ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 103-S51

Allowable Tensile Stress for Webs of Prestressed

Segmental Concrete Bridges
by Ayman M. Okeil

Structural, economical, and aesthetic advantages have helped

prestressed (PS) concrete segmental box girder bridges gain
popularity. The long-term endurance of PS segmental bridges
depends on being free of cracking. Designers limit structural
cracking by ensuring that service stresses do not exceed the tensile
strength of concrete. An allowable tensile stress, which is more
stringent than tensile strength, is often used to account for the
uncertainties in both capacity and demand. Design codes clearly
provide the allowable tensile stress for top and bottom fibers. This
paper investigates establishing an allowable tensile stress limit for
consideration in webs, where research is currently lacking. The
proposed limit is obtained through a reliability study where three
expressions were calibrated to conform to HL-93 loading. The
effect of the accompanying principal compressive stress is accounted Fig. 1—Post-tensioned concrete segment showing coordinate
for in two of the expressions. Six PS concrete bridge designs were used system and location of centroidal stress block.
to demonstrate the importance of accounting for the biaxial state of
stress. A parametric study shows that one of the proposed expressions
provides a more uniform range of reliability index β than the other two,
including the one currently used by designers.

Keywords: bridges; prestressed; reliability; tensile strength.

INTRODUCTION
Segmental construction is an appealing choice to many
bridge designers and owners. It makes achieving longer span
lengths possible while still handling and transporting
manageable size segments (Fig. 1). The prestressed (PS)
concrete box girder is one of the segmental alternatives that
has been gaining popularity in the past 30 years as it becomes
more competitive to other alternatives. Box sections provide
favorable structural properties such as high flexural stiffness
and superior torsional rigidity. They can also be used to
construct variable depth spans that are aesthetically
appealing. Cracking of PS concrete segmental box girder
bridges negatively impacts their durability; therefore, they
are designed to be free of cracks under service conditions.
Designers are often faced with the challenge of estimating an
allowable tensile stress that can achieve this goal. Allowable
tensile stresses for consideration at the top and bottom fibers
of the girder are well established in design codes.1-3 They
vary based on several factors such as the type of joint
(Type A or B). These stresses are usually provided as a
function of the compressive strength fc′ and normally range
from 6 f c′ to zero tension. In some cases, such as the case
for Type B joints with external tendons, AASHTO-
Segmental2 calls for a minimum compressive stress of 100 psi.
By complying with the aforementioned allowable tensile
stresses, the possibility of flexural cracking at the top and
bottom fibers should be eliminated. These allowable stresses
are only good for the extreme fibers and are not applicable to
webs. In webs, cracks may form due to a biaxial state of
stress resulting from a combination of shear and normal
stresses. The normal stresses are usually in the longitudinal
Fig. 2—Stress block from web of PS segmental bridge.
direction σx (refer to Fig. 1 for coordinate system). They are
caused by straining actions due to gravity loads, long-term
effects, and post-tensioning (PT) forces. In regions with high
shear demands, another normal stress σy may exist if vertical
PT bars are used in the webs. Shear stresses v are caused by
direct shear forces as well as torsional effects. This state of
stress (Fig. 2) is somewhat different than the state of stress at
the top and bottom fibers in that the critical stress that may
cause cracking is the principal stress σ1, as can be demonstrated
by Mohr’s circle (Fig. 3). Controlling shear cracking
requires that the principal stress σ1 be limited to an allowable
tensile stress ft,all. AASHTO-Segmental2 does not offer
guidance to designers with regard to ft,all in webs, which
ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-August 2006.
MS No. 04-197 received June 2, 2005, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion
including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-June 2007 ACI
Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2007.

488 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006

ACI member Ayman M. Okeil is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. He
received his BS and MS from Alexandria University and his PhD from North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, N.C. He is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Reinforcement, and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 343, Concrete Bridge
Design. His research interests include nonlinear analysis and design of concrete
structures, structural reliability, and fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced structures.

consequently shifts the burden of choosing ft,all to the

designer (or the client). Alleviating this burden from the
designer is important as it will make the design process
clearer and more uniform. Visiting allowable stresses is an
ongoing process. Noppakunwijai et al.4 recently recommended
some changes to the provisions controlling compression
limits in prestressed girders. The Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) has embarked on an effort to address
some of the issues that PS bridge designers face. The
Fig. 3—Mohr’s circle illustrating biaxial state of stress in
document5 produced by this effort has recommendations for
webs of PS segmental bridges at centroidal axis.
the allowable tensile stresses to be used for web principal
tension checks. The limits are provided for design of new
bridges as well as for load rating of existing bridges. Both the
current practice and FDOT’s recommendations express the
allowable tensile stress as a function of fc′ using the known
form: constant × f c′ . Although values between 0.25 and
0.33 in MPa (3.0 and 4.0 in psi) have been used for the
constant, the author is not aware of any calibration studies
based on structural reliability to determine its value. Further-
more, this expression implies that the focus is on the tensile
principal stress σ1 and ignores the accompanying compressive
principal stress σ2. It is well established in the literature6-10
that σ2 has a significant effect on the tensile strength of
concrete, especially if it is a compressive stress.
This paper demonstrates that the effect of the compressive
principal stress σ2 should be included in any tensile stress
checks. Three expressions for ft,all in webs are calibrated to
conform to AASHTO-LRFD3 loading (HL-93). The expressions
are based on experimental data in the literature and existing
designs of six PS segmental bridges. Two of the expressions
account for the effect of the compressive principal stress σ2,
and one of which explores the use of a power-exponent for Fig. 4—Relationship between tensile and compressive strengths
fc′ different than what is currently used. Calibration is of concrete. (Experimental data collated by Oloukun.13)
performed using a reliability-based technique that accounts
for the uncertainties involved in main design parameters and with two simpler versions, has been calibrated to comply
by ensuring that a certain probability of failure Pf is not with AASHTO-LRFD3 Service III limit state. The results are
exceeded. Parametric studies using the proposed expressions presented in a form to assist code committees in the adoption
showed that the use of a power exponent for fc′ equal to 0.7 of an expression that conforms with their choice of a target
provides a more uniform reliability index over a wide range reliability index.
of variables.
It should be noted that PS concrete segmental bridges CONCRETE TENSILE STRENGTH
usually contain a number of anchor points such as blisters Axial state of stress
and saddles. These locations are also susceptible to cracking The tensile strength of concrete is usually taken equal to
because of the stress concentrations around load paths and the modulus of rupture fr or the splitting tensile strength of a
stress flows in these regions, which are often referred to as concrete cylinder, fct. In applications where a clear normal
D-regions, where D stands for discontinuity or disturbance.11 stress gradient exists (for example, flexural stresses), the
This type of cracking is usually addressed by proper modulus of rupture has generally been used as the basis for
detailing and refined analyses. This paper is limited to comparison because it resembles the condition of the specimen
addressing cracking in B-regions, where B stands for used in determining fr. The lack of a stress gradient makes it
Bernoulli or bending, that is, nondisturbed regions. more prudent to use fct , which is a lower estimate of the
tensile strength than fr ,12 as the basis for design. Several
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE expressions have been proposed for the uniaxial tensile
This paper proposes an allowable tensile stress expression strength of concrete ftu as a function of the compressive
for use in web design of PS segmental bridges. The goal is to strength fc′ . Figure 4 shows a plot of the experimental
develop a limit through which web cracking under service results13 for ftu versus fc′ . It also shows the estimates of three
conditions can be controlled. Currently, such a limit is expressions, namely ACI,1 Kupfer and Gerstle,7 and
lacking in design codes. The proposed expression, along Oloukun,13 In the same order, these expressions are

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 489

Table 1—Biaxial stress failure envelope (experimental results)
Kupfer et al.6 Tasuji et al.9 Voyiadjis and Abulebdah10
fcu = 2700 psi fcu = 4700 psi fcu = 8350 psi fcu = 4827 psi fcu = 4700 psi
σ cu σ tu σ cu σ tu σ cu σ tu σ cu σ tu σ cu σ tu
------- ------
- ------- ------
- ------- ------
- ------- ------
- ------- ------
-
f cu f tu f cu f tu f cu f tu f cu f tu f cu f tu
0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000
0.3023 0.9517 0.2575 0.9286 0.1953 0.7457 0.2992 0.8779 0.1273 0.9020
0.4455 0.8552 0.3674 0.8095 0.2951 0.6949 0.4935 0.5663 0.3396 0.6974
0.7377 0.7380 0.6162 0.6825 0.4455 0.5423 0.7272 0.4036 0.3396 0.8415
0.8694 0.5931 0.7724 0.5873 0.6119 0.5084 1.0000 0.0000 0.5121 0.6426
0.9460 0.4759 0.8433 0.4999 0.7551 0.4830 — — 0.5727 0.5245
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 — — 0.6424 0.5245
— — — — — — — — 0.7121 0.3199
— — — — — — — — 0.7515 0.2651
— — — — — — — — 0.7606 0.3660
— — — — — — — — 0.7879 0.3113
— — — — — — — — 0.8424 0.2622
— — — — — — — — 0.8909 0.1643
— — — — — — — — 0.9212 0.1498
— — — — — — — — 1.0000 0.0000

strengths. Therefore, it will be used in this study. It should

also be noted that there is a large scatter of results. This
uncertainty will be accounted for in the reliability study to
determine an allowable tensile stress.

Biaxial state of stress

Despite the fact that real structures are rarely subjected to
a pure axial state of stress, it is often acceptable to reduce
complex multiaxial stress states into a uniaxial stress state to
simplify the design process. In doing so, the effects of the
ignored stresses should be small enough that they can be
ignored; otherwise they should be accounted for. Failing to
account for secondary stresses may lead to unconservative
designs. For webs of PS segmental bridges, the first principal
stress (tension) σ1 is accompanied by σ2, which is a
compressive stress, as can be seen in Fig. 3. Concrete
Fig. 5—Biaxial ultimate strength envelope of concrete.6 strength under biaxial state of stress has been thoroughly
investigated.6-10 Kupfer et al.6 conducted one of the earliest
studies where the interaction between orthogonal stresses
0.5
6.70 ( f c′ ) , in psi (biaxial state of stress) on concrete strength was investigated.
f tu = (1)
0.5 In their study, Kupfer et al. effectively eliminated the end
0.56 ( f c′ ) , in MPa restraint effect by applying the stresses through the use of
steel brushes. Figure 5 shows the resulting biaxial ultimate
strength envelope of concrete. Of interest for this paper is the
1.59 ( f c′ )
0.67
, in psi tension-compression region of the envelope. The results
f tu = (2) from Reference 6 in addition to experimental results published
0.67
0.31 ( f c′ ) , in MPa by other researchers9,10 for this biaxial state of stress are
given in Table 1 and are plotted in Fig. 6. The results show
that the tensile strength of concrete σtu decreases as the
0.69 corresponding compressive strength σcu increases. Figure 6
1.38 ( f c′ ) , in psi also shows a linear regression of the results and a 95%
f tu = (3)
0.30 ( f c′ )
0.69
, in MPa confidence band. The expression from the regression analysis is

σ tu σ cu
Each of the expressions is given in MPa and psi. The plots ------- = 1 + 0.85 -------
- (4)
show that the difference between these expressions is not f tu f c′
large except at the ends of the plotted range, that is, low and
high compressive strengths. It is clear, however, that the Equation (4) is a slightly modified version of the one
third expression (Eq. (3)) provides a better estimate of the proposed by Kupfer and Gerstle,7 where the second term
tensile strength over a wider range of concrete compressive coefficient is equal to 0.8. This modification reflects a better

490 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006

Table 2—Details of bridges
No. of lanes Span length, m No. of
Cross analysis
Bridge LRFD Striped section No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7 No. 8 No. 9 No. 10 segments
S1 2 1 Box I 58.22 51.66 — — — — — — — — 48
S2 2 1 Box I 41.15 31.57 33.66 — — — — — — — 52
S4 2 1 Box I 37.29 55.40 55.40 55.40 55.40 55.40 55.40 55.40 44.83 54.20 230
S5 2 1 Box I 61.21 48.46 — — — — — — — — 48
S6 2 1 Box I 42.57 57.79 — — — — — — — — 45
S7 3 2 Box II 54.94 56.95 56.95 56.95 56.95 56.95 56.95 51.41 50.01 45.03 233

correlation with more data points (experimental results)

listed in Table 1. It should also be noted that one set of results
from Reference 6 has been excluded from the regression set
because it is for a relatively low-strength concrete ( fc′ = 18.6 MPa
[2700 psi]). PS segmental concrete bridges are constructed
with concrete of much higher strength. The excluded points
can be seen in the plot outside the 95% confidence bands.
To illustrate the effect of σ2 on the ultimate tensile
strength of concrete, the following example is given. Fig. 6—Biaxial failure envelope of concrete for tension-
Assuming a relatively low compressive stress equal to compression stress combination.
0.30fc′ (negative for compression), the corresponding tensile
strength σtu is expected to be 74.5% of the uniaxial tensile
strength of concrete ftu, according to Eq. (4). This reduction
in tensile strength (~25%) should not be ignored if the goal
is to control cracking.

Resistance model
A generic resistance model that is good for different
compressive strengths fc′ and level of corresponding
compressive stress σcu/fc′ can now be written by combining
Eq. (3) and (4)

σ cu
×  1 + 0.85 -------
0.69
1.38 ( f c′ ) - , in psi
 f c′ 
σ tu = (5)
σ cu
×  1 + 0.85 -------
0.69
0.30 ( f c′ ) - , in MPa
 f c′ 

Equation (3) is chosen as the basis of the general tensile
strength expression for two reasons. First, it is more appropriate
to compare the tensile principal stress at the centroidal axis
of a PS segmental box to the splitting tensile strength than the
modulus of rupture. Shear stresses are higher at the centroidal
axis than they are at the extreme fibers, which translates into
higher principal stresses σ1. Hence there is no clear stress
gradient, as is the case in regions controlled by flexure.
Second, it is clear that Eq. (3) provides better estimates over
a wide range of concrete compressive strengths (Fig. 4).
Therefore, Eq. (5) is used in the calibration of the allowable
tensile stress taking into account the uncertainties involved
as will be seen later. It should be noted that Eq. (5) was
developed for the range of compressive strengths covered in
this study and may not be applicable to high-strength or
high-performance concrete without further investigations.
STATE OF STRESS IN WEBS
OF PS SEGMENTAL BRIDGES
A highway interchange in Florida is planned to be
constructed in the near future. Several design alternatives
were considered, including PS concrete segmental box
girder bridges. Stress data from the design of six bridges
Fig. 7—Cross section of PS bridge used for calibration study.
along this interchange are used to study the state of stress in
webs of PS segmental bridges. They also form the basis for
developing a rational, allowable tensile stress for use in
controlling web cracking. The proposed bridge designs are
considered typical segmental box girder bridge in today’s
practice. Figure 7 shows the cross sections of the bridges,
which are constant in depth (2.60 m [8 ft 6.5 in]). Additional
information about some of the bridges’ major geometric
parameters is listed in Table 2. The interchange included
three two-span bridges, one three-span bridge, and two 10-span
bridges. All bridges were horizontally curved with a radius
of curvature equal to 236.22 m [775 ft]. The bridges were
designed to be constructed using the balanced cantilever
method and are post-tensioned using internal tendons. The
main materials specified for the bridges are: concrete
strength fc′ = 6000 psi, and low relaxation strands fpu = 270 ksi.
The analyses were performed using BRUCO14 taking
into account the construction steps as specified in the project
plans. HL-93 loads,3 which is the combined effect of lane
loading and the maximum of the effects of a standard truck

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 491

Table 3—Summary of design stresses loads due to component self-weight and wearing surface
Table at critical sections were also isolated using the same procedure. Table 3 gives
Principal stresses, MPa (psi) Stress ratios the main stresses at the centroidal axis of the critical section,
σ 1, LL+IM σ 2, DL+LL+IM
where the highest shear stresses take place. It can be seen
σ1,DL σ1,LL+IM σ2,DL σ2,LL+IM
------------------
σ 1, DL
-------------------------
f c′ that the ratio σ2/fc′ ranges from 0.13 to 0.23 for these
Bridge
bridges. The table also provides the ratio between the live
1.25 0.64 –5.9 –0.6
S1
(182) (94) (–863) (–94)
0.52 0.15 load plus impact (LL + IM) and dead load (DL) components
1.05 1.04 –7.4 –1.0
of the principal stress σ1. This ratio is extremely important
S2 (153) (152) (–1083) (–151) 0.99 0.19 in any calibration study because of the different statistical
1.09 1.40 –5.8 –1.4 properties of dead and live loads.
S4 (159) (205) (–848) (–204) 1.29 0.16

S5 0.81 1.69 –8.6 –1.6 2.09 0.23 CALIBRATION OF ALLOWABLE TENSILE STRESS
(118) (246) (–1260) (–246) Allowable tensile stress
S6 1.22 1.07 –5.9 –1.0 0.88 0.15 As stated previously, designers usually compare the principal
(178) (156) (–861) (–155) tensile stress σ1 to an expression of the form, constant × f c′ ,
S7 0.92 2.66 –3.3 –2.6 2.87 0.13 where the constant is between 0.25 and 0.33 MPa (3.0 and
(135) (387) (–484) (–386)
4.0 psi). This form of ft,all will be one of three expressions
calibrated in this study. The other expressions will be
Table 4—Statistical properties of variables attempts to enhance the ability to estimate an allowable
involved in study tensile stress over a wide range of design variables. The three
Current study
expressions are
Coefficient of
Variable Bias variation 0.5
f t, all = κ 1 ( f c′ ) (6)
Dimensions (h, d, b) 1.00 3.0%
Area of strands (Aps) 1.00 1.5%
0.5
Concrete Strength ( f ′c ) 1.10 18.0% f t, all = λ σ2 × κ 2 ( f c′ ) (7)
Uncertainty in concrete tensile strength (ftu) 1.00 *
0.44 MPa
0.7
Uncertainty in biaxial failure envelope ( λ σ2 ) 1.00 10.6% f t, all = λ σ2 × κ 3 ( f c′ ) (8)
Model uncertainty (α) 1.01 4.5%
Component dead load (DC) 1.05 10.0% where λσ2 is a dimensionless modifier to account for the
Wearing surface dead load (DW) 1.10 20.0% corresponding compressive stress σ2 based on the regression
HL-93 1.25 18.0% study presented previously (Eq. (4)).
Live load Impact (IM) 0.10 18.0%
Traffic† σ
λ σ2 =  1 + 0.85 -----2
varies —
(9)
*
Value shown is standard deviation.  f c′ 
†
1.05 for two-lane bridges (S1, S2, S4, S5, and S6) and 0.90 for three-lane bridge
(S7) assuming ADTT > 5000.16
The first expression (Eq. (6)) is currently used by most
designers, and the aim is to evaluate a calibrated constant κ1
and a load tandem, were considered. The number of design that results in a probability of failure Pf in line with values
lanes was determined as per AASHTO-LRFD.3 Accordingly, targeted by the design code. In Eq. (7), the effect of the prin-
each bridge was loaded by two lanes filled with HL-93 cipal compressive stress σ2 on the tensile strength of concrete
loading except for Bridge S7, which was loaded with three is introduced to Eq. (6). The last expression (Eq. (8)) is a
lanes. Therefore, Bridge S7 live load envelopes were modified diversion from the historical fc′ power exponent of 0.5, as it
using a multiple presence factor of 0.85. The loads were explores a power exponent equal to 0.7, which has been
positioned such that the maximum torsional effects are already adopted by other design codes.12 This is an attempt
produced. The torsional effects add to the shear stresses due to improve the ability to estimate a more reliable tensile
to flexural shear forces. The truck portion of live load effects stress over a wider range of concrete strengths (Fig. 4).
was increased by 33% to account for the dynamic allowance
(IM) according to AASHTO-LRFD. Finally, Service III
Limit state function for calibration of ft,all
limit state was considered, which assigns a load factor A limit state (performance) function Z, based on the
γLL+IM equal to 0.8 for live load effects. The remaining load demand and capacity, is first set for the calibration study
factors were taken as unity. The principal stresses in each
analysis segment (element) were computed and the most
critical segment in each bridge was identified. It should be Z = σ tu – α ( σ 1, DC + σ 1, DW + σ 1, PT + σ 1, LL ) (10)
noted that pier segments were not considered when identifying
the most critical sections because they are provided with a where σtu is the tensile strength of concrete, and σ1,DC,
rigid diaphragm. σ1,DW, σ1,PT, and σ1,LL are the principal tensile stresses due
In preparation for the calibration study, the effect of each to component dead loads, wearing surface dead load, post-
stress component was isolated. For example, Fig. 3 shows tensioning, and live load, respectively. Each of these variables
how the portion of the tensile principal stress caused by live is treated as a random variable following the statistical
loads was isolated from the dead load and prestressing properties (bias and coefficient of variation) given in Table 4.
effects. Stresses caused by prestressing effects and dead The information listed in Table 4 has been obtained from

492 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006

Table 5—Optimum values for constants κi
Optimum κi
Target β S1 S2 S4 S5 S6 S7
κ1 3.60 3.32 3.26 2.77 3.46 3.64
βtarget = 2.5 κ2 4.12 3.93 3.76 3.40 3.98 4.17
κ3 0.72 0.70 0.67 0.61 0.70 0.73
κ1 3.23 2.96 2.92 2.42 3.10 3.25
βtarget = 3.0 κ2 3.67 3.50 3.35 3.01 3.55 3.68
κ3 0.66 0.63 0.60 0.55 0.63 0.66
κ1 2.89 2.62 2.59 2.08 2.76 2.90
Fig. 8—Calibrating Eq. (8) (constant κ3—Bridge S7—
βtarget = 3.0).
βtarget = 3.5 κ2 3.28 3.10 2.99 2.64 3.16 3.27
κ3 0.59 0.56 0.54 0.48 0.57 0.59

published work by other researchers15-20 and from analyzing

the results collated by Oloukun.13 The uncertainty of the
analysis model, and its ability to estimate stresses accurately,
is taken into account by introducing the random variable α to
the limit state function.15 Live loads were adjusted to
account for actual dynamic effect (IM), number of lanes, and
truck traffic volume.16 Dead loads were handled differently
based on whether they were caused by component self-
weight or wearing surface to account for the higher uncertainty
inherent in the latter.

First-order reliability method

The first-order reliability method (FORM) is used to
compute the reliability index β for each of the critical
sections listed in Table 3. The reliability index β is directly
related to the probability of failure

Pf = Φ(–β) (11)

in which Φ(·) is a cumulative distribution function (CDF) for

a limit state function Z. More information about the FORM
algorithm can be found elsewhere.21
The reliability index is computed for each of the bridges
assuming different values for the constants κi in the proposed
expressions (Eq. (6) through (8)). A range between 0.17 to
0.37 in increments of 0.02 in MPa (2.0 and 4.5 in increments
of 0.25 in psi) was assumed for κ1 and κ2 in Eq. (6) and (7),
while κ3 was varied between 0.06 and 0.22 in 0.017 increments
in MPa (0.25 and 1.00 in 0.075 increments in psi). As
expected, the results showed that the resulting βs cover a
wide spectrum from as high as 6.70 to a very low 0.35,
which encompasses the values of β usually targeted by
design codes.
Fig. 9—Calibration of ft,all expressions.
Target β and calibration
Targeting a certain reliability index is one of the most at κi. As can be seen in Fig. 8, the point where the minimum
important tasks in developing design codes. Code committees takes place corresponds to a κi-value that produces a design
decide on a target reliability index βtarget and formulate with a reliability index closest to βtarget. This process is
provisions that would result in designs that achieve this repeated for each of the bridges and the results are given in
targeted value. For example, a target reliability index of 3.50 Table 5.
was used in developing most of the provisions in AASHTO-
LRFD.3 It should be noted that calibrating codes provisions RECOMMENDED κ-VALUES
for serviceability limit states is less stringent than strength Analysis of calibration results
limit states.22 Therefore, the following three values for The results in Table 5 are also plotted in Fig. 9. Three
βtarget are investigated in this study: 2.50, 3.00, and 3.50. κ-values are plotted for each bridge. They correspond to
The constant κi that would yield βtarget was determined βtarget values used in the calibration. It can be seen that the
through an optimization process where the square of the variations are limited within a certain range if Bridge S5 is
difference between the computed β and βtarget is minimum excluded. The low reliability index demonstrated by Bridge S5

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 493


Fig. 10—Comparison between proposed expressions for
κ1 = 0.25 MPa (3.0 psi),κ2 = 0.29 MPa (3.5 psi), κ3 =
0.13 MPa (0.6 psi), and fc′ = 42 MPa (6000 psi).
Fig. 11—Comparison between proposed expressions for
κ1 = 0.25 MPa (3.0 psi),κ2 = 0.29 MPa (3.5 psi), κ3 = 0.13 MPa
(0.6 psi), and σ2 / fc′ = 0.15.
is mainly due to the fact that it is the only bridge where the
critical section falls in a region provided with additional web
PT bars. This additional prestressing force increases the
compressive principal stress σ2 and, hence, reduces the
tensile strength more than other bridges. This observation is
not as severe for the calibration of κ2 (Fig. 9(b)) and even
less so for the calibration of κ3 (Fig. 9(c)), which is expected,
as both expressions account for the effect of σ2 through the
modifier λσ2.
Choice of κi
The plots in Fig. 9 clearly demonstrate that choosing κ-values
that would result in a constant target reliability index across
different scenarios is impossible. Therefore, the choice has
to be one that produces values within a range acceptable to
code committees. This acceptable range depends on many
factors, such as: consequences of failure, importance of
component, mode of failure, and purpose of analysis (design
versus load rating). The data presented in Table 5 and Fig. 9
provide information that will assist code committees in
choosing an expression that matches their design philosophy
and target reliability index.
To demonstrate the differences between the proposed
expressions, values of 0.25, 0.29, and 0.13 MPa (3.0, 3.5,
and 0.6 psi) are assumed for κ1, κ2, and κ3, respectively.
Figure 9 shows that the proposed values (horizontal lines)
would result in reliability indexes around 3.0 for most of the
analyzed bridges. The following study is conducted to
494
demonstrate the impact of each expression on a wider range
of parameters.
Parametric study
Due to the limited size of actual bridge designs available
for the study, a virtual design space that covers a wide range
of variables influencing the tensile capacity of concrete in
segmental bridges will now be studied. Table 3 shows that
the ratio between the live load plus impact (LL + IM) and
dead load (DL) components of the principal stress σ1 varies
between 0.52 and 2.87. A σ1,LL+IM/σ1,DL ratio between 0.0
and 4.0 is investigated. The compressive principal stress was
also investigated by varying the ratio σ2/fc′ between 0.0 and
0.30. Concrete strengths fc′ between 35 and 55 MPa (5 and
8 ksi) are also investigated.
Figure 10 shows the reliability index resulting from each
of the proposed expressions over a range of σ2/fc′ ratio. The
three lines plotted for each expression correspond to
different (LL + IM)/DL ratios, namely, 0.23, 0.58, and 1.67.
As expected, higher live load ratios result in lower reliability
because of the higher uncertainty inherent in live loads (refer
to Table 4). The reliability index values plotted in this figure,
however, are still within acceptable range and can be
increased or reduced by slightly changing the constants κ1,
κ2, and κ3. The more important observation is the better
uniformity of results obtained using Eq. (7) and (8). Over the
shown range of σ2/fc′ , the reliability index drops an average
of 1.7, which translates to an order of magnitude when
converted into a probability of failure Pf . This implies that
Eq. (6) will deliver overconservative designs for situations
with low σ2/fc′ ratios and unconservative designs for high
σ2/fc′ ratios. The introduction of the modifier λσ2 in Eq. (7)
and (8) reduces this inconsistency and produces reliability
index values that drop an average of 0.48 and 0.50, respectively.
The effect of concrete compressive strength is illustrated
in Fig. 11. Equation (8) demonstrates a more uniform design
over the range of fc′ plotted in the figure. The other expressions,
Eq. (6) and (7), show a much larger difference between the
reliability index for designs conducted using fc′ = 35 and 55 MPa
(5 and 8 ksi). This can be attributed to the different power
exponent (0.7) used in Eq. (8), which matches experimental data
better than the traditional power exponent of 0.5.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The allowable tensile stress of concrete ft,all is calibrated
for use in web design of PS segmental box girder bridges.
The proposed limit is intended for controlling cracking in
nondisturbed regions, that is, B-regions. The first-order
reliability method (FORM) is used to conduct the calibration.
The first (Eq. (6)) of three calibrated expressions is currently
used by most designers and ignores the adverse effect of the
compressive principal stress on concrete tensile strength.
Two expressions (Eq. (7) and (8)) that account for this effect
are also calibrated. One of these expressions (Eq. (8)) uses a
power exponent for fc′ of 0.7, which has proven more accurate
in light of experimental data covering a wide range of
concrete compressive strengths. The calibration is performed
for a range of reliability index β, 2.50 to 3.50, which is
considered acceptable for service limit states.
A parametric study is conducted to illustrate the performance
of the calibrated expressions. The parametric study is for a
chosen set of constants, κ1, κ2, and κ3, that would result in a
reliability index in line with current code targets. Code
committees may choose higher or lower targets by modifying
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
the constants κ1, κ2, and κ3, using the provided data. σx,σy = normal stresses acting on centroidal stress
Equation (8) has shown the ability to produce more uniform block in web of PS bridge
κ1,κ2,κ3 = calibration coefficients for proposed allowable
designs over a range of variables, including compressive tensile stress expressions
strength ratio σ2/fc′ and concrete strengths fc′ .
The effect of the compressive principal stress is more REFERENCES
profound in regions were web PT bars are used to reduce tensile 1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
principal stresses. The benefits of using web PT bars should Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
be carefully evaluated in light of the findings of this research. Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp.
Based on the findings of this research, it is recommended 2. AASHTO, “Guide Specifications for the Construction of Segmental
Concrete Bridges,” 2nd Edition, American Association of State Highway
to adopt the following expression for estimating the allowable and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1999, 88 pp.
tensile stress in webs of post-tensioned segmental bridges. 3. AASHTO, “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2004,
464 pp.
0.7 4. Noppakunwijai, P.; Al-Omaishi, N.; Tadros, M. K.; and Krause, G. L.,
λ σ2 × 0.60 ( f c′ ) , in psi “Elimination of Prestressed Concrete Compression Limits at Service Load,”
f t, all = (12)
0.7 PCI Journal, V. 47, No. 6, Nov. 2002, pp. 48-65.
λ σ2 × 0.13 ( f c′ ) , in MPa 5. FDOT, “New Directions for Florida Post-Tensioned Bridges,” V. 10,
Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Fla., 2003, 95 pp.
6. Kupfer, H. B.; Hilsdorf, H. K.; and Rusch, H., “Behavior of Concrete
where f c′ is the concrete compressive strength and λσ2 is a under Biaxial Stresses,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 66, No. 8, Aug. 1969,
factor to account for the corresponding compressive stress σ2 pp. 656-666.
7. Kupfer, H. B., and Gerstle, K. H., “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial
Stress,” Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, V. 99,
σ No. EM4, Aug. 1973, pp. 853-866.
λ σ2 =  1 + 0.85 -----2 (9)
 f c′ 
8. Liu, T. C. Y.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., “Biaxial Stress-Strain
Relations for Concrete,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 98,
No. ST5, May 1972, pp. 1025-1034.
9. Tasuji, M. E.; Slate, F. O.; and Nilson, A. H., “Stress-Strain Response
It should be noted that the findings of this research are and Fracture of Concrete in Biaxial Loading,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
limited to the range of compressive strengths covered in the V. 75, No. 7, July 1978, pp. 306-312.
study, that is, fc′ = 35 to 55 MPa (5 to 8 ksi). Similar studies 10. Voyiadjis, G. Z., and Abulebdah, T. M., “Biaxial Testing of Repaired
are necessary for high-strength or high-performance concrete Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992, pp. 564-572.
before any generalizations are made. 11. Schlaich, J.; Schäfer, K.; and Jennewein, M., “Toward a Consistent
Design of Structural Concrete,” PCI Journal, V. 3, No. 3, May 1987,
pp. 74-150.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 12. Neville, A. M., Properties of Concrete, 4th Edition, John Wiley &
This paper is based on research supported in part by the Department of Sons, New York, 1996, 844 pp.
Civil and Environmental Engineering at Louisiana State University. The 13. Oloukun, F. A., “Prediction of Concrete Tensile Strength from
author would also like to acknowledge the support of H. W. Lochner, Inc., Compressive Strength: Evaluation of Existing Relations for Normal
in this study. Comments by anonymous reviewers helped bring this paper to Weight Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 3, May-June 1991,
its present form. The opinions stated herein are those of the author and do pp. 302-309.
not necessarily represent the opinions of the supporting agencies. 14. BRUCO “Bridge Under Construction,” BVN, Rijswijk, The Netherlands,
2000.
NOTATION 15. Ellingwood, B. R.; Galambos, T. V.; MacGregor, J. G.; and Cornell,
COV = coefficient of variation C. A., “Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American
f c′ = concrete compressive strength National Standard A58: Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design
fct = splitting tensile strength of concrete Loads in Buildings and Other Structures,” SP 577 Edition, National Bureau
fpu = strand ultimate stress of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1980, 222 pp.
fr = modulus of rupture 16. Nowak, A. S., and Collins, K. R., Reliability of Structures, McGraw-
ftu = concrete uniaxial tensile strength Hill, 2000, 360 pp.
ft,all = concrete allowable tensile stress 17. Estes, A. C., and Frangopol, D. M., “Repair Optimization of
Pf = probability of failure of composite fiber Highway Bridges Using System Reliability Approach,” Journal of
v = shear stress in web of PS segmental bridge Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 125, No. 7, 1999, pp. 766-775.
Z = limit state (performance) function 18. Val, D. V.; Stewart, M.; and Melchers, R. E., “Effect of Reinforcement
α = model uncertainty Corrosion on Reliability of Highway Bridges,” Engineering Structures,
β = reliability index V. 20, No. 11, Nov. 1998, pp. 1010-1019.
βtarget = target reliability index 19. Crespo-Minguillon, C., and Casas, J. R., “Fatigue Reliability Analysis of
λ = tensile strength modifier for biaxial state of stress Prestressed Concrete Bridges,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Φ(·) = cumulative distribution function (CDF) V. 124, No. 12, Dec. 1999, pp. 1458-1466.
σ1,σ2 = principal stresses in centroidal stress block in 20. Stewart, M., and Val, D. V., “The Role of Load History in Reliability-
web of PS bridge Based Decision Analysis of Aging Bridges,” Journal of Structural
σ1,DW,σ1,DC,σ1,PT,σ1,LL = principal stresses in centroidal stress block Engineering, ASCE, V. 125, No. 7, July 1999, pp. 776-783.
in web of PS bridge due to wearing surface, 21. Okeil, A. M., and El-Tawil, S., “Flexural Reliability of RC Bridge
component dead loads, prestressing, and live Girders Strengthened with CFRP Laminates,” Journal of Bridge Engineering,
loads, respectively ASCE, V. 7, No. 5, Sept. 2002, pp. 290-299.
σcu,σtu = ultimate strengths of concrete under compression- 22. Melchers, R. E., Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction,
tension biaxial state of stress 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, England, 2001, 456 pp.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 495