applied

sciences
Article
Effect of Prestress Levels and Jacking Methods on
Friction Losses in Curved Prestressed Tendons
Sungnam Hong
College of Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Natural Sciences Campus, (16419) 2066 Seobu-Ro,
Jangan-Gu, Suwon-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, Korea; cama77@skku.edu; Tel.: +82-31-290-7530; Fax: +82-31-290-7646

Received: 21 June 2017; Accepted: 8 August 2017; Published: 11 August 2017

Abstract: The effects of prestressing methods and prestress levels on the friction losses of prestressed
tendons were evaluated in this study. Two full-scale prestressed concrete girders were fabricated and
used for the friction loss experiment. The prestress level was varied from 13% to 45% of the ultimate
tensile strength of the prestressing tendon, and prestressing was performed by jacking one or both
ends. The test results indicated that the actual friction loss measured at low prestress levels was up
to 4.3 times higher than the theoretical friction loss. As the prestress level increased, the difference
between the measured and theoretical friction losses gradually decreased, and the two eventually
converged. On average, the ratio of the prestress force at the jacking end to the prestress force
measured at midspan was 85.4% with jacking at both ends, and 81.1% with jacking at one end.

Keywords: prestress level; prestressed concrete girder; friction loss; prestressing method

1. Introduction
Prestressed concrete (PSC) is used extensively in bridges, multistory buildings, and many other
important parts of today’s modern infrastructure. In particular, prestressing systems are essential
for long-span bridges that use concrete as the main material. Prestressing systems are generally
divided into pre- and post-tensioning methods [1]. In the post-tensioning methods, prestressing
tendons pre-mounted in a sheath are extended using tensioning devices and fixed to anchorages
pre-installed at the ends of the concrete members. Then, the prestress force is transferred to the
concrete. However, the tensioning force at the prestressing tendon inevitably decreases during or
after prestressing, i.e., a prestress loss occurs. The losses at the prestressing tendon can be divided into
instantaneous losses that occur during prestressing and time-dependent losses after prestressing [2].
The instantaneous losses that occur in PSC girders manufactured by the post-tensioning method
are caused by three factors: creep and shrinkage of concrete, and relaxation of the prestressing steel.
An exact determination of the magnitude of the time-dependent losses is not feasible because they
depend on a multiplicity of interrelated factors. Thus, many empirical methods are used to estimate
time-dependent losses. The instantaneous lossesare caused by three factors: anchorage slip, friction
between the prestressing tendon and sheath, and elastic shortening of concrete [3]. Among these
factors, the friction loss has the greatest effect on the initial prestress force of the tendon [4]. The friction
loss can affect even the midspan of the girder, whereas the loss resulting from anchorage slip is limited
to the vicinity of the end anchorage. The elastic shortening of concrete may cause substantial losses.
In a post-tensioning system, concrete is elastically shortened during the jacking process, but this is
compensated for because the prestressing tendon is tensioned until the required prestress force is
obtained. Therefore, there are almost no losses from elastic shortening to be allowed for at jacking.
Owing to these instantaneous losses, the prestress force of the tendon is not constant and is smallest
at midspan.
It is critical to determine the initial force of the prestressing tendon accurately in order to achieve
initial usability and stability of PSC structures. The service load capacity of the structure may not be

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824; doi:10.3390/app7080824 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 2 of 14

sufficient if the introduced prestress force is greatly reduced by instantaneous losses, particularly the
friction loss at midspan, which has the greatest bending moment. Therefore, the friction loss has higher
importance than the other instantaneous losses, and the improved accuracy of friction loss models will
assist structural engineers designing PSC structures.
Many researchers have studied the instantaneous losses of steel tendons, but most of them have
focused on the anchorage slip [5] and elastic shortening of concrete [6]. Furthermore, almost all of
the test specimens used in the previous studies were limited to small-scale concrete members [7–9].
There are a few reports on friction loss tests using full-scale concrete girders. Tran [10] and Davis [11]
conducted friction tests using 22.3 m concrete beams, and eight 54 mm galvanized steel ducts were
used in each beam. The beams used by Tran weremonolithically fabricated, whereas those used by
Davis were segmentally fabricated. Tran’s tests were conducted using unoiled tendons and tendons
oiled with four emulsifiable oils for corrosion protection and lubrication, selected from a preliminary
test performed by Kittleman et al. [12]. Davis’ tests, on the other hand, were conducted using unoiled
tendons and tendons oiled with Wright 502 (a type of emulsifiable oil). Based on the results of these
tests, both researchers reported that the unoiled tendons showed almost no increase or decrease in
friction coefficient, whereas the oiled tendons showed an 8–25% decrease. Lüthi et al. [13] published
a summary of a study conducted at Pennsylvania State University and the University of Texas at Austin
regarding the effects of unflushed emulsifiable oils on corrosion, bond, and friction losses. The friction
tests in the study showed that if the tendon was stressed when the oil was fresh, the lubrication
decreased the friction coefficient by approximately 15% in the rigid steel pipes and high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) ducts. Furthermore, the friction coefficient for the HDPE ducts was significantly
lower than the value recommended by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASTHO) [14]. Previous studies have mainly investigated the effects of both duct material
and emulsifiable oilson friction losses in post-tensioned concrete.
Structural engineers use the wobble and friction coefficients, which are typically presented as
constant values in the design codes, to evaluate friction losses [15,16], even though the friction between
a prestressing tendon and its sheath can be greatly affected by the prestress levels and prestressing
methods. Therefore, more studies pertaining to the evaluation of friction losses using full-scale PSC
girders are required in order to design the PSC girder and evaluate its flexural behavior accurately.
This study evaluated the effects of the prestressing methods and prestress levels on the friction
losses of a curved prestressing tendon. Two 30-m long full-scale PSC girders were fabricated and used
for the friction loss tests. The tests evaluated the effects of varying the prestress levels from 13% to
45% of the ultimate tensile strength of a prestressing tendon with jacking at one end or at both ends.
The test results were used to analyze the effects of the experimental variables on the friction losses of
prestressing tendons mounted in a sheath tube of a full-scale PSC girder.

2. Theoretical Background of Friction Loss (Friction Losses in Prestressing Tendon)

The force generated along the length of a prestressing tendon tensioned by a hydraulic jack
in a PSC structure is not uniform because of the tension between the sheath tube and tendons.
This phenomenon is caused by the friction losses. The friction losses consist of two elements: curvature
and wobble.
For more efficient load resistance, in PSC, the tendons are embedded in a curved rather than
a straight shape. The curvature friction loss is caused by the intended angular change of the tendon
profile. If the tendon direction changes by the angle da along the tendon length dx, a vertical force N
equal to 2P sin(dα/2) is generated as shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, if the friction coefficient between
the tendon and sheath tube is µ, the friction loss at the infinitesimal length dx is µN. It is possible to
replace 2 sin(dα/2) with dα because the related angles are generally very small. Thus, the friction loss
generated by the tendon’s curvature becomes µPdα.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 3 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 3 of 14

P dα / 2
dα

N
P-dP

force triangle

R
P N
P-dP
dP
A B

dx curved tendon

Curvature frictional loss

actual profile due intended

to wobbling profile

sheath
supports
α = Intended
angle change

Wobble frictional loss

Curvatureand
Figure1.1.Curvature
Figure andwobble
wobblefriction
frictionlosses.
losses.

The
Theprestress
prestress force
force is
isnot
notdecreased
decreased by bythe
thefriction
frictionloss
lossififthe
theprestressing
prestressingtendon
tendonand
andsheath
sheathtube
tube
are
are perfectly
perfectly linear.
linear. However,
However, the the tendon
tendon andand sheath
sheath in in the
the actual
actual construction
construction cannot
cannotbe be perfectly
perfectly
linear.
linear. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the sheath tube cannot cannot avoid
avoid small
smallwobbles
wobblesduring
duringthe theactual
actualconstruction,
construction,even
evenif
ifit itisisplaced
placedlinearly,
linearly,asasshown
shownininFigure
Figure1.1. The
The same applies to tendons tendons arranged
arranged ininaacurved
curvedline.
line.
Therefore, angular changes occur regardless of whether the tendons are arranged
Therefore, angular changes occur regardless of whether the tendons are arranged linearly or in a curved linearly or in a
curved line. As a result, the prestress force introduced to the tendons is inevitably
line. As a result, the prestress force introduced to the tendons is inevitably reduced. This type of loss reduced. This type
of
is loss
calledis the
called
lossthe
by loss by the effect
the length lengthoreffect or wobbling
wobbling effect ofeffect of the tendon.
the tendon. The sizeThe sizeloss
of this of this loss
depends
depends on the tendon type, size and type of the sheath, and rigidity. The
on the tendon type, size and type of the sheath, and rigidity. The wobble loss along the infinitesimal wobble loss along the
infinitesimal
length dx of the length
tendondx isofexpressed
the tendon asiskPdx,
expressed
whereas k iskPdx , where k determined
the empirically is the empirically
wobble determined
coefficient.
wobble Thecoefficient.
total friction loss along the infinitesimal length dx is as follows:
The total friction loss along the infinitesimal length dx is as follows:
dP = µPdα + kPdx (1)
dP = μPdα + kPdx (1)
Thechange
The changein
inthe
the tendon
tendon force
force between
between points
points A
A and
and BB in
in Figure
Figure 11 can
can be
be expressed
expressed as
as follows:
follows:
Z P P Z αα Zx x
A dP
A dP

PB PBP P
00
==µμ ddα
α ++k k dx dx 0 0 (2)(2)

when
when Equation
Equation (2)
(2) is
is integrated,
integrated, itit becomes
becomes

P = P e−( μα + kx) (3)

PBB = PAA e−(µα+kx) (3)
Finally,
Finally, the
the friction
friction loss
loss can
can be
be expressed
expressed as
as follows:
follows:
−(μα +kx)
PF = PA − PB = PA[1 − e −(µα+kx
]) (4)
PF = PA − PB = PA [1 − e ] (4)
where PA = tendon force at location A, PB = tendon force at location B, PF = friction loss in the
prestressing tendon, μ = friction coefficient, α = total intended cumulative angle change between
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 4 of 14

Appl.
where Sci. 2017,
PA =7,tendon
824 force at location A, PB = tendon force at location B, PF = friction loss in 4 ofthe
14
prestressing tendon, µ = friction coefficient, α = total intended cumulative angle change between A
Aand
and B in
B in radians,
radians, k = wobble
k = wobble frictionfriction coefficient
coefficient per of
per meter meter of tendon,
tendon, and x = andtendon x length
= tendon lengthA
between
between A
and B in m. and B in m.
Figure
Figure22shows
showsthat thatthe
thefriction
frictionloss affects
loss affectsthethe
prestress force
prestress of aoftendon
force a tendon along the length
along of the
the length of
beam. Figure 2a clearly indicates that the prestress force changes when the
the beam. Figure 2a clearly indicates that the prestress force changes when the tendon is tensioned tendon is tensioned to
50% of its
to 50% of tensile strength
its tensile at the
strength left left
at the endend A ofAthe beam.
of the A considerable
beam. A considerable friction loss loss
friction occurs along
occurs the
along
length of the
the length beam
of the beamwhen a tendon
when a tendon with an an
with appropriate
appropriate length
length is is
prestressed
prestressedatatonly onlyone
oneend.
end.
Figure 2b shows the change in the prestress force when the tendon is tensioned
Figure 2b shows the change in the prestress force when the tendon is tensioned to 50% of the tendon’s to 50% of the tendon’s
tensile
tensilestrength
strengthatatboth bothends
endsAAand andB of thethe
B of beam.
beam.TheThe
friction lossloss
friction decreases
decreasesconsiderably
considerablywhen the
when
tendon is prestressed
the tendon at both
is prestressed at ends
both ofendsthe of
beam. However,
the beam. few studies
However, have been
few studies haveconducted on friction
been conducted on
losses. In particular, there are almost no reports of experiments on the
friction losses. In particular, there are almost no reports of experiments on the effects of effects of prestress levels and
prestress
the methods
levels and the formethods
determining the frictionthe
for determining losses. Therefore,
friction a study onathe
losses. Therefore, friction
study on thelosses is required
friction losses is
to calculate the initial prestress force accurately, which is crucial for the design
required to calculate the initial prestress force accurately, which is crucial for the design and analysis and analysis of PSC
structures.
of PSC structures.

50% End A stressed to 50% of

ultimate
40%
30%
20% A B

Beam length
(a)
(1) Ends A and B (2) Ends A and B
50% stressed to 50% released to 30 %

40%

30%
20% (3) Ends A and B restressed to 40 %

Beam length
(b)
Figure
Figure 2.2. Tendon
Tendonforce
forcevariation
variationowing
owingtotofriction
frictionlosses
losses(a)
(a)tendon
tendonprestressed
prestressedfrom
fromend
endAAonly;
only;
(b) tendon prestressed from both ends.
(b) tendon prestressed from both ends.

3. Experimental Program
3. Experimental Program
3.1.
3.1.Test
TestVariables
Variables
The
Theexperimental
experimentalprogram
programfocused
focusedononthethefriction
frictionloss
lossininsteel
steeltendons
tendonspre-mounted
pre-mountedininaasheath.
sheath.
The prestress force and friction loss were measured using two full-scale girders and
The prestress force and friction loss were measured using two full-scale girders and then compared then compared
with
withthe
thevalues
valuesobtained
obtainedusing
usingEquation
Equation(3)(3)and
andtaken
takenfrom
fromthe theKorea
Korea Society
Societyofof Civil
Civil Engineering
Engineering
(KSCE) and Korea Concrete Institute (KCI) design codes [15,16]. One of the girders
(KSCE) and Korea Concrete Institute (KCI) design codes [15,16]. One of the girders (GOE) was (GOE) wasjacked
jackedat
at one end and the other (GBE) was jacked at both ends in order to evaluate the effects
one end and the other (GBE) was jacked at both ends in order to evaluate the effects of the prestressing of the
prestressing
methods on methods on loss.
the friction the friction
Variousloss. Various
prestress prestress
levels levels weretoconsidered
were considered evaluate theto evaluate
effects ofthe
the
effects of the prestress force on the friction loss. Table 1 outlines the experimental
prestress force on the friction loss. Table 1 outlines the experimental variables. variables.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 5 of 14

Table 1. Variables of tested girders.

Span Jacking Prestress

Support Jacking
Specimens Length Prestress Level Remarks
Type Method
(m) (kN) (%)
0.0 0
303.9 13
425.5 18
Girder jacked at 547.0 24
One end
one end (GOE) 668.6 29
790.1 34
911.7 39 Ultimate tensile
1033.3 45 strength of
Simple 30
0.0 0 prestressing
303.9 13 tendon = 2314 kN
425.5 18
Girder jacked at 547.0 24
Both ends
both ends (GBE) 668.6 29
790.1 34
911.7 39
1033.3 45

3.2. Specimen Configuration

Two full-scale PSC girders were constructed to measure the friction losses. These girders had
approximately identical spans, material properties, cross-sectional shapes, and reinforcement details.
However, only tendon 1 was used in the GOE girder for jacking at one end, and only tendon 3 was
used for jacking at both ends in the GBE girder. Table 2 outlines the main design conditions of the
girders and the loading conditions. In this table, HS20 is a hypothetical truck applied to the design
of bridges. This truck has a three-axle semitrailer combination, weighing 36 tons, with 4 tons on its
steering axle, 16 tons on its drive axle, and 16 tons on the semitrailer axle. Table 3 outlines the profiles
of the prestressing tendons. The girders have an I-shaped cross section, which is the most widely used
shape for bridge construction. The section dimensions and reinforcements were determined according
to the KSCE design code [15]. Figure 3 illustrates the cross-sections of the girder at the midspan and at
the ends, the reinforcement, and the geometric shapes of the sheaths.

Table 2. Design conditions for tested girders.

Allowable Stress for Concrete

Design Compressive Strand
Strength of Concrete Diameter LiveLoad Initial Load Stage Service Load Stage
(MPa) (mm) Compression Tension Compression Tension
12.7 (0.5 in) low 0
q
0 0
p 0
40 HS20 σci = 0.6 f ci σti = 0.6 f ci σcs = 0.4 f c σct = 1.5 fc
relaxation

Table 3. Tendon profiles.

Height According to Tendon Number

Distance from Midspan
1 2 3 4
(cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
0.00 21.3 9.3 9.3 9.3
300 26.6 13.4 11.6 10.1
600 42.5 25.6 19.3 12.6
900 68.9 46.0 31.6 16.7
1200 105.9 74.6 49.2 22.5
1480 150.0 106.6 70.0 29.4
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 6 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 6 of 14

50 5140 120 2200 2530 120 1200 3530 60

A D16 B
100 40
110

P 1
GOE (Jacking at one end)
D16
2000

1320

2
P 3
220

4 GBE (Jacking at both ends)

170
40

A Strain gauge B
D25
700

A-A section B-B section

700 40 250 250 40

40
120

110
250

100
D10
D25

400

400
434
50

50
2000

2000
D16
D16

366
D16

1300

1300
406

220
294
120

170
93

40

40 230 230 40 40 230 230 40

120 120

660 660

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Details
Details of
of full-scale
full-scale prestressed
prestressed concrete
concrete (PSC)
(PSC) girder.

Concrete with a compressive strength of 40.0 MPa was used to fabricate the girder. Furthermore,
Concrete with a compressive strength of 40.0 MPa was used to fabricate the girder. Furthermore,
a prefabricated Styrofoam box with dimensions of 20 cm × 20 cm × 60 cm was mounted to provide
a prefabricated Styrofoam box with dimensions of 20 cm × 20 cm × 60 cm was mounted to provide
space for attaching strain gauges at the midspan bottom of the girders before concrete placement.
space for attaching strain gauges at the midspan bottom of the girders before concrete placement.
The girders were steam-cured for 12 h after casting to minimize the shrinkage effect. Table 4
The girders were steam-cured for 12 h after casting to minimize the shrinkage effect. Table 4
summarizes the material properties of the steel rebar, prestressing tendon, and sheath, which were
summarizes the material properties of the steel rebar, prestressing tendon, and sheath, which were
provided by the manufacturer.
provided by the manufacturer.

Table 4. Properties of reinforcing steel, prestressing tendon, and sheath.

Table 4. Properties of reinforcing steel, prestressing tendon, and sheath.
Prestressing Strand
Prestressing Strand
Diameter Yield Strength Ultimate Strength
Duct No. Type
(mm) (MPa) Yield (MPa)
Ultimate
Diameter
1 Duct 10 No. Type Strength Strength
Seven-wire strand 12.7 (mm) 1659 (MPa) 1828
(MPa)
3 10
1 10
Steelstrand
Seven-wire rebar 12.7 1659 1828
3 10 Tensile Modulus of
Diameter Yield strength Elongation
Type strength elasticity
(mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%)
D-10 9.53 475 766 2.01 × 105 14.4
D-16 15.9 466 679 2.11 × 105 17.2
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 7 of 14

Table 4. Cont.

Steel rebar
Tensile Modulus of
Diameter Yield strength Elongation
Type strength elasticity
(mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%)
D-10 9.53 475 766 2.01 × 105 14.4
D-16 15.9 466 679 2.11 × 105 17.2
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 7 of 14
D-257, 824
Appl. Sci. 2017, 25.4 471 723 2.06 × 105 15.8 7 of 14
D-25 25.4 471
Sheath 723 2.06 × 105 15.8
D-25 25.4 471 723 Sheath 2.06 × 105 15.8
Profile
Profile
Profile Wall
Diameter Diameter Thread Sheath
Thread
d2

height
heightProfile widthwidth Wall thickness
thickness
Profile d2
Inside: dDiameter
1 Outside:
Inside: d Thread
2 e Profile width
a Wall
b thickness s
Outside: d2 height e a b s
d1
(mm)
Inside: (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Outside:(mm)
d2 e(mm) (mm)
a (mm) b (mm) s (mm)
65d1 6572 72 2020 3.5 3.5 12.512.5 0.3 0.3
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Bending (mm) (mm)
Weight Relative Relative
volume ofvolume
profile of Bending Bending
radius b e
65 Weight 72 20 Bending behavior
behavior
3.5 12.5 profile 0.3 radius
(kg/m) (kg/m)
Bending (N)
(N) (cm /cm
3
(cm)3 /cm3 )
3 (m)(m) a
d1e
Weight 0.59 Relative
222 volume of profile 0.12 Bending radius0.75 b s

0.59 behavior 222 0.12 0.75

(kg/m) (N) (cm3/cm3) (m) a
d1
0.59 3.3. Prestressing
s
222 0.12 0.75
3.3. Prestressing Figure 4 shows the systems used to prestress the steel tendons. In general, the load cells are
3.3. Prestressinginstalled between the hydraulic jack and anchorage to measure the prestress force at the jacking end.
Figure 4 shows the systems used to prestress the steel tendons. In general, the load cells are
However, in this experiment, the prestress force was calculated from the strains, which were
Figure 4 shows
installed between measured the systems
the hydraulic jackused
and to prestress the
anchorage steel tendons.
to measure the In general,
prestress the at
load
thecells are end.
using strain gauges installed at the center of the tendon and at force
one end jacking
(jacking end). The
installed between the
However, in this experiment, hydraulic
reason is thatthe jack and
prestress
it can anchorage
force
be difficult to measure
was calculated
to determine the prestress
fromforce
the prestress force
the accuratelyat the
strains, which jacking end.
wereameasured
when using load cell
However, in this experiment,
because of the at the prestress force
unpredictable thewas calculated from the strains, which were
using strain gauges installed the centerstresses
of theintendon cell itself.
and at one end (jacking end). The reason is
measured using strain gauges installed at the center of the tendon and at one end (jacking end). The
that it can be difficult to determine the prestress force accurately when using a load cell because of the
reason is that it can be difficult to determine the prestress force accurately when using a load cell
unpredictable
because of stresses in the cellstresses
the unpredictable itself. in the cell itself.

(a)

(a)

(b)

(b)

Figure 4. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 8 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 8 of 14

(c)
Figure 4. Prestressing systems (a) prestressing jack; (b) anchorage; (c) hydraulic pump.
Figure 4. Prestressing systems (a) prestressing jack; (b) anchorage; (c) hydraulic pump.
Only one among the four tendons of each girder was tensioned twice to measure the friction
Only
lossesone amongand
accurately, the thefourtendons
tendons of each
were girder
not fixed was
after thetensioned
stretchingtwice to measure
was complete. the was
There friction
a 1-hlosses
difference
accurately, and between
the tendons the were
first and
not second measurements.
fixed after the stretching In was
the case of jacking
complete. Thereat was
botha ends, the
1-h difference
prestressing devices had to be moved and set for jacking at the other end
between the first and second measurements. In the case of jacking at both ends, the prestressing after the jacking at one end
washad
devices completed,
to be movedand this
andtask required
set for jackingabout 1 hother
at the to complete.
end after In the
the jacking
case of jacking at one
at one end wasend, the
completed,
prestressing devices did not need to be moved and set, but jacking was performed with 1-h intervals
and this task required about 1 h to complete. In the case of jacking at one end, the prestressing devices
to maintain the same experimental conditions as those for jacking at both ends.
did not need to be moved and set, but jacking was performed with 1-h intervals to maintain the same
The KSCE design code [15] recommends that the smaller value between 0.8 f pu and 0.9 f py be
experimental conditions as those for jacking at both ends.
chosen for the maximum jacking stress of the prestressing tendon, where f py and f pu denote the
The KSCE design code [15] recommends that the smaller value between 0.8 f pu and 0.9 f py be
chosenyield
for stress and ultimate
the maximum jackingstress of the
stress prestressing
of the prestressingtendon,
tendon,respectively.
where f pyThere
and fwas a concern,
pu denote the yield
however, that the tendon may be broken if the tension work was performed using one of these values,
stress and ultimate stress of the prestressing tendon, respectively. There was a concern, however,
owing to various factors, such as fabrication error of the tendon or corrosion from exposure to the
that the tendon may be broken if the tension work was performed using one of these values, owing
external environment. Therefore, to achieve stability in the jacking work, the maximum prestress
to various factors, such as fabrication error of the tendon or corrosion from exposure to the external
level was determined based on the serviceability limit state in this experiment. The KSCE design code
environment. Therefore,
[15] recommends that the to maximum
achieve stability in the
jacking stress of jacking
the tendon work,
at thethe maximumlimit
serviceability prestress level was
state should
determined
not exceedbased
0 .45on
f puthe(≈ serviceability limitforces
0 .65 f py ). Prestress statecorresponding
in this experiment. The 24%,
to 13%, 18%, KSCE 29%,design code [15]
34%, 39%,
recommends
and 45% of the ultimate tensile strength of the prestressing tendon were applied to each of the two not
that the maximum jacking stress of the tendon at the serviceability limit state should
exceed 0.45 f pu
girders. (≈0.65
These f py ). Prestress
prestress forces rangedforces corresponding
from 303.9 to 1033.3tokN. 13%, 18%,
Strain 24%, were
gauges 29%, installed
34%, 39%, on and
the 45%
of thesurface
ultimate tensile
of the tendons,strength
embeddedof the at prestressing tendonofwere
the midspan bottom applied
the girder. Allto
of each of the
the strain two
data girders.
were
These prestress forces ranged from 303.9 to 1033.3 kN. Strain gauges were installed on the surface of
recorded using the data-logger EDX-1500A (Kyowa, Chofu, Japan).
the tendons, embedded at the midspan bottom of the girder. All of the strain data were recorded using
4. Test Results
the data-logger and Discussion
EDX-1500A (Kyowa, Chofu, Japan).
4.1.Results
4. Test Theoretical
andFriction Loss
Discussion
Table 5 lists the friction coefficients recommended by KSCE and KCI design codes [15,16]. The
4.1. Theoretical
KCI designFriction Loss that the curvature friction coefficient μ depends on the tendon type and
code indicates
sheath5 surface
Table lists thecharacteristics, and varies
friction coefficients between 0.05
recommended and 0.30
by KSCE andperKCImeter.
designThe wobble
codes friction
[15,16]. The KCI
coefficient k is a function of both the sheath strength and the curvature friction coefficient μ , and
design code indicates that the curvature friction coefficient µ depends on the tendon type and sheath
surfaceit varies between 0.0003
characteristics, and 0.0066
and varies per 0.05
between radian.
andInformation on the
0.30 per meter. Theprestressing system
wobble friction used is k is
coefficient
required to calculate the friction losses accurately because these friction coefficients may vary within
a function of both the sheath strength and the curvature friction coefficient µ, and it varies between
the tolerance. In principle, the friction coefficients for the selected prestressing tendon must be
0.0003 and 0.0066 per radian. Information on the prestressing system used is required to calculate the
obtained empirically. However, it is economically unreasonable and even not feasible to conduct
friction losses accurately
experiments to acquirebecause thesecoefficients
the friction friction coefficients may vary
of all the tendons usedwithin the tolerance.
to design In principle,
the PSC girders.
the friction coefficients for the selected prestressing tendon must be obtained empirically.
Consequently, structural engineers determine the friction loss based on the friction coefficients However,
it is economically unreasonable and even not feasible to conduct experiments to acquire
presented in the design codes, and, typically, the simpler friction coefficients given in the KSCE the friction
coefficients of all
design code arethe tendons
preferred used in
to those tothe
design the PSC
KCI design code.girders. Consequently,
Therefore, the theoreticalstructural
friction lossengineers
was
determine the friction loss based on the friction coefficients presented in the design codes, and, typically,
the simpler friction coefficients given in the KSCE design code are preferred to those in the KCI design
code. Therefore, the theoretical friction loss was calculated using the curvature coefficient k = 0.005
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 9 of 14

and wobble coefficient µ = 0.25 based on the recommendation of the KSCE design code, considering
that seven-wire strands and a galvanized metal sheath were used for the PSC girders.

Table 5. Wobble (k) and curvature friction (µ) coefficients: Korea Society of Civil Engineering (KSCE);
Korea Concrete Institute (KCI).

KCI Design Code KSCE Design Code

Coefficient Coefficient
Type of Tendon Type of Type of Duct
Wobble Curvature Wobble Curvature
Tendon
(k/m) (µ/rad) (k/m) (µ/rad)
Wire
0.0033–0.0050 0.15–0.25
tendons Metal sheath 0.0066 0.30
7-wire
Bonded tendons in metal 0.0003–0.0020 0.08–0.30
strand Wire or
duct Galvanized
strand 0.0050 0.25
metal sheath
High-strength
0.0015–0.0066 0.15–0.25
bars
Galvanized
Wire 0.0007 0.25
0.0033–0.0066 0.05–0.15 rigid duct
tendons
Mastic-coated
7-wire
Unbonded 0.0033–0.0066 0.05–0.15
strand Metal duct 0.0010 0.20
tendons in
metal duct Wire High
0.0010–0.0066 0.05–0.15
tendons strength
Pregreased bars Galvanized
7-wire 0.0007 0.15
0.0010–0.0066 0.05–0.15 metal sheath
strand

Table 3 lists the information about the longitudinal positions of the tendons in the girders
depicted in Figure 3; the height of each tendon is presented according to the distance from midspan.
Each tendon was assumed as parabolic in shape. The derived quadratic equations of each tendon and
the corresponding first-order differential equations are outlined in Table 6.
Table 7 lists the variations in the angle with the distance of the tendon from midspan, based on
the differential equations in Table 6.
Table 8 lists the theoretical friction losses of tendon 3 in the GBE girder and tendon 1 in the GOE
girder at the midspan for the virtual prestress forces, based on the variation in angle as given in Table 7
and the friction loss coefficients (k = 0.005, µ = 0.25) in the KSCE design code [15]. The theoretical
friction losses were calculated by Equation (3). The values in this table reveal that the theoretical friction
losses have a linear relationship with the prestress forces, which is already well known. Furthermore,
there was a difference in the friction losses between tendon 1 in the GOE girder and tendon 3 in the
GBE girder because the tendons had different profiles.

Table 6. Quadratic equations of each tendon and corresponding first-order differential equations.

Tendon Number Quadratic Equation Differential Equation Remark

y: height from bottom of PSC
1 y = 0.00587564x2 y0 = 0.01175128x
girder to tendon.
2 y = 0.00453342x2 y0 = 0.00906684x y0 : height from bottom of PSC
3 y = 0.00277116x2 y0 = 0.00554232x girder to tendon.
4 y = 0.00091764x2 y0 = 0.00183528x x: distance from midspan
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 10 of 14

Table 7. Variation in angle with distance of tendons.

Distance from Midspan (m)

Tendon Number ∑∆α
14.8 12.0 9.0 6.0 3.0
Degree 9570 5300 8040 5100 6030 3500 4020 2200 2010 1200 9570 5300
1
Radian 0.1739 0.1410 0.1057 0.0705 0.03525 0.1739
Degree 7410 1800 6140 0200 4400 3100 3070 0100 1330 3000 7410 1800
2
Radian 0.1341 0.1088 0.0816 0.0544 0.0272 0.1341
Degree 4350 5500 3430 4300 2470 4700 1510 5100 0550 5600 4350 5500
3
Radian 0.0802 0.0650 0.0488 0.0325 0.0167 0.0802
Degree 1330 2300 1150 4300 0560 4700 0370 5100 0180 5600 1330 2300
4
Radian 0.0272 0.022 0.0165 0.011 0.005 0.0272

Table 8. Initial prestress force and friction loss.

Tendon 1 in GOE Tendon 3 in GBE

Prestress Force Prestress Force
Frictional Loss Frictional Loss
Live End Midspan Live End Midspan
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
100 88.9 11.1 100 91 9
200 177.8 22.2 200 182 18
300 266.7 33.3 300 273.1 26.9
400 355.7 44.3 400 364.1 35.9
500 444.6 55.4 500 455.1 44.9
600 533.5 66.5 600 546.1 53.9
700 622.4 77.6 700 637.2 62.8
800 711.3 88.7 800 728.2 71.8
900 800.2 99.8 900 819.2 80.8
1000 889.2 110.8 1000 910.2 89.8

4.2. Measured Prestress Force

The friction losses at the tendons from prestressing only one tendon in one girder were accurately
measured in the experiment. The prestress forces were calculated at the girder end and midspan by
using the strains of the prestressing tendon recorded from the strain gauges attached to one end and the
center of the prestressing tendon, respectively. The difference between these prestress forces was the
friction loss. Table 9 lists the prestress forces and friction losses measured in each experimental girder.
The theoretical prestress forces and friction losses in this table were calculated by using Equations (3)
and (4). The experimental results indicate that considerable friction losses occur when steel tendons
are used to prestress PSC girders. The difference between the measured and theoretical losses was
smaller when the prestress level was higher and both ends were jacked, compared to the difference
obtained when only one end was jacked.

Table 9. Test results of GBE and GOE.

GBE (kN)
Prestress
Prestress Prestress Force Friction Loss
Forceat
Level Midspan
Live End
Measured Measured
Theoretical Theoretical
(kN) (%) 1st 2nd 1st 2nd
303.9 13 270.3 233.3 258.9 33.6 70.6 45.0
425.5 18 378.4 362.0 385.8 47.1 63.5 39.7
547.0 24 486.5 458.1 490.2 60.5 88.9 56.8
668.6 29 594.6 558.9 628.3 74.0 109.7 40.3
790.1 34 702.7 664.7 710.4 87.4 125.4 79.7
911.7 39 810.8 780.5 792.5 100.9 131.2 119.2
1033.3 45 918.9 895.3 908.0 114.3 138.0 125.3
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 11 of 14

Table 9. Cont.

GBE (kN)
Prestress
Prestress Prestress Force Friction Loss
Forceat
Level Midspan
Live End
Measured Measured
Theoretical Theoretical
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7,(%)
(kN) 824 1st 2nd 1st 2nd11 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 11 of 14
303.9 13 270.3 233.3 258.9 33.6 70.6 45.0
(kN)
425.5 18 378.4(%) 362.0 385.8 1st 2nd
47.1 63.5 1st 39.72nd
(kN)
303.9
547.0 24 486.5(%)
13 458.1 276.6 490.2 1st
186.5 2nd
205.8
60.5 27.3 88.9 1st 2nd
117.456.8
98.1
425.5
303.9
668.6 29 18
594.613 387.3 628.3
558.9 276.6 311.6
186.5 311.7
205.8
74.0 38.2
27.3 109.7 113.840.3
117.4 113.8
98.1
547.0
425.5
790.1 34 24
702.718 497.9 710.4
664.7 387.3 437.8
311.6 450.8
311.7
87.4 49.1
38.2 125.4 109.279.7
113.8 96.2
113.8
668.6
547.0
911.7 39 29
810.824 608.6 792.5
780.5 497.9 547.3
437.8 570.6
450.8
100.9 60.0
49.1 131.2 121.3119.2
109.2 98.0
96.2
1033.3
790.1
668.6 45 918.929
34 895.3 608.6
719.2 908.0 663.1
547.3 114.3
692.9
570.6 70.9
60.0 138.0 127.0125.3
121.3 97.2
98.0
911.7
790.1 39
34 829.9
719.2 791.9
663.1 824.3
692.9 81.8
70.9 119.8 97.2
127.0 87.4
1033.3
911.7 45
39 940.5
829.9 920.7
791.9 959.5
824.3 92.7
81.8 112.6 87.4
119.8 73.7
4.3. Comparison
1033.3 of Theoretical and 45
Measured Prestress
940.5 Forces 920.7 959.5 92.7 112.6 73.7
4.3. Comparison
Figures 5 and 6ofcompare
Theoreticaltheandprestress
Measured forces
PrestressatForces
the jacking end and midspan when there was no
4.3. Comparison of Theoretical and Measured Prestress Forces
friction loss, when5 only
Figures and 6 the theoretical
compare friction
the prestress lossatwas
forces considered,
the jacking end and and whenwhen
midspan two there
measured
was nofriction
wereFigures
losses friction 5 and 6only
loss, when
considered. compare
Thethefirstthe prestress
theoretical
and forces
friction
second lossatwas
the considered,
prestress jacking
forcesend
forand midspan
when3two
tendon inwhen theregirder
measured
the GBE was no jacked
friction
frictionwere
loss,considered.
when only the theoretical frictionprestress
loss wasforces
considered, and 3when
in thetwo measured friction
at bothlosses
ends measured The
at the first and second
midspan were 83.7% and 89.2% for of
tendon
the prestress GBE girder
forces jacked
measured at at the
losses weremeasured
both ends considered.at The first and second
the midspan prestress
were 83.7% and forces
89.2% for tendon
of the 3 in the
prestress GBEmeasured
forces girder jacked at
at the
jackingboth
endsends
onmeasured
average,atand the theoretical prestress forces the
corresponded to 88.9% of the actually
jacking ends on average,the andmidspan were 83.7%
the theoretical and 89.2%
prestress forcesofcorresponded
prestressto
forces
88.9%measured at the
of the actually
introduced
jackingprestress force
endsprestress
introduced on average, on average.
forceand the theoretical prestress forces corresponded to 88.9% of the actually
on average.
introduced prestress force on average.
1200
No. friction
1200 Theoretical
n [kN]

No. friction(1st)
Measured
1000 Theoretical
an a[kN]

Measured (2nd)
Measured (1st)
1000 Measured (2nd)
at midsp

800
at midsp

800
600
force

600
force

400
Prestress

400
Prestress

200
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0
Prestress
400 force at
600jacking 800
0 end [kN] 1000
200 1200
Prestress force at jacking end [kN]
Figure 5. Prestress forces between jacking end and midspan: GBE.
Figure 5. Prestress forces between jacking end and midspan: GBE.
Figure 5. Prestress forces between jacking end and midspan: GBE.
1200
No. friction
1200 Theoretical
n [kN]

No. friction(1st)
Measured
1000 Theoretical
an a[kN]

Measured (2nd)
Measured (1st)
1000 Measured (2nd)
at midsp

800
at midsp

800
600
force

600
force

400
Prestress

400
Prestress

200
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0
0 200 Prestress
400 force at
600jacking 800
end [kN] 1000 1200
Prestress force at jacking end [kN]
Figure 6. Prestress forces between jacking end and midspan: GOE.
Figure 6. Prestress forces between jacking end and midspan: GOE.
Figure 6. Prestress forces between jacking end and midspan: GOE.
The first and second prestress forces measured for tendon 1in the GOE girder jacked at one end
at theThe first and
midspan weresecond prestress
79.5% and 82.8%forces measured
of the prestressfor tendon
forces 1in the GOE
measured at thegirder
jackingjacked at average,
end on one end
at
andthethe
midspan wereprestress
theoretical 79.5% and 82.8%
force wasofidentical
the prestress
to thatforces measured
obtained when at theends
both jacking
wereend on average,
jacked. In the
and
samethe theoretical
girder, prestress
the second force was
measured identical
prestress forcetowas
thatgreater
obtained when
than bothone,
the first ends were
and jacked.
greater In the
prestress
same girder, the second measured prestress force was greater than the first one, and greater prestress
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 12 of 14

The first and second prestress forces measured for tendon 1in the GOE girder jacked at one end at
the midspan were 79.5% and 82.8% of the prestress forces measured at the jacking end on average,
and the theoretical prestress force was identical to that obtained when both ends were jacked. In the
same girder, the second measured prestress force was greater than the first one, and greater prestress
forces were observed with tension applied at both ends compared with that obtained when tension
was applied only at one end. This phenomenon occurred because the friction between the sheath and
the prestressing
Appl. Sci. 2017,tendon
7, 824 was changed by the prestressing order and method. In other words,12the of 14contact
surface between the sheath and the tendon was very rough in the first prestressing, but in the second
forces were
prestressing, the observed with tension
contact surface applied
became at bothdue
smooth endstocompared
the first with that obtained
prestressing. The when tensioncontact
changed
was applied only at one end. This phenomenon occurred because the friction between the sheath and
surface generated smaller friction in the second prestressing than in the first prestressing. Furthermore,
the prestressing tendon was changed by the prestressing order and method. In other words, the
greatercontact
prestress forces were observed in the case of jacking at both ends than when jacking at only one
surface between the sheath and the tendon was very rough in the first prestressing, but in the
end. This occurs becausethe
second prestressing, prestressing at both
contact surface endssmooth
became of thedue
beam results
to the first in more andThe
prestressing. smoother
changedcontact
surfaces between the sheath and prestressing tendons, compared to the situation when prestressing
contact surface generated smaller friction in the second prestressing than in the first prestressing. at
Furthermore,
only one end. greater prestress forces were observed in the case of jacking at both ends than when
jacking at only one end. This occurs because prestressing at both ends of the beam results in more
4.4. Normalized Friction
and smoother Losssurfaces between the sheath and prestressing tendons, compared to the
contact
situation when prestressing at only one end.
Figure 7 shows the measured friction losses normalized by those calculated using the model of
Equation (4). The friction
4.4. Normalized Friction losses
Loss in the prestressing tendon continuously decreased as the prestress
level was increased. Furthermore,
Figure 7 shows the measured thefriction
difference
lossesbetween
normalized thebymeasured and theoretical
those calculated friction
using the model of losses
tendedEquation
to decrease from
(4). The a certain
friction lossesprestress level regardless
in the prestressing of the profile
tendon continuously of the as
decreased prestressing
the prestresstendon.
These prestress levels were
level was increased. 24% and 18%
Furthermore, for tendon
the difference 3 in the
between theGBE girderand
measured and tendon 1friction
theoretical in thelosses
GOE girder,
tended However,
respectively. to decrease the
from a certainin
decrease prestress level regardless
the prestress levels inoftendon
the profile
3 was of the prestressingtotendon.
proportional the decrease
These prestress
in the normalized levels were
friction losses24%when andthe18%prestress
for tendon 3 in was
level the GBE
24%girder and tendon
or higher. 1 in the GOEfriction
The normalized
girder, respectively. However, the decrease in the prestress levels in tendon 3 was proportional to the
losses in tendon 1 converged to one value, regardless of the prestress level, when the prestress was 18%
decrease in the normalized friction losses when the prestress level was 24% or higher. The normalized
or higher. These results were probably greatly influenced by the profiles of the prestressing tendon.
friction losses in tendon 1 converged to one value, regardless of the prestress level, when the prestress
Tendon was 18% a
1 had orgreater curvature
higher. These resultscompared
were probably with tendon
greatly 3. Thisby
influenced greater curvature
the profiles probably caused
of the prestressing
and maintained greater friction effects (curvature and wobble) between
tendon. Tendon 1 had a greater curvature compared with tendon 3. This greater curvature probably the prestressing tendon and
sheath.caused
On the andother hand, the
maintained prestressing
greater tendons
friction effects in the GBE
(curvature girder were
and wobble) arranged
between almost linearly,
the prestressing
which tendon
resultedandinsheath. On thefriction
very small other hand, the prestressing
effects. These friction tendons
effectsin the GBE girder
probably were arranged
disappear if a prestress
almostalinearly,
force above certainwhich
level resulted
is appliedin very small
to the friction effects. These friction effects probably disappear
tendon.
if a prestress force above a certain level is applied to the tendon.
As shown in Figure 7 and Table 9, the lower the prestress level was, the greater the friction loss
As shown in Figure 7 and Table 9, the lower the prestress level was, the greater the friction loss
became, regardless
became, of the
regardless ofprestressing
the prestressing method.
method. AtAtthethetime
timeofofjacking, thecontact
jacking, the contactsurface
surface between the
between
tendonstheistendons
very rough.
is veryThe lower
rough. Thethe prestress
lower level is,
the prestress theis,
level less
thesmooth this contact
less smooth surface
this contact becomes
surface
and vice versa.and
becomes Therefore,
vice versa. a greater
Therefore,friction lossfriction
a greater must have occurred
loss must have at a lower
occurred at prestress level because
a lower prestress
level because
the contact surfacethewas contact surface was less smooth.
less smooth.
5
GOE GBE GBE
Measured (1st)
Measured (2nd)
Normalized frictional loss

4 Linear Converged
24% 18%
GOE
Measured (1st)
Measured (2nd)
3

0
13 18 24 29 34 39 45
Prestress level [%]
Figure 7. Effect of prestress levels on normalized friction losses.
Figure 7. Effect of prestress levels on normalized friction losses.
In PSC structures, the friction caused by the interaction between a tendon and a sheath during
tension has a crucial effect on the prestress force and the elongation of the tendon. In particular, the
underestimation or overestimation of the friction coefficient can cause unexpected structural
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 13 of 14

In PSC structures, the friction caused by the interaction between a tendon and a sheath during
tension has a crucial effect on the prestress force and the elongation of the tendon. In particular,
the underestimation or overestimation of the friction coefficient can cause unexpected structural
behavior in relation to the camber, deflection, and stress distribution. Structural engineers obtain
the friction coefficient from friction loss models specified in various design standards to evaluate the
friction between a prestressing tendon and a sheath. Therefore, the accuracy of a friction loss model
leads to an accurate decrease of prestress force caused by friction loss. A successful design requires
accurate prediction of the prestress loss by friction. In this study, the friction losses were predicted using
the theoretical model in Equation (4), and the predicted values were compared with the experiment
results. The most important finding in this study is that the friction loss model provided a theoretical
value that is very close to the experimental value at a high prestress level, but the theoretical values
showed greater errors compared to the experimental values at the lower prestress levels. Therefore,
the designer should take special care when applying a low prestress level to PSC structures.

5. Conclusions
The initial prestress force has a dominant effect on the member force of a PSC girder, and the
friction loss between the prestressing tendon and sheath tube strongly affects this prestress force.
In this study, friction loss experiments were conducted using full-scale 30-m long PSC girders. Some of
the findings derived from the experimental results are as follows:

(1) The prestress force measured at midspan corresponded to 86.4% and 81.1% of the prestress force
at the jacking end with both ends jacked and one end jacked, respectively.
(2) The friction losses in the prestressing tendon continuously decreased as the prestress level
increased. The measured friction loss was much greater than the theoretical friction loss at low
prestress levels, but it approached the theoretical friction loss at high prestress levels.
(3) Jacking at both ends is recommended for the prestressing method because it generates a much
lower friction loss compared with the loss obtained with jacking at only one end.
(4) In the design codes, the friction loss is evaluated solely by the curvature friction coefficient
and wobble friction coefficient, with no regard to the prestressing method and prestress level.
However, the experimental results in this study showed that the prestressing method and
prestress level strongly affect the friction losses. Therefore, further studies are required to confirm
this observation.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) and funded by the Ministry of Education (2016R1A6A3A11931804).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Nawy, E.G. Prestressed Concrete: A Fundamental Approach, 5th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA, 2009.
2. Shin, H.M. Prestressed Concrete, 10th ed.; Dongmyeong Publishers: Paju, Korea, 2008.
3. Collins, M.P.; Mitchell, D. Prestressed Concrete Structures; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1991.
4. Moon, J.K.; Lee, J.-H. A study on the determination of prestressing force considering frictional loss in PS
concrete structures. Korea Soc. Civ. Eng. 1997, 17, 89–99.
5. Huang, T. Anchorage take-up loss in post-tensioned members. PCI J. 1969, 14, 30–35. [CrossRef]
6. Cole, H. Direct solution for elastic prestress loss in pretensioned concrete girders. Pract. Period. Struct. Des.
Constr. 2000, 5, 27–31. [CrossRef]
7. Naaman, A.E.; Hamza, A.M. Prestress losses in partially prestressed high strength concrete beams. PCI J.
1993, 38, 98–113. [CrossRef]
8. Rao, K.B.; Anoop, M.B.; Sreeshylam, P.; Sridhar, S.; Kesavan, K.; Ravisankar, K. Assessment of pre-stress
losses in instrumented pre-stressed concrete beams using stochastic analysis. Strain 2011, 47, 175–188.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 824 14 of 14

9. Caro, L.A.; Martí-Vargas, J.R.; Serna, P. Prestress losses evaluation in prestressed concrete prismatic
specimens. Eng. Struct. 2013, 48, 704–715. [CrossRef]
10. Tran, T.T. Reducing Friction Loss for Post-Tensioned Tendons in Monolithic Girders. Master’s Thesis,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA, 1992.
11. Davis, R.T. Friction Losses in Segmental Bridge Tendon. Master’s Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX, USA, 1993.
12. Kittleman, W.M.; Davis, R.T.; Hamilton, H.R.; Frank, K.H.; Breen, J.E. Evaluation of Agents for Lubrication and
Temporary Corrosion Protection of Post-Tension Tendons; Technical Report; Centre for Transportation Research at
The University of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX, USA, 1993.
13. Lüthi, T.; Diephuis, J.; Icaza, J.J.; Breen, J.E.; Kreger, M.E. Factors Affecting Bond and Friction Losses in
Multi-Strand Post-Tensioning Tendons Including the Effect of Emulsifiable Oil; Technical Report; Centre for
Transportation Research at The University of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX, USA, 2005.
14. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Standard Specification for
Highway Bridges, 17th ed.; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Washington,
DC, USA, 2002.
15. Korea Society of Civil Engineering (KSCE). The Korea Highway Standard Specification; Korea Society of Civil
Engineering: Seoul, Korea, 2012.
16. Korea Concrete Institute (KCI). Structural Concrete Design Code; Korea Concrete Institute: Seoul, Korea, 2012.

© 2017 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).