Citation
Development of Camber multipliers for precast prestressed box girders

Material Information

Title:
Development of Camber multipliers for precast prestressed box girders
Creator:
Keraga, Cody Simon ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (96 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Box beams ( lcsh )
Concrete bridges ( lcsh )
Box beams ( fast )
Concrete bridges ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
This thesis addresses the difference between design camber predictions using the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) methodology and constructed camber predictions for precast prestressed box girders. Existing bridges constructed with box girders with a range of spans, depths, sections, and fabricators are field measured for camber. A statistical analysis of the field data is preformed to compare design versus constructed camber. Revised multipliers for design are calculated based on statistical distributions of the field data. Additionally, girders are selected from various bridges and analyzed theoretically for camber using the Tadros equation. The girders are also analyzed for consideration of the two-stage pour sequence that is common in the construction of box girders in Colorado. The field data cambers and theoretical cambers are compared and analyzed. Recommended multipliers and high and low multipliers are found. The multipliers are found to be lower than the PCI and Martin multipliers and are recommended to be 1.65 for the prestress camber and 1.70 for the self-weight deflection.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)- University of Colorado Denver
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Cody Simon Keraga.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
954765963 ( OCLC )
ocn954765963
Classification:
LD1193.E53 2016m K47 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
DEVELOPMENT OF CAMBER MULTIPLIERS
FOR PRECAST PRESTRESSED BOX GIRDERS
By
CODY SIMON KERAGA
B.S., Purdue University, 2010
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Civil Engineering
2016


2016
CODY KERAGA
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
11


This thesis for the Master of Science degree by
Cody Simon Keraga
has been approved for the
Civil Engineering Program
by
Chengyu Li, Chair
Fredrick Rutz
Kevin Rens
April 27, 2016
m


Keraga, Cody Simon (M.S., Civil Engineering)
Development of Camber Multipliers for Precast Prestressed Box Girders
Thesis directed by Professor Chengyu Li
ABSTRACT
This thesis addresses the difference between design camber predictions using the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) methodology and constructed camber predictions for
precast prestressed box girders. Existing bridges constructed with box girders with a range of
spans, depths, sections, and fabricators are field measured for camber. A statistical analysis of the
field data is preformed to compare design versus constructed camber. Revised multipliers for
design are calculated based on statistical distributions of the field data. Additionally, girders are
selected from various bridges and analyzed theoretically for camber using the Tadros equation.
The girders are also analyzed for consideration of the two-stage pour sequence that is common in
the construction of box girders in Colorado. The field data cambers and theoretical cambers are
compared and analyzed. Recommended multipliers and high and low multipliers are found. The
multipliers are found to be lower than the PCI and Martin multipliers and are recommended to be
1.65 for the prestress camber and 1.70 for the self-weight deflection.
The Form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Chengyu Li
IV


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have been possible without the help, guidance, and support of the
university staff, professors, colleagues, and friends in the industry with whom I have worked. I
would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Chengyu Li, Dr. Fredrick Rutz, and Dr. Rens for
their patience through this process and for taking the time to thoroughly read and comment on my
thesis. I would like to thank the precast girder manufacturers who provided camber data and who
provided insight into their fabrication process, Dan Wemer and Jim Fabinski.
I owe a big thank you to Scott Huson for helping me obtain additional camber
information and for the discussions on his analysis, particularly the theoretical discussions on
girder aging and adjusting for it. Also thanks for attending my thesis defense!
I would also like to thank my supervisors through the years who pushed me to grow and
leam, Josh Warren, Jennifer Wood, Terry Stones, and Patrick Montemerlo, and others who have
supported me through the years in the consulting business.
v


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
1. Introduction..........................................................................1
1.1 Overview.........................................................................1
1.2 Research Significance............................................................2
1.3 Objective........................................................................3
1.4 Scope............................................................................4
1.5 Thesis Outline...................................................................4
2. Prestressed Girder Design and Construction Process...................................6
2.1 Overview.........................................................................6
2.2 Materials........................................................................6
2.2.1 Prestressing Strand..........................................................7
2.2.2 Concrete.....................................................................7
2.3 Prestressing Losses.............................................................12
2.3.1 Elastic Shortening..........................................................13
2.3.2 Creep.......................................................................14
2.3.3 Shrinkage...................................................................16
2.3.4 Relaxation..................................................................17
2.4 Other Variables.................................................................18
2.4.1 T emperature................................................................18
2.4.2 Girder Age..................................................................19
2.4.3 Mild Reinforcing............................................................19
2.4.4 Construction Sequence.......................................................19
2.5 Design Process..................................................................19
2.6 Construction Sequencing.........................................................21
3. Field and Design Camber Data..........................................................24
vi


3.1 Overview
24
3.2 Comparison.....................................................................25
3.2.1 Camber Comparison without Age Correction..................................25
3.2.2 Camber Comparison with Age Correction.....................................28
3.2.2.1 Ageing Coefficient Validation.............................................29
3.2.2.2 Age Adjustment............................................................34
4. Statistical Analysis of Field Camber Data...........................................37
4.1 Overview.......................................................................37
4.2 Statistical Analysis...........................................................37
4.2.1 Statistical Analysis with No Age Adjustment...............................37
4.2.2 Statistical Analysis with Age Adjustment..................................40
4.3 Recommendations................................................................43
5. Theoretical Camber Analysis.........................................................44
5.1 Overview.......................................................................44
5.2 Theoretical Analysis Procedure.................................................44
5.3 Theoretical Analysis Results...................................................45
5.4 Recommendations................................................................47
6. Conclusions and Recommendations.....................................................48
6.1 Conclusions....................................................................48
6.1.1 Remedial Measures and Design Recommendations..............................48
6.2 Future Research................................................................49
6.2.1 Material Properties.......................................................49
6.2.2 Camber Data and Reporting.................................................50
6.3 Data Issue s/Limitations.......................................................50
6.4 Final Recommendations and Conclusions..........................................50
Notations...............................................................................51
vii


Bibliography
53
Appendix
A. Sample Calculations.................................................................55
B. Field Data..........................................................................62
viii


LIST OF TABLES
Table
4-1: Revised Multiplier No Age Correction.................................................40
4- 2: Revised Multiplier Adjusted for Age.................................................42
5- 1: Revised Multiplier Theoretical for 8 Bridges........................................46
5-2: Revised Multiplier Theoretical.......................................................46
IX


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2-1: Concrete Strength over Time..........................................................8
2-2: Modulus of Elasticity versus Concrete Strength.......................................9
2-3: Concrete Strength versus Time........................................................11
2- 4: Concrete Strength Percent Difference................................................11
3- 1: Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction......................................26
3-2: Distribution of Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction........................27
3-3: Camber vs. Time using Tadros Equation.................................................30
3-4: Camber vs. Time for B-16-EV...........................................................31
3-5: Aging Coefficient.....................................................................33
3-6: Camber versus Time Comparison of Camber Equations..................................34
3-7: Adjusted Percent Camber Difference Corrected for Age...............................35
3- 8: Distribution of Percent Camber Difference Corrected for Age......................36
4- 1: Percent Camber Difference Distribution No Age Correction.........................38
4-2: Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction with 2nd Standard Deviations and Average
Delineations...............................................................................38
4-3: Percent Camber Difference Distribution Adjusted for Age.............................41
4-4: Percent Camber Difference Age Adjusted with 2nd Standard Deviations and Average
Delineations...............................................................................42
x


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
AASHTO LRFD AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation
CONSPAN Bentley Leap software program for precast prestressed concrete girder design
LFD Load Factor Design
LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
PCI Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute
ROW Right-of-Way
ksi Kips per square inch
kef Kips per cubic foot
kft Kip*Feet
klf- Kips per lineal foot
ksf Kips per square foot
ft feet
in inch
For a list of variables, see Notations section at end.
xi


1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
Bridges have evolved over the centuries from short timber bridges to suspension bridges
like the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and cable stayed bridges like the Millau Viaduct in
France. The need for bridges arose from the need to cross streams and rivers with people,
wagons, carts and canals. During those times, the technology wasnt as advanced to span long
distances and therefore crossings were challenging. However, as trains became prominent the
need to span large rivers and streams drove the need for advanced bridges. With the need to cross
longer spans driven by railroads, and later cars, the technology advanced for all forms of bridge
construction including steel, concrete, and timber. (Billington, 2004).
Concrete structures prior to the 1950s were restricted by the depth required to achieve
longer span structures. Concrete is able to develop large compressive stress but very little tensile
stress prior to failure. The use of reinforcing allowed concrete to span larger distances with less
depth because steel reinforcing was able to resist tensile stresses, but it was still limited compared
to steel structures. In the early 1900s, researchers, led by Eugene Freyssinet, Gustave Magnel and
Ulrich Finsterwalder, started to investigate the use of reinforcing to prestress the concrete into
compression to allow concrete structures to span longer distances. By the 1940s and 1950s,
prestressed concrete started to enter the mainstream. However, prestressed concrete still couldnt
compete with steel bridges in regards to the depth to span ratios. By the 1990s, researchers had
developed precast prestressed concrete box girders. The box girder was more cost effective than
cast-in-place post-tensioned box girder structures, but could not compete with the bulb-tee
girders. The box girder has since gained popularity due to the smaller span-to-depth ratio than
bulb-tee girders and shorter construction duration. These are two of the major issues in todays
market when building a bridge. (Billington, 2004).
1


Population growth and urban density have restricted the allowable profde raise without
requiring purchase of a nearby property or an expensive retaining wall. The box girder section has
allowed bridge replacements and rehabilitations to lessen impacts to nearby properties. Box
girders are typically used when placed side-by-side, allowing the Contractor to speed up
construction with the elimination of formwork between girders.
A major issue with box girders with their low span-to-depth ratios has been camber and
deflection. Camber is a by-product of the prestressing operation due to the eccentricity of the
prestressing force with respect to the center of gravity of the concrete section. However, camber
is essential for the long-term serviceability of the structure. A girder with sag may be structurally
safe, but a girder exhibiting sag is typically flagged for further investigation into the structural
integrity of the bridge.
1.2 Research Significance
As prestressed concrete became mainstream, multiple applications of its use became
prevalent. Prestressed concrete has two main forms of applications: prestressed concrete and post-
tensioned concrete. Prestressed concrete is when the reinforcing is stressed prior to casting and
curing the concrete. Post-tensioned concrete is when the concrete is cast and cured before
tensioning the reinforcing strands. In prestressed applications, the shape of the girder has been
evolving over time. In the beginning, engineers used a similar shape as steel I beams due to the
efficient use of material. However, the differences in materials between prestressed concrete and
steel provided more opportunities to expand prestressed concrete to other sections. Today,
different shapes such as I-beams, box girders, slab girders, and tub girders exist. Each section has
advantages and disadvantages to their use. Typically I-beam sections are the most economical
while tub girders are the most expensive. Slab girders are the thinnest, but have a very short span
range. Box girders are thinner than I beams and allow for a thinner structure depth. Additionally,
box and slab girders are used in side-by-side construction which allows the designer to use a
2


thinner deck (or eliminate the deck). It allows the Contractor to use only overhang forms for
casting the deck which speeds up construction.
One major challenge, particularly with the box girders, is predicting the girders camber.
Predicting the girders camber is an essential part of the design process. The amount of camber a
girder has affects beam seat elevations, haunch depth, roadway profde, vertical clearances, and
serviceability of the bridge. Girders camber due to the eccentricity of the prestressed strands with
respect to the center of gravity of the concrete section, creating an upward deflection known as
camber. If a girder does not achieve enough camber, the beam seats of the bridge will be
constructed too low and either the roadway profile of the approaches and bridge will need to be
adjusted to minimize the amount of concrete deck required or the Contractor will pour an
excessively thick concrete deck. If a girder has excessive camber, the beam seats of the bridge
will be constructed too high and the roadway profile of the approaches and bridge will need to be
raised to allow for the proper thickness of the concrete deck. All of these changes have significant
impacts to the cost of the construction of the bridge.
The research of girder camber is essential to aid in both accurately predicting girder
camber and quality production of girders. The recommendations in this study will aid designers
and fabricators in calibrating calculations of camber and more accurately predict box girder
cambers. Traditional PCI deflection multipliers were investigated for box girders and
recommended values are provided.
1.3 Objective
The main objective of this research is to provide revised deflection multipliers for precast
prestressed box girders. Detailed objectives include:
1) Obtain camber values from box girders constructed over the last 10 years in the state
of Colorado and obtain their design and shop drawings plans (some were not found).
3


2) Perform a statistical analysis of the data to calculate revised multipliers based on the
data from the last 10 years.
3) Perform a theoretical analysis of eight girders to determine revised multipliers.
4) Compare the actual and theoretical models and provide recommendations on revised
multipliers.
1.4 Scope
The scope of this study consists of using both a probabilistic statistical based analysis of
actual cambers and a theoretical analysis to determine the PCI deflection multipliers.
1.5 Thesis Outline
The contents of this thesis are briefly outlined below:
Chapter 2: presents a literature review of existing research on the variables, process, and
formulas for box girder design and camber prediction and their behavior.
Chapter 3: provides details of the field data including the fabricators, bridges, and other
information obtained and used. Additionally, this chapter includes information on outliers, a
comparison of the field and design data, and discusses reasons for the differences.
Chapter 4\ provides and outlines details of the statistical analysis of the field data,
providing summary tables of the results and recommendations of modifications to the PCI
multipliers based on the field data.
Chapter 5: presents the theoretical analysis applied to eight girders used in the field data
analysis, the process used in the theoretical analysis, and a summary of the results including
recommendations of modifications to the PCI multipliers based on the theoretical analysis.
Chapter 6: presents the study conclusions, recommendations based on both the field data
and theoretical analysis, and opportunities for further research.
References
Appendix A: Sample Calculations
4


Appendix B: Field Data
5


2. PRESTRESSED GIRDER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
2.1 Overview
A prestressed concrete box girder is a square or rectangular section with a square or
rectangular void in the center. In Colorado, fabricators use a two stage construction sequence.
The prestressing strands and bottom slab mild reinforcing are placed into the prestressing bed.
The bottom slab of the box girder is placed and the polystyrene void form is set onto the wet
concrete. The bottom slab is allowed to cure for a short period to prevent the polystyrene void
form from shifting during placement of the sides and top. The sides and top slab mild reinforcing
are then placed and the remaining portions of the box are poured. The box is then steam cured
until a minimum concrete strength (f C1) is achieved. The strands are then cut and the girders are
removed from the beds and set on-site to further cure until the final concrete strength (f'c) is
achieved and the girders are shipped to the site.
During the construction process, multiple variables are introduced that affect the girder
camber. Some of these variables are considered during design and others are insignificant to the
camber effects and therefore ignored during the design process. A box girder is typically designed
using standard prestressed concrete design which calculates the required amount of strand area at
an eccentricity to provide the necessary strength, meet allowable stresses in the concrete, and
meet camber and deflection requirements. The variables that affect box girder design,
construction, and camber are discussed in this chapter.
2.2 Materials
The two major materials used in prestressed concrete are prestressing strand and
concrete.
6


2.2.1 Prestressing Strand
There are two main types of prestressing strands used in the industry today: low-
relaxation strand and stress-relieved strand. Low-relaxation strand is more common in the United
States as low-relaxation strands typically have less prestressing losses than stress-relieved strand.
Low-relaxation strands are made by tensioning and de-tensioning multiple times prior to placing
in service therefore removing additional losses. Strands are made up of multiple wires that are
intertwined and act as a single strand.
The modulus of elasticity for prestressing strand is similar to reinforcing steel. Steel
properties typically have a well-defined modulus of elasticity as the data contains small standard
deviations. For design purposes, the modulus of elasticity for prestressing strand is approximated
as 28,500 ksi as defined in AASHTO LRFD. The typical yield strength of prestressing strand is
270 ksi in the United States.
2.2.2 Concrete
Concrete is a building material made of a mixture of materials that is poured into forms
and hardens into a stone-like mass. Concrete is made of cement, water, aggregate and optional
admixtures. The strength of the concrete is based on various variables such as ratio of cement,
water and aggregate and type of aggregate used. For prestressed girders, a high performance
cement and concrete mix is used to obtain high strength concrete. ASTM uses multiple methods
to classify cement types depending on the characteristics and are classified in sections Cl50,
C595 and Cl 157. ASTM C150 classifies Portland cement into types I through IV. Type III and
Type IIIA are high early strength concretes, with and without air entrainment, respectively. Even
though Type III cements are high early strength, typical precast prestressed concrete will use
Type I, II or IIA. The type used is dependent on factors such as schedule, cost, element use
(bridge versus building) among others. ASTM Cl 157 classifies hydraulic cements into letter
codes GU, HE, MS, HS, MH, and LH. Types GU, MS, and HS are typically used in precast
7


prestressed concrete for similar reasons as the Portland cements. ASTM C595 classifies Blended
Hydraulic cements into letter codes IL, IS, IP and IT. (PCI Design Handbook, CDOT
Construction Specifications).
Prestressed girder concrete varies depending on the design and the maximum allowed
concrete strength by the owner. A maximum design concrete strength can vary from 8 ksi to 10
ksi typically. As the data used in the statistical camber analysis shows, actual concrete strengths
can be in excess of 13 ksi. (PCI Design Handbook, CDOT Construction Specifications).
Due to the curing process of concrete, the concrete strength varies from the time it is
placed until the time it is removed from service. Figure 2-1 below shows a graph of concrete
strength over time for the different types of cement for the standard ASTM Cl50 cement types.
For high strength concrete used in precast prestressed girders, the trend is similar to those shown
in the figure below but reaches a higher compressive strength in a shorter duration.
Figure 2-1: Concrete Strength over Time
(Used with permission from PCI Design Handbook, 7th Edition)
As shown in the graph from the PCI Design Handbook, 7th Edition, the strength tends to
start to peak after 30 to 40 days for regular concrete. This variable strength affects the girder
8


camber as the strength is proportional to the modulus of elasticity of the concrete which is used to
calculate the camber.
As shown in Figure 2-2 from NCHRP Report 496, which shows the relationship between
concrete strength and modulus of elasticity, the data shows a small upward trend, but fitting an
equation to the trend is difficult.
ModaJus ut'Elisualy iJcsij
Figure 2-2: Modulus of Elasticity versus Concrete Strength
(Used with permission from NCHRP Report 496, 2003)
The equation used to calculate the modulus of elasticity has been researched and tested
heavily in the past. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed the designer is using the
AASHTO LRFD code equation for calculating modulus of elasticity. The equation as given in
AASHTO LRFD 5.4.2 4 is:
Ec = 33,000(Eq. 2-1)
where,
K} = a correction factor for aggregate properties;
wc = the unit weight of the concrete, kef;
Ec = modulus of elasticity, ksi;
9


fc = the concrete compressive strength, ksi.
The correction factor A", comes from the recommendations of NCHRP Report 496.
However, rarely is the data available to the designer to incorporate the A, factor into design and is
therefore assumed to be equal to 1.0.
The assumption of the designer using the AASHTO LRFD equation, as shown in
NCHRP Report 496 and other research, has been shown to predict a lower modulus of elasticity
than actual for use in deflection and camber calculations. However, the intent of this study is to
determine new camber multipliers for designers. As prestressed girders are typically used in
bridge design where AASHTO LRFD code is applicable, it is assumed the designer is using the
equation above. Any error in the calculation of the modulus of elasticity is intended to be
accounted for in the new camber multipliers.
When compiling the camber data, the actual concrete strength of the girder was obtained
if available. Not only is the relationship between concrete strength and modulus of elasticity
difficult to predict, but the actual concrete strength can be drastically different than the design or
theoretical concrete strength. If the concrete strength data is plotted versus time, assuming that the
time of the concrete strength test is the same time as the age of the girder obtained, the following
Figure 2-3 is obtained.
All data past 90 days is not plotted in Figure 2-3. The assumption above is not significant
for the purposes of this plot as the time is a way of distinguishing the strength data for plotting.
As shown in Figure 2-3, all of the data obtained has concrete strengths equal to or above 8 ksi
with the majority of the data above 10 ksi. The maximum concrete strength allowed to be
specified in Colorado is 10 ksi, resulting in a large over-strength of the concrete compared to the
design concrete strength. Figure 2-4 below is the concrete strength percent difference versus
span-to-depth ratio.
10


Concrete Stremgth % Difference Concrete Strength (Ksi)
Figure 2-4: Concrete Strength Percent Difference
11


As shown in Figure 2-4, the concrete strength varies from 8% higher to a little over 14%.
As the concrete strength increases, the modulus of elasticity increases, resulting in lower camber.
However, using a lower concrete strength both for release and for final allows the fabricator to
more effectively and efficiently produce girders, reducing costs and construction time. If a lower
release concrete strength is specified, the fabricator can remove it from the bed earlier, allowing
the next girder to be fabricator sooner. Additionally, a lower specified design concrete strength
decreases fabricators risk by reducing the number of rejected girders that do not meet design
strength.
2.3 Prestressing Losses
Prestress losses stem from multiple sources and are calculated by different methods. With
the intent of this study, it is assumed that the designer is using an allowable method per AASHTO
LRFD. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the refined method is used and is shown
in the following losses discussion.
The prestress losses considered are elastic shortening, concrete creep, concrete shrinkage,
and strand relaxation. The total losses may be computed by calculating the sum of each individual
loss as expressed by the following equation:
A/pT = hfpEs + kfpLT =
hfpES + hfpSR + hfpCR + kfpRl + hfpSD + &fpCD + MpR2 ~ &fpSS (Ecf 2'2)
where,
AfpT = total loss, ksi;
AfPLT = loss due to long-term shrinkage, creep, and relaxation, ksi;
AfpEs = loss due to elastic shortening, ksi;
AfpSR = loss due to shrinkage of girder between transfer and deck placement, ksi;
AfpCR = loss due to creep of girder concrete between transfer and deck placement, ksi;
Afpm = loss due to relaxation of strands between transfer and deck placement, ksi;
12


AfpSD = loss due to shrinkage of girder after deck placement, ksi;
AfpcD = loss due to creep of girder concrete after deck placement, ksi;
AfPR2 = loss due to relaxation of strands after deck placement, ksi;
Afl)SS = gains due to shrinkage of deck in composite section, ksi.
This equation is a combination of equations from AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5.1 and 5.9.5.4.I.
The refined method as described in the below equations for calculating prestress losses is
based on the recommendations of NCHRP Report 496 (Tadros et al.). However, additional
research since AASHTO LRFD updated their prestress loss calculations based on the NCHRP
report has shown there is still a difference between actual prestress losses and calculated.
Multiple research projects have previously determined that AASHTO LRFD overestimated total
prestress losses approximately 10 percent to 98 percent. (Hinkle 2006). However, the research
does show that the initial (time of release to time of deck placement) prestress losses calculated
by AASHTO LRFD are typically within 7 percent of the measured losses. (Shams and Kahn
2000).
2.3.1 Elastic Shortening
Elastic shortening is losses due to the shortening of the girder due to the pre stressing
force. As the concrete girder shortens, the strands shorten at the same time resulting in loss of
prestressing force. The equation for the loss in stress due to elastic shortening given in AASHTO
LRFD 5.9.5.2.3a is:
where,
&fpES p fcgp
ect
Ep = the modulus of elasticity of the prestressing strand, ksi;
Ect = the modulus of elasticity of the concrete at transfer/release, ksi;
(Eq. 2-3)
13


fcgp = the concrete stress at the center of gravity of the prestressing strands due to the
prestressing force immediately after transfer and the self-weight of the member at the
section of maximum moment, ksi.
As shown, the elastic shortening is affected by the moduli of the materials and the
compression stress in the concrete. The modulus of elasticity of the concrete is a large factor in
the actual elastic shortening achieved. Additionally, the amount of elastic shortening the girder
obtains has a large effect on the girders camber. The more the girder shrinks the more camber the
girder will achieve; therefore, anything that restricts the girders elastic shortening restricts the
girders camber. An example is the mild reinforcing present in precast prestressed girders.
Also, the compressive stress in the concrete affects the creep losses and as described
above, the stress used in the calculation is the compression stress at midspan at the center of
gravity of the strands. The compression stress varies both at the section considered and along the
length of the girder, which affects the amount of creep in the girder.
2.3.2 Creep
Creep is the shortening of the girder over time due to the prestressing compression force.
The equations for the loss in stress due to creep given in AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5.4.2b and
5.9.5.4.3b are:
ci
(Eq. 2-4)
1
(Eq. 2-5)
V(t,ti) = 1.9kskhckfktdti 0118
(Eq. 2-6)
ks = 1.45 0.13(7/5) > 1.0
(Eq. 2-7)
khc = 1.56 0.008H
(Eq. 2-8)
14


5
(Eq. 2-9)
t
(Eq. 2-10)
(Eq. 2-11)
1
(Eq. 2-12)
where,
Aps = area of pre stressing strand, in2;
Ag = gross area of girder, in2;
Ac = area of composite section, in2;
epg = eccentricity of prestressing force with respect to centroid of girder, in;
epc = eccentricity of prestressing force with respect to centroid of composite section, in;
H = relative humidity, %;
Ig = gross moment of inertia of girder, in4;
Ic = moment of inertia of composite section, in4;
K,d = transformed section coefficient that account for time-dependent interaction between
concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time period between
transfer and deck placement;
Kjr= transformed section coefficient that accounts for time-dependent interaction
between concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time period
between deck placement and final time;
kf= factor for the effect of concrete strength;
khc = humidity factor for creep;
ks = factor for the effect of the volume-to-surface ratio of the component.
ktd = time development factor;
15


tf= final age, days;
td = age at deck placement, days;
ti = age at transfer, days;
V/S = volume-to-surface ratio, in;
Â¥ = girder creep coefficient.
As shown in the equations above, calculating creep is difficult due to the various factors
that affect the amount of creep in a girder. Additionally, mild reinforcing placed in the girder can
resist creep and result in loss of camber. All of these variables can either vary over time or vary
by girder.
As stated in the elastic shortening section, the compressive stress in the concrete affects
the creep losses. The compression stress varies both at the section considered and along the length
of the girder, which affects the amount of creep in the girder.
2.3.3 Shrinkage
Shrinkage is the shortening of the girder over time due to the continual chemical reaction
of the cement and water and evaporation of water over time, reducing the water content of the
concrete. The equations for the loss in stress due to shrinkage given in AASHTO LRFD
5.9.5.4.2a and 5.9.5.4.3a are:
AfpSR ~ ^bidEpKid (Eq. 2-13)
^fpSD ~ £bdfEpKdf (Eq. 2-14)
£bdf 0-48x10 (Eq. 2-15)
khs = 2.00 0.014H (Eq. 2-16)
where,
Ebid = concrete shrinkage strain of girder between time of transfer and deck placement;
£bdf= concrete shrinkage strain of girder after deck placement;
kb, = humidity factor for shrinkage.
16


Shrinkage is also difficult to calculate as it is dependent on the same variables as creep
and both are dependent on each other leading to an iterative process in the calculations of each.
Most methods to calculate creep and shrinkage losses assume the calculations can be
independently calculated. Additional shrinkage is caused by creep due to the shortening of the
girder resulting in water loss. Shrinkage can also be resisted by mild reinforcing placed in the
girder and results in less camber. Additional shrinkage in the girders can occur due to shrinkage
in the deck after deck placement. As this shrinkage occurs at a later time and is eccentric with
respect to the composite sections centroid, it typically results in a gain of prestressing which adds
additional camber. It is common in industry that the designer may calculate or ignore the deck
shrinkage based on preference, judgment and/or owner requirements. This gain in prestressing
force can be mitigated with mild reinforcing in the deck. The equations for the gain in stress due
to deck shrinkage given in AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5.4.d are:
where,
£ddf= concrete shrinkage strain of girder after deck placement;
Ad = area of deck concrete, in2;
Ecd = modulus of elasticity of deck concrete, ksi;
ed = eccentricity of deck with respect to the gross composite section, in.
2.3.4 Relaxation
Relaxation, as previously mentioned, is the elongation of the prestressing strands over
time due to the prestressing force. The equations for the loss in stress due to relaxation given in
A/P55 = ^fcdfKdf[l + 0.7Wb(tf,td)]
EC
(Eq. 2-17)
(Eq. 2-18)
AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5.4.2c and 5.9.5.4.3c are:
17


where,
&fpR2 = &fpRl
(Eq. 2-19)
(Eq. 2-20)
fpt = stress in prestressing strands immediately after transfer, ksi;
fpy = yield stress of prestressing strands, ksi;
Kl = 30 for low-relaxation strands and 7 for other prestressing steel.
2.4 Other Variables
Other variables that affect camber are air temperature, girder temperature, girder age,
mild reinforcing, and construction sequencing that are described below.
2.4.1 Temperature
Air temperature and solar radiation affects camber due to the effect of temperature
differential and girder expansion and contraction. In a previous study by Hinkle, he measured the
camber of girders after fabrication and prior to erection throughout the day. He found that girders
exhibited up to a 'A inch change in deflection over the day. The amount of change in camber was
dependent on the amount of sun exposure and the amount of change in ambient temperature over
the day. He also found that girders cast in the winter and spring tended to camber more than those
cast in the summer. This is due to the higher temperature causing faster curing and evaporation of
water, resulting in less time for the girder to camber. (Hinkle, 2006). In Colorado, air
temperatures can vary significantly throughout the day and solar radiation intensified by elevation
can provide significant temperature gradients into girders which affect the camber in the girder.
Additionally, recent research has also shown that the orientation of the girder during curing at the
fabrication plant affects camber as the girder will not be heated on all sides evenly resulting in a
temperature differential within the girder (Nguyen, et al 2015).
18


2.4.2 Girder Age
The age of the girder affects camber due to the material properties of the steel and
concrete and the prestress losses. Standard design parameters calculate an erection camber at 60
days and final cambers at 90 days. The PCI multiplier method matches these time lengths based
on the report by Martin (Martin 1977). Agencies typically restrict setting girders prior to 60 days
to allow the girders enough time to achieve the predicted camber. However, actual erections may
be sooner than designed for due to significant schedule deadlines and design-build procurement
methods of todays industry.
2.4.3 Mild Reinforcing
Mild reinforcing in the girder decreases the camber as it restricts shortening of the
concrete girder from elastic shortening, creep, and shrinkage. A designer typically does not
modify the equations in AASHTO to account for this decrease in camber due to mild reinforcing.
2.4.4 Construction Sequence
The construction sequence affects camber due to the effect of all of the items previously
mentioned. See Section 2.6 below for additional construction sequencing information.
2.5 Design Process
A prestressed girder is designed using a multiple step process as generally described
below. It should be noted this is a general process and each design is different.
The loads on the girders are calculated based on the section and length of the bridge.
Typical design will analyze an interior girder and an exterior girder designed for both flexure and
shear demands and deflection limits since loads can vary between girders. The loads are affected
by the configuration used. For Colorado box girders, they are typically used in a side-by-side
configuration with a cast-in-place concrete topping (deck) with a waterproofing membrane and
asphalt wearing surface. The deck acts as a composite slab to distribute loads to the girders.
19


Dead loads are considered to be composite or non-composite loads depending on when
the load is applied and the configuration of the girders. The self-weight of the girder and deck are
examples of non-composite loads as they are applied prior to the deck being placed and cured.
Barrier and asphalt are examples of composite loads as they are typically applied after the deck is
cured if the deck is composite. Non-composite loads are distributed based on tributary area and
composite loads are distributed equally to all girders (at designer and owner preferences).
Live loads are considered to be a composite load when a deck or sufficiently strong shear
keys between girders are used. However, live load cannot be applied equally to all beams due to
the transient nature of the live load. AASHTO LRFD has multiple methods to calculate the live
load distribution factor to be used in design. With typical girders, the AASHTO LRFD equations
in Section 4.6.2.2 of the code are applicable and appropriate. However, for side-by-side box
girders with a topping, it has been found in the industry that they can be overly conservative.
Current industry practice is to use a refined method analysis such as a grillage model to determine
the live load distribution factor for side-by-side box girders with a deck.
The next step is to calculate the prestressing force and strand pattern required to meet
strength requirements for flexure and concrete stress requirements. In Colorado, the designer need
only consider stresses at release and final. It is the responsibility of the girder manufacturer and
Contractor to design and consider stresses during lifting, shipping and erection. Other states
require the designer to consider all operations during design. To limit stresses at the top of the
girder at release, the strands may be harped or de-bonded. Harped strands are strands that shift up
in the girder at the girder ends. De-bonding is placing sleeves around the strands to prevent
bonding between the strand and the concrete. In Colorado, harped strands are typically not used
in box girders and only de-bonded strands are allowed due to local manufacturer limitations.
Additionally, mild reinforcing at the top of the girder can be added to increase the stress limit of
the concrete per AASHTO LRFD code (if allowed by the owner).
20


During the process of prestressing design, the girder camber and deflections are
calculated. The camber is calculated at release, deck placement (considered to be 60 days after
release), and at final (considered to be 90 days after release).There are multiple methods of
calculating camber including the PCI multiplier method, the Tadros equation, or finite element
analysis. The method typically used by designers is the PCI multiplier method. The PCI
multiplier method calculates the instantaneous upward deflection of the girder and the downward
deflection of the girder due to self-weight. The net deflection upward, or camber, is the release
camber. To calculate the camber at 60 and 90 days, multiplication factors are used to multiply the
deflection calculations. At time of deck placement, the deflection due to the deck and other loads
are calculated. The final camber is calculated by using a multiplication factor on the initial
camber and deflection values. PCI obtained the multipliers from a report by Leslie Martin in 1977
(Martin, 1977).
It is common practice that the estimated final deflection and camber be even or upward.
A downward final camber is typically not desirable by the designer or owner and is considered to
be a sag situation. A sag is not desirable as a sag in prestressed concrete girders is used as a
warning for potential failure of the girder.
Once the prestressing is determined, the girder is designed for shear, confinement, and
anchorage using mild reinforcing.
The girder spacing and size are adjusted until a design meeting strength, deflection and
stress requirements is determined.
2.6 Construction Sequencing
The construction sequencing affects the prestress losses and girder camber. A typical
prestressed girder is constructed in girder forms at fabricator plants with the proper forms and
jacking capabilities. The construction sequence of a typical girder is to place the prestressing
strands and mild reinforcing in the forms. Then stress the prestressing strands and pour the
21


concrete. Once the concrete has reached a minimum concrete strength determined by the
designer, the prestressing strands are released.
In Colorado for prestressed box girders, this sequence is modified due to difficulties in
previous methods. For box girders, a polystyrene void form is used to blockout the interior of the
girder to obtain the box section. During construction of a box girder using previous methods, the
polystyrene is placed with the mild reinforcing and additional mild reinforcing or hold downs are
used to attempt to keep the void form in place. In the past, manufacturers attempted to construct
box girders in a single pour resulting in multiple girder flaws such as the void form shifting to
either side resulting in the stirrups having no or insufficient clearance. Another construction flaw
resulted in the polystyrene floating in the wet concrete and resulting in the mild reinforcing at the
top having no or insufficient clearance.
Therefore, Colorado manufacturers typically pour box girders in a two-step process. The
two-step process starts with placing the bottom flange mild reinforcing and strands in the form.
The bottom flange concrete is then poured and the polystyrene void form is placed on top of the
wet concrete. The concrete is allowed to partially cure, holding the polystyrene in place. The side
and top mild reinforcing is then placed and the remaining portions are poured. The strands are not
released until after the sides and top flange have reached the specified minimum release concrete
strength.
Based on discussions with Plum Creek (Werner 2016), the bottom slab is allowed to cure
for a maximum 4 to 5 hours. When the second pour occurs, the bottom slab concrete is still
workable. This allows the fabricator to vibrate the concrete between the two pours preventing a
cold joint from forming. If a cold joint does form, the fabricator has to check the joint for
interface shear per AASHTO LRFD similar to interface shear between the top of the girder and
the deck. Typically, a % inch amplitude is required for interface shear (as provided on the top of
the girder) to obtain the horizontal interface shear capacity. A % inch amplitude is used to
22


increase the interface shear capacity based on AASHTO LRFD equations. The AASHTO LRFD
equations are based on multiple research studies and reports.
The two-step process results in less camber than predicted due to the differential concrete
strengths in the girder which results in a higher concrete strength of the bottom flange at release
than specified. The higher strength results in a higher modulus of elasticity which results in less
camber. Further information is provided in the theoretical analysis of eight girders analyzing the
two-stage pour in Chapter 5.
23


3. FIELD AND DESIGN CAMBER DATA
3.1 Overview
Field data was obtained from girders cast in Colorado over the past 10 years total 1289
girders after removing any as described further in this study. Any girders that were cast prior to
10 years ago were removed from consideration due to the changes in technology and construction
procedures for girders. Research also included finding any as-built drawings for the girders to
determine strand pattern, girder properties, strand properties, jacking force, design losses,
concrete properties, and predicted camber to aid in further evaluation of camber. Not all as-built
drawings were found for all the girders and bridges in the list; totaling 157 camber measurements
(about 12% of the data set). Information on tested concrete strength was found during the
research and is included in the full data set and is discussed in Chapter 2.
The data set includes the measured camber at the time of shipping (or more accurately,
the date the girder camber was measured, if known) and varies from girder to girder. As
previously mentioned, the girder camber varies over time and further analysis will need to be
considered. See the next chapter for further discussion.
The girders range in length and span-to-depth ratios and are from two local fabricators:
EnCon Colorado and Plum Creek Structures. Both fabricators are located in the Denver metro
area. Rocky Mountain Prestress also casts precast prestressed box girders, but no camber data was
found on girders cast by them.
The bridges in the list vary in location in Colorado from the Front Range to the High
Country, but the majority is located in the Denver metro area. The majority is owned by the State
of Colorado, but some are owned by local agencies.
The list of girders and bridges was reduced to 1289 girders after outliers were found in
the data. A couple of bridges had cambers in excess of 3 times the predicted camber and were
considered to be outliers. It is assumed there was an error during construction or design that
24


produced such a large difference. As-built plans were not found for these structures to confirm
this assumption and therefore were removed from the data.
The original data set was obtained from Scott Huson at the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT), Staff Bridge Branch (Huson, Personal Communications, 2014 and
2015). The data was originally used in a statistical analysis to update the CDOT policy on
estimating girder camber during design and how to account for variable camber in the design of a
bridge. This study performs a similar statistical analysis (with differences as noted in the next
section) and comes to similar conclusions, but includes further analysis to recommend revised
multipliers. Additionally, the data set was updated to remove outliers, as previously mentioned,
and to add additional data found based on as-built plans and cambers. The original data set
contained 638 data points for box girders, but now contains 1289 data points.
3.2 Comparison
To compare the design and field cambers, a percent difference from the design camber
was calculated for each girder and plotted against the span-to-depth ratio. The span length used
for the span-to-depth ratio is the distance from centerline of abutment or pier to centerline of
abutment or pier. Two scenarios were considered and compared: the girder camber at the day
measured with no correction for age of the girder and the adjusted field camber which is the
camber adjusted to a predetermined girder age.
3.2.1 Camber Comparison without Age Correction
The first comparison of the data compares the data without correction for the age of the
girder. This comparison was performed because the calculations to adjust all girders to the same
age inherently have the same errors and variability as the original design camber calculations.
Additionally, the PCI multiplier method and the design camber given in the plans are for 60 day
old girders, which is considered to be the day of the deck pour. However, as the data shows, the
age at which the girders are made composite with a deck varies anywhere from less than a week
25


Camber % Difference
to over a year. It is the Contractors responsibility to adjust the beam seats of the girders and the
screed depths of the deck to account for the girder camber when the deck is poured at time other
than 60 days. However, setting the girders earlier or later than 60 days has similar results as the
actual and theoretical camber is different. Therefore, comparing the data without adjusting the
age will inherently include the variability in the age of the girder at the time of the deck pour.
Figure 3-1 below shows the data with no correction or adjustment for girder age.
Span Length / Girder Depth
Figure 3-1: Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction
The maximum percent difference in camber is 103.5% and the minimum percent
difference in camber is -85.7%. For the purposes of this analysis, a positive percent difference
represents over-camber in the actual girder when compared to the design camber and a negative
percent difference represents under-camber in the actual girder when compared to the design
camber. Figure 3-2 below shows the distribution of the data points within 5% difference intervals.
26


The average percent difference is -12.4%. The large difference between maximum and minimum
shows how difficult camber is to predict.
The graph and average shows the tendency for box girders to under-camber and not reach
the predicted design camber. This is from a combination of factors as discussed in the previous
chapters. As seen in the figures, the trend does show over-camber in girders and the previous
chapters discussed factors that affect camber and how they relate to the actual camber, but the
discussion focused on how they tended to reduce the camber.
120
Figure 3-2: Distribution of Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction
The data above supports the conclusion that box girders in Colorado tend to under-
camber but they do not always under-camber. The main factors that contribute to girders over-
cambering are over-estimation of prestress losses, effects of temperature including solar radiation,
age of girder at time of erection (i.e. extra time in the fabricators yard), and over-estimation of
the modulus of elasticity of concrete.
27


3.2.2 Camber Comparison with Age Correction
The previous comparison of predicted versus actual camber measurements did not
include any adjustment for age of the girder at the time of the actual measurement. The field data
has measurements taken at girder ages less than a week and older than a year. As mentioned,
attempting to adjust the measured cambers to a consistent age has the same variables as the
originally predicted camber value. Additionally, only one measurement in time was obtained
which adds additional complexity to the equations to adjust the actual camber to a consistent age.
To adjust the field camber data to a consistent age of 60 days to attempt to better compare
to the PCI multiplier predicted camber, the equation below can be used (Tadros et al, 2011).
where,
AUe = camber at time of deck placement (60 days), in;
Aip = camber due to prestressing force at release, in;
Aisw = deflection due to self-weight at release, in;
Aei-ioss = deflection due to prestress losses between release and deck placement, in;
Â¥= creep coefficient as defined in section 2.3.2 of the AASHTO LRFD specifications;
Aft = total losses from release to time of deck placement, ksi;
fpi = initial tensioning stress of strands (typically 202.5 ksi for 270 ksi strands), ksi.
For these equations, information from the design of the girders is needed, such as the
prestress losses and girder shape to calculate the equations above. To adjust the actual camber,
the initial actual camber is needed, but was not obtained. Additionally, not all as-builts were
obtained which would provide the information needed to calculate the equations above. Lastly, to
calculate the camber at 60 days, the equations above have to be used to calculate the initial
camber and then used again to calculate the camber at 60 days. For example, if the actual camber
Alte= (Aip Aisw)(l + V)~ Ael-loss(l + 0.7V)
(Eq. 3-1)
(Eq. 3-2)
28


was measured at an age of 20 days, the first step is to use the equation above to calculate the
initial camber (Aip A1SW). The second step is to then use the initial camber in the equations above
to calculate the camber at 60 days.
Scott Huson, in his analysis, ran into a similar issue when performing a statistical analysis
of the data. In a presentation on May 15, 2014 (Huson May, 2014), Scott proposed modifying the
equation above to the equation below.
Aite= (Aip Aisw) (1 + (0.7 t-'118) V) (Eq. 3-3)
where,
t, = time between release and camber measurement, days.
The proposed modification is based on analysis for a Bulb Tee girder bridge and Box girder
bridge where the prestress losses were calculated overtime. An aging coefficient was calculated
and plotted over time. The result was finding that the curve of the aging coefficient was similar to
0.7tm''118xvP. These results are similar to past research by AASHTO and Tadros. The 0.7 comes
from research performed by Tadros and is considered to be the aging coefficient for the creep
coefficient (Tadros, 2011). The tm 0118 factor comes from AASHTO LRFD equations for the creep
coefficient'T (as described previously).
Prior to using the above equation, eight bridges were selected to duplicate the results to
verify the validity of the equation.
3.2.2.1 Ageing Coefficient Validation
Losses were calculated for eight girders based on the as-built plans and shop drawings
between time of release and time of deck placement using the refined method and the equations
described in previous sections. An example calculation of the losses and camber is included in
Appendix A.
Figure 3-3 below shows the variation of camber over time using Tadros equation for the
eight girders.
29


Camber (in)
4.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, t (Days)
Figure 3-3: Camber vs. Time using Tadros Equation
The figure above shows that all eight girders have a similar trend, but have different
initial cambers due to the different prestressing eccentricity, prestressing force, and girder length.
The figure above also shows how all eight girders have minimal camber growth beyond 60 days.
The calculations to obtain the figure above used Tadros equation except with one modification for
the intended use of this report. The calculations for losses and the creep coefficient assume that
the time (t) is the time of the deck placement. The camber data obtained was typically the
shipping camber measurement and therefore, deck placement followed shortly after. Figure 3-4
below shows the change in the curve when modifying the time of deck placement for Structure B-
16-EV.
30


2.80
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, t (Days)
Figure 3-4: Camber vs. Time for B-16-EV
The Baseline is the same curve for Structure B-16-EV as in Figure 3-3. The CONSPAN
line is the estimate camber from CONSPAN based on the PCI multipliers. This figure shows that
the earlier the deck is poured, the more camber the girder obtains. However, the curves are
technically not applicable after the day the deck is poured because additional losses (additional
concrete creep, concrete shrinkage, and strand relaxation) occur from the time of the deck pour to
an arbitrary end time, which is not accounted for in Figure 3-4 as Tadros equation is only
applicable from time of transfer until time of deck placement.
To obtain the modified equation, an aging coefficient needs to be calculated and plotted.
To calculate the aging coefficient, a time of deck placement must be assumed. As the camber
measurements are being adjusted to the time of 60 days, which is based on the assumption that
the majority of the camber is obtained by 60 days, the time of 60 days will be assumed for time of
31


deck placement. Five points in time other than 60 days were chosen: 7, 14, 28, 90 and 120 days.
At each time, the Tadros equation was modified by inserting an aging coefficient to replace the
loss calculations in the location of the modifier shown in the equation above (and the variable
shown in the equation below).
AUe= At (1 + AC V) (Eq. 3-4)
where,
AC = Aging Coefficient.
The camber values for each time calculated by the Tadros equation were inserted into the
equation resulting in two equations as shown below.
A;te_t= A; (1 + AC ¥t) (Eq. 3-5)
A(te_60= Aj (1 + AC no) (Eq. 3-6)
where,
AUe_t = the calculated camber at time t (where t is equal to 7, 14, 28, 90 or 120 days);
Aite_6o = the calculated camber at time of 60 days;
Aj = the initial measured camber at release, in;
Â¥t = the creep coefficient at time t (where t is equal to 7, 14, 28, 90 or 120 days);
Â¥60 = the creep coefficient at time of 60 days;
AC = the aging coefficient.
To solve the two equations, the initial measured camber at release is the only unknown
and is equal in both equations. Therefore, the initial measured cambers are set equal and the
resulting equation solved for the aging coefficient, resulting in the equation below.
AC = __________Aite_60 Aite_t________ (Eq. 3-7)
(Aite_t n0) (A;te_6o n)
Figure 3-4 below is the resulting plot for each of the eight structures.
32


Aging Coefficient
Figure 3-5: Aging Coefficient
The figure also shows the power trend line for the maximum, minimum, and approximate
middle structure aging coefficient. Additionally, the 0.7*tm118 factor, which is the proposed
aging coefficient, is graphed and tends to be near the minimum end of the graph. As a
comparison, the modified camber equation was used to recalculate the cambers for each structure
and was graphed in Figure 3-6 below along with the original camber calculations.
The modified equation is a similar trend to the Tadros equation and tends to be towards
the minimum end of the graph. Based on this information, the modified Tadros equation will be
used to adjust the camber values to the time of 60 days.
33


Camber (in)
Figure 3-6: Camber versus Time Comparison of Camber Equations
3.22.2 Age Adjustment
To make the age correction for all the camber values, some information was unattainable
resulting in the assumptions below unless accurate information was obtained from as-built plans
or shop drawings.
Relative Humidity (H) = 60% (AASHTO LRFD Figure 5.4.2.3.3-1)
Time of Release (f) = 0.75 days
Time of Deck Placement = Time of measurement
Volume-to-surface Ration (V/S) = 4.5 (Approx, average of data obtained)
Release Concrete Strength (f c) = 6.5 ksi
34


Figure 3-7 below shows the resulting data points of percent difference between adjusted
camber and predicted camber.
a>
u
C
a>
*_
a>
it
b
ai
-Q
E
ro
U
-a
ai
-a
<
tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
7.0 12.0 17.0 22.0 27.0
Span Length / Girder Depth
32.0
37.0
42.0
Figure 3-7: Adjusted Percent Camber Difference Corrected for Age
The data after adjusting for age still shows the tendency for box girders to under-camber
with an average percent difference of -4.8%. The maximum percent difference in camber is
138.6% and the minimum percent difference in camber is -84.9%.
Figure 3-8 below shows the distribution of the data points within 5% difference intervals.
Figure 3-8 again shows the tendency for the girders to under-camber based on the actual
cambers having an average below 0%.
35


120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-82.5%
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
(N(NrvirNif\i(N(N(Nrvrvrvrvrvrvr^r^r^rvrvrv
<*d lo ro (N ti ' 'rHrvjrO'^-LOLDr^-ooa^O'rH
............... T-i T-i
Adjusted % Camber Difference
Figure 3-8: Distribution of Percent Camber Difference Corrected for Age
36
127.5% M


4. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF FIELD CAMBER DATA
4.1 Overview
As shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-8, the distribution of the percent differences in camber is
approximately a normal distribution. The analysis of the percent differences data will then be
used to calculate an average, minimum and maximum multiplier for prestressing camber and self-
weight camber to be used during design.
4.2 Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis of the data set will occur on both the adjusted camber data and the
measured camber data with no age correction.
4.2.1 Statistical Analysis with No Age Adjustment
As shown in Figure 3-1 and 3-2, the difference in design and actual camber varies
drastically. The average difference in camber is -12.4% with a standard deviation of 30.4%. The
minimum percent difference is -85.7% and the maximum is 103.5%. The median is -14.4%. See
Figure 4-1 below for a distribution graph of the data with a normal distribution curve using the
average and standard deviations calculated above.
Figure 4-1 below shows that girders at the time of shipping tend to have a camber value
less than predicted. The first standard deviation is located at -42.7% and 18.0%. The second
standard deviation is located at -73.1% and 48.3%. The third standard deviation is located at -
78.7% and 103.5%. Figure 4-2 shows the data graph with the second standard deviations and
average delineated. As is standard for a normal distribution, the graph shows about 95% of the
data falls within two standard deviations of the average.
37


Camber % Difference
120
Figure 4-1: Percent Camber Difference Distribution No Age Correction
125.0%
100.0%
75.0%
50.0%
25.0%
0.0%
25.0%
-50.0%
-75.0%
-100.0%
7.0 12.0 17.0 22.0 27.0 32.0 37.0 42.0
Span Length / Girder Depth
Figure 4-2: Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction with 2nd Standard
Deviations and Average Delineations
38


For a normal distribution, approximately 95% of data falls within 2 standard deviations of
the average (1.96 standard deviations for a 95% confidence interval). The current multipliers
based on Martins analysis are 1.8 for the camber due to the prestressing and 1.85 for the self-
weight deflection (Martin, 1977). The calculation for predicted camber using the PCI/Martin
multipliers is:
APred= l-80Ajp 1.85Ajsw (Eq. 4-1)
where,
Apred = the predicted camber of the girder at 60 days, in;
Aip = the initial camber due to prestressing, in;
Aisw = the initial deflection due to the self-weight of the girder, in.
Due to all of the variables involved, it cannot be determined if the difference in camber is
in self-weight deflection calculations or the prestressing camber calculation without high end
finite element analysis. Therefore, the analysis proceeding forward will assume equal distribution
between the two multipliers.
To calculate new multipliers, the percent difference needs to be applied to the predicted
camber. Because the predicted release prestressing camber and self-weight deflection in the
above equation are not changing, the percent difference can be applied directly to the multipliers.
% Diff APred= %Diff 1.80 Aip %Diff 1.85 Aisw (Eq. 4-2)
In this case, we will proceed with using the 2nd standard deviation to obtain a maximum
and minimum multiplier as it will approximately fit 95% of the data. A 95% confidence interval
was chosen to provide the designer a maximum and minimum starting point. The designer will
need to determine if the maximum and minimum fit the bridge structurally and geometrically.
Based on the percent difference analysis conducted above and the equation above, the new
multipliers without adjusting for age calculate to be as shown in Table 4-1 below.
39


Table 4-1: Revised Multiplier No Age Correction
Prestress Self-Weight
Multiplier Multiplier
Maximum 2.65 2.75
Minimum 0.50 0.50
Average 1.60 1.60
The revised multipliers are rounded to the nearest 0.05. Based on these multipliers, the
designer will find issues with constructability and long-term serviceability of the structure. For
example, a girder that only achieves 50% of its predicted release camber will more than likely sag
under full dead loads, particularly long term. The sag deflection would be compounded if the
designer set the beam seats lower to account for the maximum multiplier calculated above as the
haunch in the concrete deck will be excessively large (if no remedial measures are taken to raise
the beam seats or lower the profile). The designer should calculate erection and final deflections
to verify the girder maintains a camber long-term. For further discussion on remedial measures
and design recommendations, see Chapter 6. See Appendix A for calculations of the multipliers.
4.2.2 Statistical Analysis with Age Adjustment
For the age adjusted camber data, it also follows a normal distribution and varies
drastically. The average difference in camber is -4.8% with a standard deviation of 33.1%. The
minimum percent difference is -84.9% and the maximum is 138.6%. The median is -8.0%. See
Figure 4-3 below for a distribution graph of the data with a normal distribution curve using the
average and standard deviations calculated above.
40


120
Figure 4-3: Percent Camber Difference Distribution Adjusted for Age
The figure above shows that girders at the time of shipping tend to have a camber value
less than predicted. The first standard deviation is located at -37.9% and 28.4%. The second
standard deviation is located at -71.0% and 61.5%. The third standard deviation is located at -
104.2% and 94.6%. Figure 4-4 shows the data graph with the second standard deviations and
average delineated. As is standard for a normal distribution, the graph shows about 95% of the
data falls within two standard deviations of the average.
41


Adjusted Camber % Difference
150%
-100% - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
7.0 12.0 17.0 22.0 27.0 32.0 37.0 42.0
Span Length / Girder Depth
Figure 4-4: Percent Camber Difference Age Adjusted with 2nd Standard Deviations and
Average Delineations
Using the same process as previously described, the new multipliers with adjustment for
age calculate to be as shown in Table 4-2 below.
Table 4-2: Revised Multiplier Adjusted for Age
Prestress Self-Weight
Multiplier Multiplier
Maximum 2.90 3.00
Minimum 0.50 0.55
Average 1.70 1.75
The revised multipliers are rounded to the nearest 0.05. These multipliers will have
similar issues as the multipliers from the non-age corrected multipliers. For further discussion on
remedial measures and design recommendations, see Chapter 6.
42


4.3 Recommendations
Based on the analysis of the field data, the PCI multipliers for erection for prestressed
camber and self-weight deflection are recommended to be modified. The modified factors are
calculated to be 1.70 and 1.75 for prestressed camber and self-weight deflection, respectively,
based on adjusting the camber values to the age of 60 days. However, girders are typically erected
prior to the 60 days with less camber than predicted. The actual measured camber value data
shows calculated multipliers of 1.60 for both multipliers. It is recommended that the revised
multipliers be between the two data sets based on variables, input and data previously discussed.
Therefore, it is recommended that the revised multipliers be adjusted to 1.65 and 1.70 for
prestressed camber and self-weight deflection, respectively, based on the field data.
43


5. THEORETICAL CAMBER ANALYSIS
5.1 Overview
A theoretical analysis was performed to model the construction sequencing of the girders
and to determine its impacts on the multipliers. Computer programs available during this study
were not able to accurately model the different concrete strengths in a member or a time variation
model including prestress losses. Therefore, the theoretical analysis was completed using
transformed section properties and the Tadros equation for camber on the eight girders used
previously.
5.2 Theoretical Analysis Procedure
Based on current practice, as mentioned previously, the initial camber is calculated using
the jacking force of the strands and then multiplied by factors to obtain the erection camber of the
girder at 60 days. To be consistent with the multipliers calculated based on the field data, the
theoretical multipliers need to be based off of the same initial camber. However, as Tadros
equation exhibits, when using a small time for t (typically about 5 days or less), the camber
calculates to be less than the initial camber. This is due to the elastic shortening losses not
considered in the calculations of the initial camber (or in computer programs such as
CONSPAN).
The analysis began with determining the gross and transformed section properties of the
girders. The area, center of gravity, and moment of inertia were calculated for a girder of each
bridge. For the transformed section properties, a concrete strength was needed due to the time
difference in placements. For the bottom slab, the information on girder age and actual concrete
strength was as described below. For the top slab and sides, which are the second pour, the
release strength was as specified in the plans was used.
Typically, a girder is cast, released, and lifted out of the bed within 24 hours. The girders
then wait in the fabricators yard until shipping. The time between casting and shipping is
44


dependent on the Contractors schedule, the fabricators schedule, and the concrete strength of the
girder. If the assumption that release occurs at 0.75 days (or 18 hours), then, with the additional
assumptions below, an approximate bottom flange concrete strength can be obtained using a
linear analysis.
Bottom Flange is poured at t = 0 days;
Top Flange and Sides are poured at t = 0.17 days (4 hours);
Concrete Strength maximum is Design Final Concrete Strength, f c.
Based on these assumptions and data, a girder with a release concrete strength of 6.5 ksi
will have a bottom flange with a concrete strength of 8.35 ksi at release. If the final concrete
strength was less than the calculated, the final design strength was used.
Once the bottom flange concrete strength was obtained, the prestress camber and the self-
weight deflection at release for the gross properties and transformed properties were calculated.
After the properties were calculated, the release camber for the transformed properties was used
to calculate the camber at 60 days using Tadros equation and to calculate the 60 day camber from
the gross properties using the PCI multipliers. Then to calculate the new multipliers, the same
assumption was used to equally distribute the difference in camber to both the prestressing
multiplier and the self-weight multiplier.
5.3 Theoretical Analysis Results
Based on this procedure, the theoretical multipliers were obtained for a girder of the 8
girders resulting in the multipliers shown in Table 5-1.
45


Table 5-1: Revised Multiplier Theoretical for 8 Bridges
Bridge Prestress Self-Weight
Multiplier Multiplier
E-17-ACR 1.25 1.30
B-16-EV 1.35 1.40
F-16-EW 1.40 1.45
L-22-CO 1.35 1.35
D-16-DR 1.30 1.35
I-15-Y 1.55 1.60
E-17-VA 1.30 1.30
F-16-ZC 1.20 1.25
As shown in Table 5-1, the revised multipliers vary by girder due to the varying span
lengths, girder sizes, and prestressing losses. The shorter span length and smaller girders of 1-15-
Y results in a higher multiplier as the girders have less creep losses resulting in higher camber. E-
17-ACR, F-16-ZC, and E-17-VA have the longest spans of the group and largest girders resulting
in the lowest multipliers due to the higher creep losses resulting in lower camber.
As the group of 8 girders varies between the short and long and deep to thin girders, an
average will be used to determine the final revised multipliers. The revised multipliers are
rounded to the nearest 0.05 and are shown in Table 5-2 below.
Table 5-2: Revised Multiplier Theoretical
Prestress Self-Weight
Multiplier Multiplier
Maximum 1.55 1.60
Minimum 1.20 1.25
Average 1.35 1.40
The designer should use engineering judgment to select the most applicable multiplier
based on the span and depth of the girders under design. The designer should also verify the
minimum multiplier shown has enough camber to maintain a positive camber under full dead
loads. For further discussion on remedial measures and design recommendations, see Chapter 6.
46


5.4 Recommendations
Based on the theoretical analysis, the PCI multipliers for erection for prestressed camber
and self-weight deflection are recommended to be modified. The modified factors are calculated
to be 1.35 and 1.40 for prestressed camber and self-weight deflection, respectively, based on an
erection at a time of 60 days. However, because the field data recommends higher multipliers be
used, it is recommended that higher multipliers be used with values between theoretical analysis
and field data analysis multipliers. Therefore, it is recommended that the revised multipliers be
adjusted to 1.65 and 1.70 for prestressed camber and self-weight deflection, respectively, based
on the analysis performed.
47


6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
Precast prestressed box girders have been predominately used in bridges since the 1970s
and have been increasing in popularity across the country due to the ever growing cost of Right-
of-Way (ROW) and retaining walls resulting from profde rise. The issue of precast prestressed
box girder achieving predicted camber has grown with the increasing use of box girders. The
current methodology according to PCI using Martins multipliers to calculate camber has resulted
in sufficient camber prediction for years, but with the ever increasing concrete strength and fast
curing concrete, the multipliers according to Martin are losing accuracy and applicability. Tadros
has provided additional recommendations to adjust Martins multipliers by using the creep
coefficient and loss calculations to calculate the camber of the girder overtime. However, in
todays industry with owners requiring bridges to be designed in expedited schedules, complex
calculations are difficult to compute efficiently and accurately in the time allowed. The
recommendations of the present study suggest updated multipliers based on field data and
theoretical analysis to be used in design procedures and in accordance with AASHTO LRFD
specifications.
6.1.1 Remedial Measures and Design Recommendations
For box girder design purposes, this study recommends the use of revised multipliers for
prestress camber and self-weight deflection of 1.65 and 1.70, respectively. However, as shown in
this study, box girder cambers vary significantly and remedial measures can still be necessary in
the field. When using these recommended multipliers, additional steps should be taken to prevent
issues during construction due to either over-camber or under-camber. Possible remedial
measures that can be taken during either construction or design, as appropriate, are:
Use the minimum multiplier values determined in this study to determine the
maximum concrete deck weight on the girder and maximum concrete quantity.
48


The designer should verify that the minimum multiplier provides enough camber
to meet serviceability requirements;
Use the maximum multiplier values determined in this study to determine the
beam seat elevations to prevent over-camber from reducing the deck thickness
below acceptable limits;
Provide details for shims and/or grout pads in the plans to allow the Contractor to
shim the girders when an under-camber condition is fabricated;
Raise or lower the profile of the road, as appropriate, for over-camber and under-
camber conditions;
Control storage time to prevent over-camber or to allow camber time to reach
predicted camber. While in storage, can attempt to mitigate over-camber by
weighting girder;
Recast girders if severe enough condition (i.e. girder has zero or negative camber
at erection).
Some of these remedial measures were proposed by Scott Huson during presentations on
May 15, 2014 and August 25, 2014. (Huson May 2014 and August 2014).
6.2 Future Research
As the recommendations are heavily biased towards field data, additional research is
needed to continue to refine the values presented in this study. There are two main areas where
further research will be beneficial: material properties and camber data.
6.2.1 Material Properties
The actual material properties of the girder significantly affect the camber achieved in a
girder. Further research should be considered to develop a better idea of the material properties
achieved such as concrete strength. Actual concrete strength should be reported, documented, and
compiled to provide the opportunity to develop refined relationships between top and bottom slab
49


concrete strength and effects on camber. Additionally, the data should document the strength of
the concrete of the bottom slab of the girder at release.
6.2.2 Camber Data and Reporting
Providing field camber measurements to the owner is recommended to continue the
current research as additional data is obtained is recommended. Additionally, the current study
uses only a single data point in time to calibrate the multipliers. Reporting the release camber and
date at the same time as the shipping camber and date to the owner would significantly aid in the
refinement in the multipliers.
6.3 Data Issues/Limitations
The current data set uses information provided by CDOT, EnCon Colorado, and Plum
Creek Structures. The data was verified to be accurate if possible, but errors in measurements,
dates, and other information occur and have been minimized. Additionally, there are many
bridges built in the state within the same time frame where camber measurements were not
provided or obtained and may affect the results of this study. This study is limited to the data and
information obtained.
6.4 Final Recommendations and Conclusions
This study has provided revised multipliers for precast prestressed box girders for the
calculation of camber in the state of Colorado. The multipliers have been calculated from a
theoretical and field data analysis even though additional research should be conducted to refine
the multipliers. The recommended multipliers are 1.65 for prestressed camber and 1.70 for self-
weight deflection for box girder in Colorado.
50


NOTATIONS
AC
Ac
Ad
Ag
Aps
Ec
EC1, Ect
Ecd
EP
ed
Spc
epg
f
x c
xpy
H
Ic
Ig
Ki
Kid
Kdf
kf
khc
khs
Kl
ks
ktd
td
tf
k
tm
v/s
wc
Aging Coefficient
Area of composite section (in2)
Area of Deck concrete (in2)
Gross of Area of girder (in2)
Area of prestressing (in2)
Modulus of elasticity of concrete at final (ksi)
Modulus of elasticity of concrete at release (ksi)
Modulus of elasticity of deck concrete (ksi)
Modulus of elasticity of prestressing steel (ksi)
Eccentricity of deck with respect to the gross composite section (in);
Eccentricity of prestressing force with respect to centroid of composite section (in)
Eccentricity of prestressing force with respect to centroid of girder (in)
Concrete compressive strength at 28 days (ksi)
Concrete compressive strength at release (ksi)
The concrete stress at the center of gravity of the prestressing strands due to the
prestressing force immediately after transfer and the self-weight of the member at
the section of maximum moment (ksi)
Initial tensioning stress of strands (ksi)
Stress in prestressing strands immediately after transfer (ksi)
Yield stress of prestressing strands (ksi)
Relative Humidity (%)
Gross moment of Inertia of girder (in4)
Moment of Inertia of Composite Section (in4)
Correction factor for aggregate properties in the calculation of Ec and EC1
Transformed section coefficient that account for time-dependent interaction
between concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time
period between transfer and deck placement
Transformed section coefficient that accounts for time-dependent interaction
between concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time
period between deck placement and final time
Factor for the effect of concrete strength
Humidity factor for creep
Humidity factor for shrinkage.
30 for low-relaxation strands and 7 for other prestressing steel
Factor for the effect of the volume-to-surface ratio of the component
Time development factor
Age at deck placement (days)
Final age (days)
Age at release/transfer (days)
Time between release and camber measurement (days)
Volume-to-Surface Ratio (in)
Unit weight of concrete (kef)
51


Yconc
Ael-loss
A,
Aip
Aisw
Akc
Alte_60
A|tc t
Apred
Aftt
AfpT
AfpLT
AfpES
AfpSR
AfpCR
AfpRl
AfpSD
AfpCD
AfpR2
Afpss
£bdf
Sbid
Gddf
Â¥
Unit weight of concrete (kef)
Deflection due to prestress losses between release and deck placement (in)
Initial measured camber at release (in)
Camber due to prestressing force at release (in)
Deflection due to self-weight at release (in)
Camber at time of deck placement (60 days) (in)
Calculated camber at time of 60 days (in)
Calculated camber at time t (in)
Predicted camber of the girder at 60 days (in)
Total losses from release to time of deck placement (ksi)
Total prestress losses (ksi)
Prestress loss due to long-term shrinkage, creep, and relaxation (ksi)
Prestress loss due to elastic shortening (ksi)
Prestress loss due to shrinkage of girder between transfer and deck placement
(ksi)
Prestress loss due to creep of girder concrete between transfer and deck
placement (ksi)
Prestress loss due to relaxation of strands between transfer and deck placement
(ksi)
Prestress loss due to shrinkage of girder after deck placement (ksi)
Prestress loss due to creep of girder concrete after deck placement (ksi)
Prestress loss due to relaxation of strands after deck placement (ksi)
Prestress gains due to shrinkage of deck in composite section (ksi)
Concrete shrinkage strain of girder after deck placement
Concrete shrinkage strain of girder between time of transfer and deck placement
Concrete shrinkage strain of girder after deck placement
Girder creep coefficient
Creep coefficient at time of 60 days;
Creep coefficient at time t
52


BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2011). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI318-11). Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2014). AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. Washington DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
Barr, P.J. & Angomas, F. (2010). Differences between Calculated and Measured Long-Term
Deflections in a Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge. Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities. American Society of Civil Engineers, November/December 2010,
603 pp.
Billington, David. (2004). Historical Perspective on Prestressed Concrete. PCI Journal.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, January-February 2004, 14 pp.
Colorado Department of Transportation. Colorado Department of Transportation Staff Bridge
Bridge Design Manual. Denver: Colorado Department of Transportation.
Colorado Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction. Denver: Colorado Department of Transportation, 2011.
Hinkle, Stephen. (2006). Investigation of Time-Dependent Deflection in Long Span, High
Strength, Prestressed Concrete Beams. Masters of Science Thesis, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA.
Huson, Scott. (2014). Camber Variability. Colorado Department of Transportation. May 15,
2014.
Huson, Scott. (2014). Camber Variability Results. Colorado Department of Transportation.
August 25, 2014.
Huson, Scott. Personal Communication. November 14, 2014.
Huson, Scott. Personal Communication. January 29, 2015.
53


Martin, Leslie. (1977). A Rational Method for Estimating Camber and Deflection of Precast
Prestressed Members. PCI Journal. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, January-
February 1977, 100 pp.
Nguyen, Hang, Stanton, John, Eberhard, Marc, & Chapman, David. (2015). The effect of
temperature variations on the camber of precast, prestressed concrete girders. PCI Journal.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, September-October 2015, 49 pp.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. (2010). PCI Design Handbook Precast and Prestressed
Concrete. Seventh Edition. Chicago: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute.
Shams, M. and Kahn, L.F. (2000). Time-Dependent Behavior of High-Performance Concrete.
Georgia Tech Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials Research Report No. 00-5,
Georgia Department of Transportation Research Project No. 9510, April 2000, 395 pp.
Stallings, J.M. and Eskildsen, S. (2001). Camber and Prestress Losses in High Performance
Concrete Bridge Girders. Highway Research Center, Harbert Engineering Center, Auburn
University in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, 116 pp.
Tadros, Maher, Al-Omaishi, Nabil, Seguirant, Stephen, & Gallt, James. (2003). NCHRP Report
496 Prestress Losses in Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete Bridge Girders. Washington
DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
Tadros, Maher, Fawzy, Faten, & Hanna, Kromel. (2011). Precast, Prestressed Girder Camber
Variability. PCI Journal. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Winter 2011, 135 pp.
Waldron, Christopher J. (2004). Investigation of Long-Term Prestress Losses in Pretensioned
High Performance Concrete Girders. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Blacksburg, VA.
Wemer, Dan. Plum Creek Structures. Personal Communication. April 19, 2016.
54


A. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Use structure B-16-EV for a set of sample calculations. Use a girder with fabricator mark number
B-4 (Span 2).
Input Data:
Girder Gross Area, Ag = 969 in2
Girder Gross Moment of Inertia, Ig = 120,433 in4
Girder Volume-to-Surface Ratio, V/S = 4.75
Concrete Unit Weight, yconc = 0.150 kef
Release Concrete Strength, f C1 = 6.5 ksi
Final Concrete Strength, f c = 8.5 ksi
Release Concrete Modulus of Elasticity, EC1 = 4,887.7 ksi
Final Concrete Modulus of Elasticity, Ec = 5,589.3 ksi
Yield Tensile Stress of Strands, fpy = 270 ksi
Jacking Tensile Stress of Strands, fpi = 202.5 ksi
Prestressing Strand Area, Aps = 7.378 in2
% Strands Debonded = 23.5%
Average Length of Debonded Strands = 3.0 ft
Strand Eccentricity, e^ = 10.67 in
Strand Jacking Force, Fj = 1494 kips
Strand Modulus of Elasticity, Ep = 28,500 ksi
Span Length, L = 82.0 ft
KL = 30 for Low-Relaxation Strands
Relative Humidity, H = 60% (AASHTO LRFD Figure 5.4.2.3.3-1)
Calculate Losses for Age Adjustment and Camber Calculations:
Use Refined Method per AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5.
Elastic Shortening (5.9.5.2.3a):
969 in2
Wsw ~ AgYconc ~ 7-y (0.15/cc/) 1.01 klf
1 A.A.lu
^ft2
wswL2 (1.01/d/)(82.0/t2)
Msw = ----- = 848.4/c/t
55


fcgp ~ a +
Pj Pjems MSw&rns
icgp A ,
Ag g
1494kip i (1494/p)(l0.67m2) (848.4/c/t 12^) (10.67m)
969 in2 + 120433m4 120433m4
= 1.54/csj + lAlksi 0.90 ksi = 2.05 ksi
kfpES p fcgp
Bci
28500ksi
- (2.05/csj) = 11.95ksi
488 7.7ksi
Creep (5.9.5.4.2b):
ks = 1.45 0.13(F/S) > 1.0 = 1.45 0.13(4.75) = 0.83 < 1.0 1.0
khc = 1.56 0.008H = 1.56 0.008(60%) = 1.08
kf 1 + f'ci 1 + 6.5 '67
t
itd_tf
f
3650 days 0.75 days
P-td t
61 4 f'ci + tf 61 4(6.5/cs0 + 3650days 0.75 days
t 7days
= 0.99
= 0.15
61 4 f'ci + t 61 4(6.5 ksi) + 7days 0.75 days
Vb(tf,tt) = 1.9kskhckfktdtftJ-118 = 1.9(1.0)(1.08)(0.67)(0.99)(0.75-118) = 1.40
1
Kid =
1 + PL^1(1+ ^gfL j ^ + 0JÂ¥b(tfi t.))
F A
uci

g
28500/csj 7.378m2 ( , (969m2)(10.67m2)
1 +
1 + 120433in 9 H + - 1-40)
= 0.86
4887.7ksi 969in2
Vbit.ti) = 1.9 kskhckfktd_ttr0118 = 1.9(1.0)(1.08)(0.67)(0.15)(0.75-118) = 0.21
mr Ep t nr ft_ 28500ksi
AfpCR = E^fcBpWb^ti)Kid = mnjksi
:(2.05fcsi)(0.21)(0.86) = 2.2 ksi
Shrinkage (5.9.5.4.2a):
khs = 2- 0.014 H = 2- 0.014(60%) = 1.16
tbid = kskhskfktdt(0.00048) = 0.000056
56


AfpSR = ebidEpKid = 0.000056(28500/cs0(0.86) = 137ksi
Relaxation (5.9.5.4.2c):
fpt = fpi ~ &fpES = 202.5ksi 11.95ksi = 190.55ksi
Vw =Â¥{Â¥-
aL \Jpy
190.55ksi ^190.55ksi
30 V 270ksi
0.55
0.99 ksi
Total Losses:
A fit = A fpES + A fpCR + A fpSR + A fpR1 = 11.95 ksi + 2.2 ksi + 137ksi + 0.99 ksi = 1631ksi
Calculate Camber at Time, t = 7 days, for Age Adjustment and Camber Calculations:
Calculate predicted initial camber:
5 wswL* 5(1.01/712)((82/t.l2

\4
1)
^ ^_________________________________-2_
isw 384ECL 3 84(4887.7/csj) (12 0433 m4)
Fj(%Straight)emsL2 Fj (%Deb ond)ems L2bonded
= 1.74m
%Ecilg

%Ecilg
+
(1494/cjps)(76.47%)(10.67m)((82/t)2)
8(4887.7/cs0 (120433 in4)
(1494/aps)(23.53%)(10.67m)((76/t)2)
8(4887. 7/csj) (12 043 3 m4)
A i= Aip Aisw= 3.17m 1.74m = 1.43m
Calculate camber at t = 7 days:
= 2.50m + 0.66 in = 3.17m
^el-loss Aip
*fit
= 3.17m
16.51 ksi
= 0.26 in
fpi \2023ksi
Alte 7= Aj(l + Wb(t, t0) Ael_loss(l + 0.7Wb(t, t0)
= 1.42m(l + 0.21) 0.26m(l + 0.7 0.21) = 1.43m
Calculate Aging Coefficient for t = 7 days:
AC = {&ite_60 ~ kitej) = 1.98m- 1.43m = 0 60
~~ (bitej'Peo) ~ (^ite.eo^) ~~ 1-43in 0.89 1.98m 0.21
Calculate the Adjusted Camber Value and Percent Difference:
57


Input: tm = 1 day, Am = 1.00 in, APred = 2.23 in, HVt. ti) = 0.01, ft^td, ti) = 0.89
A / rnlr
1.0m
0.99 in
i_calc x + o.7(t-o.ii8)(jp6(tj ^)) 1 + 0.7(10118)(0.01)
A;te_60= ALcaic(l + o.7(t-0118)n(td-ti)) = 0.99m(l + 0.7 l"0-118 0.89) =
%Diff =
ilte Pred
1.61 in 2.23 in
Apred 2.23 in
Calculate Girder Gross and Transformed Section Properties:
Input:
FCj = 6.5ksi, f Cj2 = 8.35 ksi
= -28%
Tconc = 0.15 kef, wsw =1.01 klf
Top Flange:
o Width = 72 in, Height = 4 in
o cgtop = 28 in
Bottom Flange:
o Width = 72 in, Height = 6 in
o egbot = 3.00 in
Sides:
o Width = 6 in, Height = 20 in
o cgside = 16 in
Fillets:
o Width and Height = 3 in
o cgfiliet = 25 in
Span Length, L = 82.00 ft
Prestressing:
o Jacking Stress, fpi = 202.5 ksi
o Aps = 7.378 in2
o cgs = 3.19in
o % Debond = 23.53%, % Straight = 76.47%
o Debond Length = 82.00ft 2*3ft = 74.00ft
o Afh = 27.75 ksi
o 'PbfedO = 0.8897
Gross Properties:
Ag_top = (72 in) (4m) = 288 in2
Ag_bot = (72m)(6.0m) = 432 in2
Agside = 2(6m)(20.0m) = 240m2
1.61m
58


Agjiiiet = 2 (0.5) (3 m) (3 m) = 9 in2
Ag Aa-top + Ag_bot + Ag_side + Agjillet = 969m2
_ (AgJop 28m) + (Ag_bot 3 m) + (Agside 16m) + (Agjmet 25in)
9 ~ 969in2
Ig_toP = Q-) (72m)((4m)3) = 384m4
Igbot = (-^) (72m)((6m)3) = 1296m4
Ig_side = 2 (^) (6m)((20m)3) = 8,000m4
]gJiliet = 2 Qg) (3m)((3m)3) = 4.5m4
Igjnd ~ Ig_top IgJjot T Ig side Agjillet = 9,685m4
^d|.top = 71fltop((28m eg)2 = 57,627in4
= 4,fiot((c0 3m)2 = 50,898in4
Adg_side = Agside 6 m eg)2 = 1,104m4
Adg_fillet = Agfuiet((^^n ~ cfl1)2 = 1,118m4
Adgjnd = Adg_tap + Adg_bot + A(^g_side + A(^g Jiliet = 110,748m4
= Igjnd Adgjnd = 120,433m4
Transformed Properties:
Ed = 33,000 (Y^nc)J7~ = 4887.7/csi
Td2 = 33,000(7^)77^ = 5539.8 fcsi
Ec12
n = -^L= 1.133
^ci
At_bot = n* A9bot = 489.6m2
bt hot = = 81.61 in
bin
Use similar procedure as gross properties with the following results:
13.85m
59


cgt = 13.25 in, At = 1026.6 in2, It = 127,015 in4
Calculate Self-Weight Deflection and Prestress Camber at Release for both Gross
Properties and Transformed Properties:
Self-Weight Deflection:
Ag_sw~ Ai_sw~ 1-74in
5 wswL* 5a01/712)((82/t.l2)4)
tj;w 384£cj/t 384(4887.7/csj)(127015m4)
Prestress Camber:
^g_ps 3.16m
Fj(%Straight)emsL2 | Fj(%Debond)emsL2bonded
8EciIt 8EciIt
(1494/cjps)(76.47%)(10.67m)((82/t)2)
~~ 8(4887.7/csj)(127,015m4)
i (1494/cjps)(23.53%)(10.67m)((76/t)2)
+ 8(4887. 7/csj) (127,015 m4)
Release Camber:
AU= Aa_ps Agjw= 3.17in 1.74in = 1.43m
Ajt= At _ps Atsw= 3.00 in 1.65 in = 1.35 in
Calculate Camber at 60 days and Calculate Revised Multipliers:
Gross Properties using PCI multipliers:
Ag_sw60 1-85 Ag SW 3.23in
Ag_ps60 1-80 Ag_ps 3.70in
Ae~ Ag_pS6o Ag_sw6o 2.74m
Transformed Properties using Tadros Equation:
A fit
Ael-loss At_ps c
h
pi
27.75 ksi
= 3.0 in--- = 0.41m
202.5 ksi
60


Ae_t= A; t(l + 0.89) Ae;_(0SS(l + 0.7 % 0.89) = 1.88in
Revised Multipliers:
A et
RedFactor = = 0.76
Ae
Multsw = 1.85 0.76 = 1.41 1.40
Multps = 1.80 0.76 = 1.37 1.35
61


B. FIELD DATA
General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (f (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
F-17-WP 1102 i 42.50 18 28.3 3/29/11 4/13/11 1.00 15 1.10 -9% 11.7 38%
F-17-WP 1102 2 42.50 18 28.3 3/29/11 4/13/11 0.88 15 1.10 -20% 11.7 38%
F-17-WP 1102 3 42.50 18 28.3 3/29/11 4/13/11 1.75 15 1.10 59% 11.7 38%
F-17-WP 1102 4 42.50 18 28.3 3/29/11 4/13/11 1.13 15 1.10 2% 11.7 38%
F-17-WP 1102 5 42.50 18 28.3 3/25/11 4/13/11 1.00 19 1.10 -9% 10.5 23%
F-17-WP 1102 6 42.50 18 28.3 3/31/11 4/13/11 1.75 13 1.10 59% 8.5 0%
F-17-WP 1102 7 42.50 18 28.3 3/25/11 4/13/11 0.88 19 1.10 -20% 10.5 23%
F-17-WP 1102 8 42.50 18 28.3 3/25/11 4/13/11 1.13 19 1.10 3% 10.5 23%
F-17-WP 1102 9 42.50 18 28.3 6/17/11 8/2/11 1.25 46 1.10 14% 11.8 39%
F-17-WP 1102 10 42.50 18 28.3 6/17/11 8/2/11 1.25 46 1.10 14% 11.8 39%
F-17-WP 1102 11 42.50 18 28.3 6/17/11 8/2/11 1.00 46 1.10 -9% 11.8 39%
F-17-WP 1102 12 42.50 18 28.3 6/17/11 8/2/11 1.13 46 1.10 2% 11.8 39%
F-17-WP 1102 13 42.50 18 28.3 6/17/11 8/2/11 1.75 46 1.10 59% 11.8 39%
F-17-WP 1102 14 42.50 18 28.3 6/17/11 8/2/11 1.00 46 1.10 -9% 11.8 39%
F-17-WP 1102 15 42.50 18 28.3 9/14/11 10/25/11 0.50 41 1.10 -55% 11.9 40%
F-17-WP 1102 16 42.50 18 28.3 9/14/11 10/25/11 0.63 41 1.10 -43% 11.9 40%
F-17-WP 1102 17 42.50 18 28.3 9/6/11 10/25/11 0.63 49 1.10 -43% 11.5 35%
F-17-WP 1102 18 42.50 18 28.3 9/19/11 10/25/11 0.88 36 1.10 -20% 8.6 1%
F-17-WP 1102 19 42.50 18 28.3 9/1/11 10/25/11 0.88 54 1.10 -20% 11.1 31%
F-17-WP 1102 20 42.50 18 28.3 9/1/11 10/25/11 1.00 54 1.10 -9% 11.1 31%
F-17-WP 1102 21 42.50 18 28.3 9/1/11 10/25/11 1.00 54 1.10 -9% 11.1 31%
F-17-WP 1102 22 42.50 18 28.3 8/30/11 10/25/11 1.00 56 1.10 -9% 11.0 29%
F-17-WP 1102 23 42.50 18 28.3 9/6/11 10/25/11 1.13 49 1.10 3% 11.5 35%
F-17-WP 1102 24 42.50 18 28.3 9/14/11 10/25/11 1.00 41 1.10 -9% 11.9 40%
F-17-WP 1102 25 42.50 18 28.3 9/1/11 10/25/11 1.25 54 1.10 14% 11.1 31%
F-17-WP 1102 26 50.00 18 33.3 4/5/11 4/13/11 1.50 8 1.50 0% 8.5 0%
F-17-WP 1102 27 50.00 18 33.3 4/7/11 4/13/11 2.00 6 1.50 33% 9.2 9%
F-17-WP 1102 28 50.00 18 33.3 4/5/11 4/13/11 1.25 8 1.50 -17% 8.5 0%
F-17-WP 1102 29 50.00 18 33.3 4/5/11 4/13/11 1.13 8 1.50 -25% 8.5 0%
F-17-WP 1102 30 50.00 18 33.3 4/7/11 4/13/11 1.75 6 1.50 17% 9.2 9%
F-17-WP 1102 31 50.00 18 33.3 4/7/11 4/13/11 1.13 6 1.50 -25% 9.2 9%
F-17-WP 1102 32 50.00 18 33.3 4/7/11 4/13/11 2.00 6 1.50 33% 9.2 9%
F-17-WP 1102 33 50.00 18 33.3 4/5/11 4/13/11 1.38 8 1.50 -8% 8.5 0%
F-17-WP 1102 34 50.00 18 33.3 6/24/11 8/2/11 1.38 39 1.50 -8% 10.8 27%
F-17-WP 1102 35 50.00 18 33.3 6/24/11 8/2/11 1.50 39 1.50 0% 10.8 27%
F-17-WP 1102 36 50.00 18 33.3 6/24/11 8/2/11 1.50 39 1.50 0% 10.8 27%
F-17-WP 1102 37 50.00 18 33.3 6/24/11 8/2/11 1.25 39 1.50 -17% 10.8 27%
F-17-WP 1102 38 50.00 18 33.3 6/28/11 8/2/11 1.50 35 1.50 0% 11.4 34%
F-17-WP 1102 39 50.00 18 33.3 6/28/11 8/2/11 1.50 35 1.50 0% 11.4 34%
F-17-WP 1102 40 50.00 18 33.3 9/21/11 10/25/11 1.13 34 1.50 -25% 11.4 34%
F-17-WP 1102 41 50.00 18 33.3 9/21/11 10/25/11 1.25 34 1.50 -17% 11.4 34%
F-17-WP 1102 42 50.00 18 33.3 9/21/11 10/25/11 1.25 34 1.50 -17% 11.4 34%
F-17-WP 1102 43 50.00 18 33.3 9/19/11 10/25/11 1.33 36 1.50 -11% 11.0 29%
F-17-WP 1102 44 50.00 18 33.3 9/19/11 10/25/11 1.38 36 1.50 -8% 11.0 29%
F-17-WP 1102 45 50.00 18 33.3 6/28/11 10/25/11 1.50 119 1.50 0% 11.4 34%
F-17-WP 1102 46 50.00 18 33.3 9/19/11 10/25/11 1.75 36 1.50 17% 11.0 29%
F-17-WP 1102 47 50.00 18 33.3 9/19/11 10/25/11 1.75 36 1.50 17% 11.0 29%
F-17-WP 1102 48 50.00 18 33.3 6/28/11 10/25/11 2.00 119 1.50 33% 11.4 34%
F-17-WP 1102 49 50.00 18 33.3 9/19/11 10/25/11 1.75 36 1.50 17% 11.0 29%
F-17-WP 1102 50 50.00 18 33.3 9/19/11 10/25/11 1.50 36 1.50 0% 11.0 29%
62


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
F-17-WP 1102 51 42.50 18 28.3 3/25/11 4/13/11 0.88 19 1.10 -20% 10.5 23%
F-17-WP 1102 52 42.50 18 28.3 3/25/11 4/13/11 0.50 19 1.10 -55% 10.5 23%
F-17-WP 1102 53 42.50 18 28.3 3/29/11 4/13/11 1.00 15 1.10 -9% 11.7 38%
F-17-WP 1102 54 42.50 18 28.3 3/25/11 4/13/11 1.13 19 1.10 2% 10.5 23%
F-17-WP 1102 55 42.50 18 28.3 3/31/11 4/13/11 0.88 13 1.10 -20% 8.5 0%
F-17-WP 1102 56 42.50 18 28.3 3/31/11 4/13/11 1.00 13 1.10 -9% 8.5 0%
F-17-WP 1102 57 42.50 18 28.3 3/31/11 4/13/11 1.13 13 1.10 3% 8.5 0%
F-17-WP 1102 58 42.50 18 28.3 3/31/11 4/13/11 0.88 13 1.10 -20% 8.5 0%
F-17-WP 1102 59 42.50 18 28.3 6/22/11 8/2/11 1.38 41 1.10 25% 12.2 44%
F-17-WP 1102 60 42.50 18 28.3 6/22/11 8/2/11 1.50 41 1.10 36% 12.2 44%
F-17-WP 1102 61 42.50 18 28.3 6/22/11 8/2/11 1.38 41 1.10 25% 12.2 44%
F-17-WP 1102 62 42.50 18 28.3 6/22/11 8/2/11 1.00 41 1.10 -9% 12.2 44%
F-17-WP 1102 63 42.50 18 28.3 6/22/11 8/2/11 0.88 41 1.10 -20% 12.2 44%
F-17-WP 1102 64 42.50 18 28.3 6/22/11 8/2/11 1.25 41 1.10 14% 12.2 44%
F-17-WP 1102 65 42.50 18 28.3 9/6/11 10/25/11 0.75 49 1.10 -32% 11.5 35%
F-17-WP 1102 66 42.50 18 28.3 9/14/11 10/25/11 0.75 41 1.10 -32% 11.9 40%
F-17-WP 1102 67 42.50 18 28.3 9/21/11 10/25/11 0.88 34 1.10 -20% 11.4 34%
F-17-WP 1102 68 42.50 18 28.3 8/30/11 10/25/11 1.13 56 1.10 3% 11.0 29%
F-17-WP 1102 69 42.50 18 28.3 8/30/11 10/25/11 1.13 56 1.10 3% 11.0 29%
F-17-WP 1102 70 42.50 18 28.3 8/30/11 10/25/11 1.13 56 1.10 3% 11.0 29%
F-17-WP 1102 71 42.50 18 28.3 9/14/11 10/25/11 1.25 41 1.10 14% 11.9 40%
F-17-WP 1102 72 42.50 18 28.3 9/6/11 10/25/11 1.50 49 1.10 36% 11.5 35%
F-17-WP 1102 73 42.50 18 28.3 8/30/11 10/25/11 1.50 56 1.10 36% 11.0 29%
F-17-WP 1102 74 42.50 18 28.3 9/6/11 10/25/11 1.00 49 1.10 -9% 11.5 35%
F-17-WP 1102 75 42.50 18 28.3 9/1/11 10/25/11 1.25 54 1.10 14% 11.1 31%
E-17-ACR 1104 76 127.52 52 29.4 5/25/11 7/28/11 2.13 64 4.60 -54% 11.7 37%
E-17-ACR 1104 77 127.52 52 29.4 5/25/11 7/28/11 2.25 64 4.60 -51% 11.7 37%
E-17-ACR 1104 78 127.52 52 29.4 5/27/11 7/28/11 2.00 62 4.60 -57% 10.9 28%
E-17-ACR 1104 79 127.52 52 29.4 5/27/11 7/28/11 1.68 62 4.60 -63% 10.9 28%
E-17-ACR 1104 80 127.52 52 29.4 6/1/11 7/28/11 3.38 57 4.60 -27% 11.2 32%
E-17-ACR 1104 81 127.52 52 29.4 6/1/11 7/28/11 3.13 57 4.60 -32% 11.2 32%
E-17-ACR 1104 82 127.52 52 29.4 6/3/11 7/28/11 2.50 55 4.60 -46% 10.6 24%
E-17-ACR 1104 83 127.52 52 29.4 6/3/11 7/28/11 2.68 55 4.60 -42% 10.6 24%
E-17-ACR 1104 84 127.52 52 29.4 6/7/11 7/28/11 2.50 51 4.60 -46% 10.0 17%
E-17-ACR 1104 85 127.52 52 29.4 6/7/11 7/28/11 3.00 51 4.60 -35% 10.0 17%
E-17-ACR 1104 86 127.52 52 29.4 6/9/11 7/28/11 3.25 49 4.60 -29% 11.4 34%
E-17-ACR 1104 87 127.52 52 29.4 6/9/11 7/28/11 3.25 49 4.60 -29% 11.4 34%
E-17-ACR 1104 88 127.52 52 29.4 6/14/11 7/28/11 1.88 44 4.60 -59% 11.0 29%
E-17-ACR 1104 89 127.52 52 29.4 6/14/11 7/28/11 1.68 44 4.60 -63% 11.0 29%
E-17-ACR 1104 90 127.52 52 29.4 10/31/11 12/18/11 2.68 48 4.60 -42% 11.6 37%
E-17-ACR 1104 91 127.52 52 29.4 10/31/11 12/18/11 2.68 48 4.60 -42% 11.6 37%
E-17-ACR 1104 92 127.52 52 29.4 11/7/11 12/18/11 3.68 41 4.60 -20% 12.6 48%
E-17-ACR 1104 93 127.52 52 29.4 11/7/11 12/18/11 3.38 41 4.60 -27% 12.6 48%
E-17-ACR 1104 94 127.52 52 29.4 11/10/11 12/18/11 3.75 38 4.60 -18% 12.0 41%
E-17-ACR 1104 95 127.52 52 29.4 11/10/11 12/18/11 3.68 38 4.60 -20% 12.0 41%
E-17-ACR 1104 96 127.52 52 29.4 1/27/12 3/26/12 4.13 59 4.60 -10% 12.7 49%
E-17-ACR 1104 97 127.52 52 29.4 1/27/12 3/26/12 4.13 59 4.60 -10% 12.7 49%
E-17-ACR 1104 98 127.52 52 29.4 2/1/12 3/26/12 3.25 54 4.60 -29% 11.7 37%
E-17-ACR 1104 99 127.52 52 29.4 2/1/12 3/26/12 3.25 54 4.60 -29% 11.7 37%
E-17-ACR 1104 100 127.52 52 29.4 2/8/12 3/26/12 3.00 47 4.60 -35% 11.3 33%
E-17-ACR 1104 101 127.52 52 29.4 2/8/12 3/26/12 3.00 47 4.60 -35% 11.3 33%
E-17-ACR 1104 102 127.52 52 29.4 2/14/12 3/26/12 3.25 41 4.60 -29% 11.0 30%
E-17-ACR 1104 103 127.52 52 29.4 2/14/12 3/26/12 3.50 41 4.60 -24% 11.0 30%
E-17-ACR 1104 104 127.52 52 29.4 2/16/12 3/26/12 2.50 39 4.60 -46% 11.0 29%
E-17-ACR 1104 105 127.52 52 29.4 2/16/12 3/26/12 2.68 39 4.60 -42% 11.0 29%
63


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
E-17-ACR 1104 106 127.52 52 29.4 2/20/12 3/26/12 2.75 35 4.60 -40% 11.0 30%
E-17-ACR 1104 107 127.52 52 29.4 2/20/12 3/26/12 2.75 35 4.60 -40% 11.0 30%
E-17-ACR 1104 108 127.52 52 29.4 2/24/12 3/26/12 2.50 31 4.60 -46% 11.0 29%
E-17-ACR 1104 109 127.52 52 29.4 2/24/12 3/26/12 2.50 31 4.60 -46% 11.0 29%
E-17-ACR 1104 110 127.52 52 29.4 2/29/12 3/26/12 3.00 26 4.60 -35% 11.0 30%
E-17-ACR 1104 111 127.52 52 29.4 2/29/12 3/26/12 3.25 26 4.60 -29% 11.0 30%
E-17-ACR 1104 112 127.52 52 29.4 3/2/12 3/26/12 2.25 24 4.60 -51% 11.2 32%
E-17-ACR 1104 113 127.52 52 29.4 3/2/12 3/26/12 2.68 24 4.60 -42% 11.2 32%
E-17-ACR 1104 114 127.52 52 29.4 1/30/12 3/26/12 3.25 56 4.60 -29% 11.7 37%
E-17-ACR 1104 115 127.52 52 29.4 1/30/12 3/26/12 3.68 56 4.60 -20% 11.7 37%
M-21-F 1110 116 72.50 24 36.3 12/7/11 1/23/12 3.25 47 3.00 8% 12.7 59%
M-21-F 1110 117 72.50 24 36.3 11/30/11 1/23/12 2.68 54 3.00 -11% 12.7 59%
M-21-F 1110 118 72.50 24 36.3 11/30/11 1/23/12 2.38 54 3.00 -21% 12.7 59%
M-21-F 1110 119 72.50 24 36.3 11/30/11 1/23/12 2.25 54 3.00 -25% 12.7 59%
M-21-F 1110 120 72.50 24 36.3 11/28/11 1/23/12 2.88 56 3.00 -4% 12.4 55%
M-21-F 1110 121 72.50 24 36.3 12/7/11 1/23/12 3.50 47 3.00 17% 12.7 59%
M-21-F 1110 122 72.50 24 36.3 11/28/11 1/23/12 3.50 56 3.00 17% 12.4 55%
M-21-F 1110 123 72.50 24 36.3 12/7/11 1/23/12 3.13 47 3.00 4% 12.7 59%
M-21-F 1110 124 72.50 24 36.3 11/28/11 1/23/12 3.00 56 3.00 0% 12.4 55%
M-21-F 1110 125 72.50 24 36.3 11/28/11 1/23/12 3.00 56 3.00 0% 12.4 55%
F-16-YR 1202 126 81.50 35 27.9 5/4/2012 8/19/2012 3.13 107 3.81 -18% 10.7 43%
F-16-YR 1202 127 81.50 35 27.9 5/4/2012 8/19/2012 2.63 107 3.81 -31% 10.7 43%
F-16-YR 1202 128 81.50 35 27.9 5/4/2012 8/19/2012 2.75 107 3.81 -28% 10.9 45%
F-16-YR 1202 129 81.50 35 27.9 5/7/2012 8/19/2012 2.50 104 3.81 -34% 10.7 43%
F-16-YR 1202 130 81.50 35 27.9 5/7/2012 8/19/2012 3.00 104 3.81 -21% 10.9 45%
F-16-YR 1202 131 81.50 35 27.9 5/7/2012 8/19/2012 3.25 104 3.81 -15% 10.7 43%
F-16-YR 1202 132 81.50 35 27.9 5/10/2012 8/19/2012 3.00 101 3.81 -21% 11.4 52%
F-16-YR 1202 133 81.50 35 27.9 5/10/2012 8/19/2012 3.25 101 3.81 -15% 9.4 25%
F-16-YR 1202 134 81.50 35 27.9 5/10/2012 8/19/2012 3.25 101 3.81 -15% 9.4 25%
F-16-YR 1202 135 81.50 35 27.9 10/9/2012 10/23/2012 3.75 14 3.81 -2% 11.4 52%
F-16-YR 1202 136 81.50 35 27.9 10/9/2012 10/23/2012 2.88 14 3.81 -24% 11.4 52%
F-16-YR 1202 137 81.50 35 27.9 10/9/2012 10/23/2012 3.75 14 3.81 -2% 9.1 22%
F-16-YR 1202 138 81.50 35 27.9 10/11/2012 3/3/2013 3.50 143 3.81 -8% 9.1 22%
F-16-YR 1202 139 81.50 35 27.9 10/11/2012 10/23/2012 3.13 12 3.81 -18%
F-16-YR 1202 140 81.50 35 27.9 10/11/2012 10/23/2012 3.13 12 3.81 -18%
F-16-YR 1202 141 81.50 35 27.9 12/12/2012 3/3/2013 3.50 81 3.81 -8%
F-16-YR 1202 142 81.50 35 27.9 12/12/2012 3/3/2013 3.25 81 3.81 -15%
F-16-YR 1202 143 81.50 35 27.9 12/12/2012 3/3/2013 2.88 81 3.81 -24%
F-16-YR 1202 144 81.50 35 27.9 12/14/2012 3/3/2013 3.00 79 3.81 -21%
F-16-YR 1202 145 81.50 35 27.9 12/14/2012 3/3/2013 2.63 79 3.81 -31%
F-16-YR 1202 146 81.50 35 27.9 12/14/2012 3/3/2013 3.00 79 3.81 -21%
E-16-YD 1204 147 69.03 39 21.2 2/4/2013 6/5/2013 2.25 121 1.9 18% 13.4 41%
E-16-YD 1204 148 69.03 39 21.2 2/4/2013 6/5/2013 2.00 121 1.9 5% 13.4 41%
E-16-YD 1204 149 69.03 39 21.2 2/4/2013 6/5/2013 2.13 121 1.9 12% 13.4 41%
E-16-YD 1204 150 69.03 39 21.2 2/4/2013 6/5/2013 2.63 121 1.9 38% 13.0 36%
E-16-YD 1204 151 69.03 39 21.2 2/6/2013 6/5/2013 2.63 119 1.9 38% 13.0 36%
E-16-YD 1204 152 69.03 39 21.2 2/6/2013 6/5/2013 2.38 119 1.9 25% 13.0 36%
E-16-YD 1204 153 69.03 39 21.2 2/6/2013 6/5/2013 1.75 119 1.9 -8% 13.4 41%
E-16-YD 1204 154 69.03 39 21.2 2/6/2013 6/5/2013 2.63 119 1.9 38% 13.0 36%
E-16-YD 1204 155 114.03 39 35.1 2/8/2013 6/5/2013 2.88 117 2.8 3% 12.8 34%
E-16-YD 1204 156 114.03 39 35.1 2/8/2013 6/4/2013 3.50 116 2.8 25% 12.8 34%
E-16-YD 1204 157 114.03 39 35.1 2/12/2013 6/4/2013 3.63 112 2.8 30% 13.1 37%
E-16-YD 1204 158 114.03 39 35.1 2/12/2013 6/4/2013 3.25 112 2.8 16% 13.1 37%
E-16-YD 1204 159 114.03 39 35.1 2/18/2013 6/5/2013 3.88 107 2.8 39% 13.2 39%
E-16-YD 1204 160 114.03 39 35.1 2/18/2013 6/4/2013 4.50 106 2.8 61% 13.2 39%
64


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
E-16-YD 1204 161 69.03 39 21.2 10/16/2012 12/27/2012 2.25 72 1.9 18% 13.0 37%
E-16-YD 1204 162 69.03 39 21.2 10/16/2012 12/27/2012 2.13 72 1.9 12% 13.0 37%
E-16-YD 1204 163 69.03 39 21.2 10/16/2012 12/27/2012 2.13 72 1.9 12% 13.0 37%
E-16-YD 1204 164 69.03 39 21.2 10/16/2012 12/27/2012 2.88 72 1.9 52% 13.0 37%
E-16-YD 1204 165 69.03 39 21.2 10/18/2012 12/27/2012 2.38 70 1.9 25% 12.8 35%
E-16-YD 1204 166 69.03 39 21.2 10/18/2012 12/27/2012 2.00 70 1.9 5% 12.8 35%
E-16-YD 1204 167 69.03 39 21.2 10/18/2012 12/27/2012 1.50 70 1.9 -21% 12.8 35%
E-16-YD 1204 168 69.03 39 21.2 10/18/2012 12/27/2012 2.38 70 1.9 25% 12.8 35%
E-16-YD 1204 169 114.03 39 35.1 10/22/2012 12/27/2012 2.50 66 2.8 -11% 13.3 40%
E-16-YD 1204 170 114.03 39 35.1 10/22/2012 12/27/2012 2.63 66 2.8 -6% 13.3 40%
E-16-YD 1204 171 114.03 39 35.1 10/24/2012 12/27/2012 2.88 64 2.8 3% 13.4 41%
E-16-YD 1204 172 114.03 39 35.1 10/24/2012 12/27/2012 2.88 64 2.8 3% 13.4 41%
E-16-YD 1204 173 114.03 39 35.1 10/26/2012 12/27/2012 2.13 62 2.8 -24% 12.5 32%
E-16-YD 1204 174 114.03 39 35.1 10/26/2012 12/27/2012 2.13 62 2.8 -24% 12.5 32%
E-16-YD 1204 175 114.03 39 35.1 10/30/2012 12/27/2012 2.50 58 2.8 -11% 13.0 37%
E-16-YD 1204 176 114.03 39 35.1 10/30/2012 12/27/2012 2.00 58 2.8 -29% 13.0 37%
J-18-BW 1206 177 71.25 28 30.5 5/18/2012 6/12/2012 0.68 25 1.44 -53%
J-18-BW 1206 178 71.25 28 30.5 5/18/2012 6/12/2012 1.00 25 1.44 -31%
J-18-BW 1206 179 71.25 28 30.5 5/18/2012 6/12/2012 0.75 25 1.44 -48%
J-18-BW 1206 180 71.25 28 30.5 5/18/2012 6/12/2012 1.25 25 1.44 -13%
J-18-BW 1206 181 71.25 28 30.5 5/22/2012 6/12/2012 1.00 21 1.44 -31%
J-18-BW 1206 182 71.25 28 30.5 5/22/2012 6/12/2012 1.25 21 1.44 -13%
J-18-BW 1206 183 71.25 28 30.5 5/22/2012 6/12/2012 1.00 21 1.44 -31%
J-18-BW 1206 184 71.25 28 30.5 5/22/2012 6/12/2012 0.75 21 1.44 -48%
J-18-BW 1206 185 71.25 28 30.5 5/24/2012 6/12/2012 1.50 19 1.45 3%
J-18-BW 1206 186 71.25 28 30.5 5/24/2012 6/12/2012 1.38 19 1.45 -5%
J-18-BW 1206 187 71.25 28 30.5 5/24/2012 6/12/2012 1.25 19 1.45 -14%
J-18-BW 1206 188 71.25 28 30.5 5/24/2012 6/12/2012 1.25 19 1.45 -14%
J-18-BW 1206 189 71.25 28 30.5 5/29/2012 6/12/2012 0.50 14 1.45 -66%
J-18-BW 1206 190 71.25 28 30.5 5/29/2012 6/12/2012 0.50 14 1.45 -66%
J-18-BW 1206 191 71.25 28 30.5 5/29/2012 6/12/2012 0.50 14 1.45 -66%
J-18-BW 1206 192 71.25 28 30.5 5/29/2012 6/12/2012 0.38 14 1.45 -74%
1207 193 73.65 24 36.8 6/19/2012 8/1/2012 4.25 43 3.63 17%
1207 194 73.65 24 36.8 6/19/2012 8/1/2012 3.63 43 3.63 0%
1207 195 73.65 24 36.8 6/19/2012 8/1/2012 4.13 43 3.63 14%
1207 196 73.65 24 36.8 6/19/2012 8/1/2012 4.00 43 3.63 10%
1207 197 73.65 24 36.8 6/21/2012 8/1/2012 4.00 41 3.63 10%
1207 198 73.65 24 36.8 6/21/2012 10/29/2012 3.50 130 3.63 -4%
1207 199 73.65 24 36.8 6/21/2012 10/29/2012 3.38 130 3.63 -7%
1207 200 73.65 24 36.8 6/25/2012 10/29/2012 2.75 126 3.63 -24%
1207 201 73.65 24 36.8 6/25/2012 8/1/2012 2.50 37 3.63 -31%
1207 202 73.65 24 36.8 6/25/2012 8/1/2012 2.38 37 3.63 -34%
D-28-U 1210 203 123.00 46 32.1 8/8/2012 9/12/2012 0.88 35 3.83 -77% 10.7 26%
D-28-U 1210 204 123.00 46 32.1 8/8/2012 9/12/2012 1.13 35 3.83 -70% 10.7 26%
D-28-U 1210 205 123.00 46 32.1 8/10/2012 9/12/2012 1.75 33 3.83 -54% 10.9 28%
D-28-U 1210 206 123.00 46 32.1 8/10/2012 9/12/2012 1.75 33 3.83 -54% 10.9 28%
D-28-U 1210 207 123.00 46 32.1 8/14/2012 9/12/2012 2.00 29 3.83 -48% 10.7 26%
D-28-U 1210 208 123.00 46 32.1 8/14/2012 9/12/2012 1.13 29 3.83 -70% 10.7 26%
D-28-U 1210 209 123.00 46 32.1 8/16/2012 9/12/2012 2.00 27 3.83 -48% 11.4 34%
1211 210 60.00 24 30.0 9/18/2012 10/9/2012 1.50 21 1.63 -8%
1211 211 60.00 24 30.0 9/18/2012 10/9/2012 1.50 21 1.63 -8%
1211 212 60.00 24 30.0 9/18/2012 10/9/2012 1.38 21 1.63 -15%
1211 213 60.00 24 30.0 9/18/2012 10/9/2012 1.75 21 1.63 7%
1213 214 35.98 30 14.4 10/3/2012 2/26/2013 0.75 146 0.46 63%
1213 215 35.98 30 14.4 10/3/2012 2/26/2013 0.75 146 0.46 63%
65


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
1213 216 35.98 30 14.4 10/3/2012 2/26/2013 0.63 146 0.46 37%
1213 217 35.98 30 14.4 10/3/2012 2/26/2013 0.25 146 0.46 -46%
1213 218 35.98 30 14.4 10/3/2012 6/15/2013 0.25 255 0.46 -46%
1213 219 35.98 30 14.4 10/3/2012 6/15/2013 0.75 255 0.46 63%
1214 220 55.50 24 27.8 9/13/2012 10/25/2012 2.75 42 2.96 -7%
1214 221 55.50 24 27.8 9/13/2012 10/25/2012 2.50 42 2.96 -16%
1214 222 55.50 24 27.8 9/13/2012 10/25/2012 2.63 42 2.96 -11%
1214 223 55.50 24 27.8 9/13/2012 10/25/2012 2.63 42 2.96 -11%
1216 224 77.14 27 34.3 1/3/2013 3/19/2013 5.13 75 3.44 49%
1216 225 77.14 27 34.3 1/3/2013 3/19/2013 6.13 75 3.44 78%
1216 226 77.14 27 34.3 12/20/2012 3/19/2013 4.88 89 3.44 42%
1216 227 77.14 27 34.3 12/20/2012 3/19/2013 4.88 89 3.44 42%
1216 228 77.14 27 34.3 12/20/2012 3/19/2013 6.13 89 3.44 78%
1216 229 77.14 27 34.3 6/27/2013 8/27/2013 4.00 61 3.44 16%
1216 230 77.14 27 34.3 6/27/2013 8/27/2013 3.63 61 3.44 6%
1216 231 77.14 27 34.3 6/27/2013 8/27/2013 3.63 61 3.44 6%
1216 232 77.14 27 34.3 7/1/2013 8/27/2013 4.00 57 3.44 16%
1216 233 77.14 27 34.3 7/1/2013 8/27/2013 4.13 57 3.44 20%
1216 234 77.14 27 34.3 7/1/2013 8/27/2013 4.25 57 3.44 24%
1216 235 77.14 27 34.3 7/3/2013 8/27/2013 3.50 55 3.44 2%
1216 236 77.14 27 34.3 7/3/2013 8/27/2013 3.25 55 3.44 -6%
1216 237 77.14 27 34.3 7/3/2013 8/27/2013 3.25 55 3.44 -6%
1217 238 43.00 15 34.4 11/26/2012 12/7/2012 1.63 11 1.23 33%
1217 239 43.00 15 34.4 11/26/2012 12/7/2012 1.13 11 1.23 -8%
1217 240 43.00 15 34.4 11/26/2012 12/7/2012 1.00 11 1.23 -19%
1217 241 43.00 15 34.4 11/26/2012 12/7/2012 1.13 11 1.23 -8%
1217 242 43.00 15 34.4 11/26/2012 12/7/2012 1.38 11 1.23 12%
1217 243 43.00 15 34.4 11/26/2012 12/7/2012 1.50 11 1.23 22%
1303 244 43.21 58 8.9 3/13/2013 4/15/2013 0.63 33 0.96 -34%
1303 245 43.21 58 8.9 3/13/2013 4/15/2013 1.00 33 0.96 4%
1303 246 43.21 58 8.9 3/13/2013 4/15/2013 0.50 33 0.96 -48%
1303 247 43.21 58 8.9 3/13/2013 4/15/2013 0.88 33 0.96 -8%
1303 248 43.25 58 8.9 3/14/2013 4/15/2013 1.00 32 0.96 4%
1303 249 43.25 58 8.9 3/14/2013 4/15/2013 1.25 32 0.96 30%
1303 250 43.25 58 8.9 3/14/2013 4/15/2013 0.50 32 0.96 -48%
1303 251 43.25 58 8.9 3/14/2013 4/15/2013 0.75 32 0.96 -22%
F-16-FA 1307 252 110.00 48 27.5 3/22/2013 6/25/2013 1.25 95 2.59 -52% 12.1 43%
F-16-FA 1307 253 110.00 48 27.5 3/22/2013 8/5/2013 1.13 136 2.59 -56% 12.0 41%
F-16-FA 1307 254 110.00 48 27.5 3/26/2013 6/25/2013 1.63 91 2.59 -37% 13.0 53%
F-16-FA 1307 255 110.00 48 27.5 3/26/2013 6/25/2013 1.50 91 2.59 -42% 13.0 53%
F-16-FA 1307 256 110.00 48 27.5 3/20/2013 8/5/2013 3.50 138 2.59 35% 12.3 45%
F-16-FA 1307 257 110.00 48 27.5 3/20/2013 8/5/2013 2.75 138 2.59 6% 12.4 46%
F-16-FA 1307 258 110.00 48 27.5 3/28/2013 8/5/2013 2.75 130 2.59 6% 12.3 45%
F-16-FA 1307 259 110.00 48 27.5 3/28/2013 8/5/2013 1.88 130 2.59 -27% 12.4 46%
C-09-AU 1308 260 99.00 36 33.0 7/23/2013 9/27/2013 1.50 66 3.09 -51% 12.6 48%
C-09-AU 1308 261 99.00 36 33.0 7/9/2013 9/27/2013 2.50 80 3.09 -19% 11.9 40%
C-09-AU 1308 262 99.00 36 33.0 7/19/2013 9/27/2013 2.13 70 3.09 -31% 12.9 52%
C-09-AU 1308 263 99.00 36 33.0 7/15/2013 9/27/2013 2.00 74 3.09 -35% 12.9 52%
C-09-AU 1308 264 99.00 36 33.0 7/17/2013 9/27/2013 1.75 72 3.09 -43% 13.5 58%
C-09-AU 1308 265 99.00 36 33.0 7/11/2013 9/27/2013 1.00 78 3.09 -68% 13.1 54%
C-09-AU 1308 266 98.06 36 32.7 7/26/2013 9/27/2013 1.38 63 3.09 -55% 12.1 42%
C-09-AU 1308 267 98.06 36 32.7 7/23/2013 9/30/2013 1.38 69 3.09 -55% 12.6 48%
C-09-AU 1308 268 98.06 36 32.7 7/15/2013 9/30/2013 2.38 77 3.09 -23% 12.9 52%
C-09-AU 1308 269 98.06 36 32.7 7/19/2013 9/30/2013 2.00 73 3.09 -35% 12.9 52%
C-09-AU 1308 270 98.06 36 32.7 7/9/2013 9/30/2013 1.75 83 3.09 -43% 11.9 40%
66


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
C-09-AU 1308 271 98.06 36 32.7 7/11/2013 9/30/2013 1.13 81 3.09 -63% 13.1 54%
C-09-AU 1308 272 98.06 36 32.7 7/17/2013 9/30/2013 0.75 75 3.09 -76% 13.5 58%
C-09-AU 1308 273 98.06 36 32.7 7/26/2013 9/30/2013 0.75 66 3.09 -76% 12.1 42%
I-12-AB 1309 274 112.69 38 35.6 4/30/2014 5/30/2014 5.63 30 5.01 12%
I-12-AB 1309 275 112.69 38 35.6 4/30/2014 5/30/2014 5.50 30 5.01 10%
I-12-AB 1309 276 112.69 38 35.6 4/25/2014 5/30/2014 5.63 35 5.01 12%
I-12-AB 1309 277 112.69 38 35.6 4/25/2014 5/30/2014 5.50 35 5.01 10%
I-12-AB 1309 278 112.69 38 35.6 4/28/2014 5/30/2014 5.63 32 5.01 12%
I-12-AB 1309 279 112.69 38 35.6 4/28/2014 5/30/2014 5.25 32 5.01 5%
1310 280 43.33 18 28.9 5/29/2013 5/31/2013 0.88 2 1.14 -23%
1310 281 43.33 18 28.9 5/29/2013 6/3/2013 0.63 5 1.14 -45%
1310 282 43.33 18 28.9 5/29/2013 5/31/2013 0.63 2 1.14 -45%
1310 283 43.33 18 28.9 5/29/2013 5/31/2013 0.50 2 1.14 -56%
1310 284 43.33 18 28.9 5/29/2013 5/31/2013 0.63 2 1.14 -45%
1310 285 44.33 18 29.6 5/30/2013 5/31/2013 1.00 1 1.14 -12%
1310 286 44.33 18 29.6 5/30/2013 6/3/2013 0.63 4 1.14 -45%
1310 287 43.35 18 28.9 5/30/2013 6/3/2013 0.50 4 1.14 -56%
1310 288 43.33 18 28.9 5/30/2013 6/3/2013 0.50 4 1.14 -56%
1310 289 43.33 18 28.9 5/30/2013 6/3/2013 0.63 4 1.14 -45%
E-17-GF 1315 290 141.33 54 31.4 9/7/2013 9/16/2013 3.25 9 4.69 -31% 11.8 24%
E-17-GF 1315 291 141.33 54 31.4 9/7/2013 9/16/2013 2.25 9 4.69 -52% 11.3 19%
E-17-GF 1315 292 141.33 54 31.4 8/29/2013 9/15/2013 3.25 17 4.69 -31% 11.3 19%
E-17-GF 1315 293 141.33 54 31.4 8/29/2013 9/15/2013 3.50 17 4.69 -25% 11.8 24%
E-17-GF 1315 294 141.33 54 31.4 9/3/2013 9/15/2013 2.00 12 4.69 -57% 11.7 23%
E-17-GF 1315 295 141.33 54 31.4 9/3/2013 9/16/2013 4.00 13 4.69 -15% 11.7 23%
E-17-GF 1315 296 141.33 54 31.4 9/5/2013 9/15/2013 2.25 10 4.69 -52% 11.5 21%
E-17-GF 1315 297 141.33 54 31.4 9/5/2013 9/15/2013 3.25 10 4.69 -31% 11.5 21%
E-17-GF 1315 298 141.33 54 31.4 9/10/2013 9/15/2013 2.50 5 4.69 -47% 10.3 8%
E-17-GF 1315 299 141.33 54 31.4 9/10/2013 9/15/2013 3.00 5 4.69 -36% 10.3 8%
E-17-GF 1315 300 141.33 54 31.4 9/12/2013 9/16/2013 3.50 4 4.69 -25% 11.0 16%
E-17-GF 1315 301 141.33 54 31.4 9/12/2013 9/16/2013 4.25 4 4.69 -9% 11.0 16%
E-17-GF 1315 302 141.33 54 31.4 9/15/2013 9/16/2013 2.00 1 4.69 -57% 10.8 14%
E-17-GF 1315 303 141.33 54 31.4 9/15/2013 9/16/2013 3.00 1 4.69 -36% 10.8 14%
N-17-BV 1405 304 80.00 28 34.3 4/16/2014 5/14/2014 2.00 28 3.09 -35% 13.3 57%
N-17-BV 1405 305 80.00 28 34.3 4/16/2014 5/14/2014 2.50 28 3.09 -19% 12.8 50%
N-17-BV 1405 306 80.00 28 34.3 4/14/2014 5/14/2014 2.38 30 3.09 -23% 13.1 54%
N-17-BV 1405 307 80.00 28 34.3 4/14/2014 5/14/2014 2.38 30 3.09 -23% 13.1 54%
N-17-BV 1405 308 80.00 28 34.3 4/14/2014 5/14/2014 2.00 30 3.09 -35% 13.1 54%
N-17-BV 1405 309 80.00 28 34.3 4/15/2014 5/14/2014 2.13 29 3.09 -31% 12.8 50%
N-17-BV 1405 310 80.00 28 34.3 4/15/2014 5/14/2014 2.13 29 3.09 -31% 12.8 50%
N-17-BV 1405 311 80.00 28 34.3 4/15/2014 5/14/2014 2.50 29 3.09 -19% 13.3 57%
N-17-BV 1405 312 80.00 28 34.3 4/17/2014 5/14/2014 1.63 27 3.09 -47% 13.4 57%
N-17-BV 1405 313 80.00 28 34.3 4/17/2014 5/14/2014 1.88 27 3.09 -39% 13.4 57%
F-17-HA 1409 314 58.83 24 29.4 3/20/2015 8/29/2015 1.88 162 2.16 -13% 12.6 49%
F-17-HA 1409 315 58.83 24 29.4 3/20/2015 8/29/2015 1.75 162 2.16 -19% 12.6 49%
F-17-HA 1409 316 58.83 24 29.4 3/20/2015 8/29/2015 1.50 162 2.16 -31% 12.6 49%
F-17-HA 1409 317 58.83 24 29.4 3/20/2015 8/29/2015 1.88 162 2.16 -13% 12.6 49%
F-17-HA 1409 318 58.83 24 29.4 3/20/2015 8/29/2015 2.25 162 2.16 4% 12.6 49%
F-17-HA 1409 319 58.83 24 29.4 3/24/2015 8/29/2015 2.25 158 2.16 4% 13.3 56%
F-17-HA 1409 320 58.83 24 29.4 3/24/2015 8/29/2015 1.75 158 2.16 -19% 13.3 56%
F-17-HA 1409 321 58.83 24 29.4 3/24/2015 8/29/2015 2.25 158 2.16 4% 13.3 56%
F-17-HA 1409 322 58.83 24 29.4 3/24/2015 8/29/2015 2.00 158 2.16 -7% 13.3 56%
F-17-HA 1409 323 58.83 24 29.4 3/24/2015 8/29/2015 2.75 158 2.16 27% 13.3 56%
F-17-HA 1409 324 58.83 24 29.4 9/22/2014 9/23/2014 1.63 1 2.16 -25% 8.9 4%
F-17-HA 1409 325 58.83 24 29.4 9/12/2014 9/23/2014 1.63 11 2.16 -25% 10.8 27%
67


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
F-17-HA 1409 326 58.83 24 29.4 9/12/2014 9/23/2014 2.00 11 2.16 -7% 10.8 27%
F-17-HA 1409 327 58.83 24 29.4 9/12/2014 9/23/2014 1.75 11 2.16 -19% 10.8 27%
F-17-HA 1409 328 67.83 24 33.9 4/2/2015 8/30/2015 3.25 150 3.38 -4% 12.7 49%
F-17-HA 1409 329 67.83 24 33.9 1/26/2015 8/30/2015 3.75 216 3.38 11% 11.9 40%
F-17-HA 1409 330 67.83 24 33.9 4/6/2015 8/30/2015 4.50 146 3.38 33% 12.7 50%
F-17-HA 1409 331 67.83 24 33.9 1/26/2015 8/30/2015 3.50 216 3.38 4% 11.9 40%
F-17-HA 1409 332 67.83 24 33.9 4/6/2015 8/30/2015 2.63 146 3.38 -22% 12.7 50%
F-17-HA 1409 333 67.83 24 33.9 4/2/2015 8/30/2015 2.50 150 3.38 -26% 12.7 49%
F-17-HA 1409 334 67.83 24 33.9 4/6/2015 8/30/2015 2.00 146 3.38 -41% 12.7 50%
F-17-HA 1409 335 67.83 24 33.9 4/2/2015 8/30/2015 2.00 150 3.38 -41% 12.7 49%
F-17-HA 1409 336 67.83 24 33.9 4/2/2015 8/30/2015 2.75 150 3.38 -19% 12.7 49%
F-17-HA 1409 337 67.83 24 33.9 4/6/2015 8/30/2015 2.75 146 3.38 -19% 12.7 50%
F-17-HA 1409 338 67.83 24 33.9 9/10/2014 9/24/2015 2.88 379 3.38 -15% 9.5 11%
F-17-HA 1409 339 67.83 24 33.9 9/10/2014 9/24/2014 2.75 14 3.38 -19% 9.5 11%
F-17-HA 1409 340 67.83 24 33.9 9/10/2014 9/24/2014 2.75 14 3.38 -19% 9.5 11%
F-17-HA 1409 341 67.83 24 33.9 9/10/2014 9/24/2014 3.38 14 3.38 0% 9.5 11%
F-17-HA 1409 342 58.83 24 29.4 3/27/2015 8/31/2015 2.13 157 2.16 -1% 13.2 56%
F-17-HA 1409 343 58.83 24 29.4 3/27/2015 8/31/2015 1.75 157 2.16 -19% 13.2 56%
F-17-HA 1409 344 58.83 24 29.4 3/27/2015 8/31/2015 1.00 157 2.16 -54% 13.2 56%
F-17-HA 1409 345 58.83 24 29.4 3/27/2015 8/31/2015 1.50 157 2.16 -31% 13.2 56%
F-17-HA 1409 346 58.83 24 29.4 3/31/2015 8/31/2015 2.25 153 2.16 4% 13.2 56%
F-17-HA 1409 347 58.83 24 29.4 3/31/2015 8/31/2015 2.75 153 2.16 27% 13.2 56%
F-17-HA 1409 348 58.83 24 29.4 3/31/2015 8/31/2015 2.13 153 2.16 -1% 13.2 56%
F-17-HA 1409 349 58.83 24 29.4 3/31/2015 8/31/2015 3.00 153 2.16 39% 13.2 56%
F-17-HA 1409 350 58.83 24 29.4 3/27/2015 8/31/2015 2.25 157 2.16 4% 13.2 56%
F-17-HA 1409 351 58.83 24 29.4 3/31/2015 8/31/2015 3.50 153 2.16 62% 13.2 56%
F-17-HA 1409 352 58.83 24 29.4 9/16/2014 9/23/2014 1.88 7 2.16 -13% 8.6 2%
F-17-HA 1409 353 58.83 24 29.4 9/16/2014 9/23/2014 1.50 7 2.16 -31% 8.6 2%
F-17-HA 1409 354 58.83 24 29.4 9/16/2014 9/23/2014 1.88 7 2.16 -13% 8.6 2%
F-17-HA 1409 355 58.83 24 29.4 9/16/2014 9/23/2014 1.75 7 2.16 -19% 8.6 2%
1411 356 104.50 48 26.1 8/4/2014 8/11/2014 2.25 7 3.15 -29%
1411 357 104.50 48 26.1 8/4/2014 8/11/2014 2.00 7 3.15 -37%
1411 358 104.50 48 26.1 8/6/2014 8/11/2014 2.50 5 3.15 -21%
1411 359 104.50 48 26.1 8/6/2014 8/11/2014 2.25 5 3.15 -29%
B-16-EV 1415 360 62.75 30 25.1 11/25/2014 12/12/2014 1.25 17 1.16 8% 12.6 48%
B-16-EV 1415 361 62.75 30 25.1 11/25/2014 12/12/2014 1.26 17 1.16 9% 12.6 48%
B-16-EV 1415 362 62.75 30 25.1 12/1/2014 12/9/2014 1.50 8 1.16 29% 11.9 39%
B-16-EV 1415 363 62.75 30 25.1 11/26/2014 12/9/2014 1.13 13 1.16 -3% 10.1 19%
B-16-EV 1415 364 62.75 30 25.1 11/26/2014 12/9/2014 1.13 13 1.16 -3% 10.1 19%
B-16-EV 1415 365 62.75 30 25.1 12/2/2014 12/9/2014 1.75 7 1.16 51% 10.3 21%
B-16-EV 1415 366 62.75 30 25.1 12/2/2014 12/9/2014 0.88 7 1.16 -24% 10.3 21%
B-16-EV 1415 367 62.75 30 25.1 12/1/2014 12/9/2014 1.25 8 1.16 8% 11.9 39%
B-16-EV 1415 368 62.75 30 25.1 5/18/2015 5/20/2015 1.00 2 1.16 -14% 13.3 57%
B-16-EV 1415 369 62.75 30 25.1 5/18/2015 5/20/2015 0.68 2 1.16 -41% 13.3 57%
B-16-EV 1415 370 62.75 30 25.1 5/18/2015 5/20/2015 0.68 2 1.16 -41% 13.3 57%
B-16-EV 1415 371 62.75 30 25.1 5/18/2015 5/20/2015 1.00 2 1.16 -14% 13.3 57%
B-16-EV 1415 372 62.75 30 25.1 5/20/2015 5/22/2015 1.00 2 1.16 -14% 12.7 50%
B-16-EV 1415 373 62.75 30 25.1 5/20/2015 5/22/2015 0.68 2 1.16 -41% 12.7 50%
B-16-EV 1415 374 62.75 30 25.1 5/20/2015 5/22/2015 0.50 2 1.16 -57% 12.7 50%
B-16-EV 1415 375 62.75 30 25.1 5/20/2015 5/22/2015 1.00 2 1.16 -14% 12.7 50%
B-16-EV 1415 376 62.75 30 25.1 5/21/2015 5/23/2015 1.00 2 1.16 -14% 12.7 50%
B-16-EV 1415 377 62.75 30 25.1 5/21/2015 5/23/2015 0.68 2 1.16 -41% 12.7 50%
B-16-EV 1415 378 62.75 30 25.1 5/21/2015 5/23/2015 0.68 2 1.16 -41% 12.7 50%
B-16-EV 1415 379 62.75 30 25.1 5/21/2015 5/23/2015 0.75 2 1.16 -35% 12.7 50%
B-16-EV 1415 380 84.00 30 33.6 12/13/2014 12/16/2014 1.50 3 2.23 -33% 12.5 48%
68


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
B-16-EV 1415 381 84.00 30 33.6 12/8/2014 12/9/2014 2.13 1 2.23 -4% 12.4 46%
B-16-EV 1415 382 84.00 30 33.6 12/12/2014 12/13/2014 1.38 1 2.23 -38% 12.7 50%
B-16-EV 1415 383 84.00 30 33.6 12/12/2014 12/13/2014 1.00 1 2.23 -55% 12.7 50%
B-16-EV 1415 384 84.00 30 33.6 12/12/2014 12/13/2014 1.00 1 2.23 -55% 12.7 50%
B-16-EV 1415 385 84.00 30 33.6 12/13/2014 12/16/2014 1.50 3 2.23 -33% 12.5 48%
B-16-EV 1415 386 84.00 30 33.6 12/13/2014 12/16/2014 1.50 3 2.23 -33% 12.5 48%
B-16-EV 1415 387 84.00 30 33.6 12/4/2014 12/13/2014 1.50 9 2.23 -33% 10.0 18%
B-16-EV 1415 388 84.00 30 33.6 5/11/2015 5/20/2015 2.50 9 2.23 12% 12.8 50%
B-16-EV 1415 389 84.00 30 33.6 4/28/2015 5/20/2015 2.25 22 2.23 1% 13.0 53%
B-16-EV 1415 390 84.00 30 33.6 5/11/2015 5/20/2015 2.00 9 2.23 -10% 12.8 50%
B-16-EV 1415 391 84.00 30 33.6 5/13/2015 5/20/2015 1.88 7 2.23 -16% 13.2 56%
B-16-EV 1415 392 84.00 30 33.6 5/13/2015 5/20/2015 1.50 7 2.23 -33% 13.2 56%
B-16-EV 1415 393 84.00 30 33.6 5/13/2015 5/20/2015 1.50 7 2.23 -33% 13.2 56%
B-16-EV 1415 394 84.00 30 33.6 4/27/2015 5/20/2015 1.75 23 2.23 -22% 12.5 48%
B-16-EV 1415 395 84.00 30 33.6 4/27/2015 5/20/2015 2.25 23 2.23 1% 12.5 48%
B-16-EV 1415 396 84.00 30 33.6 5/12/2015 5/20/2015 2.75 8 2.23 23% 13.1 54%
B-16-EV 1415 397 84.00 30 33.6 5/12/2015 5/20/2015 2.25 8 2.23 1% 13.1 54%
B-16-EV 1415 398 84.00 30 33.6 5/12/2015 5/20/2015 2.75 8 2.23 23% 13.1 54%
B-16-EV 1415 399 84.00 30 33.6 4/27/2015 5/20/2015 2.25 23 2.23 1% 12.5 48%
B-16-EV 1415 400 84.00 30 33.6 12/10/2014 12/12/2014 1.00 2 2.23 -55% 10.1 19%
B-16-EV 1415 401 84.00 30 33.6 12/10/2014 12/12/2014 1.25 2 2.23 -44% 10.1 19%
B-16-EV 1415 402 84.00 30 33.6 12/4/2014 12/12/2014 1.38 8 2.23 -38% 10.0 18%
B-16-EV 1415 403 84.00 30 33.6 12/4/2014 12/12/2014 1.50 8 2.23 -33% 10.0 18%
B-16-EV 1415 404 84.00 30 33.6 12/8/2014 12/9/2014 2.13 1 2.23 -4% 12.4 46%
B-16-EV 1415 405 84.00 30 33.6 12/9/2014 12/12/2014 2.50 3 2.23 12% 9.6 13%
B-16-EV 1415 406 84.00 30 33.6 12/5/2014 12/12/2014 2.50 7 2.23 12% 9.7 14%
B-16-EV 1415 407 84.00 30 33.6 12/8/2014 12/9/2014 1.50 1 2.23 -33% 12.4 46%
B-16-EV 1415 408 84.00 30 33.6 5/7/2015 5/19/2015 2.25 12 2.23 1% 12.9 52%
B-16-EV 1415 409 84.00 30 33.6 4/30/2015 5/19/2015 2.13 19 2.23 -4% 13.6 60%
B-16-EV 1415 410 84.00 30 33.6 4/30/2015 5/19/2015 1.75 19 2.23 -22% 13.6 60%
B-16-EV 1415 411 84.00 30 33.6 4/30/2015 5/19/2015 2.00 19 2.23 -10% 13.6 60%
B-16-EV 1415 412 84.00 30 33.6 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 1.88 20 2.23 -16% 13.4 57%
B-16-EV 1415 413 84.00 30 33.6 5/6/2015 5/19/2015 1.50 13 2.23 -33% 12.4 46%
B-16-EV 1415 414 84.00 30 33.6 5/8/2015 5/19/2015 2.00 11 2.23 -10% 12.9 52%
B-16-EV 1415 415 84.00 30 33.6 5/8/2015 5/19/2015 2.13 11 2.23 -4% 12.9 52%
B-16-EV 1415 416 84.00 30 33.6 5/8/2015 5/19/2015 2.63 11 2.23 18% 12.9 52%
B-16-EV 1415 417 84.00 30 33.6 5/7/2015 5/19/2015 2.75 12 2.23 23% 12.9 52%
B-16-EV 1415 418 84.00 30 33.6 5/7/2015 5/19/2015 2.25 12 2.23 1% 12.9 52%
B-16-EV 1415 419 84.00 30 33.6 4/28/2015 5/19/2015 2.13 21 2.23 -4% 13.0 53%
B-16-EV 1415 420 84.00 30 33.6 12/11/2014 12/12/2014 0.50 1 2.23 -78% 8.7 3%
B-16-EV 1415 421 84.00 30 33.6 12/11/2014 12/12/2014 1.00 1 2.23 -55% 8.7 3%
B-16-EV 1415 422 84.00 30 33.6 12/11/2014 12/12/2014 1.13 1 2.23 -49% 8.7 3%
B-16-EV 1415 423 84.00 30 33.6 12/10/2014 12/12/2014 1.50 2 2.23 -33% 10.1 19%
B-16-EV 1415 424 84.00 30 33.6 12/9/2014 12/12/2014 1.50 3 2.23 -33% 9.6 13%
B-16-EV 1415 425 84.00 30 33.6 12/5/2014 12/12/2014 2.00 7 2.23 -10% 9.7 14%
B-16-EV 1415 426 84.00 30 33.6 12/9/2014 12/12/2014 2.50 3 2.23 12% 9.6 13%
B-16-EV 1415 427 84.00 30 33.6 12/5/2014 12/12/2014 1.50 7 2.23 -33% 9.7 14%
B-16-EV 1415 428 84.00 30 33.6 4/28/2015 5/18/2015 1.50 20 2.23 -33% 13.0 53%
B-16-EV 1415 429 84.00 30 33.6 5/11/2015 5/18/2015 2.25 7 2.23 1% 12.8 50%
B-16-EV 1415 430 84.00 30 33.6 5/1/2015 5/18/2015 2.00 17 2.23 -10% 12.3 45%
B-16-EV 1415 431 84.00 30 33.6 5/4/2015 5/18/2015 2.63 14 2.23 18% 12.6 48%
B-16-EV 1415 432 84.00 30 33.6 5/1/2015 5/18/2015 3.00 17 2.23 35% 12.3 45%
B-16-EV 1415 433 84.00 30 33.6 5/4/2015 5/18/2015 2.63 14 2.23 18% 12.6 48%
B-16-EV 1415 434 84.00 30 33.6 5/6/2015 5/18/2015 2.25 12 2.23 1% 12.4 46%
B-16-EV 1415 435 84.00 30 33.6 5/6/2015 5/18/2015 1.75 12 2.23 -22% 12.4 46%
69


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
B-16-EV 1415 436 84.00 30 33.6 5/4/2015 5/18/2015 1.38 14 2.23 -38% 12.6 48%
B-16-EV 1415 437 84.00 30 33.6 5/1/2015 5/18/2015 1.25 17 2.23 -44% 12.3 45%
B-16-EV 1415 438 84.00 30 33.6 4/29/2015 5/18/2015 2.00 19 2.23 -10% 13.4 57%
B-16-EV 1415 439 84.00 30 33.6 4/29/2015 5/18/2015 2.50 19 2.23 12% 13.4 57%
B-16-EV 1415 440 62.75 30 25.1 11/26/2014 12/9/2014 0.50 13 1.16 -57% 10.1 19%
B-16-EV 1415 441 62.75 30 25.1 11/26/2014 12/12/2014 0.50 16 1.16 -57% 10.1 19%
B-16-EV 1415 442 62.75 30 25.1 11/25/2014 12/12/2014 0.75 17 1.16 -35% 12.6 48%
B-16-EV 1415 443 62.75 30 25.1 11/25/2014 12/12/2014 1.00 17 1.16 -14% 12.6 48%
B-16-EV 1415 444 62.75 30 25.1 12/2/2014 12/9/2014 1.25 7 1.16 8% 10.3 21%
B-16-EV 1415 445 62.75 30 25.1 12/1/2014 12/9/2014 1.25 8 1.16 8% 11.9 39%
B-16-EV 1415 446 62.75 30 25.1 12/1/2014 12/9/2014 0.75 8 1.16 -35% 11.9 39%
B-16-EV 1415 447 62.75 30 25.1 12/2/2014 12/9/2014 1.25 7 1.16 8% 10.3 21%
B-16-EV 1415 448 62.75 30 25.1 5/16/2015 5/18/2015 1.18 2 1.16 2% 13.1 55%
B-16-EV 1415 449 62.75 30 25.1 5/16/2015 5/18/2015 0.75 2 1.16 -35% 13.1 55%
B-16-EV 1415 450 62.75 30 25.1 5/16/2015 5/18/2015 0.50 2 1.16 -57% 13.1 55%
B-16-EV 1415 451 62.75 30 25.1 5/16/2015 5/18/2015 0.75 2 1.16 -35% 13.1 55%
B-16-EV 1415 452 62.75 30 25.1 5/15/2015 5/17/2015 0.88 2 1.16 -24% 12.8 51%
B-16-EV 1415 453 62.75 30 25.1 5/15/2015 5/17/2015 0.68 2 1.16 -41% 12.8 51%
B-16-EV 1415 454 62.75 30 25.1 5/15/2015 5/17/2015 0.68 2 1.16 -41% 12.8 51%
B-16-EV 1415 455 62.75 30 25.1 5/15/2015 5/17/2015 0.38 2 1.16 -67% 12.8 51%
B-16-EV 1415 456 62.75 30 25.1 5/14/2015 5/16/2015 1.00 2 1.16 -14% 12.8 50%
B-16-EV 1415 457 62.75 30 25.1 5/14/2015 5/16/2015 0.75 2 1.16 -35% 12.8 50%
B-16-EV 1415 458 62.75 30 25.1 5/14/2015 5/16/2015 0.75 2 1.16 -35% 12.8 50%
B-16-EV 1415 459 62.75 30 25.1 5/14/2015 5/16/2015 1.00 2 1.16 -14% 12.8 50%
F-16-EW 1501 460 80.00 30 32.0 4/21/2015 6/23/2015 2.25 63 2.84 -21% 13.9 63%
F-16-EW 1501 461 80.00 30 32.0 4/20/2015 6/23/2015 2.00 64 2.84 -30% 13.4 58%
F-16-EW 1501 462 80.00 30 32.0 4/20/2015 6/23/2015 2.00 64 2.84 -30% 13.4 58%
F-16-EW 1501 463 80.00 30 32.0 4/15/2015 6/23/2015 2.25 69 2.84 -21% 12.8 51%
F-16-EW 1501 464 80.00 30 32.0 4/20/2015 6/23/2015 2.38 64 2.84 -16% 13.4 58%
F-16-EW 1501 465 80.00 30 32.0 4/15/2015 6/23/2015 2.50 69 2.84 -12% 12.8 51%
F-16-EW 1501 466 80.00 30 32.0 4/15/2015 6/23/2015 2.75 69 2.84 -3% 12.8 51%
F-16-EW 1501 467 80.00 30 32.0 5/26/2015 9/16/2015 2.13 113 2.84 -25% 13.2 55%
F-16-EW 1501 468 80.00 30 32.0 5/27/2015 9/16/2015 2.00 112 2.84 -30% 12.9 52%
F-16-EW 1501 469 80.00 30 32.0 5/27/2015 9/16/2015 1.75 112 2.84 -38% 12.9 52%
F-16-EW 1501 470 80.00 30 32.0 5/26/2015 9/16/2015 1.63 113 2.84 -43% 13.2 55%
F-16-EW 1501 471 80.00 30 32.0 5/26/2015 9/16/2015 1.50 113 2.84 -47% 13.2 55%
F-16-EW 1501 472 80.00 30 32.0 5/28/2015 9/16/2015 1.75 111 2.84 -38% 13.6 60%
F-16-EW 1501 473 80.00 30 32.0 5/28/2015 9/16/2015 1.75 111 2.84 -38% 13.6 60%
F-16-EW 1501 474 80.00 30 32.0 5/27/2015 9/16/2015 1.75 112 2.84 -38% 12.9 52%
F-16-EW 1501 475 80.00 30 32.0 5/28/2015 9/16/2015 2.25 111 2.84 -21% 13.6 60%
F-16-EW 1501 476 80.00 30 32.0 9/3/2015 9/5/2015 1.68 2 2.84 -41% 12.6 48%
F-16-EW 1501 477 80.00 30 32.0 9/3/2015 9/5/2015 1.88 2 2.84 -34% 12.6 48%
L-22-CO 1212A 478 95.00 36 31.7 8/23/2012 11/6/2012 2.63 75 4 -34% 10.7 25%
L-22-CO 1212A 479 95.00 36 31.7 8/23/2012 11/6/2012 3.00 75 4 -25% 10.7 25%
L-22-CO 1212A 480 95.00 36 31.7 8/27/2012 11/6/2012 2.88 71 4 -28% 10.9 28%
L-22-CO 1212A 481 95.00 36 31.7 8/27/2012 11/6/2012 3.13 71 4 -22% 10.9 28%
L-22-CO 1212A 482 95.00 36 31.7 8/29/2012 11/6/2012 1.50 69 4 -63% 10.3 21%
L-22-CO 1212A 483 95.00 36 31.7 8/21/2012 11/6/2012 2.63 77 4 -34% 10.9 28%
L-22-CO 1212A 484 95.00 36 31.7 8/21/2012 11/6/2012 3.00 77 4 -25% 10.9 28%
L-22-CM 1212B 485 85.00 30 34.0 9/5/2012 10/13/2012 2.75 38 4.6 -40% 11.1 47%
L-22-CM 1212B 486 85.00 30 34.0 9/5/2012 10/13/2012 2.63 38 4.6 -43% 11.1 47%
L-22-CM 1212B 487 85.00 30 34.0 9/5/2012 10/13/2012 2.88 38 4.6 -38% 11.1 47%
L-22-CM 1212B 488 85.00 30 34.0 9/7/2012 10/13/2012 2.50 36 4.6 -46% 10.1 35%
L-22-CM 1212B 489 85.00 30 34.0 9/7/2012 10/13/2012 2.50 36 4.6 -46% 10.1 35%
L-22-CM 1212B 490 85.00 30 34.0 9/7/2012 10/13/2012 2.13 36 4.6 -54% 10.1 35%
70


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
1219-B 491 36.42 30 14.6 3/8/2013 4/11/2013 0.50 34 0.50 0%
1219-B 492 36.42 30 14.6 3/8/2013 4/11/2013 0.50 34 0.50 0%
1219-B 493 36.42 30 14.6 3/8/2013 4/11/2013 0.25 34 0.50 -50%
1219-B 494 36.42 30 14.6 3/8/2013 4/11/2013 0.38 34 0.50 -24%
1219-B 495 35.82 30 14.3 3/8/2013 5/14/2013 0.50 67 0.50 0%
1219-B 496 35.82 30 14.3 3/8/2013 5/14/2013 0.63 67 0.50 26%
1219-B 497 35.82 30 14.3 3/8/2013 5/14/2013 0.50 67 0.50 0%
1219-B 498 35.82 30 14.3 3/8/2013 5/14/2013 0.75 67 0.50 50%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 499 124.33 46 32.4 4/26/2007 7/10/2008 3.25 441 3.875 -16%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 500 124.33 46 32.4 4/26/2007 7/10/2008 2.75 441 3.875 -29%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 501 124.33 46 32.4 4/11/2007 7/10/2008 4.75 456 3.875 23%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 502 124.33 46 32.4 4/2/2007 7/10/2008 3.00 465 3.875 -23%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 503 124.33 46 32.4 4/2/2007 7/10/2008 3.00 465 3.875 -23%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 504 124.33 46 32.4 2/28/2007 7/10/2008 4.25 498 3.875 10%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 505 124.33 46 32.4 3/3/2007 7/10/2008 3.50 495 3.875 -10%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 506 124.33 46 32.4 3/3/2007 7/10/2008 2.50 495 3.875 -35%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 507 124.33 46 32.4 2/26/2007 7/10/2008 3.00 500 3.875 -23%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 508 124.33 46 32.4 2/26/2007 7/10/2008 4.50 500 3.875 16%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 509 124.33 46 32.4 2/22/2007 7/10/2008 2.75 504 3.875 -29%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 510 124.33 46 32.4 2/22/2007 7/10/2008 3.50 504 3.875 -10%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 511 124.33 46 32.4 3/3/2007 7/22/2008 2.25 507 3.875 -42%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 512 124.33 46 32.4 2/26/2007 7/22/2008 2.25 512 3.875 -42%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 513 124.33 46 32.4 2/26/2007 7/22/2008 3.75 512 3.875 -3%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 514 124.33 46 32.4 2/22/2007 7/22/2008 3.00 516 3.875 -23%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 515 124.33 46 32.4 2/22/2007 7/22/2008 2.50 516 3.875 -35%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 516 124.33 46 32.4 4/11/2007 7/22/2008 4.00 468 3.875 3%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 517 124.33 46 32.4 4/2/2007 7/22/2008 2.50 477 3.875 -35%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 518 124.33 46 32.4 4/2/2007 7/22/2008 2.25 477 3.875 -42%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 519 124.33 46 32.4 2/28/2007 7/22/2008 3.75 510 3.875 -3%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 520 124.33 46 32.4 3/3/2007 7/22/2008 3.50 507 3.875 -10%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 521 124.33 46 32.4 4/26/2007 7/22/2008 2.75 453 3.875 -29%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 522 124.33 46 32.4 4/26/2007 7/22/2008 3.25 453 3.875 -16%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 523 124.33 46 32.4 4/21/2007 11/6/2007 5.00 199 3.875 29%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 524 124.33 46 32.4 4/21/2007 11/6/2007 5.00 199 3.875 29%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 525 124.33 46 32.4 4/26/2007 11/6/2007 3.25 194 3.875 -16%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 526 124.33 46 32.4 4/26/2007 11/6/2007 4.50 194 3.875 16%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 527 124.33 46 32.4 2/28/2007 11/6/2007 4.25 251 3.875 10%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 528 124.33 46 32.4 2/28/2007 11/6/2007 4.25 251 3.875 10%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 529 124.33 46 32.4 3/3/2007 11/6/2007 4.00 248 3.875 3%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 530 124.33 46 32.4 3/6/2007 11/6/2007 4.25 245 3.875 10%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 531 124.33 46 32.4 3/6/2007 11/6/2007 4.50 245 3.875 16%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 532 124.33 46 32.4 2/22/2007 11/6/2007 3.50 257 3.875 -10%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 533 124.33 46 32.4 2/22/2007 11/6/2007 4.00 257 3.875 3%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 534 124.33 46 32.4 2/26/2007 11/6/2007 4.00 253 3.875 3%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 535 124.33 46 32.4 2/26/2007 11/6/2007 3.50 253 3.875 -10%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 536 124.33 46 32.4 3/3/2007 11/6/2007 3.00 248 3.875 -23%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 537 124.33 46 32.4 3/23/2007 11/6/2007 5.25 228 3.875 35%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 538 124.33 46 32.4 3/23/2007 11/6/2007 4.75 228 3.875 23%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 539 124.33 46 32.4 3/8/2007 11/6/2007 5.00 243 3.875 29%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 540 124.33 46 32.4 3/8/2007 11/6/2007 5.50 243 3.875 42%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 541 124.33 46 32.4 4/16/2007 11/6/2007 5.75 204 3.875 48%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 542 124.33 46 32.4 4/11/2007 11/6/2007 5.00 209 3.875 29%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 543 124.33 46 32.4 4/11/2007 11/6/2007 4.50 209 3.875 16%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 544 124.33 46 32.4 4/16/2007 11/6/2007 5.75 204 3.875 48%
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 545 124.33 46 32.4 4/2/2007 11/6/2007 4.75 218 3.875 23%
71


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
D-17-DW, D-17-E2 13-0052 546 124.33 46 32.4 4/2/2007 11/6/2007 4.00 218 3.875 3%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 547 127.00 48 31.8 3/25/2008 10/17/2008 3.75 206 3.75 0%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 548 127.00 48 31.8 3/25/2008 10/17/2008 3.75 206 3.75 0%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 549 127.00 48 31.8 3/28/2008 10/17/2008 2.25 203 3.75 -40%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 550 127.00 48 31.8 4/2/2008 10/17/2008 2.00 198 3.75 -47%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 551 127.00 48 31.8 3/28/2008 10/17/2008 3.00 203 3.75 -20%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 552 127.00 48 31.8 4/2/2008 10/17/2008 2.50 198 3.75 -33%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 553 127.00 48 31.8 1/29/2008 10/17/2008 2.00 262 3.75 -47%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 554 127.00 48 31.8 1/29/2008 10/17/2008 2.00 262 3.75 -47%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 555 127.00 48 31.8 3/21/2008 10/17/2008 3.75 210 3.75 0%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 556 127.00 48 31.8 3/19/2008 10/17/2008 3.00 212 3.75 -20%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 557 127.00 48 31.8 3/21/2008 10/17/2008 4.00 210 3.75 7%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 558 127.00 48 31.8 3/19/2008 10/17/2008 4.00 212 3.75 7%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 559 127.00 48 31.8 3/25/2008 10/17/2008 3.75 206 3.75 0%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 560 127.00 48 31.8 3/25/2008 10/17/2008 3.75 206 3.75 0%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 561 127.00 48 31.8 3/28/2008 10/17/2008 2.25 203 3.75 -40%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 562 127.00 48 31.8 4/2/2008 10/17/2008 2.00 198 3.75 -47%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 563 127.00 48 31.8 3/28/2008 10/17/2008 3.00 203 3.75 -20%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 564 127.00 48 31.8 4/2/2008 10/17/2008 2.50 198 3.75 -33%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 565 127.00 48 31.8 1/29/2008 10/17/2008 2.00 262 3.75 -47%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 566 127.00 48 31.8 1/29/2008 10/17/2008 2.00 262 3.75 -47%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 567 127.00 48 31.8 3/21/2008 10/17/2008 3.75 210 3.75 0%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 568 127.00 48 31.8 3/19/2008 10/17/2008 3.00 212 3.75 -20%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 569 127.00 48 31.8 3/21/2008 10/17/2008 4.00 210 3.75 7%
D-17-ES, D-17-ET 13-0069.7 570 127.00 48 31.8 3/19/2008 10/17/2008 4.00 212 3.75 7%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 571 60.00 18 40.0 2/15/2008 3/13/2008 3.75 27 4.5 -17% 11.9 40%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 572 60.00 18 40.0 2/15/2008 3/13/2008 3.50 27 4.5 -22% 11.9 40%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 573 60.00 18 40.0 2/15/2008 3/13/2008 3.00 27 4.5 -33% 11.9 40%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 574 60.00 18 40.0 2/18/2008 3/13/2008 2.50 24 3.875 -35% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 575 60.00 18 40.0 2/18/2008 3/13/2008 2.25 24 3.875 -42% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 576 60.00 18 40.0 2/15/2008 3/13/2008 4.00 27 4.5 -11% 11.9 40%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 577 60.00 18 40.0 2/19/2008 3/13/2008 4.25 23 3.875 10% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 578 60.00 18 40.0 2/12/2008 3/13/2008 4.25 30 4.5 -6% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 579 60.00 18 40.0 2/12/2008 3/13/2008 4.75 30 4.5 6% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 580 60.00 18 40.0 2/12/2008 3/13/2008 5.50 30 4.5 22% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 581 60.00 18 40.0 2/12/2008 3/13/2008 5.25 30 4.5 17% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 582 60.00 18 40.0 2/15/2008 3/21/2008 3.75 35 4.5 -17% 11.9 40%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 583 60.00 18 40.0 2/15/2008 3/21/2008 3.25 35 4.5 -28% 11.9 40%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 584 60.00 18 40.0 2/12/2008 3/21/2008 5.00 38 4.5 11% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 585 60.00 18 40.0 2/12/2008 3/21/2008 4.00 38 4.5 -11% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 586 60.00 18 40.0 2/11/2008 3/21/2008 4.25 39 4.5 -6% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 587 60.00 18 40.0 2/11/2008 3/21/2008 4.50 39 4.5 0% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 588 60.00 18 40.0 2/11/2008 3/21/2008 4.25 39 4.5 -6% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 589 60.00 18 40.0 2/11/2008 3/21/2008 4.25 39 4.5 -6% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 590 60.00 18 40.0 2/9/2008 3/21/2008 3.50 41 4.5 -22% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 591 60.00 18 40.0 2/9/2008 3/21/2008 3.50 41 4.5 -22% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 592 60.00 18 40.0 2/12/2008 3/21/2008 4.50 38 4.5 0% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 593 60.00 18 40.0 2/12/2008 3/21/2008 4.00 38 4.5 -11% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 594 60.00 18 40.0 2/7/2008 3/21/2008 5.50 43 4.5 22% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 595 60.00 18 40.0 2/7/2008 3/21/2008 4.75 43 4.5 6% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 596 60.00 18 40.0 2/9/2008 3/21/2008 5.00 41 4.5 11% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 597 60.00 18 40.0 2/9/2008 3/21/2008 3.25 41 4.5 -28% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 598 60.00 18 40.0 2/7/2008 3/21/2008 5.75 43 4.5 28% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 599 60.00 18 40.0 2/7/2008 3/21/2008 5.25 43 4.5 17% 11.9 39%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 600 60.00 18 40.0 2/15/2008 3/21/2008 2.50 35 4.5 -44% 11.9 40%
72


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 601 60.00 18 40.0 215/2008 3/21/2008 2.50 35 4.5 -44% 11.9 40%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 602 60.00 18 40.0 225/2008 3/21/2008 1.75 25 3.875 -55% 10.8 27%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 603 60.00 18 40.0 225/2008 3/21/2008 2.50 25 3.875 -35% 10.8 27%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 604 60.00 18 40.0 225/2008 3/21/2008 4.50 25 3.875 16% 10.8 27%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 605 60.00 18 40.0 225/2008 3/21/2008 4.75 25 3.875 23% 10.8 27%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 606 60.00 18 40.0 219/2008 3/21/2008 2.75 31 3.875 -29% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 607 60.00 18 40.0 218/2008 3/21/2008 2.50 32 3.875 -35% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 608 60.00 18 40.0 219/2008 3/21/2008 3.25 31 3.875 -16% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 609 60.00 18 40.0 218/2008 3/21/2008 2.50 32 3.875 -35% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 610 60.00 18 40.0 219/2008 3/21/2008 3.00 31 3.875 -23% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 611 60.00 18 40.0 218/2008 3/21/2008 1.50 32 3.875 -61% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 612 60.00 18 40.0 220/2008 3/21/2008 5.00 30 3.875 29% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 613 60.00 18 40.0 220/2008 3/21/2008 5.50 30 3.875 42% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 614 60.00 18 40.0 220/2008 3/21/2008 1.25 30 3.875 -68% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 615 60.00 18 40.0 221/2008 3/21/2008 4.25 29 3.875 10% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 616 60.00 18 40.0 221/2008 3/21/2008 3.50 29 3.875 -10% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 617 60.00 18 40.0 221/2008 3/21/2008 5.00 29 3.875 29% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 618 60.00 18 40.0 221/2008 3/21/2008 4.25 29 3.875 10% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 619 60.00 18 40.0 220/2008 3/21/2008 3.13 30 3.875 -19% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 620 60.00 18 40.0 219/2008 3/21/2008 3.38 31 3.875 -13% 11.5 35%
D-16-DR 13-0072.7 621 60.00 18 40.0 218/2008 3/21/2008 2.88 32 3.875 -26% 11.5 35%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 622 54.00 20 32.4 3/6/2008 3/14/2008 1.00 8 1.875 -47% 10.3 21%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 623 54.00 20 32.4 3/4/2008 3/14/2008 2.00 10 1.875 7% 11.0 30%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 624 54.00 20 32.4 3/4/2008 3/14/2008 2.00 10 1.875 7% 11.0 30%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 625 54.00 20 32.4 3/4/2008 3/14/2008 1.50 10 1.875 -20% 11.0 30%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 626 54.00 20 32.4 3/4/2008 3/14/2008 1.50 10 1.875 -20% 11.0 30%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 627 54.00 20 32.4 3/6/2008 3/14/2008 2.50 8 1.875 33% 10.3 21%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 628 63.00 20 37.8 229/2008 3/14/2008 2.25 14 3.5 -36% 9.7 15%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 629 63.00 20 37.8 229/2008 3/14/2008 2.75 14 3.5 -21% 9.7 15%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 630 63.00 20 37.8 229/2008 3/14/2008 2.75 14 3.5 -21% 9.7 15%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 631 63.00 20 37.8 229/2008 3/14/2008 3.25 14 3.5 -7% 9.7 15%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 632 54.00 20 32.4 3/6/2008 3/14/2008 2.00 8 1.875 7% 10.3 21%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 633 54.00 20 32.4 3/6/2008 3/14/2008 1.50 8 1.875 -20% 10.3 21%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 634 63.00 20 37.8 3/10/2008 5/23/2008 1.00 74 3.75 -73% 11.1 31%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 635 63.00 20 37.8 3/10/2008 5/23/2008 2.00 74 3.75 -47% 11.1 31%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 636 63.00 20 37.8 3/10/2008 5/23/2008 5.00 74 3.75 33% 11.1 31%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 637 63.00 20 37.8 3/10/2008 5/23/2008 4.00 74 3.75 7% 11.1 31%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 638 54.00 20 32.4 3/14/2008 5/23/2008 2.00 70 2 0% 11.8 38%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 639 54.00 20 32.4 3/14/2008 5/23/2008 2.75 70 2 38% 11.8 38%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 640 54.00 20 32.4 3/14/2008 5/23/2008 2.75 70 2 38% 11.8 38%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 641 54.00 20 32.4 3/14/2008 5/23/2008 2.25 70 2 13% 11.1 30%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 642 54.00 20 32.4 3/12/2008 5/23/2008 2.50 72 2 25% 11.1 30%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 643 54.00 20 32.4 3/14/2008 5/23/2008 2.00 70 2 0% 11.8 38%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 644 54.00 20 32.4 3/12/2008 5/23/2008 1.50 72 2 -25% 11.1 30%
C-15-AN 13-0076.7 645 54.00 20 32.4 3/12/2008 5/23/2008 2.50 72 2 25% 11.1 30%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 646 55.00 20 33.0 8/4/2009 10/29/2009 2.50 86 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 647 55.00 20 33.0 8/4/2009 10/29/2009 2.50 86 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 648 55.00 20 33.0 8/4/2009 10/29/2009 2.25 86 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 649 55.00 20 33.0 8/4/2009 10/29/2009 2.50 86 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 650 55.00 20 33.0 8/6/2009 8/24/2009 2.00 18 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 651 55.00 20 33.0 8/6/2009 8/24/2009 2.25 18 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 652 55.00 20 33.0 8/6/2009 8/24/2009 2.25 18 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 653 55.00 20 33.0 8/6/2009 10/29/2009 2.00 84 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 654 55.00 20 33.0 8/11/2009 8/24/2009 2.50 13 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 655 55.00 20 33.0 8/11/2009 8/24/2009 1.75 13 2.92 -40%
73


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 656 55.00 20 33.0 8/11/2009 8/24/2009 1.75 13 2.92 -40%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 657 55.00 20 33.0 8/11/2009 8/24/2009 2.00 13 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 658 55.00 20 33.0 8/13/2009 8/24/2009 2.00 11 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 659 55.00 20 33.0 8/13/2009 8/24/2009 2.25 11 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 660 55.00 20 33.0 8/13/2009 8/24/2009 2.00 11 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 661 55.00 20 33.0 8/13/2009 8/24/2009 1.50 11 2.92 -49%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 662 55.00 20 33.0 8/18/2009 8/24/2009 1.75 6 2.92 -40%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 663 55.00 20 33.0 8/18/2009 10/29/2009 2.25 72 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 664 55.00 20 33.0 8/18/2009 10/29/2009 2.50 72 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 665 55.00 20 33.0 8/18/2009 8/24/2009 1.25 6 2.92 -57%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 666 55.00 20 33.0 8/20/2009 8/24/2009 2.00 4 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 667 55.00 20 33.0 8/20/2009 10/29/2009 2.50 70 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 668 55.00 20 33.0 8/20/2009 8/24/2009 1.50 4 2.92 -49%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 669 55.00 20 33.0 8/20/2009 8/24/2009 1.50 4 2.92 -49%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 670 55.00 20 33.0 8/25/2009 9/17/2009 2.00 23 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 671 55.00 20 33.0 8/25/2009 9/17/2009 3.00 23 2.92 3%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 672 55.00 20 33.0 8/25/2009 9/17/2009 2.25 23 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 673 55.00 20 33.0 8/25/2009 9/17/2009 2.50 23 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 674 55.00 20 33.0 9/21/2009 10/29/2009 4.50 38 2.92 54%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 675 55.00 20 33.0 9/21/2009 10/29/2009 2.00 38 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 676 55.00 20 33.0 9/21/2009 4/1/2010 2.00 192 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 677 55.00 20 33.0 9/21/2009 10/29/2009 2.75 38 2.92 -6%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 678 55.00 20 33.0 9/23/2009 10/29/2009 3.25 36 2.92 11%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 679 55.00 20 33.0 9/23/2009 10/29/2009 3.00 36 2.92 3%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 680 55.00 20 33.0 9/23/2009 4/1/2010 2.25 190 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 681 55.00 20 33.0 9/23/2009 10/29/2009 2.75 36 2.92 -6%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 682 55.00 20 33.0 9/25/2009 10/29/2009 2.75 34 2.92 -6%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 683 55.00 20 33.0 9/25/2009 10/29/2009 3.00 34 2.92 3%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 684 55.00 20 33.0 9/25/2009 10/29/2009 2.50 34 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 685 55.00 20 33.0 9/25/2009 10/29/2009 2.50 34 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 686 55.00 20 33.0 9/29/2009 10/29/2009 3.25 30 2.92 11%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 687 55.00 20 33.0 9/29/2009 10/29/2009 2.50 30 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 688 55.00 20 33.0 9/29/2009 10/29/2009 1.50 30 2.92 -49%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 689 55.00 20 33.0 9/29/2009 10/29/2009 2.50 30 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 690 55.00 20 33.0 2/17/2010 4/1/2010 1.75 43 2.92 -40%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 691 55.00 20 33.0 2/17/2010 4/1/2010 2.75 43 2.92 -6%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 692 55.00 20 33.0 2/17/2010 4/1/2010 2.50 43 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 693 55.00 20 33.0 2/17/2010 4/1/2010 2.75 43 2.92 -6%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 694 55.00 20 33.0 2/19/2010 4/1/2010 1.75 41 2.92 -40%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 695 55.00 20 33.0 2/19/2010 4/1/2010 2.25 41 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 696 55.00 20 33.0 2/19/2010 4/1/2010 2.25 41 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 697 55.00 20 33.0 2/19/2010 4/1/2010 2.50 41 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 698 55.00 20 33.0 2/24/2010 4/1/2010 2.00 36 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 699 55.00 20 33.0 2/24/2010 4/1/2010 2.25 36 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 700 55.00 20 33.0 2/24/2010 4/1/2010 1.75 36 2.92 -40%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 701 55.00 20 33.0 2/24/2010 4/1/2010 2.00 36 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 702 55.00 20 33.0 2/26/2010 4/1/2010 2.25 34 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 703 55.00 20 33.0 2/26/2010 4/1/2010 2.50 34 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 704 55.00 20 33.0 2/26/2010 4/1/2010 2.00 34 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 705 55.00 20 33.0 2/26/2010 4/1/2010 2.75 34 2.92 -6%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 706 55.00 20 33.0 3/1/2010 4/1/2010 2.00 31 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 707 55.00 20 33.0 3/1/2010 4/1/2010 1.50 31 2.92 -49%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 708 55.00 20 33.0 3/1/2010 4/1/2010 2.25 31 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 709 55.00 20 33.0 3/1/2010 4/1/2010 2.50 31 2.92 -14%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 710 55.00 20 33.0 3/3/2010 4/1/2010 2.75 29 2.92 -6%
74


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 711 55.00 20 33.0 3/3/2010 4/1/2010 2.25 29 2.92 -23%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 712 55.00 20 33.0 3/3/2010 4/1/2010 2.00 29 2.92 -32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 713 55.00 20 33.0 3/3/2010 4/1/2010 3.00 29 2.92 3%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 714 65.00 20 39.0 8/3/2009 8/24/2009 3.25 21 3.22 1%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 715 65.00 20 39.0 8/3/2009 10/29/2009 4.25 87 3.22 32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 716 65.00 20 39.0 8/4/2009 8/24/2009 3.75 20 3.22 16%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 717 65.00 20 39.0 8/4/2009 8/24/2009 3.00 20 3.22 -7%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 718 65.00 20 39.0 8/5/2009 8/24/2009 3.00 19 3.22 -7%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 719 65.00 20 39.0 8/5/2009 10/29/2009 2.25 85 3.22 -30%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 720 65.00 20 39.0 8/6/2009 8/24/2009 3.50 18 3.22 9%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 721 65.00 20 39.0 8/6/2009 8/24/2009 2.75 18 3.22 -15%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 722 65.00 20 39.0 8/7/2009 10/29/2009 3.00 83 3.22 -7%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 723 65.00 20 39.0 8/7/2009 10/29/2009 2.50 83 3.22 -22%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 724 65.00 20 39.0 8/10/2009 10/29/2009 2.00 80 3.22 -38%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 725 65.00 20 39.0 8/10/2009 10/29/2009 2.00 80 3.22 -38%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 726 65.00 20 39.0 8/11/2009 8/24/2009 2.25 13 3.22 -30%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 727 65.00 20 39.0 8/11/2009 8/24/2009 2.50 13 3.22 -22%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 728 65.00 20 39.0 10/1/2009 10/29/2009 3.50 28 3.22 9%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 729 65.00 20 39.0 10/1/2009 10/29/2009 2.75 28 3.22 -15%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 730 65.00 20 39.0 10/1/2009 10/29/2009 0.50 28 3.22 -84%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 731 65.00 20 39.0 10/5/2009 10/29/2009 3.25 24 3.22 1%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 732 65.00 20 39.0 10/5/2009 10/29/2009 3.00 24 3.22 -7%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 733 65.00 20 39.0 10/5/2009 10/29/2009 3.25 24 3.22 1%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 734 65.00 20 39.0 3/5/2010 4/1/2010 3.00 27 3.22 -7%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 735 65.00 20 39.0 3/5/2010 4/1/2010 3.25 27 3.22 1%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 736 65.00 20 39.0 3/5/2010 4/1/2010 4.00 27 3.22 24%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 737 65.00 20 39.0 3/9/2010 4/1/2010 3.50 23 3.22 9%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 738 65.00 20 39.0 3/9/2010 4/1/2010 2.50 23 3.22 -22%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 739 65.00 20 39.0 3/9/2010 4/1/2010 4.25 23 3.22 32%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 740 65.00 20 39.0 3/23/2010 4/1/2010 3.25 9 3.22 1%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 741 65.00 20 39.0 3/23/2010 4/1/2010 2.75 9 3.22 -15%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 742 65.00 20 39.0 3/23/2010 4/1/2010 3.50 9 3.22 9%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 743 65.00 20 39.0 3/26/2010 4/1/2010 2.75 6 3.22 -15%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 744 65.00 20 39.0 3/26/2010 4/1/2010 2.75 6 3.22 -15%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 745 65.00 20 39.0 3/26/2010 4/1/2010 3.00 6 3.22 -7%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 746 65.00 20 39.0 3/30/2010 4/1/2010 1.25 2 3.22 -61%
E-17-ADL 13-0115.9 747 65.00 20 39.0 3/30/2010 4/1/2010 1.50 2 3.22 -53%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 748 67.00 24 33.5 7/24/2009 8/24/2009 1.50 31 1.68 -11%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 749 67.00 24 33.5 7/24/2009 8/24/2009 1.00 31 1.68 -40%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 750 67.00 24 33.5 7/24/2009 8/24/2009 1.00 31 1.68 -40%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 751 67.00 24 33.5 7/28/2009 10/29/2009 1.00 93 1.68 -40%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 752 67.00 24 33.5 7/28/2009 10/29/2009 1.50 93 1.68 -11%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 753 67.00 24 33.5 7/28/2009 8/24/2009 1.25 27 1.68 -26%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 754 67.00 24 33.5 7/30/2009 8/24/2009 1.00 25 1.68 -40%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 755 67.00 24 33.5 7/30/2009 8/24/2009 1.25 25 1.68 -26%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 756 67.00 24 33.5 7/30/2009 8/24/2009 1.00 25 1.68 -40%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 757 67.00 24 33.5 10/19/2009 4/1/2010 0.75 164 1.68 -55%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 758 67.00 24 33.5 10/19/2009 4/1/2010 1.25 164 1.68 -26%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 759 67.00 24 33.5 10/19/2009 4/1/2010 1.50 164 1.68 -11%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 760 67.00 24 33.5 10/21/2009 10/29/2009 2.00 8 1.68 19%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 761 67.00 24 33.5 10/21/2009 10/29/2009 1.75 8 1.68 4%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 762 67.00 24 33.5 10/21/2009 10/29/2009 1.50 8 1.68 -11%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 763 67.00 24 33.5 11/17/2009 4/1/2010 1.25 135 1.68 -26%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 764 67.00 24 33.5 11/17/2009 4/1/2010 1.00 135 1.68 -40%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 765 67.00 24 33.5 11/17/2009 4/1/2010 2.00 135 1.68 19%
75


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 766 67.00 24 33.5 11/24/2009 4/1/2010 1.75 128 1.68 4%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 767 67.00 24 33.5 11/24/2009 4/1/2010 1.50 128 1.68 -11%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 768 67.00 24 33.5 11/24/2009 4/1/2010 2.00 128 1.68 19%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 769 77.00 24 38.5 7/15/2009 10/29/2009 1.25 106 1.75 -29%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 770 77.00 24 38.5 7/15/2009 8/24/2009 0.25 40 1.75 -86%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 771 77.00 24 38.5 7/15/2009 8/24/2009 1.00 40 1.75 -43%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 772 77.00 24 38.5 7/20/2009 8/24/2009 2.00 35 1.75 14%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 773 77.00 24 38.5 7/20/2009 8/24/2009 1.75 35 1.75 0%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 774 77.00 24 38.5 7/20/2009 8/24/2009 1.50 35 1.75 -14%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 775 77.00 24 38.5 7/22/2009 8/24/2009 1.75 33 1.75 0%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 776 77.00 24 38.5 7/22/2009 8/24/2009 0.25 33 1.75 -86%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 777 77.00 24 38.5 7/22/2009 10/29/2009 2.75 99 1.75 57%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 778 77.00 24 38.5 10/12/2009 10/29/2009 2.25 17 1.75 29%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 779 77.00 24 38.5 10/12/2009 4/1/2010 1.75 171 1.75 0%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 780 77.00 24 38.5 10/12/2009 10/29/2009 2.75 17 1.75 57%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 781 77.00 24 38.5 10/15/2009 10/29/2009 2.75 14 1.75 57%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 782 77.00 24 38.5 10/15/2009 10/29/2009 2.50 14 1.75 43%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 783 77.00 24 38.5 10/15/2009 10/29/2009 2.00 14 1.75 14%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 784 77.00 24 38.5 12/1/2009 4/1/2010 1.00 121 1.75 -43%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 785 77.00 24 38.5 12/1/2009 4/1/2010 2.00 121 1.75 14%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 786 77.00 24 38.5 12/1/2009 4/1/2010 1.25 121 1.75 -29%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 787 77.00 24 38.5 12/5/2009 4/1/2010 2.25 117 1.75 29%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 788 77.00 24 38.5 12/5/2009 4/1/2010 0.75 117 1.75 -57%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 789 77.00 24 38.5 12/5/2009 4/1/2010 1.50 117 1.75 -14%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 790 48.00 24 24.0 7/8/2009 4/1/2010 1.75 267 1.38 27%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 791 48.00 24 24.0 7/8/2009 8/24/2009 2.50 47 1.38 81%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 792 48.00 24 24.0 7/8/2009 10/29/2009 1.25 113 1.38 -9%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 793 48.00 24 24.0 7/8/2009 8/24/2009 2.25 47 1.38 63%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 794 48.00 24 24.0 7/8/2009 10/29/2009 1.50 113 1.38 9%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 795 48.00 24 24.0 7/8/2009 10/29/2009 1.75 113 1.38 27%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 796 48.00 24 24.0 7/10/2009 8/24/2009 1.75 45 1.38 27%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 797 48.00 24 24.0 7/10/2009 8/24/2009 2.75 45 1.38 99%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 798 48.00 24 24.0 7/10/2009 8/24/2009 1.25 45 1.38 -9%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 799 48.00 24 24.0 7/10/2009 8/24/2009 1.75 45 1.38 27%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 800 48.00 24 24.0 7/10/2009 8/24/2009 0.50 45 1.38 -64%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 801 48.00 24 24.0 10/8/2009 10/29/2009 2.25 21 1.38 63%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 802 48.00 24 24.0 10/8/2009 10/29/2009 1.25 21 1.38 -9%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 803 48.00 24 24.0 10/8/2009 10/29/2009 0.50 21 1.38 -64%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 804 48.00 24 24.0 10/8/2009 4/1/2010 1.50 175 1.38 9%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 805 48.00 24 24.0 11/13/2009 4/1/2010 1.75 139 1.38 27%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 806 48.00 24 24.0 11/13/2009 4/1/2010 1.75 139 1.38 27%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 807 48.00 24 24.0 11/13/2009 4/1/2010 1.75 139 1.38 27%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 808 48.00 24 24.0 11/13/2009 4/1/2010 2.25 139 1.38 63%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 809 48.00 24 24.0 11/13/2009 4/1/2010 2.50 139 1.38 81%
E-17-AEA 13-0115.9 810 48.00 24 24.0 11/17/2009 4/1/2010 1.00 135 1.38 -28%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 811 127.50 46 33.3 9/10/2009 9/17/2009 3.50 7 3.5 0%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 812 127.50 46 33.3 9/10/2009 9/17/2009 3.50 7 3.5 0%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 813 127.50 46 33.3 9/5/2009 9/17/2009 4.50 12 3.5 29%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 814 127.50 46 33.3 9/5/2009 9/17/2009 4.25 12 3.5 21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 815 127.50 46 33.3 9/3/2009 9/17/2009 4.25 14 3.5 21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 816 127.50 46 33.3 9/3/2009 9/17/2009 4.00 14 3.5 14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 817 127.50 46 33.3 9/1/2009 9/17/2009 3.75 16 3.5 7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 818 127.50 46 33.3 9/1/2009 9/17/2009 4.25 16 3.5 21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 819 127.50 46 33.3 8/28/2009 9/17/2009 3.50 20 3.5 0%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 820 127.50 46 33.3 8/28/2009 9/17/2009 3.50 20 3.5 0%
76


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 821 127.50 46 33.3 9/9/2009 9/17/2009 3.50 8 3.5 0%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 822 127.50 46 33.3 9/9/2009 9/17/2009 4.00 8 3.5 14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 823 127.50 46 33.3 9/8/2009 9/17/2009 4.00 9 3.5 14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 824 127.50 46 33.3 9/8/2009 9/17/2009 4.25 9 3.5 21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 825 127.50 46 33.3 9/11/2009 9/17/2009 3.50 6 3.5 0%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 826 127.50 46 33.3 9/11/2009 9/17/2009 4.00 6 3.5 14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 827 127.50 46 33.3 10/30/2009 12/18/2009 4.00 49 3.5 14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 828 127.50 46 33.3 10/26/2009 12/18/2009 2.00 53 3.5 -43%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 829 127.50 46 33.3 10/26/2009 12/18/2009 3.25 53 3.5 -7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 830 127.50 46 33.3 10/30/2009 12/18/2009 3.75 49 3.5 7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 831 127.50 46 33.3 11/2/2009 12/18/2009 3.00 46 3.5 -14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 832 127.50 46 33.3 11/2/2009 12/18/2009 3.00 46 3.5 -14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 833 127.50 46 33.3 11/4/2009 12/18/2009 3.75 44 3.5 7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 834 127.50 46 33.3 11/4/2009 12/18/2009 3.50 44 3.5 0%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 835 127.50 46 33.3 11/10/2009 12/18/2009 3.25 38 3.5 -7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 836 127.50 46 33.3 11/10/2009 12/18/2009 3.50 38 3.5 0%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 837 127.50 46 33.3 11/6/2009 12/18/2009 3.50 42 3.5 0%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 838 127.50 46 33.3 11/6/2009 12/18/2009 3.00 42 3.5 -14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 839 127.50 46 33.3 11/4/2009 2/23/2010 4.25 111 3.5 21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 840 127.50 46 33.3 11/4/2009 2/23/2010 5.00 111 3.5 43%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 841 127.50 46 33.3 11/2/2009 2/23/2010 6.00 113 3.5 71%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 842 127.50 46 33.3 11/2/2009 2/23/2010 5.00 113 3.5 43%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 843 127.50 46 33.3 10/26/2009 2/23/2010 4.75 120 3.5 36%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 844 127.50 46 33.3 10/26/2009 2/23/2010 4.25 120 3.5 21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 845 127.50 46 33.3 10/30/2009 2/23/2010 4.50 116 3.5 29%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 846 127.50 46 33.3 10/30/2009 2/23/2010 4.75 116 3.5 36%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 847 127.50 46 33.3 11/10/2009 2/23/2010 3.25 105 3.5 -7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 848 127.50 46 33.3 11/10/2009 2/23/2010 3.00 105 3.5 -14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 849 127.50 46 33.3 11/6/2009 2/23/2010 4.00 109 3.5 14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 850 127.50 46 33.3 11/6/2009 2/23/2010 3.75 109 3.5 7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 851 127.50 46 33.3 5/7/2010 5/20/2010 1.00 13 3.5 -71%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 852 127.50 46 33.3 5/7/2010 5/20/2010 1.50 13 3.5 -57%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 853 127.50 46 33.3 5/12/2010 5/20/2010 2.25 8 3.5 -36%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 854 127.50 46 33.3 5/5/2010 5/20/2010 3.00 15 3.5 -14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 855 127.50 46 33.3 5/5/2010 5/20/2010 2.75 15 3.5 -21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 856 127.50 46 33.3 4/27/2010 5/20/2010 2.75 23 3.5 -21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 857 127.50 46 33.3 4/21/2010 5/20/2010 4.75 29 3.5 36%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 858 127.50 46 33.3 4/22/2010 5/20/2010 3.75 28 3.5 7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 859 127.50 46 33.3 4/29/2010 5/20/2010 3.75 21 3.5 7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 860 127.50 46 33.3 4/22/2010 5/20/2010 4.00 28 3.5 14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 861 127.50 46 33.3 4/27/2010 5/20/2010 2.75 23 3.5 -21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 862 127.50 46 33.3 4/21/2010 5/20/2010 3.75 29 3.5 7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 863 127.50 46 33.3 4/15/2010 5/20/2010 3.75 35 3.5 7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 864 127.50 46 33.3 4/20/2010 5/20/2010 4.25 30 3.5 21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 865 127.50 46 33.3 4/15/2010 5/20/2010 4.50 35 3.5 29%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 866 127.50 46 33.3 4/20/2010 5/20/2010 4.25 30 3.5 21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 867 127.50 46 33.3 5/12/2010 5/20/2010 2.50 8 3.5 -29%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 868 127.50 46 33.3 4/29/2010 5/20/2010 4.00 21 3.5 14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 869 127.50 46 33.3 4/27/2010 6/9/2010 1.75 43 3.5 -50%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 870 127.50 46 33.3 4/21/2010 6/9/2010 3.00 49 3.5 -14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 871 127.50 46 33.3 4/22/2010 6/9/2010 3.25 48 3.5 -7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 872 127.50 46 33.3 4/29/2010 6/9/2010 3.25 41 3.5 -7%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 873 127.50 46 33.3 4/22/2010 6/9/2010 3.00 48 3.5 -14%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 874 127.50 46 33.3 5/7/2010 6/9/2010 3.50 33 3.5 0%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 875 127.50 46 33.3 5/7/2010 6/9/2010 2.25 33 3.5 -36%
77


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 876 127.50 46 33.3 5/12/2010 6/9/2010 2.25 28 3.5 -36%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 877 127.50 46 33.3 5/5/2010 6/9/2010 2.75 35 3.5 -21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 878 127.50 46 33.3 5/5/2010 6/9/2010 2.75 35 3.5 -21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 879 127.50 46 33.3 4/29/2010 6/9/2010 4.25 41 3.5 21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 880 127.50 46 33.3 4/27/2010 6/9/2010 3.50 43 3.5 0%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 881 127.50 46 33.3 4/21/2010 6/9/2010 4.50 49 3.5 29%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 882 127.50 46 33.3 4/15/2010 6/9/2010 1.50 55 3.5 -57%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 883 127.50 46 33.3 4/20/2010 6/9/2010 2.00 50 3.5 -43%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 884 127.50 46 33.3 4/15/2010 6/9/2010 2.75 55 3.5 -21%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 885 127.50 46 33.3 5/12/2010 6/9/2010 3.50 28 3.5 0%
E-17-ADP 13-0116.9 886 127.50 46 33.3 4/20/2010 6/9/2010 5.25 50 3.5 50%
13-0137.9 887 60.92 33 22.2 3/18/2010 3/23/2010 0.25 5 0.875 -71%
13-0137.9 888 60.92 33 22.2 3/18/2010 3/23/2010 0.50 5 0.875 -43%
13-0137.9 889 60.92 33 22.2 3/17/2010 3/23/2010 1.00 6 0.875 14%
13-0137.9 890 60.92 33 22.2 3/17/2010 3/23/2010 1.50 6 0.875 71%
13-0137.9 891 60.92 33 22.2 3/17/2010 3/23/2010 1.00 6 0.875 14%
13-0137.9 892 60.92 33 22.2 3/18/2010 3/23/2010 0.50 5 0.875 -43%
13-0137.9 893 60.92 33 22.2 3/18/2010 3/23/2010 1.50 5 0.875 71%
13-0137.9 894 60.92 33 22.2 3/17/2010 3/23/2010 1.25 6 0.875 43%
13-0137.9 895 60.92 33 22.2 3/16/2010 3/23/2010 1.25 7 0.875 43%
13-0137.9 896 60.92 33 22.2 3/16/2010 3/23/2010 1.25 7 0.875 43%
13-0137.9 897 60.92 33 22.2 3/16/2010 3/23/2010 1.50 7 0.875 71%
13-0137.9 898 60.92 33 22.2 3/16/2010 3/23/2010 1.50 7 0.875 71%
13-0137.9 899 60.92 33 22.2 3/15/2010 3/23/2010 1.00 8 0.875 14%
13-0137.9 900 60.92 33 22.2 3/15/2010 3/23/2010 0.50 8 0.875 -43%
13-0137.9 901 80.08 33 29.1 3/15/2010 3/23/2010 1.00 8 1 0%
13-0137.9 902 80.08 33 29.1 3/12/2010 3/23/2010 0.25 11 1 -75%
13-0137.9 903 80.08 33 29.1 3/12/2010 3/23/2010 0.75 11 1 -25%
13-0137.9 904 80.08 33 29.1 3/12/2010 3/23/2010 1.50 11 1 50%
13-0137.9 905 80.08 33 29.1 3/11/2010 3/23/2010 1.50 12 1 50%
13-0137.9 906 80.08 33 29.1 3/11/2010 3/23/2010 1.00 12 1 0%
13-0137.9 907 80.08 33 29.1 3/11/2010 3/23/2010 1.00 12 1 0%
FCHRMYE 0.7-12^ 13-0138.0 908 44.67 27 19.9 4/2/2010 4/5/2010 0.75 3 1.625 -54%
FCHRMYE 0.7-12; 13-0138.0 909 44.67 27 19.9 4/2/2010 4/5/2010 1.00 3 1.625 -38%
FCHRMYE 0.7-12; 13-0138.0 910 44.67 27 19.9 4/2/2010 4/5/2010 1.00 3 1.625 -38%
FCHRMYE 0.7-12; 13-0138.0 911 44.67 27 19.9 4/2/2010 4/5/2010 1.00 3 1.625 -38%
FCHRMYE 0.7-12; 13-0138.0 912 44.67 27 19.9 4/2/2010 4/5/2010 1.75 3 1.625 8%
13-0139.0 913 63.83 48 16.0 1/22/2010 3/3/2010 5.00 40 4.25 18%
13-0139.0 914 63.83 48 16.0 1/22/2010 3/3/2010 4.50 40 4.25 6%
13-0139.0 915 63.83 48 16.0 1/22/2010 3/3/2010 4.75 40 4.25 12%
13-0139.0 916 63.83 48 16.0 2/2/2010 3/3/2010 5.00 29 4.25 18%
13-0139.0 917 63.83 48 16.0 1/27/2010 3/3/2010 5.50 35 4.25 29%
13-0139.0 918 63.83 48 16.0 2/2/2010 3/3/2010 4.75 29 4.25 12%
13-0139.0 919 63.83 48 16.0 2/2/2010 3/3/2010 4.50 29 4.25 6%
13-0139.0 920 63.83 48 16.0 4/9/2010 5/5/2010 2.50 26 4.25 -41%
13-0139.0 921 63.83 48 16.0 4/9/2010 5/5/2010 2.25 26 4.25 -47%
13-0139.0 922 63.83 48 16.0 4/6/2010 5/5/2010 6.50 29 4.25 53%
13-0139.0 923 63.83 48 16.0 4/6/2010 5/5/2010 3.50 29 4.25 -18%
13-0139.0 924 63.83 48 16.0 4/6/2010 5/5/2010 3.00 29 4.25 -29%
13-0139.0 925 63.83 48 16.0 4/6/2010 5/5/2010 2.75 29 4.25 -35%
13-0139.0 926 63.83 48 16.0 4/9/2010 5/5/2010 2.25 26 4.25 -47%
13-0139.0 927 63.83 48 16.0 4/9/2010 5/5/2010 2.25 26 4.25 -47%
13-0142.0 928 53.83 20 32.3 5/19/2010 6/23/2010 1.50 35 1.25 20%
13-0142.0 929 53.83 20 32.3 5/19/2010 6/23/2010 1.25 35 1.25 0%
13-0142.0 930 53.83 20 32.3 5/19/2010 6/23/2010 1.00 35 1.25 -20%
78


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
13-0142.0 931 53.83 20 32.3 5/18/2010 6/23/2010 1.00 36 1.25 -20%
13-0142.0 932 53.83 20 32.3 5/18/2010 6/23/2010 1.00 36 1.25 -20%
13-0142.0 933 53.83 20 32.3 5/18/2010 6/23/2010 1.00 36 1.25 -20%
13-0142.0 934 53.83 20 32.3 5/17/2010 6/23/2010 0.50 37 1.25 -60%
13-0142.0 935 53.83 20 32.3 5/17/2010 6/23/2010 0.50 37 1.25 -60%
13-0142.0 936 53.83 20 32.3 5/17/2010 6/23/2010 0.50 37 1.25 -60%
13-0142.0 937 53.83 20 32.3 5/17/2010 6/23/2010 0.75 37 1.25 -40%
13-0142.0 938 53.83 20 32.3 5/19/2010 6/23/2010 0.75 35 1.25 -40%
13-0142.0 939 53.83 20 32.3 5/18/2010 6/23/2010 0.50 36 1.25 -60%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 940 109.02 38 34.4 11/9/2010 3/11/2011 5.75 122 6 -4%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 941 108.22 38 34.2 11/12/2010 3/11/2011 5.25 119 5.125 2%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 942 109.02 38 34.4 11/9/2010 3/11/2011 6.25 122 6 4%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 943 109.02 38 34.4 11/12/2010 3/11/2011 5.25 119 5.125 2%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 944 108.22 38 34.2 11/5/2010 3/11/2011 5.50 126 6 -8%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 945 108.22 38 34.2 11/5/2010 3/11/2011 5.50 126 6 -8%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 946 108.22 38 34.2 11/2/2010 3/11/2011 4.25 129 5.125 -17%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 947 108.22 38 34.2 11/2/2010 3/11/2011 4.50 129 5.125 -12%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 948 108.22 38 34.2 11/1/2010 3/11/2011 4.50 130 5.125 -12%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 949 108.22 38 34.2 11/1/2010 3/11/2011 5.00 130 5.125 -2%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 950 108.22 38 34.2 10/19/2010 3/11/2011 4.25 143 5.125 -17%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 951 108.22 38 34.2 10/22/2010 3/11/2011 5.50 140 5.125 7%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 952 108.22 38 34.2 10/22/2010 3/11/2011 5.25 140 5.125 2%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 953 108.22 38 34.2 10/26/2010 3/11/2011 5.25 136 5.125 2%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 954 108.22 38 34.2 10/26/2010 3/11/2011 6.00 136 5.125 17%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 955 108.22 38 34.2 10/13/2010 3/11/2011 4.00 149 5.125 -22%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 956 108.22 38 34.2 10/13/2010 3/11/2011 5.00 149 5.125 -2%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 957 108.22 38 34.2 10/15/2010 3/11/2011 4.50 147 5.125 -12%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 958 108.22 38 34.2 10/15/2010 3/11/2011 5.25 147 5.125 2%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 959 108.22 38 34.2 10/28/2010 3/11/2011 4.00 134 5.125 -22%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 960 108.22 38 34.2 10/19/2010 3/11/2011 4.50 143 5.125 -12%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 961 109.02 38 34.4 11/29/2010 3/11/2011 4.75 102 5.125 -7%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 962 109.02 38 34.4 11/29/2010 3/11/2011 4.75 102 5.125 -7%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 963 109.02 38 34.4 12/1/2010 3/11/2011 4.25 100 5.125 -17%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 964 109.02 38 34.4 12/1/2010 3/11/2011 5.25 100 5.125 2%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 965 109.02 38 34.4 12/7/2010 3/11/2011 4.50 94 5.125 -12%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 966 109.02 38 34.4 12/3/2010 3/11/2011 3.75 98 5.125 -27%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 967 109.02 38 34.4 12/3/2010 3/11/2011 3.50 98 5.125 -32%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 968 109.02 38 34.4 12/7/2010 3/11/2011 3.50 94 5.125 -32%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 969 109.02 38 34.4 11/17/2010 3/11/2011 4.75 114 5.125 -7%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 970 109.02 38 34.4 11/17/2010 3/11/2011 4.50 114 5.125 -12%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 971 109.02 38 34.4 11/19/2010 3/11/2011 4.25 112 5.125 -17%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 972 109.02 38 34.4 11/19/2010 3/11/2011 4.25 112 5.125 -17%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 973 109.02 38 34.4 11/23/2010 3/11/2011 4.25 108 5.125 -17%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 974 109.02 38 34.4 11/15/2010 3/11/2011 5.75 116 5.125 12%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 975 109.02 38 34.4 11/15/2010 3/11/2011 5.00 116 5.125 -2%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 976 109.02 38 34.4 11/23/2010 3/11/2011 4.25 108 5.125 -17%
E-16-YF 13-0148.0 977 108.22 38 34.2 10/28/2010 3/11/2011 5.50 134 5.125 7%
F-14-AZ 13-0155.0 978 108.42 42 31.0 9/14/2010 9/30/2010 3.25 16 4.5 -28% 10.1 19%
F-14-AZ 13-0155.0 979 108.42 42 31.0 9/14/2010 9/30/2010 3.75 16 4.5 -17% 10.1 19%
F-14-AZ 13-0155.0 980 108.42 42 31.0 9/3/2010 9/30/2010 3.75 27 4.5 -17% 9.5 12%
F-14-AZ 13-0155.0 981 108.42 42 31.0 9/2/2010 9/30/2010 4.25 28 4.5 -6% 9.5 12%
F-14-AZ 13-0155.0 982 108.42 42 31.0 9/2/2010 9/30/2010 4.25 28 4.5 -6% 9.5 12%
F-14-AZ 13-0155.0 983 108.42 42 31.0 9/10/2010 9/30/2010 3.25 20 4.5 -28% 9.5 12%
F-14-AZ 13-0155.0 984 108.42 42 31.0 9/10/2010 9/30/2010 3.00 20 4.5 -33% 9.5 12%
F-14-AZ 13-0155.0 985 108.42 42 31.0 9/8/2010 9/30/2010 4.00 22 4.5 -11% 9.5 12%
79


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
F-14-AZ 13-0155.0 986 108.42 42 31.0 9/8/2010 9/30/2010 3.25 22 4.5 -28% 9.5 12%
F-14-AZ 13-0155.0 987 108.42 42 31.0 9/3/2010 9/30/2010 4.00 27 4.5 -11% 9.5 12%
CLRSLR-0.40 13-0158.0 988 77.00 26 35.5 9/20/2010 9/23/2010 2.50 3 4 -38%
CLRSLR-0.40 13-0158.0 989 77.00 26 35.5 9/20/2010 9/23/2010 2.25 3 4 -44%
CLRSLR-0.40 13-0158.0 990 77.00 26 35.5 9/20/2010 9/23/2010 2.75 3 4 -31%
CLRSLR-0.40 13-0158.0 991 77.00 26 35.5 9/21/2010 9/23/2010 2.50 2 4 -38%
CLRSLR-0.40 13-0158.0 992 77.00 26 35.5 9/21/2010 9/23/2010 3.50 2 4 -13%
CLRSLR-0.40 13-0158.0 993 77.00 26 35.5 9/21/2010 9/23/2010 2.25 2 4 -44%
CLRSLR-0.40 13-0158.0 994 77.00 26 35.5 9/22/2010 9/23/2010 2.00 1 4 -50%
CLRSLR-0.40 13-0158.0 995 77.00 26 35.5 9/22/2010 9/23/2010 1.75 1 4 -56%
CLRSLR-0.40 13-0158.0 996 77.00 26 35.5 9/22/2010 9/23/2010 2.00 1 4 -50%
I-17-AE 13-0160.0 997 48.00 30 19.2 9/16/2010 9/24/2010 0.75 8 1.25 -40% 9.5 46%
I-17-AE 13-0160.0 998 48.00 30 19.2 9/16/2010 9/24/2010 0.50 8 1.25 -60% 9.5 46%
I-17-AE 13-0160.0 999 48.00 30 19.2 9/16/2010 9/24/2010 0.25 8 1.25 -80% 9.5 46%
1-15 Y 13-0160.0 1000 49.50 27 22.0 9/28/2010 10/5/2010 1.00 7 1.75 -43% 9.8 50%
1-15 Y 13-0160.0 1001 49.50 27 22.0 9/28/2010 10/5/2010 0.75 7 1.75 -57% 9.8 50%
1-15 Y 13-0160.0 1002 49.50 27 22.0 9/28/2010 10/5/2010 1.25 7 1.75 -29% 9.8 50%
1311-G 1003 112.58 36 37.5 3/5/2014 4/1/2014 5.00 27 6.77 -26%
1311-G 1004 112.58 36 37.5 3/5/2014 4/1/2014 4.75 27 6.77 -30%
1311-G 1005 112.58 36 37.5 3/7/2014 4/3/2014 4.25 27 6.77 -37%
1311-G 1006 112.58 36 37.5 3/7/2014 4/1/2014 4.88 25 6.77 -28%
1311-G 1007 112.58 36 37.5 3/10/2014 4/2/2014 4.13 23 6.77 -39%
1311-G 1008 112.58 36 37.5 3/10/2014 4/2/2014 3.25 23 6.77 -52%
1311-G 1009 112.58 36 37.5 3/19/2014 4/1/2014 5.50 13 6.77 -19%
1311-G 1010 112.58 36 37.5 3/19/2014 4/1/2014 4.88 13 6.77 -28%
1311-G 1011 112.58 36 37.5 3/21/2014 4/2/2014 3.50 12 6.77 -48%
1311-G 1012 112.58 36 37.5 3/21/2014 4/2/2014 4.13 12 6.77 -39%
1311-G 1013 112.58 36 37.5 3/13/2014 4/2/2014 3.50 20 6.77 -48%
1311-G 1014 112.58 36 37.5 3/13/2014 4/1/2014 4.50 19 6.77 -34%
1311-G 1015 112.58 36 37.5 3/14/2014 4/3/2014 3.50 20 6.77 -48%
1311-G 1016 112.58 36 37.5 3/14/2014 4/3/2014 4.25 20 6.77 -37%
1311-G 1017 112.58 36 37.5 3/17/2014 4/3/2014 4.25 17 6.77 -37%
1311-G 1018 112.58 36 37.5 3/17/2014 4/1/2014 4.38 15 6.77 -35%
1311-G 1019 112.58 36 37.5 3/25/2014 4/2/2014 3.88 8 6.77 -43%
1311-G 1020 112.58 36 37.5 3/25/2014 4/3/2014 4.25 9 6.77 -37%
1311-G 1021 112.58 36 37.5 3/27/2014 4/2/2014 4.00 6 6.77 -41%
1311-G 1022 112.58 36 37.5 3/27/2014 4/3/2014 4.13 7 6.77 -39%
1311-G 1023 112.58 36 37.5 3/28/2014 4/1/2014 4.00 4 6.77 -41%
1311-G 1024 112.58 36 37.5 3/28/2014 4/2/2014 3.63 5 6.77 -46%
1311-G 1025 112.58 36 37.5 4/1/2014 4/3/2014 3.25 2 6.77 -52%
1311-G 1026 112.58 36 37.5 4/1/2014 4/2/2014 3.38 1 6.77 -50%
O-19-R 1313-A 1027 82.00 36 27.3 9/26/2013 1/17/2014 1.88 113 2.22 -15% 14.0 64%
O-19-R 1313-A 1028 82.00 36 27.3 9/24/2013 1/17/2014 1.75 115 2.22 -21% 14.2 67%
O-19-R 1313-A 1029 82.00 36 27.3 9/24/2013 1/17/2014 2.00 115 2.22 -10% 14.2 67%
O-19-R 1313-A 1030 82.00 36 27.3 9/26/2013 1/17/2014 2.13 113 2.22 -4% 14.0 64%
O-19-R 1313-A 1031 82.00 36 27.3 9/20/2013 1/17/2014 2.25 119 2.22 1% 13.9 64%
O-19-R 1313-A 1032 82.00 36 27.3 9/26/2013 1/17/2014 2.13 113 2.22 -4% 14.0 64%
O-19-R 1313-A 1033 91.00 36 30.3 10/4/2013 1/20/2014 2.50 108 2.66 -6% 13.8 62%
O-19-R 1313-A 1034 91.00 36 30.3 10/2/2013 1/20/2014 2.25 110 2.66 -15% 14.3 68%
O-19-R 1313-A 1035 91.00 36 30.3 10/4/2013 1/20/2014 2.88 108 2.66 8% 13.8 62%
O-19-R 1313-A 1036 91.00 36 30.3 10/2/2013 1/20/2014 3.00 110 2.66 13% 14.3 68%
O-19-R 1313-A 1037 91.00 36 30.3 10/4/2013 1/20/2014 2.25 108 2.66 -15% 13.8 62%
O-19-R 1313-A 1038 91.00 36 30.3 10/2/2013 1/20/2014 2.63 110 2.66 -1% 14.3 68%
O-19-R 1313-A 1039 82.00 36 27.3 9/30/2013 1/21/2014 2.25 113 2.22 1% 13.6 60%
O-19-R 1313-A 1040 82.00 36 27.3 9/20/2013 1/21/2014 2.00 123 2.22 -10% 13.9 64%
80


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
O-19-R 1313-A 1041 82.00 36 27.3 9/20/2013 1/21/2014 2.00 123 2.22 -10% 13.9 64%
O-19-R 1313-A 1042 82.00 36 27.3 9/20/2013 1/21/2014 1.88 123 2.22 -15% 13.9 64%
O-19-R 1313-A 1043 82.00 36 27.3 9/24/2013 1/21/2014 2.50 119 2.22 13% 14.2 67%
O-19-R 1313-A 1044 82.00 36 27.3 9/30/2013 1/21/2014 2.38 113 2.22 7% 13.6 60%
G-ll-G 13-5072.1 1045 132.36 48 33.1 3/14/2011 8/17/2011 6.00 156 5.625 7% 8.6 1%
G-ll-G 13-5072.1 1046 132.36 48 33.1 3/10/2011 8/17/2011 5.25 160 5.625 -7% 8.6 1%
G-ll-G 13-5072.1 1047 132.36 48 33.1 3/3/2011 8/17/2011 4.75 167 5.625 -16% 8.6 1%
G-ll-G 13-5072.1 1048 132.36 48 33.1 3/3/2011 8/17/2011 4.00 167 5.625 -29% 8.6 1%
G-ll-G 13-5072.1 1049 132.36 48 33.1 3/8/2011 8/17/2011 4.00 162 5.625 -29% 8.6 1%
G-ll-G 13-5072.1 1050 132.36 48 33.1 3/8/2011 8/17/2011 4.75 162 5.625 -16% 8.6 1%
G-ll-G 13-5072.1 1051 132.36 48 33.1 3/10/2011 8/17/2011 4.75 160 5.625 -16% 8.6 1%
G-ll-G 13-5072.1 1052 132.36 48 33.1 3/14/2011 8/17/2011 6.75 156 5.625 20% 8.6 1%
G-ll-G 13-5072.1 1053 132.36 48 33.1 3/15/2011 8/17/2011 6.00 155 5.625 7% 8.9 5%
G-ll-G 13-5072.1 1054 132.36 48 33.1 3/15/2011 8/17/2011 5.75 155 5.625 2% 8.9 5%
D-20-MB-786 13-5092.1 1055 49.00 24 24.5 3/25/2011 5/23/2011 1.50 59 1.75 -14%
D-20-MB-786 13-5092.1 1056 49.00 24 24.5 3/25/2011 5/23/2011 1.75 59 1.75 0%
D-20-MB-786 13-5092.1 1057 49.00 24 24.5 3/25/2011 5/23/2011 1.50 59 1.75 -14%
D-20-MB-786 13-5092.1 1058 49.00 24 24.5 3/23/2011 5/23/2011 1.25 61 1.75 -29%
D-20-MB-786 13-5092.1 1059 49.00 24 24.5 3/23/2011 5/23/2011 1.75 61 1.75 0%
D-20-MB-786 13-5092.1 1060 49.00 24 24.5 3/23/2011 5/23/2011 1.25 61 1.75 -29%
J-15F 13-5129.1 1061 64.91 30 26.0 7/13/2011 7/19/2011 3.00 6 2.625 14% 11.5 53%
J-15F 13-5129.1 1062 64.52 30 25.8 7/13/2011 7/19/2011 2.25 6 2.625 -14% 11.5 53%
J-15F 13-5129.1 1063 63.42 30 25.4 7/13/2011 7/19/2011 2.25 6 2.625 -14% 11.5 53%
J-15F 13-5129.1 1064 63.42 30 25.4 7/11/2011 7/19/2011 2.50 8 2.625 -5% 8.0 7%
J-15F 13-5129.1 1065 63.31 30 25.3 7/11/2011 7/19/2011 2.50 8 2.625 -5% 8.0 7%
J-15F 13-5129.1 1066 61.80 30 24.7 7/11/2011 7/19/2011 1.75 8 2.5 -30% 8.0 7%
J-15F 13-5129.1 1067 61.80 30 24.7 7/11/2011 7/19/2011 2.50 8 2.5 0% 8.0 7%
J-15F 13-5129.1 1068 64.91 30 26.0 7/12/2011 7/19/2011 4.50 7 2.625 71% 8.6 15%
J-15F 13-5129.1 1069 64.52 30 25.8 7/12/2011 7/19/2011 3.50 7 2.625 33% 8.6 15%
J-15F 13-5129.1 1070 63.96 30 25.6 7/12/2011 7/19/2011 3.25 7 2.625 24% 8.6 15%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1071 68.70 24 34.3 5/1/2012 5/11/2012 0.75 10 2.75 -73% 11.0 29%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1072 68.70 24 34.3 5/1/2012 5/11/2012 2.00 10 2.75 -27% 11.0 29%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1073 68.70 24 34.3 5/1/2012 5/11/2012 1.75 10 2.75 -36% 11.0 29%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1074 68.70 24 34.3 4/30/2012 5/11/2012 1.25 11 2.75 -55% 9.6 12%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1075 68.70 24 34.3 4/30/2012 5/11/2012 2.00 11 2.75 -27% 9.6 12%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1076 68.70 24 34.3 4/30/2012 5/11/2012 1.75 11 2.75 -36% 9.6 12%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1077 68.70 24 34.3 5/3/2012 5/11/2012 2.00 8 2.75 -27% 10.0 18%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1078 68.70 24 34.3 5/3/2012 5/11/2012 1.00 8 2.75 -64% 10.0 18%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1079 68.70 24 34.3 5/3/2012 5/11/2012 1.75 8 2.75 -36% 10.0 18%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1080 68.70 24 34.3 5/5/2012 5/11/2012 1.25 6 2.75 -55% 11.1 31%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1081 68.70 24 34.3 5/4/2012 5/11/2012 1.50 7 2.75 -45% 10.4 22%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1082 68.70 24 34.3 5/4/2012 5/11/2012 1.25 7 2.75 -55% 10.4 22%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1083 68.70 24 34.3 5/5/2012 5/11/2012 1.25 6 2.75 -55% 11.1 31%
F-19-BL 13-5261.2 1084 68.70 24 34.3 5/5/2012 5/11/2012 1.25 6 2.75 -55% 11.1 31%
L-05-E 13-5274.2 1085 123.25 46 32.2 6/12/2012 9/5/2012 4.00 85 4.75 -16% 11.1 39%
L-05-E 13-5274.2 1086 123.25 46 32.2 6/12/2012 9/5/2012 3.25 85 4.75 -32% 11.1 39%
L-05-E 13-5274.2 1087 123.25 46 32.2 6/14/2012 9/5/2012 4.00 83 4.75 -16% 9.9 23%
L-05-E 13-5274.2 1088 123.25 46 32.2 6/14/2012 9/5/2012 3.50 83 4.75 -26% 9.9 23%
L-05-E 13-5274.2 1089 123.25 46 32.2 6/6/2012 9/5/2012 4.00 91 4.75 -16% 11.6 45%
L-05-E 13-5274.2 1090 123.25 46 32.2 6/6/2012 9/5/2012 4.75 91 4.75 0% 11.6 45%
L-05-E 13-5274.2 1091 123.25 46 32.2 6/8/2012 9/5/2012 2.75 89 4.75 -42% 11.1 39%
L-05-E 13-5274.2 1092 123.25 46 32.2 6/8/2012 9/5/2012 2.00 89 4.75 -58% 11.1 39%
L-05-E 13-5274.2 1093 123.25 46 32.2 6/18/2012 9/5/2012 3.25 79 4.75 -32% 12.1 51%
L-05-E 13-5274.2 1094 123.25 46 32.2 6/18/2012 9/5/2012 2.75 79 4.75 -42% 12.1 51%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1095 60.75 30 24.3 9/13/2013 4/24/2014 1.75 223 0.86 103%
81


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1096 60.75 30 24.3 9/13/2013 4/24/2014 1.25 223 0.86 45%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1097 60.75 30 24.3 9/17/2013 4/24/2014 1.50 219 0.86 74%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1098 60.75 30 24.3 9/17/2013 4/24/2014 1.75 219 0.86 103%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1099 60.75 30 24.3 9/19/2013 4/24/2014 0.50 217 0.86 -42%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1100 60.75 30 24.3 9/23/2013 4/24/2014 1.75 213 0.86 103%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1101 60.75 30 24.3 9/25/2013 4/24/2014 1.50 211 0.86 74%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1102 60.75 30 24.3 10/1/2013 4/24/2014 1.75 205 0.86 103%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1103 60.75 30 24.3 10/3/2013 4/24/2014 1.75 203 0.86 103%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1104 94.25 30 37.7 10/7/2013 4/24/2014 3.50 199 4.13 -15%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1105 94.25 30 37.7 10/11/2013 4/24/2014 1.75 195 4.13 -58%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1106 94.25 30 37.7 10/18/2013 4/24/2014 1.75 188 4.13 -58%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1107 94.25 30 37.7 10/18/2013 4/24/2014 3.00 188 4.13 -27%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1108 94.25 30 37.7 10/18/2013 4/24/2014 3.25 188 4.13 -21%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1109 94.25 30 37.7 10/22/2013 4/24/2014 2.75 184 4.13 -33%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1110 94.25 30 37.7 10/22/2013 4/24/2014 3.50 184 4.13 -15%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1111 94.25 30 37.7 10/22/2013 4/24/2014 3.75 184 4.13 -9%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1112 94.25 30 37.7 10/24/2013 4/24/2014 4.00 182 4.13 -3%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1113 60.75 30 24.3 10/24/2013 4/24/2014 1.50 182 0.86 74%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1114 60.75 30 24.3 10/24/2013 4/24/2014 1.25 182 0.86 45%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1115 60.75 30 24.3 10/24/2013 4/24/2014 1.50 182 0.86 74%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1116 60.75 30 24.3 10/28/2013 4/24/2014 1.75 178 0.86 103%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1117 60.75 30 24.3 10/28/2013 4/24/2014 1.75 178 0.86 103%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1118 60.75 30 24.3 10/31/2013 4/24/2014 1.75 175 0.86 103%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1119 60.75 30 24.3 10/31/2013 4/24/2014 1.75 175 0.86 103%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1120 60.75 30 24.3 1/9/2014 4/24/2014 1.75 105 0.86 103%
F-17-XI 13-5451.3 1121 60.75 30 24.3 1/9/2014 4/24/2014 1.00 105 0.86 16%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1122 110.00 48 27.5 9/22/2014 12/8/2014 2.80 77 3.9 -28%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1123 110.00 48 27.5 9/22/2014 12/8/2014 2.20 77 3.9 -44%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1124 110.00 48 27.5 9/22/2014 12/8/2014 1.90 77 3.9 -51%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1125 110.00 48 27.5 9/23/2014 12/8/2014 2.10 76 3.9 -46%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1126 110.00 48 27.5 9/23/2014 12/8/2014 2.60 76 3.9 -33%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1127 110.00 48 27.5 9/23/2014 12/8/2014 2.90 76 3.9 -26%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1128 110.00 48 27.5 9/24/2014 12/8/2014 2.50 75 3.9 -36%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1129 110.00 48 27.5 3/15/2014 6/4/2014 2.70 81 3.9 -31%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1130 110.00 48 27.5 3/15/2014 6/4/2014 3.20 81 3.9 -18%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1131 110.00 48 27.5 3/16/2014 6/4/2014 2.20 80 3.9 -44%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1132 110.00 48 27.5 3/16/2014 6/4/2014 3.70 80 3.9 -5%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1133 110.00 48 27.5 3/16/2014 6/4/2014 3.60 80 3.9 -8%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1134 120.00 48 30.0 9/24/2014 12/8/2014 2.70 75 4 -33%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1135 120.00 48 30.0 9/24/2014 12/8/2014 2.30 75 4 -43%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1136 120.00 48 30.0 9/25/2014 12/8/2014 2.30 74 4 -43%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1137 120.00 48 30.0 9/25/2014 12/8/2014 2.30 74 4 -43%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1138 120.00 48 30.0 9/25/2014 12/8/2014 2.10 74 4 -48%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1139 120.00 48 30.0 9/26/2014 12/8/2014 2.20 73 4 -45%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1140 120.00 48 30.0 9/26/2014 12/8/2014 1.90 73 4 -53%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1141 120.00 48 30.0 3/17/2014 6/4/2014 2.60 79 4 -35%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1142 120.00 48 30.0 3/17/2014 6/4/2014 3.50 79 4 -13%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1143 120.00 48 30.0 3/17/2014 6/4/2014 2.20 79 4 -45%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1144 120.00 48 30.0 3/18/2014 6/4/2014 3.40 78 4 -15%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1145 120.00 48 30.0 3/18/2014 6/4/2014 2.60 78 4 -35%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1146 110.00 48 27.5 9/26/2014 12/8/2014 3.20 73 3.9 -18%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1147 110.00 48 27.5 9/26/2014 12/8/2014 3.10 73 3.9 -21%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1148 110.00 48 27.5 9/26/2014 12/8/2014 3.10 73 3.9 -21%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1149 110.00 48 27.5 9/27/2014 12/8/2014 3.10 72 3.9 -21%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1150 110.00 48 27.5 9/27/2014 12/8/2014 3.80 72 3.9 -3%
82


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1151 110.00 48 27.5 9/27/2014 12/8/2014 2.50 72 3.9 -36%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1152 110.00 48 27.5 9/28/2014 12/8/2014 2.60 71 3.9 -33%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1153 110.00 48 27.5 3/18/2014 6/4/2014 2.80 78 3.9 -28%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1154 110.00 48 27.5 3/19/2014 6/4/2014 3.50 77 3.9 -10%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1155 110.00 48 27.5 3/19/2014 6/4/2014 3.10 77 3.9 -21%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1156 110.00 48 27.5 3/19/2014 6/4/2014 3.40 77 3.9 -13%
E-17-VA 13-5503.3 1157 110.00 48 27.5 3/20/2014 6/4/2014 3.20 76 3.9 -18%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1158 92.21 54 20.5 9/2/2014 6/18/2015 0.75 289 1.54 -51%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1159 92.21 54 20.5 10/16/2014 6/18/2015 1.75 245 1.54 14%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1160 92.21 54 20.5 10/16/2014 6/18/2015 1.25 245 1.54 -19%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1161 92.21 54 20.5 10/10/2014 6/18/2015 1.50 251 1.54 -3%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1162 92.21 54 20.5 10/10/2014 6/18/2015 1.00 251 1.54 -35%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1163 92.21 54 20.5 10/14/2014 6/18/2015 1.50 247 1.54 -3%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1164 92.21 54 20.5 9/29/2014 6/18/2015 1.50 262 1.54 -3%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1165 133.75 54 29.7 12/18/2014 6/18/2015 3.00 182 5.16 -42%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1166 133.75 54 29.7 11/4/2014 6/18/2015 3.00 226 4.49 -33%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1167 133.75 54 29.7 11/4/2014 6/18/2015 4.00 226 4.49 -11%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1168 133.75 54 29.7 8/12/2014 6/18/2015 2.00 310 4.49 -55%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1169 133.75 54 29.7 8/9/2014 6/18/2015 3.25 313 4.49 -28%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1170 133.75 54 29.7 10/29/2014 6/18/2015 4.00 232 4.49 -11%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1171 133.75 54 29.7 12/18/2014 6/18/2015 3.25 182 5.16 -37%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1172 80.96 54 18.0 8/20/2014 6/18/2015 1.00 302 1.07 -7%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1173 80.96 54 18.0 8/20/2014 6/18/2015 1.00 302 1.07 -7%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1174 80.96 54 18.0 10/20/2014 6/18/2015 0.75 241 1.07 -30%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1175 80.96 54 18.0 10/20/2014 6/18/2015 0.25 241 1.07 -77%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1176 80.96 54 18.0 10/22/2014 6/18/2015 1.50 239 1.07 40%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1177 80.96 54 18.0 10/27/2014 6/18/2015 1.25 234 1.07 17%
E-17-ACS 13-5581.4 1178 80.96 54 18.0 10/27/2014 6/18/2015 0.75 234 1.07 -30%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1179 92.21 54 20.5 10/1/2014 12/12/2014 1.50 72 1.54 -3%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1180 92.21 54 20.5 10/1/2014 12/12/2014 1.50 72 1.54 -3%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1181 92.21 54 20.5 9/29/2014 12/12/2014 0.50 74 1.54 -68%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1182 92.21 54 20.5 10/14/2014 12/12/2014 1.50 59 1.54 -3%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1183 92.21 54 20.5 10/14/2014 12/12/2014 1.50 59 1.54 -3%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1184 92.21 54 20.5 10/16/2014 12/12/2014 1.25 57 1.54 -19%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1185 92.21 54 20.5 10/16/2014 12/12/2014 1.75 57 1.54 14%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1186 92.21 54 20.5 9/4/2014 12/12/2014 1.50 99 1.54 -3%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1187 92.21 54 20.5 9/2/2014 12/12/2014 0.25 101 1.54 -84%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1188 133.75 54 29.7 8/14/2014 12/12/2014 3.00 120 4.49 -33%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1189 133.75 54 29.7 8/7/2014 12/12/2014 4.00 127 4.49 -11%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1190 133.75 54 29.7 8/7/2014 12/12/2014 3.50 127 4.49 -22%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1191 133.75 54 29.7 8/14/2014 12/12/2014 2.25 120 4.49 -50%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1192 133.75 54 29.7 11/4/2014 12/12/2014 2.50 38 4.49 -44%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1193 133.75 54 29.7 10/29/2014 12/12/2014 3.00 44 4.49 -33%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1194 133.75 54 29.7 10/29/2014 12/12/2014 2.75 44 4.49 -39%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1195 133.75 54 29.7 8/12/2014 12/12/2014 2.25 122 4.49 -50%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1196 133.75 54 29.7 8/12/2014 12/12/2014 1.75 122 4.49 -61%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1197 80.96 54 18.0 8/22/2014 12/12/2014 2.00 112 1.07 87%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1198 80.96 54 18.0 8/22/2014 12/12/2014 1.75 112 1.07 64%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1199 80.96 54 18.0 10/27/2014 12/12/2014 0.25 46 1.07 -77%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1200 80.96 54 18.0 10/27/2014 12/12/2014 0.75 46 1.07 -30%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1201 80.96 54 18.0 10/22/2014 12/12/2014 0.25 51 1.07 -77%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1202 80.96 54 18.0 10/22/2014 12/12/2014 1.00 51 1.07 -7%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1203 80.96 54 18.0 10/27/2014 12/12/2014 1.00 46 1.07 -7%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1204 80.96 54 18.0 9/4/2014 12/12/2014 1.50 99 1.07 40%
E-17-ACT 13-5581.4 1205 80.96 54 18.0 9/4/2014 12/12/2014 0.75 99 1.07 -30%
83


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D L/D ^ ^ Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1206 128.00 42 36.6 5/8/2014 5/27/2014 7.50 19 8 -6% 12.6 26%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1207 128.00 42 36.6 5/8/2014 5/27/2014 7.50 19 8 -6% 12.6 26%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1208 128.00 42 36.6 5/20/2014 5/27/2014 7.00 7 8 -13% 10.8 8%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1209 128.00 42 36.6 5/20/2014 5/27/2014 7.25 7 8 -9% 10.8 8%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1210 128.00 42 36.6 5/15/2014 5/27/2014 6.00 12 8 -25% 12.2 22%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1211 128.00 42 36.6 5/15/2014 5/27/2014 7.13 12 8 -11% 12.2 22%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1212 128.00 42 36.6 5/6/2014 5/27/2014 7.50 21 8 -6% 11.6 16%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1213 128.00 42 36.6 5/6/2014 5/27/2014 6.50 21 8 -19% 11.6 16%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1214 128.00 42 36.6 5/13/2014 5/27/2014 6.38 14 8 -20% 12.3 23%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1215 128.00 42 36.6 5/13/2014 5/27/2014 6.25 14 8 -22% 12.3 23%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1216 128.00 42 36.6 5/17/2014 5/27/2014 6.88 10 8 -14% 10.8 8%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1217 128.00 42 36.6 5/17/2014 5/27/2014 5.63 10 8 -30% 10.8 8%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1218 128.00 42 36.6 7/23/2014 10/3/2014 5.38 72 8 -33% 14.1 41%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1219 128.00 42 36.6 7/23/2014 10/3/2014 5.38 72 8 -33% 14.1 41%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1220 128.00 42 36.6 7/28/2014 10/3/2014 5.50 67 8 -31% 14.2 42%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1221 128.00 42 36.6 7/28/2014 10/3/2014 5.00 67 8 -38% 14.2 42%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1222 128.00 42 36.6 8/11/2014 10/3/2014 5.25 53 8 -34% 11.9 19%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1223 128.00 42 36.6 8/11/2014 10/3/2014 5.38 53 8 -33% 11.9 19%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1224 128.00 42 36.6 8/13/2014 10/3/2014 5.00 51 8 -38% 11.7 17%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1225 128.00 42 36.6 8/13/2014 10/3/2014 6.00 51 8 -25% 11.7 17%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1226 128.00 42 36.6 8/15/2014 10/3/2014 5.00 49 8 -38% 12.2 22%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1227 128.00 42 36.6 8/15/2014 10/3/2014 5.38 49 8 -33% 12.2 22%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1228 128.00 42 36.6 8/19/2014 10/3/2014 4.50 45 8 -44% 12.2 22%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1229 128.00 42 36.6 8/19/2014 10/3/2014 4.63 45 8 -42% 12.2 22%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1230 66.00 42 18.9 7/16/2014 10/4/2014 1.00 80 1.1 -9% 13.9 39%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1231 66.00 42 18.9 7/16/2014 10/4/2014 1.50 80 1.1 36% 13.9 39%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1232 66.00 42 18.9 7/16/2014 10/4/2014 1.50 80 1.1 36% 13.9 39%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1233 66.00 42 18.9 7/16/2014 10/4/2014 1.50 80 1.1 36% 13.9 39%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1234 66.00 42 18.9 7/18/2014 10/4/2014 0.75 78 1.1 -32% 12.5 25%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1235 66.00 42 18.9 7/18/2014 10/4/2014 1.00 78 1.1 -9% 12.5 25%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1236 66.00 42 18.9 7/18/2014 10/4/2014 1.13 78 1.1 3% 12.5 25%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1237 66.00 42 18.9 7/18/2014 10/4/2014 1.13 78 1.1 3% 12.5 25%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1238 66.00 42 18.9 7/22/2014 10/4/2014 1.00 74 1.1 -9% 13.1 31%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1239 66.00 42 18.9 7/22/2014 10/4/2014 1.38 74 1.1 25% 13.1 31%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1240 66.00 42 18.9 7/22/2014 10/4/2014 1.75 74 1.1 59% 13.1 31%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1241 66.00 42 18.9 7/22/2014 10/4/2014 1.38 74 1.1 25% 13.1 31%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1242 66.00 42 18.9 5/22/2014 5/28/2014 1.00 6 1.1 -9% 12.0 20%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1243 66.00 42 18.9 5/22/2014 5/28/2014 0.50 6 1.1 -55% 12.0 20%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1244 66.00 42 18.9 5/22/2014 5/28/2014 1.00 6 1.1 -9% 12.0 20%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1245 66.00 42 18.9 5/22/2014 5/28/2014 1.00 6 1.1 -9% 12.0 20%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1246 66.00 42 18.9 5/23/2014 5/28/2014 1.00 5 1.1 -9% 11.7 17%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1247 66.00 42 18.9 5/23/2014 5/28/2014 1.13 5 1.1 3% 11.7 17%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1248 66.00 42 18.9 5/23/2014 5/28/2014 0.63 5 1.1 -43% 11.7 17%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1249 66.00 42 18.9 5/23/2014 5/28/2014 1.38 5 1.1 25% 11.7 17%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1250 66.00 42 18.9 5/24/2014 5/28/2014 1.38 4 1.1 25% 10.6 6%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1251 66.00 42 18.9 5/24/2014 5/28/2014 0.50 4 1.1 -55% 10.6 6%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1252 66.00 42 18.9 5/24/2014 5/28/2014 0.50 4 1.1 -55% 10.6 6%
F-16-YJ 1401-2 1253 66.00 42 18.9 5/24/2014 5/28/2014 1.50 4 1.1 36% 10.6 6%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1254 96.43 30 38.6 5/30/2014 6/19/2014 5.00 20 5.6 -11% 13.2 47%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1255 96.43 30 38.6 5/30/2014 6/19/2014 4.63 20 5.6 -17% 13.2 47%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1256 96.43 30 38.6 5/30/2014 6/19/2014 5.25 20 5.6 -6% 13.2 47%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1257 96.43 30 38.6 5/31/2014 6/17/2014 4.75 17 5.6 -15% 10.2 14%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1258 96.43 30 38.6 5/31/2014 6/17/2014 4.63 17 5.6 -17% 10.2 14%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1259 96.43 30 38.6 5/31/2014 6/18/2014 4.63 18 5.6 -17% 10.2 14%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1260 96.43 30 38.6 6/4/2014 6/18/2014 4.63 14 5.6 -17% 9.3 3%
84


General Information Girder Info. Casting & Shipping Information Concrete Str
Structure Fabricator Data Span L D t m Shipping Meas. Design % fc %
Number Project # Point (ft) (in) Date Camber Camber Diff (ksi) Diff
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1261 96.43 30 38.6 6/4/2014 6/18/2014 4.75 14 5.6 -15% 9.3 3%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1262 96.43 30 38.6 6/4/2014 6/17/2014 5.75 13 5.6 3% 9.3 3%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1263 96.43 30 38.6 6/9/2014 6/19/2014 5.25 10 5.6 -6% 12.4 38%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1264 96.43 30 38.6 6/9/2014 6/19/2014 4.63 10 5.6 -17% 12.4 38%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1265 96.43 30 38.6 6/9/2014 6/18/2014 5.25 9 5.6 -6% 12.4 38%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1266 96.43 30 38.6 6/10/2014 6/19/2014 4.75 9 5.6 -15% 12.0 34%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1267 96.43 30 38.6 6/10/2014 6/19/2014 4.75 9 5.6 -15% 12.0 34%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1268 96.43 30 38.6 6/10/2014 6/19/2014 5.50 9 5.6 -2% 12.0 34%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1269 96.43 30 38.6 6/5/2014 6/17/2014 4.88 12 5.6 -13% 14.1 57%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1270 96.43 30 38.6 6/6/2014 6/17/2014 4.63 11 5.6 -17% 12.5 39%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1271 96.43 30 38.6 6/6/2014 6/18/2014 4.63 12 5.6 -17% 12.5 39%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1272 96.43 30 38.6 6/6/2014 6/18/2014 5.50 12 5.6 -2% 12.5 39%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1273 96.43 30 38.6 6/12/2014 6/19/2014 4.63 7 5.6 -17% 12.0 34%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1274 96.43 30 38.6 6/12/2014 6/19/2014 4.63 7 5.6 -17% 12.0 34%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1275 96.43 30 38.6 6/12/2014 6/19/2014 5.00 7 5.6 -11% 12.0 34%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1276 96.43 30 38.6 6/5/2014 9/27/2014 4.00 114 5.6 -29% 14.1 57%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1277 96.43 30 38.6 6/5/2014 9/27/2014 5.00 114 5.6 -11% 14.1 57%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1278 96.43 30 38.6 8/25/2014 9/28/2014 6.00 34 5.6 7% 12.6 40%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1279 96.43 30 38.6 8/25/2014 9/28/2014 6.00 34 5.6 7% 12.6 40%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1280 96.43 30 38.6 8/25/2014 9/28/2014 5.63 34 5.6 1% 12.6 40%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1281 96.43 30 38.6 8/27/2014 9/28/2014 6.38 32 5.6 14% 12.9 44%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1282 96.43 30 38.6 8/27/2014 9/28/2014 5.38 32 5.6 -4% 12.9 44%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1283 96.43 30 38.6 8/27/2014 9/28/2014 4.88 32 5.6 -13% 12.9 44%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1284 96.43 30 38.6 8/29/2014 9/27/2014 5.00 29 5.6 -11% 10.2 13%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1285 96.43 30 38.6 8/29/2014 9/27/2014 4.88 29 5.6 -13% 10.2 13%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1286 96.43 30 38.6 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 4.00 30 5.6 -29% 10.2 13%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1287 96.43 30 38.6 9/3/2014 9/27/2014 5.00 24 5.6 -11% 10.3 14%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1288 96.43 30 38.6 9/3/2014 9/27/2014 4.88 24 5.6 -13% 10.3 14%
F-16-ZC 1401-3 1289 96.43 30 38.6 9/3/2014 9/27/2014 5.38 24 5.6 -4% 10.3 14%
85


Full Text

PAGE 1

DEVELOPMENT OF CAMBER MULTIPLIERS FOR PRECAST PRESTRESSED BOX GIRDERS By CODY SIMON KERAGA B.S., Purdue University, 2010 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requi rements for the degree of Master of Science Civil Engineering 2016

PAGE 2

ii 2016 CODY KERAGA ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PAGE 3

iii This thesis for the Master of Science degree by Cody Simon Keraga has been approved for the Civil Engineering Program by Chengyu Li, Chair Fredrick Rutz Kevin Rens April 2 7 2016

PAGE 4

iv Keraga, Cody Simon (M.S., Civil Engineering) Development of Camber Multipliers for Precast Prestressed Box Girders Thesis directed by Professor Chengyu Li ABSTRACT This thesis addresses the d ifference between design camber predictions using the Precast/ Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) methodology and constructed camber predictions for precast prestressed box girders. Existing bridges constructed with box girders with a range of spans, dept hs, sections, and fabricators are field measured for camber. A statistical analysis of the field data is preformed to compare design ver sus constructed camber. Revised multipliers for design are calculated based on statistical distributio ns of the field da ta. Additionally, girder s are selected from various bridges and analyzed theoretically for camber using the Tadros equation. The girders are also analyzed for consideration of the two stage pour sequence that is common in the construction of box girders in Colorado The field data cambers and theoretical cambers are compared and analyzed. Recommended multipliers and high and low multipliers are found. The multipliers are found to be lower than the PCI and Martin multipliers and are recommended to be 1.65 fo r the prestress camber and 1.70 for the self weight deflection. The Form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Chengyu Li

PAGE 5

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the help, guidance, a nd support of the university staff, professors, colleagues, and friends in the industry with whom I have worked. I would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Chengyu Li, Dr. Fredrick Rutz, and Dr. Rens for their patience through this process and for taki ng the time to thoroughly read and comment on my thesis. I would like to thank the precast girder manufacturers who provided camber data and who provided insight into their fabrication process, Dan Werner and Jim Fabinski. I owe a big thank you to Scott Huson for helping me obtain additional camber information and for the discussions on his analysis, particularly the theoretical discussions on girder aging and adjusting for it. Also thanks for attending my thesis defense! I would also like to thank my su pervisors through the years who pushed me to grow and learn, Josh Warren, Jennifer Wood, Terry Stones, and Patrick Montemerlo, and others who have supported me through the years in the consulting business.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 1.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 1.2 Research Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 2 1.3 Objective ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 3 1.4 Scope ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 4 1.5 Thesis Outline ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 4 2. Prestressed Girder Design and Construction Process ................................ ................................ .. 6 2.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 6 2.2 Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 6 2.2.1 Prestressing Strand ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7 2.2.2 Concrete ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 7 2.3 Prestressing Losses ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 2.3.1 Elastic Shortening ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 13 2.3.2 Creep ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 14 2.3.3 Shrinkage ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 16 2.3.4 Relaxation ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 17 2.4 Other Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 18 2.4.1 Temperature ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 18 2.4.2 Girder Age ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 19 2.4.3 Mild Reinforcing ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 19 2.4.4 Construction Sequence ................................ ................................ ........................... 19 2.5 Design Process ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 19 2.6 Construction Sequencing ................................ ................................ ............................... 21 3. Field and Design Camber Data ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24

PAGE 7

vii 3.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 24 3.2 Comparison ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 25 3.2.1 Camber Comparison without Ag e Correction ................................ ........................ 25 3.2.2 Camber Comparison with Age Correction ................................ ............................. 28 3.2.2.1 Ageing Coefficient Validation ................................ ................................ ............... 29 3.2.2.2 Age Adjustment ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 34 4. Statistical Analysis of Field Camber Data ................................ ................................ ................. 37 4.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 37 4.2 Statistical Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 37 4.2.1 Statistical Analysis with No Age Adjustment ................................ ........................ 37 4.2.2 Statistical Analysis with Age Adjustment ................................ .............................. 40 4.3 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 43 5. Theoretical Camber Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 44 5.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 44 5.2 Theoretical Analysis Procedure ................................ ................................ ..................... 44 5.3 Theoretical Analysis Results ................................ ................................ .......................... 45 5.4 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 47 6. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................ ................................ .......................... 48 6.1 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 48 6.1.1 Remedial Measures and Design Recommendations ................................ .............. 48 6.2 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 49 6.2.1 Material Properties ................................ ................................ ................................ 49 6.2.2 Camber Data and Reporting ................................ ................................ ................... 50 6.3 Data Issues/Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 50 6.4 Final Recommendations and Conclusions ................................ ................................ ..... 50 Notations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 51

PAGE 8

viii Bibliography ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 53 Appendix A. Sample Calculations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 55 B. Field Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 62

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table 4 1: Revised Multiplier No Age Correction ................................ ................................ ............... 40 4 2: Revised Multiplier Adjusted for Age ................................ ................................ .................. 42 5 1: Revised Multiplier Theoretical for 8 Bridges ................................ ................................ ...... 46 5 2: Revised Multiplier Theoretical ................................ ................................ ............................. 46

PAGE 10

x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2 1: Concrete Strength over Time ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8 2 2: Modulus of Elasticity versus Concrete Strength ................................ ................................ ...... 9 2 3: Co ncrete Strength versus Time ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 2 4: Concrete Strength Percent Difference ................................ ................................ .................... 11 3 1: Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction ................................ ................................ .. 26 3 2: Distribution of Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction ................................ ......... 27 3 3: Camber vs. Time using Tadros Equation ................................ ................................ ............... 30 3 4: Camber vs. Time for B 16 EV ................................ ................................ ............................... 31 3 5: Aging Coefficient ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 33 3 6: Camber versus Time Comparison of Camber Equations ................................ .................... 34 3 7: Adjusted Percent Camber Difference Corrected for Age ................................ .................... 35 3 8: Distribution of Perce nt Camber Difference Corrected for Age ................................ ........... 36 4 1: Percent Camber Difference Distribution No Age Correction ................................ .............. 38 4 2: Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction with 2 nd Standard Deviations and Average Delineations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 38 4 3: Percent Camber Difference Distribution Adjusted for Age ................................ ................ 41 4 4: Percent Camber Difference Age Adjusted with 2 nd Standard Deviations and Average Delineations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 42

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officia ls AASHTO LRFD AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CONSPAN Bentley Leap software program for precast prestressed concrete girder design LFD Load Facto r Design LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program PCI Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute ROW Right of Way ksi Kips per square inch kcf Kips per cubic foot kft Kip*Feet klf Kips per linea l foot ksf Kips per square foot ft feet in inch For a li st of variables, see Notations section at end.

PAGE 12

1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview Bridg es have evolved over the centuries from short ti mber bridges to suspension bridges like the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and cable stayed bridges like the Millau Viaduct in France. The need for bridges arose from the need to cross streams and rivers wit h people, wagons, carts and canals During those ti to span long dis tances and therefore crossings were challenging However, as trains bec ame prominent the need to span large rivers and streams drove the need for advanced bridges. With the need to cross longer spans driven by railroads, and later cars, the technology adva nced for all forms of bridge construction including steel, concrete, and timber. (Billington, 2004). Conc rete structures prior to the 1950s were restricted by the depth required to achieve longer span structures. Concrete is a ble to develop large compressi ve stress but very little tensile stress prior to failure. The use of reinforcing allowed concrete to span larger distances with less depth because steel reinforcing was able to resist tensile stresses but it was still limited compared to steel structures In the early 1900s, researchers led by Eugene Freyssinet, Gustave Magnel and Ulrich Finsterwalder, started to investigate the use of reinforcing to prestress the concrete into compression to allow concrete structures to span longer distan ces. By the 194 0s and 195 0s, prestressed concrete started to enter the mainstream. However, prestressed compete with steel bridges in regards to the depth to span ratios. By the 1990s, researchers had developed precast prestressed concrete box gir ders. The box girder was more cost effective than cast in place post tensioned box girder structures, but could not compete with the bulb tee girders. The box girder has since gained popularity due to the smaller span to depth ratio than bulb tee girders a nd shorter construction d market when building a bridge. (Billington, 2004).

PAGE 13

2 Population growth and urban density have restricted t he allowable profile raise with out requiring purchase of a nearby propert y or an expens iv e retaining wall. The box girder section has allowed bridge replacements and rehabilitations to lessen impacts to nearby properties. Box girders are typically used when placed side by side, allowing the Contractor to speed up construction w ith the elimination of formwork between girders. A major issue with box girders with their low span to depth ratios has been camber and deflection. Camber is a by product of the prestressing operation due to the eccentricity of the prestressing force with respect to the center of gravity of the concrete section. However, camber is essential for the long term serviceability of the structure. A girder with sag m ay be structurally safe but a girder exhibiting sag is typically flagged for further investigatio n into the structural integrity of the bridge. 1.2 Research Significance As pres tressed concrete beca me mainstream, multi ple applications of its use beca me prevalent. Prestressed concrete has two main forms of applications: prestressed concrete and post t ensioned concrete. Prestressed concrete is when the reinforcing is stressed prior to casting and curing the concrete. Post tensioned concrete is when the concrete is ca s t and cured before tensioning the reinforcing strands. In prestressed applications, the shape of the girder has been evolving over time. In the beginning, engineers used a similar shape as steel I beams due to the efficient use of material. However, the differences in materials between prestressed concrete and steel provided more opportuniti es to expand prestressed concrete to other sections. Today, different shapes such as I beams, box girders, slab girders, and tub girders exist. Each section has advantages and disadvantages to their use. Typically I beam sections are the most economical wh ile tub girders are the most expensive. Slab girders are the thinnest, but have a very short span range. Box girders are thinner than I beams and allow for a thinner structure dept h. Additionally, box and slab girders are used in side by side construction which allows the designer to use a

PAGE 14

3 thinner dec k (or eliminate the deck). I t allows the Contractor to use only overh ang forms for casting the deck which speeds up construction. One major challenge particularly with the box girders, is predicting the girder s camber. Predicting the girders camber is an essential part of the design process. The amount of camber a girder has affects beam seat elevations, haunch depth, roadway profile, vertical clearances, and serviceability of the bridge. Girders camber due to the eccentricity of the prestressed strands with respect to the center of gravity of the concrete section, creating an upward deflection known as camber. If a girder does not achieve enough camber, the beam seats of the bridge will be constructed too low and either the roadway profile of the approaches and bridge will need to be adjusted to minimize the amount of concrete deck re quired or the Contractor will pour an excessively thick concrete deck. If a girder has excessive camber, the beam seat s of the br idge will be constructed too high and the roadway profile of the approaches and bridge will need to be raised to allow for the proper thickness of the concrete deck. All of these changes have significant impacts to the cost of the construction of the bridg e. The research of girder camber is essential to aid in both accurately predi cting girder camber and quality production of girders. The recommendations in this study will aid designers and f abricators in calibrating calculations of camber and more accurat ely predict box girder cambers. Traditional PCI deflection multipliers were investigated for box girders and recommended values are provided. 1.3 Objective The main objective of this r esearch is to provide revised deflection multipliers for precast prestr essed box girders. Detailed objectives include: 1) Obtain camber values from box girder s constructed over the last 10 years in the state of Colorado and obtain their design and shop drawings plans (some were not found)

PAGE 15

4 2) Perform a statistical analysis of the d ata to calculate revised multipliers based on the data from the last 10 years. 3) Perform a theoretical analysis of eight girders to determine revised multipliers. 4) Compare the actual and theoretical models and provide recommendations on revised multipliers. 1 .4 Scope The scope of this study consists of using both a probabilistic statistical based analysis of actual cambers and a theoretical analysis to determine the PCI deflection multipliers. 1.5 Thesis Outline The contents of this thesis are briefly outlin ed below: Chapter 2 : presents a literature review of existing research on the variables, process, and formulas for box girder design and camber prediction and their behavior. Chapter 3 : provides details of the field data including the fabricators, bridges, and other information obtained and used. Additionally, this chapter includes information on outliers, a comparison of the field and design data, and discusses reasons for the differences. Chapter 4 : provides and outlines details of the statistical analysi s of the field data, providing summary tables of the results and recommendations of modifications to the PCI multipliers based on the field data. Chapter 5 : presents the the oretical analysis applied to eight girders used in the field data analysis, the pro cess used in the theoretical analysis, and a summary of the results including recommendations of modifications to the PCI multipliers based on the theoretical analysis. Chapter 6 : presents the study conclusions, recommendations based on both the field data and theoretical analysis, and opportunities for further research. References Appendix A: Sample Calculations

PAGE 16

5 Appendix B: Field Data

PAGE 17

6 2. P RESTRESSED G IRDER D ESIGN AND C ONSTRUCTION P ROCESS 2.1 Overview A prestressed concrete box girder is a square or re ctangular section with a square or rectangular void in the center. In Colorado, fabricators use a two stage construction sequence. T he prestressing strands and bottom slab mild reinforcing are placed into the prestressing bed. The bottom slab of the box gi rder is placed and the polystyrene void form is set onto the wet concrete. The bottom slab is allowed to cure for a short period to prevent the polystyrene void form from shifting during placemen t of the sides and top. T he sides and top slab mild reinforci ng are then placed and the remaining portions of the box are poured. The box is then steam cured ci ) is achieved. The strands are then cut and the girders are removed from the beds and set on site to further cure until c ) is achieved and the girders are shipped to the site. During the construction process, multiple variables are introduced that affect the girder camber. Some of these variables are considered during design and others are in significant to the camber effects and therefore ignored during the design process. A box girder is typically designed using standard prestressed concrete design which calculates the requir ed amount of strand area at an eccentricity to provide the necessary strength, meet allowable stresses in the concrete, and meet cambe r and deflection requirements. The variables that affect box girder design, construction, and camber are discussed in this chapter. 2.2 Materials The two major materials used in prestressed concrete are prestressing strand and concrete.

PAGE 18

7 2.2.1 Prestressing Strand There are two main types of prestressing strands used in the industry today: low relaxation strand and stress relieved strand. Low relaxation s trand is more common in the United States as low relaxation strands typically have less prestressing losses than stress relieved strand. Low relaxation strands are made by tensioning and de tensioning multiple times prior to placing in service therefore removing additional losses. S trands a re made up of multiple wires that are intertwined and act as a single strand. The modulus of elasticity for prestressing strand is similar to reinforcing steel. Steel properties typically have a well defined modulus of elasticity as the data contains smal l standard deviations. For design purposes, the modulus of elasticity for prestressing strand is approximated as 28,500 ksi as defined in AASHTO LRFD The typical yield strength of prestressing strand is 270 ksi in the United States. 2.2.2 Concrete Concret e is a building material made of a mixture of materials that is poured into forms and hardens into a stone like mass. Concrete is made of cement, water, aggregate and optional admixtures. The strength of the concrete is based on various variables such as r atio of cement, water and aggregate and type of aggregate used. For prestressed girders, a high performance cement and concrete mix is used to obtain high strength concrete. ASTM uses multiple methods to classify cement types depending on the characteristi cs and are classified in sections C150, C595 and C1157. ASTM C150 classifies Portland cement into types I through IV. Type III and Type IIIA are high early strength concretes, with and without air e ntrainment, respectively. Even though Type III cements are high early strength, typical precast prestressed concrete will use Type I, II or II A The type used is dependent on factors such as schedule, cost, element use (bridge versus building) among others. ASTM C1157 classifies hydraulic cement s into letter code s GU, HE, MS, HS, MH, and LH. Types GU, MS, and HS are typically used in precast

PAGE 19

8 prestressed concrete for similar reasons as the Portland cements ASTM C595 classifies Blended Hydraulic cement s into letter codes IL, IS, IP and IT (PCI Design Handbook, CDO T Construction Specifications) Prestressed girder concrete varies depending on the design and the maximum allowed concrete strength by the owner. A maximum design concrete strength can vary from 8 ksi to 10 ksi typically. As the data used in the statistic al camber analysis shows, actual concrete str engths can be in excess of 13 ksi. (PCI Design Handbook CDOT Construction Specifications ) Due to the curing process of concrete, the concrete strength varies from the time it is placed until the time it is rem oved from service. Figure 2 1 below shows a graph of concrete strength over time for the different types of cement for the standard ASTM C150 cement types For high strength concrete used in precast prestressed girders, the trend is similar to those shown in the figure below but reaches a higher compressive strength in a shorter duration. Figure 2 1 : Concrete Strength over Time ( Used with permission from PCI Design Handbook 7 th Edition ) As shown in the graph from the PCI Design Handbook 7 th Edition the strength tends to start to peak after 30 to 40 days for regular concrete This variable strength affects the girder

PAGE 20

9 camber as the strength is proportional to the modulus of elasticity of the concrete which is used to calculate the camber. As shown in Figu re 2 2 from NCHRP Report 496 which shows the relationship between concrete strength and modulus of elasticity, the data shows a small upward trend, but fitting an equation to the trend is difficult Figure 2 2: Modulus of Elasticity versus Concrete Str ength ( Used with permission from NCHRP Report 496, 2003 ) The equation used to calculate the modulus of elasticity has been researched and tested heavily in the past For the purposes of this study it is assumed the designer is using the AASHTO LRFD code equation for calculating modulus of elasticity. The equation as given in AASHTO LRFD 5.4.2.4 is: where, K 1 = a correction f actor for aggregate properties; w c = the unit weight of the concrete, kcf; E C = modulus o f elasticity, ksi; (Eq. 2 1)

PAGE 21

10 c = the concrete compressive strength ksi. The correction factor K 1 comes from the recommendations of NCHRP Report 496. However, rarely is the data available to the designer to incorporate the K 1 factor into design and is therefore a ssumed to be equal to 1.0 The assumption of the designer using the AASHTO LRFD equation, as shown in NCHRP Report 496 and othe r research has been shown to predict a lower modulus of elasticity than actual for use in deflection and camber calculations H o wever, the intent of this study is to determine new camber multipliers for designers. As prestressed girders are typically used in bridge design where AASHTO LRFD code is applicable, it is assumed the designer is using the equation above. Any error in the calculation of the modulus of elasticity is intended to be accounted for in the new camber multipliers. When compiling the camber data, the actual concrete strength of the girder was obtained if available. Not only is the relationship between concrete str ength and modulus of elasticity difficult to predict but the actual concrete strength can be drastic ally different than the design or theoretical concrete strength. If the concrete strength data is plotted versus time, assuming that the time of the concre te strength test is the same time as the age of the girder obtained, the following Figure 2 3 is obtained. All data past 90 days is not plotted in Figure 2 3. The assumption above is not significant for the purposes of this plot as the time is a way of dis tinguishing the strength data for plotting. As shown in Figure 2 3, all of the data obtained has concrete strengths equal to or above 8 ksi with the majority of the data above 10 ksi. The maximum concrete strength allowed to be specified in Colorado is 10 ksi, resulting in a large over strength of the concrete compared to the design concrete strength. Figure 2 4 below is the concrete strength percent difference versus span to depth ratio.

PAGE 22

11 Figure 2 3 : Concrete Strength versus Time Figure 2 4 : Concrete St rength Percent Difference 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Concrete Strength (Ksi) Time, t (Days) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17.0 22.0 27.0 32.0 37.0 42.0 Concrete Stremgth % Difference Span Length / Girder Depth

PAGE 23

12 As shown in Figure 2 4 the concrete strength varies from 8% higher to a little over 14%. As the concrete strength increases, the modulus of elasticity increases, resulting in lower camber. However, using a lower concrete strength both for release and for final allows the fabricator to more effectively and efficiently produce girders reducing costs and construction time If a lower release concrete strength is specified, the fabricator can remove it from the bed earlier, allowing the next girder to be fabricator sooner. Additionally, a lower specified design concrete strength de creases strength 2.3 Prestressing Losses Prestress losses stem from mu ltiple source s and are calculated by different methods. With the intent of this study, it is assumed that the designer is using an allowable method per AASHTO LRFD. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the refined method is used and is shown in the following losses discussion. The prestress losses considered are elastic shortening, concrete creep, concrete shrinkage, and strand relaxation. The total losses may be computed by calculating the sum of each individual loss as expressed by the follo wing equation: where, f pT = total loss, ksi; pLT = loss due to long term shrinkage, creep, and relaxation, ksi; pES = loss du e to elastic shortening, ksi; pSR = loss due to shrinkage of girder between transfer and deck placement ksi; pCR = loss due to creep of girder concrete between transfer and deck placement ksi; pR 1 = loss due to re laxation of strands between transfe r and deck placement ksi; (Eq. 2 2)

PAGE 24

13 pSD = loss due to shrinkage of girder after deck placement, ksi; pCD = loss due to creep of girder concrete after deck placement, ksi; pR2 = loss due to relaxation of strands after deck placement, ksi; pSS = gains due to shrinkage of deck in composite section, ksi. This equation is a combination of equations from AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5.1 and 5.9.5.4.1. The refined method as described in the below equations for calculating prestress losses is based on the recommendations of NCH RP Report 496 (Tadros et al.). However, additional research since AASHTO LRFD updated their prestress loss calculations based on the NCHRP report has shown there is still a difference between actual prestress losses and calculated. Multiple research projec ts have previously determined that AASHTO LRFD overestimated total prestress losses approximately 10 percent to 98 percent. (Hinkle 2006). However, the research does show that the initial (time of release to time of deck placement) prestress losses calcula ted by AASHTO LRFD are typically within 7 percent of the measured losses. (Shams and Kahn 2000). 2.3.1 Elastic Shortening Elastic shortening is losses due to the shortening of the girder due to the prestressing force. As the concrete girder short ens, the strands shorten at the same time resulting in loss of prestressing force The e quation for the loss in stress due to elastic shortening given in AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5.2.3a is: where, E p = the modulus of elasticity o f the prestressing strand ksi ; E ct = the modulus of elasticity of the concrete at transfer/release ksi ; (Eq. 2 3)

PAGE 25

14 f cgp = the concrete stress at the center of gravity of the prestressing strands due to the prestressing force immediately after transfer and the self weight of the member at the section of maximum moment ksi. As shown, the elastic shortening is affected by the moduli of the materials and the compression stress in the concrete. The modulus of elasticity of the concrete is a large factor in the actual el astic shortening achieved. Additionally, t he amount of elastic shortening the girder obtains has a large effect on the girders camber. The more the girder shrinks the more camber the girder will achieve; therefore, a nything that restricts the girders elas tic shortening restri ct s the gir ders camber. An example is the mild reinforcing present in precast prestressed girders. Also, the compressive stress in the concrete affects the creep losses and as described above, the stress used in the calculation is the compression stress at midspan at the center of gravity of the strands. The compression stress varies both at the section considered and along the length of the girder, which affects the amount of creep in the girder. 2.3.2 Creep Creep is the shortening of the girder over time due to the prestressing compression force. The equations for the loss in stress due to creep given in AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5.4.2b and 5.9.5.4.3b are: (Eq. 2 4) (Eq. 2 5) (Eq. 2 6) (Eq. 2 7) (Eq. 2 8)

PAGE 26

15 (Eq. 2 9) (Eq. 2 10) (Eq. 2 11) (Eq. 2 12) where, A ps = area of prestressing strand, in 2 ; A g = gross area of girder, in 2 ; A c = area of composite section, in 2 ; e pg = eccentricity of prestressing force with respect to centroid of girder, in; e pc = eccentricity of prestressing force with respect to centroid of co mposite section, in; H = relative humidity, %; I g = gross moment of inertia of girder, in 4 ; I c = moment of inertia of composite section, in 4 ; K id = transformed section coefficient that account for time dependent interaction between concrete and bonded stee l in the section being considered for time period between transfer and deck placement; K df = transformed section coefficient that accounts for time dependent interaction between concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time period betw een deck placement and final time; k f = factor for the effect of concrete strength; k hc = humidity factor for creep; k s = factor for the effect of the volume to surface ratio of the component. k td = time development factor;

PAGE 27

16 t f = final age, days; t d = age a t deck placement, days; t i = age at transfer, days; V/S = volume to surface ratio in; = girder creep coefficient. As shown in the equations above, calculating creep is difficult due to the various factors that affect the amount of creep in a girder. Add itionally, mild reinforcing placed in the girder can resist creep and result in loss of camber. A ll of these variables can either vary over time or vary by girder. As stated in the elastic shortening section, the compressive stress in the concrete affects the creep losses. The compression stress varies both at the section considered and along the length of the girder, which affects the amount of creep in the girder. 2.3.3 Shrinkage Shrinkage is the shortening of the girder over time due to the continual ch emical reaction of the cement and water and evaporation of water over time reducing the water content of the concrete. The equations for the loss in stress due to shrinkage given in AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5.4.2a and 5.9.5.4.3a are: (Eq. 2 13) (Eq. 2 14) (Eq. 2 15) (Eq. 2 16) where, bid = concrete shrinkage strain of girder betwee n time of transfer and deck placement ; bdf = concrete shrinkage strain of girder after deck placement ; k hs = humidity factor for shrinkage.

PAGE 28

17 Shrinkage is also difficult to calculate as it is dependent on the s ame variables as creep and both are dependent o n each other leading to an iterative process in the calculations of each Most methods to calculate creep and shrinkage losses assume the calculations can be independently calculated. Additional shrinkage is caused by creep due to the shortening of the gir der resulting in water loss. Shrinkage can also be resisted by mild reinforcing placed in the girder and results in less camber. Additional shrinkage in the girders can occur due to shrinkage in the deck after deck placement. As this shrinkage occurs at a later time and is eccentric with respect to the it typically results in a gain of prestressing which adds additional camber It is common in industry that the designer may calculate or ignore the deck shrinkage based on prefer ence, judgment and/or owner requirements. This gain in prestressing force can be mitigated with mild reinforcing in the deck. The equations for the gain in stress due to deck shrinkage given in AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5.4.d are: (Eq. 2 17) (Eq. 2 18) where, ddf = concrete shrinkage s train of girder after deck placement; A d = area of deck concrete, in 2 ; E cd = modulus of elasticity of deck concrete, ksi; e d = eccentricity of deck with respect to the gross composite section, in. 2.3.4 Relaxation Relaxation, as previou sly mentioned, is th e elongation of the prestressing strands over time due to the prestressing force The equations for the loss in stress due to relaxation given in AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5.4.2c and 5.9.5.4.3c are:

PAGE 29

18 (Eq. 2 19) (Eq. 2 20) where, f pt = stress in prestressing strands immediately after transfer, ksi; f py = yield stress of prestressing strands, ksi; K L = 30 for low relaxa tion strands and 7 for other prestressing steel. 2.4 Other Variables Other variables that affect camber are air temperature, girder temperature, girder age, mild reinforcing, and construction sequencing that are described below 2.4.1 Temperature Air tem perature and solar radiation affe cts camber due to the effect of temperature differential and girder expansion and contraction. In a previous study by Hinkle, he measured the camber of girders after fabrication and prior to erection throughout the day. He found that girders exhibited up to a inch change in deflection over the day. The amount of change in camber was dependent on the amount of sun exposure and the amount of change in ambient temperature over the day. He also found that girder s cast in the w inter and spring tended to camber more than those cast in the summer. This is due to the higher temperature causing faster curing and evaporation of water, resulting in less time for the girder to camber. (Hinkle 2006). I n Colorado, air temperatures can v ary significantly throughout the day and solar radiation intensified by elevation can provide significant temperature gradients into girders which affect the camber in the girder. Additionally, recent research has also shown that the orientation of the gir der during curing at the fabrication plant affects camber as the girder will not be heated on all sides evenly resulting in a temperature differential within the girder (Nguyen, et al 2015).

PAGE 30

19 2.4.2 Girder Age The age of the girder affects camber due to the material properties of the steel and concrete and the prestress losses. Standard design parameters calculate an erection camber at 60 days and final cambers at 90 days. The PCI multiplier method matches these time lengths based on the report by Martin (Ma rtin 1977) Agencies typically restrict setting girders prior to 60 days to allow the girders enough time to achieve the predicted camber. However, actual erections may be sooner than designed for due to significant schedule deadlines and design build proc urement 2.4.3 Mild Reinforcing Mild reinforcing in the girder decreases the camber as it restricts shorte ning of the concrete girder from elastic shortening, cr eep, and shrinkage. A designer typically does not modify the equati ons in AASHTO to account for this decrease in camber due to mild reinforcing. 2.4.4 Construction Sequence The construction sequence affects camber due to the effect of all of the items previously menti oned See S ection 2.6 below for additional construction sequencing information. 2.5 Design Process A prestressed girder is designed using a multiple step process as generally described below. It should be noted this is a general process and e ach design is different The loads on the girder s are calculated bas ed on the section and length of the bridge. Typical design will analyze an interior girder and an exterior girder designed for both flexure and shear demands and deflection limits since loads can vary between girders The loads are affected by the configur ation used. For Colorado box girders, they are typically used in a side by side configuration with a cast in place concrete topping (deck) with a waterproofing mem brane and asphalt wearing surface The deck acts as a composite slab to distribute loads to t he girders.

PAGE 31

20 Dead loads are considered to be composite or non composite loads depending on when the load is applied and the configuration of the girders The self weight of the girder and deck are examples of non composite loads as they are applied prior t o the deck being placed and cured. Barrier and asphalt are examples of composite loads as they are typically applied after the dec k is cured if the deck is composite Non composite loads are distributed based on tributary area and composite loads are distr ibuted equally to all girders (at designer and owner preferences) Live loads are considered to be a composite load when a deck or sufficiently strong shear keys between girders are used. However, live load cannot be applied equally to all beams due to th e transient nature of the live load. AASHTO LRFD has multiple methods to calculate the live load distribution factor to be used in design. With typical girders, the AASHTO LRFD equations in Section 4.6.2.2 of the code are applicable and appropriate. Howeve r, for side by side box girders with a topp ing, it has been found in the industry that they can be overly conservative. Current industry practice is to use a refined method analysis such as a grillage model to determine the live load distribution factor fo r side by side box girders with a deck The next step is to calculate the prestressing force and strand pattern required to meet strength requi rements for flexure and concrete stress requirements. In Colorado the designer need only consider stresses at r elease and final. It is the responsibility of the girder manu facturer and Contractor to design and consider stress es during lifting, shipping and erection. Other states require the designer to consider all operations during design. To limit stresses at the top of the girder at release, the strands may be harped or de bonded. Harped strands are strands that shift up in the girder at the girder ends. De bonding is placing sleeves around the strands to prevent bonding between the strand and the concrete. In C o lorado, harped strands are typically not used in box girders and only de bonded strands are allowed due to local manufacturer limitations. Additionally, m ild reinforcing at the top of the girder can be added to increase the stress limit of the concrete per AASHTO LRFD code (if allowed by the owner)

PAGE 32

21 During the process of prestressing design the girder camber and deflections are calculated The camber is calculated at release, deck placement (considered to be 60 days after release ), and at final (consider ed to be 90 days after release ).There are multiple methods of calculating camber including the PCI multiplier method, the Tadros equation, or finite element analysis The method typically used by designers is the PCI multiplier method. The PCI multiplier m ethod calculate s the instantaneous upward deflection of the girder and the downward deflection of the girder due to self weight. The net deflection upward, or camber, is the release camber. To calculate the camber at 60 and 90 days, multiplication factors are used to multiply th e deflection calculations. At time of deck placement the deflection due to the deck and other loads are calculated. The final camber is calculated by using a multiplication factor on the initial camber and deflection values. PCI obt ained the multipliers from a report by Leslie Martin in 1977 (Martin, 1977). It is common practice that the estimated final deflection and camber be even or upward A downward final camber is typically not desirable by the designer or owner and is conside red to be a sag situation A sag is not desirable as a sag in prestressed concrete girders is used as a warning for potential failure of the girder. Once the prestressing is determined, the girder is designed for shear confinement, and anchorage using mi ld reinforcing The girder spacing and size are adjusted unt il a design meeting strength, deflection and stress requirements is determined 2.6 Construction Sequencing The construction sequencing affects the prestress losses and girder camber. A typical p restressed girder is constructed in girder forms at fabricator plants with the proper forms and jacking capabilities The construction sequence of a typical girder is to place the prestressing strands and mild reinforcing in the forms. Then stress the pres tressing strands and pour the

PAGE 33

22 concrete. Once the concrete has reached a minimum concrete strength determined by the designer, the prestressing strands are released. In Colorado for prestressed box girders, this sequence is modified due to difficulties in previous methods For box girders, a polystyrene void form is used to blockout the interior of the girder to obtain the box section. During construction of a box girder using previous methods the polystyrene is placed with the mild reinforcing and additio nal mild reinforcing or hold downs are box girders in a single pour resulting in multiple girder flaws such as the void form shifting to either side resultin g in the stirrups having no or insufficient clearance. Another construction flaw resulted in the polystyrene floating in the wet concrete and resulting in the mild reinforcing at the top having no or insufficient clearance. Therefore, Colorado manufacturer s typically pour box girders in a two step process. The two step process starts with placing the bottom flange mild rei nforcing and strands in the form. The bottom flange concrete is then poured and the polystyrene void form is placed on top of the wet con crete. The concrete is allowed to partially cure, holding the polystyrene in place. The side and top mild reinforcing is then pl aced and the remaining portions are poured. The strands are not released until after the sides and top flange have reached the s pecified minimum release concrete strength. Based on discussions with Plum Creek (Werner 2016), the bottom slab is allowed to cure for a maximum 4 to 5 hours. When the second pour occurs, the bottom slab concrete is still workable. This allows the fabricat or to vibrate the concrete between the two pours preventing a cold joint from forming. If a cold joint does form, the fabricator has to check the joint for interface shear per AASHTO LRFD similar to interface shear between the top of the girder and the dec k. Typically, a inch amplitude is required for interface shear (as provided on the top of the girder) to obtain the horizontal interface shear capacity. A inch amplitude is used to

PAGE 34

23 increase the interface shear capacity based on AASHTO LRFD equations. T he AASHTO LRFD equations are based on multiple research studies and reports. Th e two step process results in less camber than predicted due to the differential conc rete strengths in the girder which results in a higher concrete strength of the bottom flan ge at release than specified. The higher strength results in a higher modulus of elasticity which results in less camber. Further information is provided in the the oretical analysis of eight girder s analyzing the two stage pour in Chapter 5

PAGE 35

24 3. F IELD AND D ESIGN C AMBER D ATA 3.1 Overview F ield data was obtained from girder s cast in Colorado over the past 10 years total 1289 girders after removing any as described further in this study Any girders that were cast prior to 10 years ago were removed from cons ideration due to the changes in technology and construction procedures for girders. Research also included finding any as built drawings for the girders to determine strand pattern, girder properties, strand properties, jacking force, design losses, concre te properties, and predicted camber to aid in further evaluation of camber. Not all as built drawings were found for all the girders and bridges in the list ; totaling 157 camber measurements (about 12% of the data set) I nformation on tested concrete stren gth was found during the research and is included in the full data set and is discussed in Chapter 2. The data set includes the measured camber at the time of shipping (or more accurately, the date the girder camber was measured, if known) and varies from girder to girder As previously mentioned, the girder camber varies over time and further analysis will need to be consider ed See the next chapter for further discussion. The girders range in length and span to depth ratios and are from two local fabrica tors: EnCon Colorado and Plum Creek Structures Both fabricat ors are located in the Denver metro area Rocky Mountain Prestress also casts precast prestressed box girders, but no camber data was found o n girders cast by them. The bridges in the list vary in location in Colorado from the Front Range to the High Country, but the majority is located in the Denver metro area. The majority is owned by the State of Colorado, but some are owned by local agencies. The list of girder s and bridges was reduced to 128 9 girders after outliers were found in the data. A couple of bridges had cambers in excess of 3 times the predicted camber and were considered to be outliers. It is assumed there was an error during construction or design that

PAGE 36

25 produced such a large differe nce. As built plans were not found for these structures to confirm this assumption and therefore were removed from the data. The original data set was obtained from Scott Huson at the Colorado Department of Trans portation (CDOT) Staff Bridge Branch (Huson Personal Communications, 2014 and 2015) The data was originally used in a statistical analysis to update the CDOT policy on estimating girder camber during design and how to account for varia ble camber in the design of a bridge. This study performs a si milar statistical analysis (with differences as noted in the next section) and comes to similar conclusion s but includes further analysis to recommend revised multipliers. Additionally, the data set was updated to remove outliers, as previously mentioned, and to add additional data found based on as built plans and cambers. The original data set contained 638 data points for box girders, but now contains 1289 data points. 3.2 Comparison To compare the design and field cambers, a percent difference from th e design camber was calculated for each gird er and plotted against the span to depth ratio. The span length used for the span to depth ratio is the distance from centerline of abutment or pier to centerline of abutment or pier. Two scenarios were considere d and compared : the girder camber at the day measured with no correct ion for age of the girder and the adjusted field camber which is the camber adjusted to a predetermined girder age 3.2.1 Camber Comparison with out Age Correction The first comparison of the data compares the data without correction for the age of the gird er. This comparison was performed because the calculations to adjust all girders to the same age inherently have the same errors and variability as the original design camber calculations Additionally, the PCI multiplier method and the design camber given in the plans are for 60 day old girders, which is considered to be the day of the deck pour. However, as the data shows, the age at which the girders are made composite with a deck varie s anywhere from less than a week

PAGE 37

26 screed depths of the deck to account for the girder camber when the deck is poured at time ot her than 60 day s However, s etting the girders earlier or later than 60 days has similar results as the actual and theoretical camber is different Therefore, comparing the data without adjusting the age will inherently include the variability in the age of the girder at the time of the deck pour. Figure 3 1 below shows the data with no correction or adjustment for girder age. Figure 3 1: Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction The maximum pe rcent difference in camber is 103 5 % and the minimum per cent difference in camber is 85 7 %. For the purposes of this analysis, a positive percent difference represents over camber in the actual girder when compared to the design camber and a negative percent difference represents under camber in the actual girder when compared to the desig n camber. F igure 3 2 below shows the distribution of the data points within 5% difference interval s -100.0% -75.0% -50.0% -25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% 125.0% 7.0 12.0 17.0 22.0 27.0 32.0 37.0 42.0 Camber % Difference Span Length / Girder Depth

PAGE 38

27 The a verage percent difference is 12.4 %. The large difference between maximum and minimum shows how difficult camber is to predict. The graph and average shows the tendency for box girders to under camber and not reach the predicted design camber. This is from a combination of factors as di scussed in the previous chapters. As seen in the figures, the trend does show over camber in girders and the previous c hapters discussed factors that affect camber and how they relate to the actual camber, but the discussion focused on how they tended to reduce the camber. Figure 3 2: Distribution of Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction The data above supports t he conclusion that box girders in Colorado tend to under camber but they do not always under camber. The main factors that contribute to girders over cambering are over estimation of prestress losses, effects of temperature including solar radiation, age o and over estimation of the modulus of elasticity of concrete. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Frequency % Camber Difference

PAGE 39

28 3.2.2 Camber Comparison with Age Correction The previous comparison of predicted versus actual camber measurements did n ot include any adjustment for age of the girder at the time of the actual measurement. The field data has measurements taken at girder ages less than a week and older than a year. As mentioned, attempting to adjust the measured cambers to a consistent age has the same variables as the originally predicted camber value. Additionally, only one measurement in time was obtained which adds additional complexity to the equations to adjust the actual camber to a consistent age. To adjust the field camber data to a consistent age of 60 days to attempt to better compare to the PCI multiplier predicted camber, the equation below can be used ( Tadros et al 2011) (Eq. 3 1) (Eq. 3 2) where, lte = camber at time of deck placement (60 days), in; ip = camber due to prestressing force at release, in; is w = deflection due to self weight at release, in; el loss = deflection due to prestress losses between release and deck placement, in; = creep coefficient as defined in section 2.3.2 of the AASHTO LRFD specifications ; f lt = total losses from release to time of deck placement, ksi; f pi = initial tensioning stress of strands ( typically 202.5 ksi for 270 k si strands), ksi. For the s e equation s information from the design of the girders is needed such as the prestress loss es and girder shape to calculate the equation s above. To adjust the actual camber, the initial actual camber is needed, but was not obtai ned. Additionally, not all as builts were obtained which would provide the information needed to calculate the equation s above. Lastly, to calculate the camber at 60 days, the equations above have to be used to calculate the initial camber and then used ag ain to calculate the camber at 60 days. For example, if the actual camber

PAGE 40

29 was measured at an age of 20 days, the first step is to use the equation above to calculate the ip isw ). The second step is to then use the initial camber in the equations above to calculate the camber at 60 days. Scott Huson, in his analysis, ran into a similar issue when performing a statistical analysis of the data. In a presentation on May 15, 2014 (Huson May, 2014) Scott proposed modifying the equation abov e to the equation below. where, t m = time between release and camber measurement days The proposed modification is based on analysis for a B ulb T ee girder bridge and Box girder bridge where t he prestress losses were cal culated over time. A n aging coefficient was calculated a nd plotted over time The result was finding that t he curve of the aging coefficient was similar to 0.7t m 0.118 These results are similar to past research by AASHTO and Tadros The 0.7 c omes from research performed by Tadros and is considered to be the aging coefficient for the creep coefficient (Tadros, 2011). The t m 0.118 factor comes from AASHTO LRFD equations for the creep (as described previously). Prio r to using the above equat ion, eight bridges were selected to duplicate the results to verify the validity of the equation 3.2.2.1 Ageing Coefficient Validation Losses were calculated for eight girders based on the as built pl ans and shop drawings between time of release and time of deck placement using the refined method and the equations described in previous sections. An example calculation of the losses and camber is included in Appendix A Figure 3 3 below shows the variation of camber over time using T adros equation for the eight girders (Eq. 3 3 )

PAGE 41

30 Figure 3 3: Camber vs. Time using Tadros Equation The figur e above shows that all eight girders have a similar trend but have different initial cambers due to the different prestressing eccentricity, prestressing force, and girder length The figure ab ove also shows how all eight girders have minimal camber growth beyond 60 days. The calculations to obtain the figure above used Tadros equation except with one modification for the intended use of this report. The calculations for losses an d the creep coefficient assume that the time ( t ) is the time of the deck placement. The camber data obtained was typically the shipping camber measurement and therefore, deck placement followed shortly after. Figure 3 4 below shows the change in the curve when modifying the time of deck placement for Structure B 16 EV. 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Camber (in) Time, t (Days) E-17-ACR B-16-EV F-16-EW L-22-CO D-16-DR I-15-Y E-17-VA F-16-ZC

PAGE 42

31 Figure 3 4: Camber vs. Time for B 16 EV The Baseline is the same curve for Structure B 16 EV as in Figure 3 3 The CONSPAN line is the estimate camber from CONSPAN based on the PCI multipli ers. This figure shows that the earlier the deck is poured, the more camber the girder obtains. However, the curves are technically not applicable after the day the deck is poured because additional losses (additional concrete creep, concrete shrinkage, an d strand relaxation) occur from the time of the deck pour to an arbitrary end time, which is not accounted for in Figure 3 4 as applicable from time of transfer until time of deck placement. To obtain the modified equation, an agi ng coefficient needs to be calcu lated and plotted. To calculate the aging coefficient, a time of deck placement must be assumed. As the camber measurements are being adjusted to the time of 60 days, which is based on the assumption that the majority of the camber is obtained by 60 days, the time of 60 days will be assumed for time of 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Camber (in) Time, t (Days) Baseline td = 7 td = 14 td = 28 td = 60 td = 90 Multiplier

PAGE 43

32 deck placement. Five points in time other than 60 days were chosen: 7, 14, 28, 90 and 120 days. At each time, the Tadros equation was modified by inserting an aging coefficient to replace the loss calculations in the location of the modifier shown in the equation above (and the variable shown in the equation below) where, AC = Aging Coefficient. The camber values for each time calculated by the Tadros equation were inserted into the equation resulting in two equations as shown below. where, lte_t = the calculated camber at time t (where t is equal to 7, 14, 28, 90 or 12 0 days ); lte_60 = the calculated camber at time of 60 days; i = the initial measured camber at release in ; t = the creep coefficient at time t (where t is equal to 7, 14, 28, 90 or 120 days ); 60 = the creep coefficient at time of 60 days; AC = the agi ng coefficient. To solve the two equations, the initial measured camber at release is the only unknown and is equal in both equations. Therefore, the initial measured cambers are set equal and the resulting equation solved for the aging coefficient, resul ting in the equation below. Figure 3 4 below is the resulting plot for each of the eight structures. (Eq. 3 4) (Eq. 3 5) (Eq. 3 6) (Eq. 3 7)

PAGE 44

33 Figure 3 5: Aging Coefficient The figure also shows the power trend line for the maximum, minimum and approximate middle structure aging coefficient. Additionally, the 0.7*t m 0.118 factor which is the proposed aging coefficient, is graphed and tends to be near the minimum end of the graph. As a comparison, the modified camber equation was used to re calculate the cambers for each structure and was graphed in Figure 3 6 below along with the original camber calculations. The modified equation is a similar trend to the Tadros equation and tends to be towards the minimum end of the graph Based on this in formation, the modified Tadros equation will be used to adjust the camber values to the time of 60 days. y = 0.8346x 0.118 R = 0.9966 y = 0.8996x 0.082 R = 0.9957 y = 0.8098x 0.175 R = 0.9954 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Aging Coefficient Time, t (Days) E-17-ACR B-16-EV F-16-EW L-22-CO D-16-DR I-15-Y E-17-VA F-16-ZC 0.7*tm^-0.118 Power (L-22-CO) Power (I-15-Y) Power (F-16-ZC)

PAGE 45

34 Figure 3 6: Camber versus Time Comparison of Camber Equations 3.2.2.2 Age Adjustment To make the age correction for all the camber values, so me inf ormation was unattainable resulting in the assumptions below unless accurate information was obtained from as built plans or shop drawings. Relative Humidity (H) = 60% (AASHTO LRFD Figure 5.4.2.3.3 1) Time of Release (t i ) = 0.75 days Time of Deck Placement = Time of measurement Volume to surface Ration (V/S) = 4.5 (Approx. average of data obtained) c ) = 6.5 ksi 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Camber (in) Time, t (Days) E-17-ACR E-17-ACR Loss B-16-EV B-16-EV Loss F-16-EW F-16-EW Loss L-22-CO L-22-CO Loss D-16-DR D-16-DR Loss I-15-Y I-15-Y Loss E-17-VA E-17-VA Loss F-16-ZC F-16-ZC Loss

PAGE 46

35 Figure 3 7 below shows the resulting data points of percent difference between adjusted camber and predicted camber. Figure 3 7: Adjusted Percent Camber Difference Corrected for Age The data after adjusting for age still shows the tendency for box girders to under camber with an average percent difference of 4.8%. The maximum percent difference in camber is 138.6% and the minimum percent difference in camber is 84.9%. Figure 3 8 below shows the distribution of the data points within 5% difference intervals. Figure 3 8 again shows the tendency for the girders to under camber based on the actual cambers having an avera ge below 0%. -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 7.0 12.0 17.0 22.0 27.0 32.0 37.0 42.0 Adjusted Camber % Difference Span Length / Girder Depth

PAGE 47

36 Figure 3 8: Distribution of Percent Camber Difference Corrected for Age 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -82.5% -72.5% -62.5% -52.5% -42.5% -32.5% -22.5% -12.5% -2.5% 7.5% 17.5% 27.5% 37.5% 47.5% 57.5% 67.5% 77.5% 87.5% 97.5% 107.5% 117.5% 127.5% 137.5% Frequency Adjusted % Camber Difference

PAGE 48

37 4. S TATISTICAL A NALYSIS OF F IELD C AMBER D ATA 4.1 Overview As shown in Figures 3 1 and 3 8, the distribution of the percent differences in camber is approximately a normal distribution. The analysis of the percent differences data will then be used to calculate an average, minimum and maximum multiplier for prestressing camber and self weight camber to be used during design. 4.2 Statistical Analysis The statistical an alysis of the data set will occur on both the adjusted camber data and the measured camber data with no age correction. 4.2.1 Statistical Analysis with No Age Adjustment As shown in Figure 3 1 and 3 2 the difference in design and actual camber varies dra stically. The ave rage difference in camber is 12 4 % with a standard deviation of 30 4 %. The m inimum percent difference is 85 7% and the maximum is 103 5%. The median is 14.4 %. See Figure 4 1 below for a distribution graph of the data with a normal distr ibution curve using the average and standard deviations calculated above. Figure 4 1 below shows that girders at the time of shipping tend to have a camber value less than predicted. The first standard deviation is located at 42.7% and 18.0%. The second standard deviation is located at 73.1% and 48.3%. The third standard deviation is located at 78.7% and 103.5%. Figure 4 2 shows the data graph with the second standard deviations and average delineated. As is standard for a normal distribution, the graph shows about 95% of the data falls within two standard deviations of the average.

PAGE 49

38 Figure 4 1: Percent Camber Difference Distribution No Age Correction Figure 4 2 : Percent Camber Difference No Age Correction with 2 nd Standard Deviations and Average Delineations 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Frequency % Camber Difference % Camber Difference Normal Distribution -100.0% -75.0% -50.0% -25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% 125.0% 7.0 12.0 17.0 22.0 27.0 32.0 37.0 42.0 Camber % Difference Span Length / Girder Depth 2 Std. Dev = 48.3% 2 Std. Dev = 73.1% Average = 12.4%

PAGE 50

39 For a normal distribution, approximately 95% of data falls within 2 standard deviations of the average (1.96 standard deviations for a 95% confidence interval) The current multipliers the prestressing and 1.85 for the self weight deflection (Martin 1977) The calculation for predicted camber using the PCI/Martin multipliers is: where, Pred = the predicted camber of the girder at 60 days, in; ip = the initial camber due to prestressing, in; isw = the initial deflection due to the self weight of the girder, in. Due to all of t he variables involved, it cannot be determined if the difference in camber is in self weight deflection calculations or the prestressing camber calculation without high end finite element analysis Therefore, the analysis proceeding forward will assume equal distributi on between the two multipliers To calculate new multipliers, the percent difference needs to be applied to the predicted camber Because the predicted release prestressing camber and self weight deflection in the above equation are not changing, the per cent difference can be applied directly to the multipliers. In this case, we will proceed with using the 2 nd standard deviation to obtain a maximum and minimum multiplier as it will approximately fit 95% of the data. A 95% confidence interval was chosen to provide the designer a maximum and minimum starting point. The designer will need to determine if the maximum and minimum fit the bridge structurally and geometrically. Based on t he percent difference analysis conducted above and the equation above, the new multipliers without adjusting for age calculate to be as shown in Table 4 1 below. (Eq. 4 1) (Eq. 4 2)

PAGE 51

40 Table 4 1: Revised Multiplier No Age Correction Prestress Multiplier Self Weight Multipli er Maximum 2 .65 2 .75 Minimum 0. 5 0 0. 5 0 Average 1.60 1.60 The revised multipliers are rounded to the nearest 0.05. Based on these multipliers, the designer will find issues with constructability and long term serviceability of the structure. For exa mple, a girder that only achieves 50 % of its predicted release camber will more than likely sag under full dead loads, particularly long term. The sag deflection would be compounded if the designer set the beam seats lower to account for the maximum multip lier calculated above as the haunch in the concrete deck will be excessively large (if no remedial measures are taken to raise the beam seats or lower the profile). The designer should c alculate erection and final deflections to verify the girder maintains a camber long term For further discussion on remedial measures and design recommendations, see Chapter 6 See Appendix A for calculations of the multipliers. 4.2.2 Statistical Analysis with Age Adjustment For the age adjusted camber data, it also follows a normal distribution and varies drastically The ave rage difference in camber is 4 8 % with a standard deviation of 33 1 %. The minimum percent difference is 8 4 9 % and the maximum is 138 6%. The median is 8 0 %. See Figure 4 3 below for a distribution gr aph of the data with a normal distribution curve using the average and standard deviations calculated above.

PAGE 52

41 Figure 4 3 : Percent Camber Diff erence Distribution Adjusted for Age The figure above shows that girders at the time of shipping tend to have a camber value less than predicted. The first standard deviation is located at 37 9% and 2 8. 4 %. The second standard deviation is located at 71 0 % and 61 5 %. The third standard deviation is located at 104 2 % and 94 6 %. Figure 4 4 shows the data graph with the second standard deviations and average delineated. As is standard for a normal distribution, the graph shows about 95% of the data falls within two standard deviations of the average. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Frequency Adjusted % Camber Difference

PAGE 53

42 Figure 4 4 : Percent Cambe r Difference Age Adjusted with 2 nd Sta ndard Deviations and Average Delineations Using the same process as previously described the new multipliers with adjustment for age calculate to be as shown in Table 4 2 below. Table 4 2 : Revised Multiplier Adjusted for Age Prestress Multiplier Self W eight Multiplier Maximum 2 .90 3.00 Minimum 0. 5 0 0. 5 5 Average 1.7 0 1.75 The revised multipliers are rounded to the nearest 0.05. These multipliers will have similar is sues as the multipliers from the non age corrected multipliers For further discus sion on remedial measures and design recommendations, see Chapter 6 -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 7.0 12.0 17.0 22.0 27.0 32.0 37.0 42.0 Adjusted Camber % Difference Span Length / Girder Depth 2 Std. Dev = 61.5% 2 Std. Dev = 71.0% Average = 4.8%

PAGE 54

43 4.3 Recommendations Based on the analysis of the field data, the PCI multipliers for erection for prestressed camber and self weight deflection are recommended to be modified The modifie d factors are calculated to be 1.70 and 1.75 for prestressed camber and self weight deflection, respectively, based on adjusting the camber values to the age of 60 days. However, girders are typically erected prior to the 60 days with less camber than pred icted. The actual measur ed camber value data shows calculated multipliers of 1.60 for both multiplier s. I t is recommended that the revised multipliers be between the two data sets based on variables, input and data previously discussed Therefore, it is re commended that the revised multipliers be adjusted to 1.65 and 1.70 for prestressed camber and self weight deflection, respectively, based on the field data.

PAGE 55

44 5. T HEORETICAL C AMBER A NALYSIS 5.1 Overview A theoretical analysis was performed to model the co nstruction sequencing of the girders and to determine its impacts on the multipliers. Computer programs available during this study were not able to accurately model the different concrete stre ngths in a member or a time variation model including prestress losses. Therefore, the theoretical analysis was completed using transformed section properties and the Tadros equa tion for camber on the eight girders used previously. 5.2 Theoretical Analysis Procedure Based on current practice, as mentioned previously, the initial camber is calculated using the jacking force of the strands and then multiplied by factors to obtain the erection camber of the girder at 60 days. To be consistent with the multipliers calculated based on the field data, the theoretical multipl iers need to be based off of the same initial camber. However, as Tadros equation exhibits, when using a small time for t (typically about 5 days or less), the camber calculates to be less than the initial camber. This is due to the elastic shortening loss es not considered in the calcu lations of the initial camber ( or in computer programs such as CONSPAN). The analysis began with determining the gross and transformed section properties of the girders. The area, center of gravity, and moment of inertia were calcul ated for a girder of each bridge For the transformed section properties, a concrete strength was n eeded due to the time difference in placements For the bottom slab, the information on girder age and actual concrete strength was as described below. For the top slab and sides, which are the second pour, the release strength was as specified in the plans was used. Typically, a girder is cast, released, and lifte d out of the bed within 24 hours The girders pping. The time between casting and shipping is

PAGE 56

45 girder. If the assumption that release occurs at 0.75 days (or 18 hours), then, with the additional assumpti ons below, an approximate bottom flange concrete strength can be obtained using a linear analysis. Bottom Flange is poured at t = 0 days; Top Flange and Sides are poured at t = 0.17 days (4 hours) ; Concrete Strength maximum is Design Final Concrete Streng c Based on these assumptions and data, a girder with a release concrete strength of 6.5 ksi will have a bottom flange with a concrete strength of 8.35 ksi at release. If the final concrete strength was less than the calculated, the final design stre ngth was used. Once the b ottom flange concrete strength wa s obtain ed the prestress camber and the self weight deflection at release for the gross properties and transformed properties w ere calculated After the properties were calculated, the release camb er for the transformed properties was used to calculate the camber at 60 days using Tadros equation and to calculate the 60 day camber from the gross properties using the PCI multipliers Then t o calculate the new multipliers, the same assumption was used to equally distribute the difference in camber to both the prestressing multiplier and the self weight multiplier. 5.3 Theoretical Analysis Results Based on this procedure, the theoretical multipliers were obtain ed for a girder of the 8 girders resulting i n the multipliers shown in Table 5 1.

PAGE 57

46 Table 5 1: Revised Multiplier Theoretical for 8 Bridges Bridge Prestress Multiplier Self Weight Multiplier E 17 ACR 1.25 1.30 B 16 EV 1.35 1.40 F 16 EW 1.40 1.45 L 22 CO 1.35 1.35 D 16 DR 1.30 1.35 I 15 Y 1.55 1.60 E 17 VA 1.30 1.30 F 16 ZC 1.20 1.25 As shown in Table 5 1, the re vised multipliers vary by girder due to the varying span lengths, girder sizes, and prestressing losses. The shorter span length and smaller girders of I 15 Y results in a high er multiplier as the girders have less creep losses resulting in higher camber E 17 ACR, F 16 ZC, and E 17 VA have the longest spans of the group and largest girders resulting in the lowest multipliers due to the higher creep losses resulting in lower cam ber As the group of 8 girders varies between the short and long and deep to thin girders, an average will be used to determine the final revised multipliers. The revised multipliers are rounded to the nearest 0.05 and are shown in Table 5 2 below. Table 5 2: Revised Multip l ier Theoretical Prestress Multiplier Self Weight Multiplier Maximum 1.55 1.60 Minimum 1.20 1.25 Average 1.35 1.40 The designer should use engineering judgment to select the most applicable multiplier based on the span and de pth of the girders under design. The designer should also verify the minimum multiplier shown has enough camber to maintain a positive camber under full dead loads. For further discussion on remedial measures and design recommendations, see Chapter 6

PAGE 58

47 5.4 Recommendations Based on the theoretical analysis, the PCI multipliers for erection for prestressed camber and self weight deflection are recommended to be modified. The modified factors are calculated to be 1.35 and 1.40 for prestressed camber and self we ight deflection, respectively, based on an erection at a time of 60 days. Ho wever, because the field data recommends higher multipliers be used, it is recommended that higher multipliers be used with values between theoretical analysis and field data analy sis multipliers Therefore, it is recommended that the revised multipliers be adjusted to 1.65 and 1.70 for prestressed camber and self weight deflection, re spec tively, based on the analysis performed

PAGE 59

48 6. C ONCLUSIONS AND R ECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Conclusions Precast prestressed box girders have been predominately used in bridges since the 1970s and have been increasing in popularity across the country due to the ever growing cost of Right of Way (ROW) and retaining walls resulting from profile rise The issue of precast prestressed box girder achieving predicted camber has grown with the increasing use of box girder s The resulted in sufficient camber prediction for years b ut with the ever increasing concrete strength and fast curin g concrete, the multipliers accor ding to Martin are losing accuracy and applicability. Tadros has provided additional recommendations to adjust Mar reep coefficient and loss calculations to calculate the camber of the girder over time. However, in todays industry with owners requiring bridg es to be designed in expedited schedules, complex calculations are difficult to compute efficiently and accurately in the time all owed The recommendations of the present study suggest updated multipliers based on field data and theoretical analysis to be used in design procedures and in accordance with AASHTO LRFD specifications. 6.1.1 Remedial Measures and Design Recommendations F or box girder design purposes, this study recommends the use of revised multipliers for prestress camber and self weight deflection of 1.65 and 1.70, respectively. However, as shown in this study, box girder cambers vary significantly and remedial measures can still be necessary in the field. When using these recommended multipliers, additional steps should be taken to prevent issues during construction due to either over camber or under camber. Possible remedial measures that can be taken during either con struction or design, as appropriate, are: Use the minimum multiplier values determined in this study to determine the maximum concrete deck weight on the girder and maximum concrete quantity.

PAGE 60

49 The designer should verify that the minimum multiplier provides enough camber to meet serviceability requi rements; Use the maximum multiplier values determined in this study to determine the beam seat elevations to prevent over camber from reducing the deck thickness below acceptable limits; Provide details for shims a nd/or grout pads in the plans to allow the Contractor to shim the girders when an under camber condition is fabricated ; Raise or lower the profile of the road, as appropriate, for over cam ber and under camber conditions ; Control storage time to prevent ove r camber or to allow camber time to reach predicted camber. While in storage, can attempt to mitigate o ver camber by weighting girder; Recast girders if severe enough condition (i.e. girder has zero or negative camber at erection). Some of these remedial m easures were proposed by Scott Huson during presentation s on May 15, 2014 and August 25, 2014. (Huson May 2014 and August 2014). 6.2 Future Research As the reco mmendations are heavily b i ased towards field data, additional research is needed to continue to refine the values presented in this study. There are two main areas where further research will be beneficial: m aterial properties and camber da ta 6.2.1 Material Properties The actual material properties of the girder significantly affect the camber achi eved in a girder. Further research should be considered to develop a better idea of the material properties achieved such as concrete strength. Actual concrete strength should be reported, documented, and compiled to provide the opportunity to develop refi ned relationships between top and bottom slab

PAGE 61

50 concrete strength and effects on camber. Additionally, the data should document the strength of the concrete of the bottom slab of the girder at release. 6.2.2 Camber Data and Reporting Providing field camber m easurements to the owner is recommended to continue the current research as additional data is obtained is recommended. Additionally, the current study uses only a single data point in time to calibrate the multipliers. Reporting the release camber and dat e at the same time as the shipping camber and date to the owner would significantly aid in the refinement in the multipliers. 6.3 Data Issues/Limitations The current data set uses information provided by CDOT, EnCon Colorado, and Plum Creek Structures. Th e data was ver ified to be accurate if possible but errors in measurements, dates, and other information occur and have been minimized Additionally, there are many bridges built in the state within the same time frame where camber measurements were not pr ovided or obtained and may affect the results of this study. This study is limited to the data and information obtained. 6.4 Final Recommendations and Conclusions This study has provided revised multipliers for precast prestressed box girders for the calc ulation of camber in the state of Colorado. The multipliers have been calculated from a theoretical and field data analysis even though additional research should be conducted to refine the multipliers The recommended multipliers are 1.65 for prestressed camber and 1.70 for self weight deflection for box girder in Colorado

PAGE 62

51 N OTATIONS AC = Aging Coefficient A c = Area of composite section (in 2 ) A d = Area of Deck concrete (in 2 ) A g = Gross of Area of girder (in 2 ) A ps = Area of prestressing (in 2 ) E c = Modul us of elasticity of concrete at final (ksi) E ci E ct = Modulus of elasticity of concrete at release (ksi) E cd = Modulus of elasticity of deck concrete (ksi) E p = Modulus of elasticity of prestressing steel (ksi) e d = Eccentricity of deck with respect t o the gross composite section ( in ) ; e pc = E ccentricity of prestressing force with respect to centroid of composite section (in) e pg = E ccentricity of prestressing force with respect to centroid of girder (in) c = Concrete compressive strength at 28 d ays (ksi) ci = Concrete compressive strength at release (ksi) f cgp = T he concrete stress at the center of gravity of the prestressing strands due to the prestressing force immediately after transfer and the self weight of the member at the section of maximum moment (ksi) f pi = Initial tensioning stress of strands (ksi) f pt = Stress in prestressing strands immediately after transfer (ksi) f py = Yield stress of prestressing strands (ksi) H = Relative Humidity (%) I c = Gross moment of Inertia of girder (in 4 ) I g = Moment of Inertia of Composite Section (in 4 ) K 1 = Correction factor for aggregate properties in the calculation of E c and E ci K id = T ransformed section coefficient that account for time dependent interaction between concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time period betw een transfer and deck placement K df = T ransformed section coefficient that accounts for time dependent interaction between concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time period betwee n deck placement and final time k f = F actor for the effect of concrete strength k hc = H umidity factor for creep k hs = H umidity factor for shrinkage. K L = 30 for low relaxation strands and 7 for other prestressing steel k s = F actor for the effect of the volume to surface ratio of the component k td = T ime development factor t d = A ge at deck placement (days) t f = F inal age (days) t i = A ge at release/transfer (days) t m = Time between release and camber measurement (days) V/ S = Volume to Surface Ratio (in) w c = U nit weight of concrete (kcf)

PAGE 63

52 conc = U nit weight of concrete (kcf) el loss = Deflection due to prestress losses between release and deck placement (in) i = I nitial measured camber at release (in) ip = Camber due to prestressing force at release (in) isw = Deflection due to self weight at release (in) lte = Camber at time of deck placement (60 days) (in) lte_60 = C alculated camber at time of 60 days (in) lte_t = C alculated camber at time t (in) Pred = P redicted camber of the girder at 60 days (in) lt = Total losses from release to time of deck placement (ksi) pT = T otal prestress losses (ksi) pLT = P restress loss due to long term shrinkage, creep, and relaxation (ksi) pES = P restress loss due to elastic shortening (ksi) pSR = P restress loss due to shrinkage of girder between transfer and deck placement (ksi) pCR = P restress loss due to creep of girder concrete between transfer and deck placement (ksi) pR1 = P restress loss due to relaxation of strands between transfer and deck pl acement (ksi) pSD = P restress loss due to shrinkage of girder after deck placement (ksi) pCD = P restress loss due to creep of girder concrete after deck placement (ksi) pR2 = P restress loss due to relaxation of strands after deck placement (ksi) pSS = P restress gains due to shrinkage of deck in composite section (ksi) bdf = C oncrete shrinkage strain of girder after deck placement bid = C oncrete shrinkage strain of girder between time of transfer and deck placement ddf = C oncrete shri nkage strain of girder after deck placement = G irder creep coefficient 60 = Cr eep coefficient at time of 60 days; t = C reep coefficient at time t

PAGE 64

53 B IBLIOGRAPHY American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2011). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318 11) Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2014). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Wash ington DC: American Association of State Highway and Transporta tion Officials. Barr, P.J. & Angomas, F. (2010). Differences between Calculated and Measured Long Term Deflections in a Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. American Society of Civil Engineers, November/Dece mber 2010, 603 pp. Billington, David. (2004). Historical Perspective on Prestressed Concrete PCI Journal. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, January February 2004, 14 pp. Colorado Department of Transportation. Colorado Department of Transportation St aff Bridge Bridge Design Manual Denver: Colorado Department of Transportation. Colorado Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction Denver: Colorado Department of Transportation, 2011. Hinkle, Stephen. (2006). I nvestigation of Time Dependent Deflection in Long Span, High Strength, Prestressed Concrete Beams Masters of Science Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Huson, Sco tt. (2014). Camber Variability Colorado Department of Transportation. May 15, 2014. Huson, Scott (2014). Camber Variability Results Colorado Department of Transportation. August 25, 2014. Huson, Scott. Personal Communication. November 14, 2014. Huson, S cott. Personal Communication. January 29, 2015.

PAGE 65

54 Martin, Leslie. (1977). A Rational Method for Estimating Camber and Deflection of Precast Prestressed Members PCI Journal. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, January February 1977, 100 pp. Nguyen, Hang, Stanton, John, Eberhard, Marc, & Chapman, David. (2015). The effect of temperature variations on the camber of precast, prestressed concrete girders PCI Journal. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, September October 2015, 49 pp. Precast/Prestressed C oncrete Institute. (2010). PCI Design Handbook Precast and Prestressed Concrete Seventh Edition. Chicago: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. Shams, M. and Kahn, L.F. (2000). Time Dependent Behavior of High Performance Concrete Georgia Tech Structura l Engineering, Mechanics and Materials Research Report No. 00 5, Georgia Department of Transportation Research Project No. 9510, April 2000, 395 pp. Stallings, J.M. and Eskildsen, S. (2001). Camber and Prestress Losses in High Performance Concrete Bridge Girders Highway Research Center, Harbert Engineering Center, Auburn University in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, 116 pp. Tadros, Maher, Al Omaishi, Nabil, Seguirant, Ste phen, & Gallt, James. (2003). NCHRP Report 496 Prestress Losses in Pretensioned High Strength Concrete Bridge Girders Washington DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Tadros, Maher, Fawzy, Faten, & Hanna, Kromel. (2011). Precast, Prestressed Girder Camber Variability PCI Journal. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Winter 2011, 135 pp. Waldron, Christopher J. (2004). Investigation of Long Term Prestress Losses in Pretensioned High Performance Concrete Girders Doctor of Philosophy Disser tation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA. Werner, Dan. Plum Creek Structures. Personal Communication. April 19, 2016.

PAGE 66

55 A. S AMPLE C ALCULATIONS Use structure B 16 EV for a set of sample calculations. Use a girder with fabricator mark number B 4 (Span 2). Input Data: Girder Gross Area, A g = 969 in 2 Girder Gross Moment of Inertia, I g = 120,433 in 4 Girder Volume to Surface Ratio, V/S = 4.75 conc = 0.150 kcf ci = 6.5 ksi c = 8.5 ksi Release Concrete Modulus of Elasticity, E ci = 4,887.7 ksi Final Concrete Modulus of Elasticity, E c = 5,589.3 ksi Yield Tensile Stress of Strands, f py = 270 ksi Jacking Te nsile Stress of Strands, f pi = 202.5 ksi Prestressing Strand Area, A ps = 7.378 in 2 % Strands Debonded = 23.5% Average Length of Debonded Strands = 3.0 ft Strand Eccentricity, e ms = 10.67 in Strand Jacking Force, F j = 1494 kips Strand Modulus of Elasticity, E p = 28,500 ksi Span Length, L = 82.0 ft K L = 30 for Low Relaxation Strands Relative Humidity, H = 60% (AASHTO LRFD Figure 5.4.2.3.3 1) Calculate Losses for Age Adjustment and Camber Calculations : Use Refined Method per AASHTO LRFD 5.9.5. Elastic Shorten ing (5.9.5.2.3a):

PAGE 67

56 Creep (5.9.5.4.2b): Shrinkage (5 .9.5.4.2a):

PAGE 68

57 Relaxation (5.9.5.4.2c): Total Losses: Calculate Camber at Time, t = 7 days for Age Adjustment and Camber Calculations: Calculate predicted initial camber: Calculate camber at t = 7 days: Calculate Aging Coefficient for t = 7 days : Calculate the Adjusted Camber Value and Percent Difference:

PAGE 69

58 Input: t m m Pred = 2.23 in b b (td, ti) = 0.89 Calculate Girder Gross and Transformed Section Properties: Input: ci = 6. ci2 = 8. 3 5 ksi conc = 0.15 kcf w sw = 1.01 klf Top Flange: o Width = 72 in, Height = 4 in o cg top = 28 in Bottom Flange: o Width = 72 in, Height = 6 in o cg bot = 3.00 in Sides: o Width = 6 in, Height = 20 in o cg side = 16 in Fillets: o Width and Height = 3 in o cg fillet = 25 in Span Length, L = 82.00 ft Prestressing: o Jacking Stress, f pi = 202.5 ksi o A ps = 7.378 in 2 o cgs = 3.19 in o % Debond = 23.53 % % Straight = 76.47 % o Debond Length = 82.00 ft 2*3ft = 74.00 ft o lt = 27.75 ksi o b (t d ,t i ) = 0.8897 Gross Properties:

PAGE 70

59 Transformed Properties: Use similar procedure as gross properties with the following results:

PAGE 71

60 cg t = 13.25 in, A t = 1026.6 in 2 I t = 127,015 in 4 Calculate Self Weight Deflection and Prestress Camber at Release fo r both Gross Properties and Transformed Properties: Self Weight Deflection: Pres tress Camber: Release Camber: Calculate C amber at 60 days and Calculate Revised Multipliers: Gross Properties using PCI multipliers: Transformed Properties using Tadros Equ ation:

PAGE 72

61 Revised Multipliers:

PAGE 73

62 B. F IELD D ATA

PAGE 74

63

PAGE 75

64

PAGE 76

65

PAGE 77

66

PAGE 78

67

PAGE 79

68

PAGE 80

69

PAGE 81

70

PAGE 82

71

PAGE 83

72

PAGE 84

73

PAGE 85

74

PAGE 86

75

PAGE 87

76

PAGE 88

77

PAGE 89

78

PAGE 90

79

PAGE 91

80

PAGE 92

81

PAGE 93

82

PAGE 94

83

PAGE 95

84

PAGE 96

85