topping is cast:
Precast Concrete:
For the precast concrete, shrinkage at time t is:
Esh = 0.00056 X 0.13 X ln(t + 1) = 0.000073 X ln(t + 1)
Shrinkage in the precast panels when the CIP topping is
cast (t = 90 days): Esh = 0.000073 x ln(91) = 0.000328
Shrinkage in the precast panels when the CIP topping is
Ed = 57.,)4000 = 3605 ksi (24860 MPa) 28 days old (t = 90 + 28 = 118 days):
EP = 57.,)6000 = 4415 ksi (30440 MPa) Esh = 0.000073 X ln(119) = 0.000348
Shrinkage strain occurring in precast panels during first
Es = 29,000 ksi (200 GPa) 28 days after the CIP topping is cast:
Ad= 6 x 48 = 288 sq in. (185800 mm2) Esh = 0.000348 - 0.000328 = 0.000020
AP = 12 x 48 = 576 sq in. (371600 mm 2)
CIP Concrete:
As= 8 X 0.31 = 2.48 sq in . (1600 mm 2)
For the CIP topping, shrinkage at time t is:
ec = 9.39 in. (239 mm) Esh = 0.00069 X 0.13 X ln(t + 1) = 0.000090 X ln(t + 1)

h/2 = 3 in. (76 mm) -He +~= 12.39 in. (315 mm) Shrinkage in CIP topping during first 28 days is:
2 Esh = 0.000090 X ln(28 + 1) = 0.000302

70 PCI JOURNAL
 This moment is compared to the cracking moment (Mer)
at the diaphragm. The moment required to crack the 4000
psi (27.6 MPa) diaphragm is estimated to be:

(7.5 X .)4000) 48 X 18 2
M = x---
cr 1000 6
=-1230 kip-in . (-139 kN -m)
I. I
48" X ../6000 ../4000 = 58.8" Because the calculated restraint moment is nearly equal to
the estimated cracking moment at the diaphragm , the di-
Fig. B4. Transformed composite section. aphragm is likely to crack with the addition of superimposed
live loading. The restraint moment remaining after cracking
occurs can be calculated by accounting for the reduced stiff-
Differential shrinkage: ness at the diaphragm.
Differential shrinkage (t:s) is equal to : (0.000302- The cracked moment of inertia at the diaphragm (ICI.) =
0.000020) = 0.000282 3400 in. 4 (1.42 x 109 mm 4 ) . The moment of inertia for the
Therefore, M s = 3,487,700 X t:s = 3,487,700(0.000282) composite main spans was calculated earlier as 25,900 in. 4
= 984 kip-in . (111 k.N-m) (1.08 X 10 10 mm4) .
2/d 2x3400
Creep effects on MP and (Md)precast
1
Note: When adjusting MP and (Md)precasr for the effects of
a=
21d
-
1.5
+-
31m ·~ X 25,900 = 0 ·593
2 X 3400
---+- ---
creep, the value of 1/> should be based on the increase in 1.5 25 1.5 25
creep strain from the time continuity was created (at 90 The restraint moment after cracking occurs at the
days) , and not from the time of prestressing. This is because diaphragm is :
deformations due to creep are unrestrained before the CIP
topping is cast.
M, = [ (%X 0.593 X1595-0.593 X563}0.02083)-
(1/>l)initial = 2.1(0.13) X ln(90 + 1) = 1.231
( 1/>1)28 days = 2.1 (0.13) X ln(90 + 28 + 1) = 1.305
(0.593 X281)(0.601)- (%X 0.593 X984 }0.654)]
Therefore, for MP and (Md)precast:
[Ll(l- e·<P1)] = (1- e·1 305) - (1- e·1 231 ) = 0.02083 = 660 kip- in. (74.6 kN- m)
• Based on the observation of the two test bridges in this
Creep effects on (Mdkw and Ms
study, the authors recommend that the value of the nega-
When adjusting (Md)ciP and Ms for the effects of creep, tive restraint moment used to decrease the design for posi-
the value of 1/> is based on the assumption that creep effects tive bending moments should not exceed about 30 percent
initiate when the CIP concrete is cast. of the calculated cracking moment at the pier [0.3 x 1230
¢2. = 2.1(0.13) x ln(28 + 1) = 0.919 = 370 kip-in. (41.8 k.N-m) for this example].
1 -~ • When calculating prestress losses, and thus the moment
(1-e-~ )=1-e-0· 9 1 9 =0.601 and -e =0.654 due to eccentric prestressing (Mp) , the weight of the CIP
1/>z topping was assumed to be carried by simply-supported
For a two-span, symmetric bridge: precast panels. This assumption was used to determine
the stress at the center of gravity of the strand, and there-
fore the loss of prestress due to creep. Theoretically, the
calculation of prestress losses should be done using a
time-step analysis that accounts for the change in pre-
stress force and concrete stresses due to the increasing re-
straint moment. However, these refinements in the esti-
Prior to cracking, ld "" !, =I mation of prestress losses are not warranted because the
2/d 21 contribution of the eccentric prestress force on the re-
5 straint moment is based only on the creep that occurs
a= 1.5 2/ 31 = 0.917
2/d 31, after the continuity is established. Typically, the CIP top-
- +- - +- ping would not be cast before the panels are more than a
L.5 25 1.5 25
month old, and a large portion of the total creep due to
prestress will have already occurred. Thus, a change in
M,. = [ (%X 0.917 X1595-0.917 X563}0.02083)- the computed prestress force by a few percent, and the
corresponding moment due to prestress (Mp), becomes in-
(0.917 X281)(0.601)- (%X 0.917 X984 )c0.654)] significant in terms of the total restraint moment. In gen-
eral, the older the precast panels are before continuity is
= -1020 kip- in. (115 .3 kN- m) established, the less significant the eccentric prestress
January-February 1998 71
 force is on the value of the restraint moments and the
more negative the restraint moments become.
• The design example assumed that creep and shrinkage
vary (with time) according to the expression proposed by
Corley and Sozen . 10 The authors recognize that other
time-dependent expressions for creep and shrinkage may
also be used. However, to be consistent, the designer
should make sure the same time-dependent relationships
are used for both the calculation of prestress losses and
the final restraint moment calculation. Prestress losses in
this example were calculated assuming creep and shrink-
age vary according to the expression proposed by Corley
and Sozen.
EXAMPLE 2
A three-span bridge is constructed using the same pre-
stressed panels as in Example 1 (see Fig. B5). The three-
span option allows for a longer central span to be achieved
with the same panel cross section and reinforcement.
Determine the moments at interior piers due to the re-
straint of time-dependent deformations in this bridge, as-
suming all other parameters are the same as in Example 1.
Losses are calculated for the precast panels in a similar
manner as Example 1. The stress in the strand 28 days after
the topping is cast is estimated at 180.6 ksi (1245 MPa) for
the 25ft 6 in. (7.77 m) panels, and 184.9 ksi (1275 MPa) for
25'-6" Long Precast Panels
Fig. BS . Elevation of three-span bridge.
MP 1.024MP
25.0R. 7o o
1.5R.
~ 31.75 R .
~~-+0-.972-MP--~
+1.388 MP
Fig. B6 . Restra int moments due to eccentric prestressing.
72
the 32ft 3 in. (9.83 m) panels.
The prestress force per 25ft 6 in. (7.77 m) panel (28 days
after the topping is cast) is 180.6 x 8 x 0.167 = 241.3 kips
(1073 kN).
The corresponding moment due to prestressing is
MP = 241.3 x (8.61- 2) = 1595 kip-in. (180 kN-m).
The moment due to prestressing for the 32 ft 3 in. (9.83
m) panels is (184.9/ 180.6) x 1595 = 1633 kip-in. (185 kN-
m) = 1.024 MP, where MP is the moment due to prestressing
of the 25ft 6 in. (7.77 m) panels. MP and Ms are assumed to
be uniform moments occurring over the length of the mem-
bers. If these uniform moments are applied to a beam with
fixed ends, corresponding fixed-end moments of the same
magnitude are produced. Thus, the restraint moments due to
these uniform moments can be found by applying the corre-
sponding fixed-end moments at the end of the spans and dis-
tributing them according to the stiffness of the structure.
This can easi ly be done using a moment distribution ap-
proach via a spreadsheet program.
The applied fixed-end moments and resulting restraint-
moment diagram for effects of eccentric prestressing are
shown in Fig. B6.
The applied fixed-end moments and resulting restraint-
moment diagram for effects of shrinkage are shown in Fig.
B7. Ms is equal to 984 kip-in. (111 kN-m), as in Example 1.
In a similar manner, the restraint moment contribution
due to restraint of creep under dead load can be found by
32'-3" Long Precast Panels 25'-6" Long Precast Panels
' [
1.024MP MP
7 0 0
1.5R.
~ 25.0R.
+1.388 MP
PCI JOURNAL
 25.0Ft.
~0
1.5Ft.

0 i
31.75 Ft.
~ ~5 ~ i 25.0Ft.
~0

-1.388 M8
-0.948M8

~
Fi g. B7. Restraint moments due to differential shrinkage.

213 M<t 1.075 M<t 1.075 Ma 213 Ma

25.0 Ft. ~0
1.5Ft.
0 i 31.75Ft. ~ 0 0
1.5Ft.
i 25.0 Ft.

-1.028·~

Fi g. BB. Restraint moments due to dead load.

applying the appropriate fixed-end moments and redistribut-
ing them. The fixed-end moments for a beam under uniform
loading are equal to (wf)ll2 where w is the magnitude of
the uniform load and l is the span length. These moments
are equal to two-thirds of the midspan moment for a simply-
supported equivalent length beam under uniform loading.
Therefore, if Md is taken as the midspan moment for the
25 ft (7.6 m) span as in Example l, then the fixed-end mo-
ments (in terms of Md) are applied and distributed as shown
in Fig. B8.
The restraint moments due to the eccentric prestress force,
differential shrinkage, and dead load are now combined and
multiplied by the appropriate factors as in Example 1. Note
that two different calculations are made - one at each face
of the interior pier.
Restraint Moment Calculation at Exterior Face of Pier
0.914 X (Md)ctP(1- e-h )-1.388 X Ms 1 - ; -<n )
( abutments and rotation is restrained, then the negative re-
2
= (1.388 X 1595-0.914 X 563)(0.02083) -
0.9 14 X 281(0.601)- 1.388 X 984(0.654)
= -1012 kip-in. (-114.4 kN-m)
Restraint Moment Calculation at Interior Face of Pier
1.028 X (Md kfp( 1- e-<n)- 0.948 X Ms( 1- ; -<n )
2
= (0.972 X 1595 - 1.028 X 563(0.02083)-
1.028 X 28 1(0.601)- 0.948 X 984(0.654)
= -763 kip-i n. (-86.2 kN-m)
Again, these moments are compared with the estimated
cracking moment at the diaphragm. If cracking is likely to
occur, then the restraint moments are recalculated assuming
cracked section properties at the diaphragm. This reduced
stiffness is used when distributing the fixed-e nd moments
due to eccentric prestress , dead load, and differential
shrinkage.
The authors would like to note that both numerical exam-
ples assumed the bridge was free to rotate at the end abut-
ments (roller supports). If continuity is established at these
straint moments at the first interior pier may be considerably
reduced. This case can be handled numerically by assuming
some degree of fixity at the end abutments when distributing
the fixed-end moments above.

January-February 1998 73