Concrete bridge design to BS 5400 « Support 1 In-situconceete == ‘Continuity reinforcement Positive moment connection Fequited for ong term effects Precast ‘beams ~ Piet {a} Boams supported on pier © Support i Continuity ~Transversely prostrssod {1b} Beams embodied in crosshead 3. $.10(a).¢b) Continuity in composite consraction tis emphasised that the above calculations need t0 be carried out only at the serviceability limit state since the stresses arise ftom restrained deformations and can thas be ignored at the ultimate limit state. The explanation of this is given in Chapter 13 in connection with a discussion of thermal stresses The Code does not give values of Yj. and ps to be used ‘when assessing the effects of differential shrinkage at the serviceability limit state; but it would seem t0 be reason able to use 1.0 for each ‘The most difficult part of a differential shrinkage calcu lation is the assessment of the shrinkage strains ofthe (wo coneretes, and the ereep strains of the precast unit, These Strains depend upon many variables and, if data from tests fn the concretes and precast units are not available, est ‘mated values have to be used, For beat and slab bridges in a normal environment the Code gives a value of 100 x 10° for the diferential shrinkage strain, which is defined as the difference between the shrinkage strain of the in-situ concrete and the average shrinkage plus creep strain of the precast unit. This value was based upon the results of tests on composite T-beatns reported by Kajfasz, Somerville and Rowe [113]. The test results indicated dif. ferential shrinkage strains which varied grealy, bet the value quoted in the Code is reasonable value to adopt for design purposes. Although it is aot stated in the Code, it was intended that the current practice [6, 113] of ignoring differential shrinkage effects in composite slabs, consisting of preten- sioned beams with solid in-situ conerete infil, be con- tinued Finally, the stesses induced by the restraint to differen- tial shrinkage are relieved by creep and the Code gives @ reduction factor of 0.43, The derivation of this factor is discussed later in this chapter uo Continuity Introduction [A multi-span bridge formed of precast beams can be made continuous by providing an in-situ eonerete diaphrasin at each support as shown in Fig. 8.10(a). Av altenative foray of connection in which the ends of the precast beams are not supported directly on piers but instead are embedded in a transversely prestressed insite concrete crosshead with some tendons passing through the ends of the beams. hhas been described by Pritchard [214] (see Fig. 8,10 io ‘A bridge formed by either of the above methods is sat cally determinate for dead load but statically indeterminate for live load: and thus the in-situ concrete diaphragm o crosshead has (0 be designed 10 resist the hogging ‘moments which will occur at the supports, The desi rules for reinforced concrete can be applied © the dl phragm, but consideration should be given tothe following points Moment redistribution ‘Tests have been carried out on hal-seale models of eon: tinuous girders composed of precast sections with an in-situ concrete Mange and suppoxt diaphragm, as in Fig, 8.10(@), at the Portland Cement Association in America [215, 216]. It was found that, at collapse moment redistributions causing a eduction of support ‘moment of about 30% could be achieved. It thus seems to be reasonable to redistribute moments in composite bridges provided that the Code upper limit of 3066 for reinforced ‘concrete is not exceeded, Flexural strength ‘The Code petmits the effect of any compressive stresses due to prestress in the ends of the precast units to be ‘ignored when calculating the ultimate flesural strength of | ‘connections such as those in Fig, 8.10. ‘This recommendation is based upon the results of tests carried out by Kaar, Kriz and Hognestad {215}. They ear tied out fests on continuous gieders with three levels of prestress (ze10, 0.42 fy and 0.64 f.) and thive perven: tages of continuity reinforcement (0.83, 1.66 and 2.49). I ‘was found to be safe to ignore the precompression in the precast conerete except for the specimens with 2.49% 10 inforcement. Iv addition, it was found that the difference between the flexural strengths calculated by, first, ignori tnd, second, including the precompression was negligible ‘except for the highest level of presteess. Kar, Kriz and Hognested thus proposed that the precompression be ignored provided that the reinforcement does not excced 15%, and the stress due to prestrss does not exceed OA fo Ge. about 0.32 f.,). Although the Code does not quote these eriteri, they will generally be met in prac tice. In audition to the above tests, good agreement between calculated and observed flexural strengths of continuous ‘connections involving inverted T-beams with added in-situ concrete has been reported by Beckett (2171