Fatigue Tests of 27-Year-Old

Prestressed Concrete Bridge

Box Beams
Chetana Rao
Structural Engineer
2 Associates
GM
Glastonbury, Connecticut
(Formerly, Graduate Student,
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering,
University of Connecticut)
Two precast, prestressed concrete box beams, 36 in. wide x 27 in.
deep x 56 ft long (914 x 686 mm x 17.1 m), were removed from a
deteriorated multibeam bridge and subjected to fatigue testing.
Visually, the beams appeared in generally good condition but showed
signs of water leaking through the longitudinal shear keys and some
corrosion of reinforcement. The beams were purposely precracked
prior to fatigue loading and had periodic overloads applied. One
beam, cycled to a nominal bottom tension stress level of 6-\/i psi
(0.50[j MPa) and a stress range of 0.06 retained excellent
performance after 1,500,000 cycles. Cycling to a nominal bottom
tension stress level of 9[j psi (0.75Tj? MPa) and a stress range of
0.11f, significantly reduced the strength of the other beam and
caused fatigue failure of strand wires after 145,000 cycles.

n 1987, the deteriorated Walnut and the chloride ion content and distri

I Street Bridge (see Fig. 1) in East

Gregory C. Frantz, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut
Hartford, Connecticut, which was
built in 1960, was replaced. The sim
pie span, multibeam bridge consisted
of 13 precast, prestressed concrete box
beams 36 in. wide x 27 in. deep x 56 ft
long (914 x 686 mm x 17.1 m) (see
Figs. 2 and 3). Four beams were
severely deteriorated and had to be de
molished in-place. Several of the re
maining beams were saved for later
testing.
2 discussed the
Previous papers
static behavior of two of the beams
bution in five of the beams. This arti
cle discusses the fatigue behavior of
two other beams from this same
bridge. Ref. 3 provides a full discus
sion of this portion of the research
program.
Fatigue failure in prestressed con
crete members can occur due to fail
ure of the concrete from flexural com
pression, diagonal tension or shear,
failure of strands, failure of bond, or
failure of end anchorages of post
tensioned beams. When uncracked,
the concrete, which typically remains

74 PCI JOURNAL
in compression, bears a large portion
of the stress reversals and with the
high limits of the stress range capacity
of concrete, fatigue life can be as
sumed to be infinite.
Prior to flexural cracking, the stress
range in the strands is very small and
fatigue need not be a concern as long
as the concrete has not cracked. Be
cause it is usually not cracked during
service loading, prestressed concrete
generally resists fatigue effects better
than reinforced concrete. However, for
loading above the cracking capacity,
the stress range in the strands is much
larger because the strands must carry
all of the tension.
The AASHTO Specifications
4 limit
the maximum concrete tensile stress to
6,.fj psi (0.507J MPa), slightly
below the concrete’s cracking
strength. However, if a beam is loaded
to cracking by even one (uninten
tional) overweight truck, the flexural
cracks thereafter will reopen when the
bottom fiber concrete compression
stress is decreased to zero. From this
point on, the strands will have steep
increases in stress levels with increas
ing loads above the decompression
load. Thus, the stress range in the
strands can be much larger than origi
nally anticipated even for the usual
service load ranges.
The AASHTO Specifications give
no particular requirements for fatigue
in prestressed concrete bridge mem
bers. If the concrete tensile stresses
exceed 37J psi (0.25 7[I MPa)
under a realistic estimate of service
loads, ACT Committee 2l5 recom
mends that the stress range in pre
stressed reinforcement shall not ex
ceed 0.06f based on a cracked
section analysis, for minimum pre
stress levels of 60 percent of the strand
tensile strength.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Shenoy and Frantz”
6 performed
static tests on two beams that were
companion beams to those tested in
this study. Measured prestress losses
were about 50 percent of the predicted
losses. The beams, designed by the
more conservative 1957 AASHO
7 easily carried the fac
Specifications,
tored static load levels required by
September-October 1996
Fig. 1. Panoramic view of Walnut Street Bridge.
current specifications and reached the
strength predicted by a strain compati
bility analysis.
Murray and Frantz
28 did chloride
testing on five of the box beams from
the Walnut Street Bridge. Constructed
without a waterproofing membrane
underneath the bituminous wearing
surface, the beams had chloride levels
as high as two to three times the corro
sion threshold level with active corro
sion occurring.
Leon et al.
9 subjected four 20-year-
old prestressed bridge girders to fa
tigue to study techniques to repair im
pact damage. Girders repaired with
additional post-tensioning were unable
to regain their predamaged stiffness.
The tests suggested that the original
beams were in excellent condition.
Knudsen and Eney’° tested a new
pretensioned, precracked concrete box
beam. Approximately 1,300,000 cy
cles of HS2O loading had only minor
effects, but 100,000 cycles with 54
percent overload increased deflections
by 30 percent.
Russell and Burns” studied three
new pretensioned concrete girders
with draped or debonded strands. The
beams were precracked during the first
static test and two of the beams were
also precracked with web shear
cracks. The beams with shear cracks
were tested to over 225,000 cycles and
the other beam to about 700,000 cy
des. The girders performed very well
and did not fail during the fatigue
tests.
2 conducted fatigue
Rabbat et al.’
tests of new Type II AASHTO PCI
girders. Three girders were tested with
5 million cycles with a maximum
stress of zero in the bottom fibers and
then statically loaded to their full ulti
mate strength and showed no fatigue
distress. Three precracked girders
were loaded to a maximum stress of
67J psi (0.50 fj
7 MPa) in the bot
tom fiber and showed fatigue distress
between 3.2 and 3.8 million cycles.
Overman, Breen, and Frank’
3 stud
ied the fatigue behavior of 11 new pre
tensioned concrete girders with Un-
shored cast-in-place slabs and
concluded that even a small number of
cycles of modest overloads can cause
high stress ranges and sharply reduce
fatigue life. They concluded that
adopting 6J psi (0.50fj MPa) as
7
the maximum tensile stress in the bot
tom fiber was not conservative enough
without being supplemented by well
distributed confined reinforcement.
They recommended that a maximum
tensile stress of 3 psi (0.25 JF?
MPa) would be sufficiently conserva
tive to prevent fatigue damage.
4 tested two prestressed,
Roller et al.’
high strength concrete girders, one
with long-term loading and one with
fatigue loading. They reported lower
75
 2” Asphalt
wear i ng
surface

1 ft. 12 in. 305mm

Iy

19’—6”

Fig. 2. Cross section of bridge.

measured prestress losses than pre

dicted. One full depth crack, formed
during girder fabrication, was present
near midspan during the fatigue test
ing. After 5 million cycles of fatigue
loading to 6J7 psi (0.50[j MPa),
the beam still satisfied the AASHTO
strength requirements.

DESCRIPTION OF BEAMS
The two beams tested in this study
were Beam 10, which was next to two
very badly deteriorated Beams 11 and
12 that had to be demolished in place (\J
prior to removal, and Beam 8, which
was next to the center beam (see Fig.
2). The BI-36 box beams were rein
forced with 22 7/ in. (11.1 mm) diam
eter Grade 250 strands (see Fig. 3).
Beam 10 had large patches of white
stains from salt deposits on the sides.
On one side, it had two 1 ft (300 mm)
long horizontal cracks at strand level
indicating corrosion of the strands. Fig. 3. Cross section of box beam.
Beam 8 had very little surface staining
from water and salt on its sides and
bottom. There were a few rust stained
portions indicating corrosion of some Original design plans were not EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
stirrups or strands. The beam also had available. Current traffic counts indi
two large vertical cracks extending Details of the test setup, instrumen
cated approximately 5500 vehicles per
tation, definition of service load and
down from the top about 6 ft (1.8 m) day on this bridge. Cores indicated a
test procedure are given below.
from one end, probably caused during concrete compressive strength of ap
removal of the beam from the bridge proximately 6700 psi (46 MPa), close
or during later handling. The beams to the value from the previous work.’ Test Setup
had not experienced any flexural The properties of the strands were as Figs. 4 and 5 show the test setup.
cracking and otherwise seemed to be sumed to be the same as in the previ The 56 ft (17.1 m) long test beams
in good condition. ous study. were simply supported on a 54 ft (16.5

76 PCI JOURNAL
Fig. 4. Test setup. Fig. 5. Loading system.

m) span and subjected to two point Table 1. Load history for Beam 10.
loads 11 ft (3.4 m) apart centered Test identification Load cycles Load range (kips)
about midspan. One actuator applied
A 1 0to55(S)
load to a steel beam that distributed
the load into four loads applied over B 2 0to55(S)
the beam webs. C 104,003 20 to 41 (F)
Supports under the loading beam D 104.004 010 50(S)
and at the test beam ends were care Repeat fatigue and static sequence
fully designed to permit rotation and E to T 909 014
with 100.000 cycle increments
longitudinal movement while prevent - U 1 109,014 20 to 41 (F)
ing excessive longitudinal movement. -

.____ V - 1,109.015 Oto5O(S) —_____

A 22 ft (6.7 m) high steel frame car

W 1,309,015 20 to 41 (F)
ried the actuator reaction into the -- -

structural strong floor. X 1,309,016 0 to 50 (S)

Instrumentation
Near midspan, the bottom cover on
five strands was carefully removed
Y 1509,016 20 to 41 (F)
Z 1,509,017 0 to 73.8 (S)
Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
(S) = Static loading
(F) = Fatigue loading

without nicking the strands. Seven to

ten SR-4 strain gauges (3.18 mm
gauge length) were applied with epoxy
to strand wires. A linear variable dif
ferential transducer (LVDT) measured
midspan deflection. Dial gauges moni
tored any slipping of strands at the
beam end. Crack widths were mea
sured to ±0.00 1 in. (0.025 mm) with a
50-power microscope. A computer
controlled data acquisition system
recorded strains and deflections.
All tests were performed as load-
control tests. The hydraulic loading
and data collection systems were
computer monitored and controlled
with very reliable safety limit checks at a moment of 709 kip-ft (961 kN
and system shutdown procedures. m). The beam’s actual nominal capac
Therefore, cyclic testing frequently ity, of 1117 kip-ft (1514 kN) de
continued throughout the night when fined the required strength at factored
no one was present to observe the loads, M.
test. These two conditions set, for testing
purposes, the dead load moment, MD,
Definition of Service Load and live load moment, MLL+I as ,
follows:
For these tests, “service load”
(equivalent to dead load plus live load MD + MLL+1 = 709 kip-ft (961 kN-m)
plus impact) was defined to be the forfb = 6.fj psi (0.50j MPa)
load that produced a nominal bottom
fiber stress, fb’ of 6 /j psi (based on 1.3 (MD + l.
MLL+J)
67 = 1117 kip-ft
an uncracked section), which occurred (1514 kN-m) forM =

September-October 1996 77
Table 2. Load history for Beam 8. Test Procedure
Test identification Load cycles Load range (kips) Tables I and 2 define the load se
AA
quences for both beams. Each beam
was first tested in a static condition in
BB 2 Oto SO(S)
approximately 5 hip (22 kN) load in
cc 19,252 20 to 50 (F)
crements. Loading continued to a
DD 19,253 Oto5O(S) maximum load of 50 or 55 kips (220
EE 73,903 20 to 50 (F) or 240 kN), which was above the
FF 73,904 0 to 50 (S) cracking load. During this initial test,
GG 145,098 20 to 50 (F)
the effective prestress level was deter
mined by observing the reopening of
HH 145,099 0 to 50 (S)
flexural cracks as was done in the first
II 250,636 20 to 50 (F)
study.’ Crack development, strains,
JJ 250,637 0 to SO(S) and deflections were monitored. A
KK 264,188 20 to 50 (F) second static test was then performed.
LL 264,189 0to55.7(S) A multiple sequence of cyclic testing
Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
followed by a static test (to simulate
(S) = Static loading overloads) then commenced. A final
(F) = Fatigue loading static test completed the program.
Beam 10 was tested first. The cyclic
loading increment was for 100,000 or
80 200,000 cycles between loads of 20 and
41 hips (89 and 182 kN), which corre
70 sponded to the dead load and the ser
vice load, at a frequency of 1 Hz. This
60 produced a maximum nominal bottom
fiber stress of 6fj psi (0.50f
50 MPa). Because the beam had been pur
0)

f 40

30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3
Midspan Deflections (inches)
Fig. 6. Load vs. deflection for Beams 10 and 8.
Solving these two equations simul
taneously indicated that actuator
loads of 20 and 41 kips (89 and 182
kN), plus the weight of the steel load
distribution beam plus the bridge
beam’s self weight, were required to
produce the dead load and the service
load conditions, respectively. An ac
tuator load of 50 kips (220 kN) pro
duced a nominal bottom fiber stress
of psi (0.75...fj MPa). Here
after, “applied load” or “load” will
mean the load applied by the actuator
without the 5 kip (22 kN) dead
weight of the steel load distribution
beam.
4 5 6 7 8 kN) load was slightly higher than the
These beams were originally de
signed using the 1957 AASHO Specifi
cations, which had more conservative
design and load criteria than present
specifications. For comparison purposes
with the test loads applied in this re
search, when these beams were in ser
vice, the design loads required by the
1992 AASHTO Specifications would
cause a service load moment of 494
kip-ft (670 kN-m). This corresponds to
an actuator load of 21 hips (92 kN), and
the required strength would be 840 hip-
ft (1140 kN-m). The fatigue loading
used in this research was a very severe
loading for these beams.
posely precracked, flexural cracks re
opened prior to this upper load level.
The theoretical strand stress range was
about 15 ksi (100 MPa) or O.o fPU’
6
based on a cracked section analysis.
Strains and deflections were monitored.
Beam 8 was cycled between loads
of 20 and 50 hips (89 and 220 kN) at a
frequency of 0.66 Hz. The 50 kip (220
service load to simulate the effect of
frequent overloads. This level of load
produced a total midspan moment
13.6 percent higher than the service
load moment in Beam 8. The maxi
mum cyclic load produced a maxi
mum nominal bottom fiber stress of
9f psi (0.75.J MPa). The theo
retical strand stress range was 32 ksi
(220 MPa) or 0.12f, based on a
cracked section analysis. Because
Beam 8 had a more severe stress range
than Beam 10, it had fewer cycles in
the fatigue sequences than Beam 10.
TEST RESULTS
Dynamic effects of the cyclic loads
were small for these beams. Although
not measured, the predicted effect was
less than 4 percent for Beam 10 and

78 PCI JOURNAL
less than 2 percent for Beam 8. The
loads, stresses, and stress ranges re 80
ported in this article were calculated
as for static loading without dynamic 70
effects.
Predicted strand stresses were cal 60
culated using a cracked section analy
sis for load stages above bottom fiber ,_ 50
C,,

decompression (for all load cycles

other than the first cycle). Predicted
load-deflection response was based on
moment-curvature and moment-area
analyses. Beam behavior was evalu
ated based on response to the static
loadings.
Figs. 6 and 7 show the load-deflec
tion curves for some of the static tests
for the beams. During the first static
tests, both beams followed the pre
dicted response very closely. The sec
ond static tests were very similar to
the first tests except the flexural
cracks reopened at a lower load of
about 25 kips (110 kN), which was
less than the service load. During
these static tests, Beams 10 and 8 had
maximum loads of 55 and 50 kips
(240 and 220 kN), respectively. These
loads are higher than the service load
level of 41 kips (180 kN) but still
within the elastic response range of
the strands.
Beam 10 showed little effect of fa
tigue during its more than 1,500,000
cycles of testing. Due to lack of ob
served fatigue effects, the test of Beam
10 was terminated after 1,509,016 cy
‘ 40
30
20
10
0
0 1
Midspan Deflections (inches)
Fig. 7. Load vs. deflection for Beam 8.
des of this very severe loading.
Beam 8, which had a more severe
load range, definitely showed signs of
fatigue distress after about 145,000
cycles. At that time, the sound of a
strand wire breaking in Beam 8 was
heard. After 261,000 cycles, six more
wires were heard failing. A total of 16
wires were heard breaking in Beam 8
over the entire cycling. Testing contin
ued even when no one was present to
observe the beam, and it is likely that
more wires ruptured during that time.
2 3 4 5 6
Deflections
During the first sequence of fatigue
cycles (approximately 1 00,000 for
Beam 10 and 19,000 for Beam 8), both
beams had a significant increase in de
flections, with a greater amount in Beam
8. With further cycling, the response of
Beam 10 did not change much between
100,000 and 1,500,000 cycles. Beam 8,
with its more severe loading, showed
much more of an increase in deflection
with additional cycles.

4.0

3.5

3.0

rl)
2.5

2.0
C C

t
1.5
=

1.0

0,5

0.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Number of Cycles (x 100,000) Number of Cycles (x 100,000)

Fig. 8. Deflection vs. number of cycles for Beams 10 and 8. Fig. 9. Deflection vs. number of cycles for Beam 8.

September-October 1996 79
 stresses in Beam 10 changed very lit
80
tle due to the fatigue cycles (which
70
also indicates very little “drift” in the
strain gauge readings). Beam 8 had
60 much larger changes in stress levels
as a result of cycling. At each compa
—
‘6’
50 rable load level, the stresses in Beam
8 were higher than those in Beam 10.
The test data for Beam 8 showed a
slight decrease in stress during the
— 30
Predicted Curv 19,252 to 145,009 cycles at the higher
BeamlO mrn load levels. It is not clear why this stress
20 I cycle —O-
@ I cycle —•--— @ decrease in Beam 8 occurred. At zero
@2 cycles —--- 2cycles —0-—
10 @909,013 —•--- @145,099 —‘-—
applied load, the strand stress increased
@1,509,017 —.-— @250,637 —0—-
—0—-
for Beam 8 but not for Beam 10. To
@264,189
0 wards the end of the life of Beam 8, as
150 175 200 225 250 wires began to rupture, the stresses in
Stress (ksi) creased very rapidly and were in the in
elastic range at the higher loads.
Fig. 10. Variation of strand stress for Beams 10 and 8. Fig. 12 shows how the strand stress
range varied with the number of fatigue
cycles. It was expected that the mea
Figs. 8 and 9 show the effect of num “Measured” strand stresses were deter sured stress range would increase with
ber of cycles on the static detlections of mined using the strain due to the initial cycles. Beam 10, loaded between 20 and
both beams. Deflections tended to in effective prestress, the strain increment 41 kips (89 and 182 kN), had a mea
crease with increasing cycles. At com measured during loading, and the mea sured stress range of 16.4 ksi (113 MPa)
parable load levels and number of cy sured strand stress-strain curve. or 0.062f at the beginning of testing.
cles, Beam 8 had significantly higher Figs. 10 and 11 show how the strand By the end of 1,500,000 cycles, the
deflections than Beam 10. stress varied during the various static range had increased only slightly to 18.5
tests. Strand stresses remained in the ksi (128 MPa), a 13 percent increase.
elastic range except during the final Beam 8, loaded between 20 and 50
Strand Stresses static test of Beam 10 and during the kips (89 and 222 kN), had a measured
For both beams, the effective pre final fatigue series and final static test stress range of 28.8 ksi (199 MPa) or
stress at the start of testing was taken of Beam 8. During the initial pair of 0.1 lf at the beginning of the test. At
as 153 ksi (1050 MPa), which was ap static tests, the stress increased linearly the end of 264,000 cycles, the range
proximately the value determined in until the cracks formed or reopened. had increased to 38 ksi (262 MPa), a
these tests and in the previous tests.’ As Fig. 11 shows, the strand 32 percent increase. An increase in the

250 50
Beam 10 Beam 8
@ Okips —,--— —c’-— I kip 4.448 kN
@ 20 kips —•—- —0-—
225 —0-— I ksi 6.895 MPa
=

@3Okips —•—

@40 kips —A--- —a-—

50kiP
200

175
I-c...—.--.... .
C .—..••••• . . . 20
yyyyVVVVV ,. V ‘V
150
‘6’
cj3 C6’

10 - BeamlO Beam8 Predicted

125 1 kip=4.448kN
20-41 kips —‘
——

1 ksi = 6.895 MPa 20-50 kips ° —

100 0— I I
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Number of Cycles (x 100,000) Number of Cycles (x 100,000)

Fig. 11. Strand stress vs. No. of cycles (Beams 10 and 8). Fig. 12. Strand stress range vs. No. of cycles (Beams 10 and 8).

80 PCI JOURNAL
stress range of about 5 ksi (35 MPa)
had occurred within the first 20,000
cycles and shows that a relatively low
number of overloads can have a sig
nificant effect on a structure.
Fig. 12 also shows the stress range 1 ft. 12 in.
— — 3O5u
for Beam 8 between the same dead
load and live load levels, 20 and 41
kips (89 and 182 kN), as for Beam 10.
Even at this level, Beam 8 had a sig

I t) t1
nificantly higher stress range than
C’.’
Beam 10. Not too many cycles of
overload were needed to cause a sig + ,
nificant increase in the stress range at
normal load levels. 15’ —0”

Cracking Fig. 13. Crack pattern for Beam 10.

Fig. 13 shows the crack pattern in
the middle 24 ft (7.3 m) of Beam 10.
The initial static tests created a well
developed and similar series of flexu
ral cracks in both beams. The average
crack spacing was about 12 to 14 in.
(300 to 350 mm), which approxi
mately coincided with the stirrup spac
ing of 14 in. (350 mm). During the ini
tial static tests, each load increment
caused an increase in crack width or
crack length. The heavy, short hori
zontal lines on some cracks in Fig. 13
indicate the final crack length in the
first static test at 55 kips (240 kN).
Cycling caused some cracks to ex
tend and some new cracks to form.
The final crack length at completion
of testing is also shown in Fig. 13.
The crack widths of several major
cracks were read throughout the tests.
Figs. 14 and 15 show how the width of
two cracks, one on each beam, varied
with applied load and number of cy
cles. There was some variation in
these crack widths due to the continu
ing development of additional nearby
cracks during the testing.
Crack widths increased due to ap
plied fatigue loads, especially in Beam
8. At 50 kips (222 MPa), the crack
width in Beam 10 increased from
0.009 in. (0.20 mm) in the first static
test to 0.0 15 in. (0.38 mm) after
1,500,000 cycles. At the same load
level, the crack width in Beam 8 in-
creased from 0.011 in. (0.28 mm) in
the first static test to 0.032 in. (0.81
mm), nearly a 200 percent increase, at
the end of 264,000 cycles.
During the final static test of Beam
10, the cracks extended into the top
flange of the beam. Shear in these
beams was not critical and fatigue did
not cause the cracks to become in
clined nor cause shear problems.
Final Static Tests
After more than 1,500,000 cycles,
the response of Beam 10 during the
final static test was very similar to its
earlier static tests (see Fig. 6). It had

70 - 35
I kip 4.448 kN
=

60 In. = 25.4mm 30

C”

50 - 25
C
40 20
C”
Beam 10
30 @lcycle —•—-
15
@2 cycles —•— C”
0 ‘C
@ 900,000 —A-— 10
20
@ 1,500,000 —•-—

Beam 8
10 @lcycle —0—— C 5
@2 cycles —D— c-)
0 @ 141,500 —a-— 0
@250,640 —c-—
@264,820 —0-—
I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 3 6 9 12 15 18

Crack Widths ( x 0.00 1 inches) Number of Cycles (x 100,000)

Fig. 14. Crack widths vs. applied load (Beams 10 and 8). Fig. 15. Crack widths vs. number of cycles (Beams 10 and 8).

September-October 1996 81
essentially the same response up to 50
kips (220 kN). The final load stage
was at 74 kips (330 kN) with a deflec
tion of 7.4 in. (190 mm). The beam
did not show any signs of failure even
at this stage and additional loads were
not applied due to the actuator’s stroke
limitations. The predicted ultimate ca
pacity was 79 kips (350 kN) at a de
flection of 23.2 in. (589 mm). Beam
10 still showed the good ductility de
sired in bridge structures.
The final static test of Beam 8 was
done after 264,000 cycles and after at
least 16 wires had broken. At a maxi
mum load of 55.7 kips (248 kN), it
had deflected about 4 in. (100 mm),
about 35 percent more than Beam 10
at that same load. Beam 10 had
reached this same deflection at about
62 kips (276 kN). Further loading was
causing additional wire failures and
the test was stopped for safety reasons.
Additional Results
Prior to testing, Beam 10 had hori
zontal cracking at the strand level on
the east side that had been adjacent to
the two badly deteriorated beams. A
large piece of concrete near midspan
fell off after about 650,000 cycles, ex
posing two strands at the edge in the
lower row. The corner strand was
badly corroded and had a few broken
wires with rusted fracture surfaces that
the authors concluded were not caused
by the tests. At about 1,000,000 cycles
of loading, two more wires in this
strand fractured due to fatigue.
After completion of the test, more
concrete was removed from Beam 10
in this same region. Two more wires
in the corner strand had fractured due
to corrosion prior to our testing. The
strand immediately above the strand
that had fractured appeared to be in
fairly good condition with little rust
ing. The strand in the bottom row ad
jacent to the fractured strand had some
rusting but little or no pitting. The
clear cover to the strands was 2.75 in.
(70 mm) on the side and about 1.25 in.
(32 mm) on the bottom. The stirrup
near this location had a cover of 2 in.
(51 mm) to the side and 1.5 in. (38
mm) on the bottom. The stirrup in this
region was extremely rusted.
Towards the north end of the beam,
82
on the east side, there was also a longi
tudinal crack along the strand. After
removing the concrete, the strand ap
peared quite rusty. The stirrup here had
a side cover of only about 0.625 in. (17
mm), and it seemed like the rusting
here may have initiated at the stirrup.
Beam 8 had some surface stains due
to rusting of several stirrups, which
were found to have little concrete
cover. The strands of Beam 8 were vi
sually judged to be in good condition
and had the typical amount of surface
discoloration due to minor rusting but
there was no pitting. The decreased fa
tigue strength of Beam 8 could not be
attributed to corrosion of the strands
because they seemed to be in better
condition than those of Beam 10.
There did not appear to be any sig
nificant change in the strand slip dial
gauges in Beam 10. In Beam 8, one
dial gauge, which was monitoring a
strand that had ruptured during the
test, changed by 0.005 in. (0.1 mm),
perhaps indicating some possible slip
ping for that strand.
CONCLUSIONS
It should be noted that these beams
had been in service for 27 years. Also,
these tests subjected the beams to
higher loads than the beams had been
originally designed for or had been
subjected to in actual service. These
tests support the following conclusions:
1. Fatigue need not be a concern as
long as the beam is uncracked. This can
be inferred due to the observed low
strand stress range prior to cracking.
2. Beam 10, precracked during ini
tial testing and subjected to more than
1,500,000 cycles of loading that
caused a nominal bottom fiber stress
of 6Jj psi (0.50f MPa), did not
show any severe fatigue problems. Its
load-deflection and load-stress re
sponses were satisfactory and close to
the predicted results.
3. Beam 8, subjected to loading that
caused nominal bottom fiber stresses
of 9\/j psi (0.75/j? MPa), started
failing due to rupturing of strand wires
after about 145,000 cycles.
4. The strand stress range limit of
0.06f, recommended by ACT Com
mittee 215, was consistent with the re
sults. Beam 10, with a stress range of
O.O performed very well. Beam
fpIL,
62
8, with a stress range of 0.1 lfp
(, per
t
formed very poorly.
5. After 264,000 cycles, the deflec
tions of Beam 8 were 35 percent larger
than those of Beam 10 after 1,500,000
cycles. After not many cycles of over
load, Beam 8 had a significant in
crease in the stress range and in
creased crack widths even for normal
service loads.
6. Fatigue problems can occur with
small increases in load range levels.
Beam 8 had only 13 percent greater
total applied moment than Beam 10
did during the cycling. But after
1,500,000 cycles, Beam 10 performed
better than Beam 8 did after only
145,000 cycles.
7. Beam 10, though it performed
very well in general, did experience
propagation in strand failure and dam
ages induced by corrosion.
8. These particular beams could be
expected to serve satisfactorily for
longer periods of time in a bridge pro
vided the bridge does not experience
frequent overloads. Bridge girders in
a similar condition can be evaluated
to have satisfactory fatigue strength if
no corrosion is occurring.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Because an unintentional over
load can cause flexural cracking,
strand stresses and stress ranges
should be calculated assuming a
cracked cross section for loads above
the decompression load.
2. Frequent loading which creates
concrete tensile stresses of more than
6,fj psi (0.50J MPa) or with
strand stress ranges above 0.06f
should be avoided.
3. Overloads can have a significant
effect on fatigue strength and their ef
fect on prestressed concrete beams
should be studied further.
4. Corrosion can be a serious prob
lem when combined with fatigue. It is,
therefore, absolutely essential that suf
ficient protection against corrosion be
provided in bridge structures.
5. Additional work should be done
to establish a correlation between
maintenance or rehabilitation require
ments, observed deterioration, and
structural performance.
PCI JOURNAL
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was performed as part of
the research project “Tests on Pre
stressed Concrete Bridge Beams —
Fatigue Tests of the Bridge Beams,”
sponsored by the Connecticut Depart
ment of Transportation. The authors
also gratefully acknowledge the assis
tance provided by Blakeslee Prestress,
Inc., Branford, Connecticut, for stor
ing the beams prior to testing at the
University of Connecticut and for de
livering and disposing of the beams.
REFERENCES
1. Shenoy, C. V., and Frantz, G. C.,
“Structural Tests of 27-Year-Old Pre
stressed Concrete Bridge Beams,”
PCI JOURNAL, V. 36, No. 5,
September-October 1991, PP. 80-90.
2. Murray, V. E., and Frantz, G. C.,
“Chloride Testing of 27-Year-Old
Prestressed Concrete Bridge Beams,”
PCI JOURNAL, V. 37, No. 5,
September-October 1992, pp. 68-79.
3. Rao, C., and Frantz, G. C., “Tests on
Prestressed Concrete Bridge Beams
Fatigue Tests of the Bridge
Beams,” JHRAC Project Report 95-
245, Department of Civil and Envi
ronmental Engineering, University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT, December
1995, 146 pp.
September-October 1996
4. AASHTO, Standard Specifications
for Highway Bridges, Fifteenth Edi
tion, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Offi
cials, Washington, D.C., 1992.
5. ACT Committee 215, “Considerations
for the Design of Concrete Structures
Subjected to Fatigue (ACT 215R1-
R74),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1992.
6. Shenoy, C. V., and Frantz, G. C.,
“Tests on Prestressed Concrete
Bridge Beams, Part 1 — Structural
Tests of the Bridge Beams,” JHRAC
Project Report 91-198a, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT, January
1991, 120 pp.
7. AASHO, Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges, American Associa
tion of State Highway Officials,
Washington, D.C., 1957.
8. Murray, V. E., and Frantz, G. C.,
“Tests on Prestressed Concrete
Bridge Beams, Part 2 Chloride
Penetration in the Bridge Beams,”
JHRAC Project Report 91-198b, De
partment of Civil Engineering, Uni
versity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT,
January 1991, 143 pp.
9. Leon, R. T., French, C. W., Olson,
S. A., and Coggins, F. B., “Reusabil
ity of 20-Year-Old Prestressed Bridge
Girders,” Proceedings of the Confer
ence on Bridge Research in Progress,
Iowa State University, Ames, IA,
September 1988.
10. Knudsen, K. E., and Eney, W. J.,
“Endurance of a Full-Scale Preten
sioned Concrete Beam,” Proceedings
of the 36th Annual Meeting, V. 36,
Highway Research Board, Washing
ton, D.C., January 7-11, 1957.
11. Russell, B. W., and Burns, N. H.,
“Static and Fatigue Behavior of Pre
stressed Composite Bridge Girders
Made With High Strength Concrete,”
PCI JOURNAL, V. 38, No. 3, May-
June 1993, pp. 116-128.
12. Rabbat, B. G., Kaar, P. H., Russell,
H. G., and Bruce, R. N., Jr., “Fatigue
Tests of Prestressed Girders With
Blanketed and Draped Strands,” PCI
JOURNAL, V. 24, No. 4, July-August
1979, pp. 88-114.
13. Overman, T. R., Breen, J. E., and
Frank, K. H., “Fatigue Strength of
Prestressed Concrete Girders,” Final
Research Report, Center for Trans
portation Research, Bureau of Engi
neering Research, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, Novem
ber 1984.
14. Roller, J. J., Russell, H. G., Bruce,
R. N., and Martin, B. T., “Long-Term
Performance of Prestressed, Preten
sioned High Strength Concrete
Bridge Girders,” PCI JOURNAL,
V. 40, No. 6, November-December
1995, pp. 48-59.
83