Browsing by Subject "Prestress loss"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Controlling cracking in precast prestressed concrete panels(2012-08) Azimov, Umid; Klingner, R. E.; Jirsa, James O.Precast, prestressed concrete panels (PCPs) have been widely used in Texas as stay-in-place formwork in bridge deck construction. Although PCPs are widely popular and extensively used, Texas is experiencing problems with collinear cracks (cracks along the strands) in panels. One reason for the formation of collinear cracks is thought to be the required level of initial prestress. Currently, PCPs are designed assuming a 45-ksi, lump-sum prestress loss. If the prestress losses are demonstrated to be lower than this value, this could justify the use of a lower initial prestress, probably resulting in fewer collinear cracks. For this purpose, 20 precast, prestressed panels were cast at two different plants. Half of those 20 panels were fabricated with the current TxDOT-required prestress of 16.1 kips per strand, and the other half were fabricated with a lower prestress of 14.4 kips per strand based on initially observed prestress losses of 25 ksi or less. Thirteen of those panels were instrumented with strain gages and monitored over their life time. Observed losses stabilized after five months, and are found to be about 24.4 ksi. Even with the reduced initial prestress, the remaining prestress in all panels exceeds the value now assumed by TxDOT for design.Item Effect of new prestress loss estimation procedure on precast, pretensioned bridge girders(2014-05) Garber, David Benjamin; Bayrak, Oguzhan, 1969-The prestress loss estimation provision in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications was recalibrated in 2005 to be more accurate for "high-strength [conventional] concrete." Greater accuracy may imply less conservatism, the result of which may be flexural cracking of beams under service loads. Concern with a potential lack of conservatism and the degree of complexity of these recalibrated prestress loss estimation provisions prompted the investigation to be discussed in this dissertation. The primary objectives of this investigation were: (1) to assess the conservatism and accuracy of the current prestress loss provisions, (2) to identify the benefits and weaknesses of using the AASHTO LRFD 2004 and 2005 prestress loss provisions, and (3) to make recommendations to simplify the current provisions. These objectives were accomplished through (1) the fabrication, conditioning, and testing of 30 field-representative girders, (2) the assembly and analysis of a prestress loss database unmatched in size and diversity when compared with previously assembled databases, and (3) a parametric study investigating the design implications and sensitivity of the current loss provisions. Based on the database evaluation coupled with the experimental results, it was revealed that the use of the AASHTO LRFD 2005 prestress loss provisions resulted in underestimation of the prestress loss in nearly half of all cases. A loss estimation procedure was developed based on the AASHTO LRFD 2005 provisions to greatly simplify the procedure and provide a reasonable level of conservatism.