Fatigue Endurance of High-
Strength Prestressed Concrete
Bulb-Tee Girders
John J. Roller, P.E., S.E.
Principal Structural Engineer
CTLGroup
Skokie, Ill.
Henry G. Russell, Ph.D.,
P.E., S.E.
Engineering Consultant
Henry G. Russell Inc.
Glenview, Ill.
Robert N. Bruce, Ph.D.,
P.E., FPCI
Boh Chair in Civil Engineering
Tulane University
New Orleans, La.
 PCI JOURNAL
Six full-sized precast, pretensioned bulb-tee gird-
ers made with high-strength concrete were tested to
evaluate their behavior under fatigue loading. Each
of the six bridge girders had a specified design con-
crete compressive strength of 10,000 psi (69 MPa).
Prior to fatigue loading, four of the six girders were
intentionally precracked near midspan under static
loading conditions. The remaining two girders were
tested in an uncracked state.
Three of the six girders were tested using an upper-bound
fatigue load selected to produce the current American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials maximum allowable extreme fiber tensile stress
(6 fc' psi [0.5 fc' MPa]). The remaining three gird-
ers were tested using upper-bound fatigue loads
corresponding to higher levels of extreme fiber
tensile stress of approximately 750 psi or 860 psi
(5.2 MPa or 5.9 MPa). In all cases, the lower-bound
fatigue load was selected to produce a stress range in
the extreme fiber of the bulb-tee girder lower flange
equal to that caused by the design live-load-plus-impact
bending moment acting on an uncracked section.
Each of the six girders was subjected to either 5 mil-
lion cycles of fatigue loading or less (if fatigue frac-
ture of the strand was detected). Findings from this
testing program indicate that high-strength concrete
girders incorporating midspan flexural cracks can
be expected to perform adequately under fatigue
loading conditions when the extreme fiber tensile
stress is limited to the current allowable level of
6 fc' psi (0.5 fc' MPa). In addition, adequate fatigue
performance was observed at greater extreme fiber
tensile stress levels when the concrete remained
uncracked throughout the duration of testing.
F
atigue endurance of prestressed concrete bridge gird-
ers is a research topic that has been given only limited
attention over the years. Findings from past research
studies focusing on fatigue endurance of pretensioned bridge
girders made with conventional-strength concretes have indi-
cated that girder performance can be influenced by a number
of different parameters.1 These parameters include the design
tensile stress limit, stress range, status of the bottom flange
concrete (cracked or uncracked), amount of prestress loss, al-
lowance for overload, presence of passive (nonprestressed)
reinforcement in the precompressed tensile zone, and varia-
tions in girder section properties.
Existing bridge design specifications published by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) address fatigue endurance of prestressed
concrete girders indirectly by limiting the tensile stress in the
precompressed tensile zone to 6 c psi (0.5 c MPa).2,3 currently few data available that are related to the expected
Adoption of the existing AASHTO tensile stress limit dates
back to the early 1960s. Although the historical background
for this design provision is not well documented, it appears
that the 6 c psi limit was established to keep tensile stresses
below the accepted lower-bound concrete cracking strength
given by the 7.5 c psi (0.6 c MPa) expression. in cooperation with the U.S. Federal Highway Administra-
The AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
specifications clearly state that fatigue of reinforcement need
not be checked for fully prestressed concrete components
designed to have an extreme fiber tensile stress due to the
Service III Limit State within specified tensile stress limits.3
For concrete components with bonded prestressing tendons
that are subjected to not worse than moderate corrosion con-
ditions, the specified tensile stress limit is 6 c psi (0.5 c Six of the girders fabricated for this research were used to
MPa). Where consideration of fatigue is required, the stress
range in straight prestressing strands shall not exceed 18.0 ksi
(124 MPa). AASHTO standard specifications does not ad-
dress fatigue of prestressed concrete members.2
Although design limits for the tensile stress in the precom-
pressed tensile zone are intended to prevent cracking under ser-
vice load conditions, these limits do not provide insurance that
girders will not become cracked at some point in time. Field
experience and research have shown that concrete bridge gird-
ers can develop vertical cracks near midspan due to restrained
thermal and shrinkage movements occurring prior to release
of the prestressing strands. 46 Unanticipated cracking can also
occur due to accidental overload. Consequently, it cannot al-
ways be assumed that the lower flange region of a concrete
girder will remain uncracked even when steps are taken during
the design process to limit or eliminate tensile stresses.
Utilization of high-strength concrete in precast, prestressed
members has been the subject of much research over the past
two decades. Consequently, many U.S. states have taken ac-
tion to implement high-strength concrete in highway bridge
structures on a regular basis. However, some designers re-
main reluctant to specify higher-strength concretes due to un-
certainties regarding the applicability of current design provi-
sions and fabrication constraints. With the increasing use of
concretes with compressive strengths exceeding 10,000 psi
(69 MPa), it has become important to reexamine existing de-
sign provisions to evaluate their suitability for use with high-
strength concrete.
MayJune 2007 
Using high-strength concrete in prestressed bridge gird-
ers allows designers to take advantage of the greater design
concrete stress levels and the structural benefits of more effi-
cient girder cross sections. With these benefits, designers can
achieve longer span lengths and wider girder spacing than
previously achieved with conventional concretes. As a result,
high-strength concrete bridge girders typically carry larger
loads and experience higher stress ranges under service load
conditions.
The vast majority of previous research dealing with the
subject of fatigue endurance has been limited to girders made
using conventional concretes with compressive strengths
in the 5000 psi to 8000 psi (34.5 MPa to 55.2 MPa) range,
0.5-in.-diameter (13 mm) or smaller prestressing strands, and
prestressing force levels limited by the use of convention-
al AASHTO girder cross sections. Consequently, there are
fatigue endurance of prestressed bridge girders made using
high-strength concrete.
In an effort to answer some of the questions regarding the
utilization of high-strength concrete in highway bridge struc-
tures, the Louisiana Transportation Research Center (LTRC),
tion and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and De-
velopment (LADOTD), sponsored two research programs.4,7
The research programs were conducted jointly by Tulane
University in New Orleans, La.; CTLGroup in Skokie, Ill.;
and Henry G. Russell Inc. in Glenview, Ill. These research
programs included the manufacture and testing of several
full-sized, prestressed, high-strength concrete bridge girders.
study fatigue performance. This paper details the fatigue test-
ing performed and results obtained.
Experimental Program
Six full-sized precast, pretensioned bulb-tee girders made
using high-strength concrete were tested to evaluate their
behavior under fatigue loading. Each of the six bridge gird-
ers had a specified design concrete compressive strength of
10,000 psi (69 MPa). Five of the six girders were 72-in.-deep
(1800 mm) bulb-tee sections. The remaining girder was a
54-in.-deep (1400 mm) bulb-tee section. Bulb-tee girder sec-
tions were selected for this research because they are struc-
turally more efficient than the conventional AASHTO/PCI
sections and, therefore, are more suitable for use with high-
strength concrete. Prior to testing, a 10-ft-wide (3 m), 9.5-in.-
thick (240 mm), reinforced concrete deck slab was added to
each girder specimen.
Three of the six girders were tested using an upper-bound
fatigue load selected to produce the current recognized maxi-
mum allowable extreme fiber tensile stress which isequal to
6 c psi (0.5 c MPa) at midspan under the service load
condition.2,3 The remaining three girders were tested using
upper-bound fatigue loads corresponding to higher levels
of extreme fiber tensile stress of approximately 750 psi or
860 psi (5.2 MPa or 5.9 MPa). The lower-bound fatigue load
was selected to produce a stress range in the extreme fiber of
the girders lower flange that corresponded to the design live-
Table 1. Specimen Design Details
Prestressed Reinforcement
Design
Span AASHTO Requirements, Grade 270,
Girder Cross Concrete Design Live
Girder Length, Design Low - Relaxation
Section Compressive Load
ft Specifications2,3
Strength, psi Quantity Diameter, in.

BT5 BT-54 69 10,000 Standard HST-18 30 0.5

BT6 BT-72 95 10,000 Standard HS-20 24 0.6
BT7 BT-72 95 10,000 LRFD HL-93 24 0.6
BT8 BT-72 95 10,000 LRFD HL-93 24 0.6
BT11 BT-72 95 10,000 LRFD HL-93 24 0.6
BT12 BT-72 95 10,000 LRFD HL-93 24 0.6
Note: AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; LRFD = load and resistance factor design. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.3048 m;
1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

load-plus-impact bending moment. Required fatigue loads
were calculated based on uncracked section properties.
Prior to fatigue loading, four of the six girders were inten-
tionally precracked near midspan under static loading condi-
tions. The remaining two girders were tested in an uncracked
state. Each girder was subjected to either 5 million cycles
of fatigue loading or less (if fatigue fracture of the strands
was detected). Static load tests were performed on the gird-
ers before the fatigue test and after each 1 million cycles of
fatigue loading to evaluate response at service load levels.
After completion of the fatigue test, two of the six girders
were tested in flexure to failure.
Girder Specimen Design
Representative details for the six girder test specimens
were developed based on actual bridge designs prepared
42 in.
31/2 in.
16 in.
No. 4 stirrups (typ.)
54 in.
6 in.
10 in.
41/2 in.
6 in.
0.5-in.-diameter strand
@ 2 in. spacing
2 in.
26 in.
Fig. 1. Design details for 54-in.-deep (1400 mm) bulb-tee
girder. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.3048 m.
 PCI JOURNAL
Four 0.5-in. diameter
tie strands
Six draped strands with
hold-down points located
28 ft from girder ends
2 in.
by LADOTD. Bridge designs using 54-in.-deep (1400 mm)
bulb-tee girders spanning 69 ft (21 m) and 72-in.-deep
(1800 mm) bulb-tee girders spanning 95 ft (29 m) were de-
veloped. The bridge girders were designed using provisions
of either the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges or the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifica-
tions.2,3 Table 1 provides specific design details associated
with the six bulb-tee girder specimens.
Dead loads used in the design of each bridge were based
on a concrete density of 150 lb/ft3 (2400 kg/m3). Live loads
used for the bridge design incorporating the 54-in.-deep
(1400 mm) bulb-tee girders were based on the Louisiana
HST-18 truck configuration. For a 69-ft-long (21 m) bridge
span, the HST-18 load configuration produces a midspan
bending moment that is approximately 25% greater than the
AASHTO HS20-44/HL-93 truck load configurations. The
design live load used for the bridge designs incorporating the
72-in.-deep (1800 mm) bulb-tee girders was based on conven-
tional AASHTO HS20-44/HL-93 truck load configurations.
The bridge design utilizing the 54-in.-deep (1400 mm)
bulb-tee girders resulted in a girder spacing of 13.3 ft
(4.1 m) and required flexural prestressing steel consisting of
thirty 0.5-in.-diameter (13 mm), Grade 270 (1860 MPa), low-
relaxation prestressing strands in each girder. Six of the thir-
ty strands were draped using hold-down points located 7 ft
(2 m) from each side of the midspan centerline, or 28 ft
(8.5 m) from each end of the girder. Figure 1 provides design
details for the 54-in.-deep bulb-tee girder.
The bridge designs utilizing the 72-in.-deep (1800 mm)
bulb-tee girders resulted in a girder spacing of 13.5 ft
(4.11 m) and required flexural prestressing steel consist-
ing of twenty-four 0.6-in.-diameter (15 mm), Grade 270
(1860 MPa), low-relaxation prestressing strands in each gird-
er. Six of these twenty-four strands were debonded in pairs
for certain lengths from each end. Figure 2 provides design
details for the 72-in.-deep bulb-tee girders.
Girder Fabrication
One 54-in.-deep (1400 mm), 70-ft-long (21 m) bulb-tee
girder and five 72-in.-deep (1800 mm), 96-ft-long (29 m)
 Table 3. Girder Concrete Mixture Proportions
42 in.

Quantities/yd3
31/2 in.
Material Girders
Girder Girders BT6,
BT11,
BT5 BT7, BT8
16 in. Four 0.6-in.-diameter
tie strands
BT12
Portland cement 750 lb 691 lb 740 lb
Silica fume (100%
95.5 lb
No. 4 or no. 5 stirrups
solids)
72 in.
6 in. Fly ash, Class C 296 lb
Ground-granulated
247 lb
blast furnace slag

10 in. Six strands debonded in Fine aggregate 1035 lb 1135 lb 1128 lb

pairs for various lengths

Coarse aggregate 1875 lb 1803 lb 1800 lb

41/2 in.

6 in. Water 232 lb 247 lb 247 lb

0.6-in.-diameter strand
@ 2 in. spacing
Water-reducing
2 in.
2 in.
26 in.
admixture, ASTM C 16 fl oz 80 fl oz 60 fl oz
494, Type D

Fig. 2. Design details for 72-in.-deep (1800 mm) bulb-tee HRWRA, ASTM C
90 fl oz 160 fl oz 270 fl oz
girder. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.3048 m. 494, Type F
Air entrainment 2 fl oz none none
bulb-tee girders were fabricated for this research. Sherman Water-cementitious
Prestressed Concrete fabricated the 54-in.-deep girder at its 0.27 0.25 0.25
materials ratio
plant in Mobile, Ala. Gulf Coast Pre-Stress Inc. fabricated the Note: HRWRA = high-range water-reducing admixture. 1 lb/yd3 = 0.593 kg/m3;
five 72-in.-deep girders at its plant in Pass Christian, Miss. 1 fl oz/yd3 = 38.7 mL/m3.
Each girder was fabricated using uncoated, Grade 270
(1860 MPa), low-relaxation, seven-wire strands conform-
force levels beginning at the time of initial tensioning until
ing to ASTM A 416.8 The specified initial tensile force for
release. Measured force levels at the time of release were
each 0.5-in.-diameter (13 mm) and 0.6-in.-diameter (15 mm)
used in subsequent calculations to determine total prestress
strand was 30.98 kip (137.8 kN) and 43.94 kip (195.5 kN),
loss occurring prior to the start of fatigue loading. Table 2
respectively. These force levels correspond to 75% of the
provides results from the strand force measurements.
specified minimum strand breaking strength.
After stressing the strands, shear and anchorage-zone re-
Tensioning was executed by pulling each strand to a pre-
inforcement was installed and secured at the required loca-
determined target elongation. The target elongation corre-
tions. Once the reinforcement installation was completed,
sponding to the specified initial strand force level was cal-
the project team installed strain gauges in the top and bottom
culated using the strand modulus of elasticity, the nominal
flange of each girder at midspan. Three concrete strain gaug-
strand area, and the overall length of the bed measured be-
es consisting of either vibrating wire strain gauges or Carlson
tween anchor points.
strain meters were installed in the bottom flange at the level
During girder fabrication, load cells were installed on se-
of strand group centroid. In addition, two reinforcing bars in-
lected strands at the dead or anchor end of the bed to monitor
strumented with electrical resistance strain gauges (sister bar
gauges) were installed in both the bottom flange at the level
Table 2. Strand Force Measurement Results of the bottom strand row and in the top flange of the girder
Measured Measured approximately 1 in. (25 mm) beneath the concrete surface.
Target Three different mixture designs were used to fabricate the
Average Average
Girder Pretension, six concrete girders. Table 3 lists the mixture proportions
Initial Final Force,
lbf
Force,* lbf lbf used for each girder. During casting, the project team made
29,270 28,800 cylinders for the purpose of measuring compressive strength
BT5 30,980 and modulus of elasticity at various concrete ages. A lim-
(-5.5%) (-7.0%)
BT6, BT7, 41,010 39,880
ited number of beam specimens were also made for concrete
43,940 modulus of rupture (MOR) tests. The cylinders and beams
BT8 (-6.7%) (-9.2%)
were made from concrete placed in the midspan region of
41,610 41,000
BT11, BT12 43,940 each girder.
(-5.3%) (-6.7%)
Cylinders made from concrete incorporated into girder BT5
* Initial strand force measured after jacking or initial tensioning.

Final strand force measured immediately prior to release. were standard 6 in. 12 in. (150 mm 300 mm) specimens.
Note: 1 lbf = 4.448 N. These cylinders were initially cured alongside the girder after
MayJune 2007 
Table 4. Deck Slab Concrete Mixture Proportions crete deck slab was cast on each girder. Each deck slab con-
tained a certain percentage of supplementary cementitious
Quantities/yd3 materials consisting of either fly ash, silica fume, or ground-
Girders granulated blast furnace slag. Deck slab reinforcement de-
Material Girder
Girder BT5 BT6, BT11, Girder BT7 tails were similar for all six girders. Table 4 provides the
BT8 material proportions of the high-performance concrete used
BT12
for the deck slabs.
Portland ce-
ment
705 lb 306 lb 491 lb 414 lb Support reactions were measured before and after casting
the deck slab to obtain an accurate account of the total dead
Silica fume, load carried by the girder section. The deck slab for girder
26 lb
100% solids
BT5 was cast using partially shored construction, where a
Fly ash, Class portion of the slab weight was supported by the laboratory
75 lb 103 lb
C floor. The deck slabs for the remaining girders were cast
Ground-gran- using unshored construction, where the entire weight of the
ulated blast 306 lb slab was supported by the girder section.
furnace slag Concrete for each deck slab was placed and finished using
Fine aggre- standard practices and procedures. After casting, the concrete
1160 lb 1176 lb 1315 lb 1250 lb
gate was wet-cured under burlap for a minimum of seven days.
Coarse ag- After the curing period was completed, all formwork was re-
1750 lb 1900 lb 1845 lb 1875 lb
gregate moved and test setup preparations commenced.
Water 270 lb 238 lb 209 lb 207 lb
Water-reduc- Material Properties
ing admixture,
ASTM C 494,
21 fl oz 31 fl oz Table 5 provides average measured concrete material
Type D properties for the six girder specimens. Measured properties
reported in Table 5 are for concrete placed at the midspan re-
HRWRA,
gion of each girder. Most values reported in Table 5 represent
ASTM C 494, 21 fl oz 43 fl oz 41 fl oz 62 fl oz
Type F the average of three specimens.
As indicated in Table 5, the concrete cylinders for girder
Air
5 1% 5 1% 5 1% 5 1% BT5 were conventional 6 in. 12 in. (150 mm 300 mm)
entrainment
specimens that were initially field-cured beneath the tarpau-
Water- lin used to cover the bed after casting. Cylindrical specimens
cementitious 0.35 0.39 0.40 0.40 used for the remaining five girders were either 4 in. 8 in.
materials ratio
(100 mm 200 mm) match-cured cylinders or 3 in. 6 in.
Note: HRWRA = high-range water-reducing admixture. 1 lb/yd3 = 0.593 kg/m3;
1 fl oz/yd3 = 38.7 mL/m3. (75 mm 150 mm) cores extracted from the girder web near
midspan. The cores extracted from the girder web were taken
above the composite girder neutral axis for flexure resulting
casting. Cylinders made from concrete incorporated into gird- from the peak fatigue load (compression zone). MOR tests
ers BT6, BT7, BT8, BT11, and BT12 were match-cured, 4 in. were performed on field-cured 6 in. 6 in. 20 in. (300 mm
8 in. (100 mm 200 mm) specimens. Temperature sensors 300 mm 510 mm) beams. In all cases, the oldest concrete
for the match-cured cylinders were installed in the center of age shown in Table 5 for each girder corresponds with the
the bottom flange of each girder near midspan. These sensors start of the fatigue test.
were connected to control units that automatically adjusted Table 6 provides average measured concrete material
the temperature of the cylinders to match the girder concrete properties for the midspan region of each girder deck slab.
temperature at the sensor location during the initial curing With the exception of girder BT12, measured values reported
interval. in Table 6 are the averages of three 6 in. 12 in. (150 mm
After casting, the girders were covered with insulated tar- 300 mm) specimens tested at an age corresponding with the
paulins. Once the required minimum concrete compressive start of the fatigue test. Due to problems with cylinders fabri-
strength was achieved, the tarpaulins and side forms were re- cated for the BT12 deck slab, the values reported in Table 6
moved, the prestressing strands were released, and the gird- were based on tests performed on three 3 in. 6 in. (75 mm
ers were placed in storage at the precasting yard until needed 150 mm) cores extracted near midspan. The first concrete
at the testing laboratory. age shown for girder BT12 corresponds with the start of the
After fabrication, each girder was shipped approximately fatigue test. The second age corresponds with the age of the
970 miles (1560 km) by tractor-trailer to CTL for testing. girder flexural strength test.
Upon arrival at CTL, each girder was placed on roller-type Table 7 lists average measured material properties for
supports. Load cells were installed beneath the supports for the prestressing strand incorporated into each girder. Strand
the purpose of measuring reaction forces during deck slab samples were tested in accordance with ASTM A 370, Annex
construction and subsequent testing. VII.9 All tested strands met the requirements of ASTM A 416
Prior to testing, a 10-ft-wide (3 m), high-performance con- for Grade 270 (1860 MPa), low-relaxation strand.8
 PCI JOURNAL
Table 5. Girder Concrete Material Properties
Cylindrical Specimens Beam Speci-
Concrete Age,
Girder Compressive Modulus of men Modulus of
Days Type, in. Type of Curing
Strength, psi Elasticity, ksi Rupture, psi
BT5 1 6 12 field 7780 5100
28 9250 5400
86 9260 5350
BT6 1 48 match 8640 3950
56 10,340 5600
124 9290 5500 1065
BT7 1 48 match 9120 4250
56 11,220 5950
263 36 core 13,050 6250 1045
BT8 1 48 match 8840 3800
56 10,400 5600
396 36 core 11,850 5950 1080
BT11 1 48 match 10,490 6050
56 12,970 5600
118 36 core 12,770 5800 1075
BT12 1 48 match 10,790 6150
56 14,000 5800
359 36 core 12,690 5950 1225
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

Table 6. Girder Deck Slab Concrete Material Properties Table 8. Fatigue Test Details

Concrete Compressive Modulus of Target Peak Extreme

Girder Fiber Tensile Stress Bottom Loading
Age, Days Strength, psi Elasticity, ksi Girder Flange Frequency,
BT5 45 7420 4500 c psi Status Hz

BT6 35 5950 4650 BT5 5.8 577 precracked 2.0

BT7 32 6630 5350 BT6 6.0 610 precracked 1.9
BT8 35 6570 4750 BT7 8.6 857 precracked 1.9
BT11 47 5940 5000 BT8 7.5 750 precracked 1.9
BT12* 72 6340 BT11 6.0 600 uncracked 1.0
252 7810 5300 BT12 7.5 750 uncracked 1.0
* Reported values based on cores extracted from the deck slab near girder midspan. Note: c psi = 0.083 c MPa; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

Table 7. Prestressing Strand Properties

Strand Diameter, 1% Extension Total Elongation, Modulus of

Girder Breaking Load, lbf
in. Load, lbf % Elasticity, ksi
BT5 0.5 39,560 43,400 6.5 29,050
BT6, BT7, BT8 0.6 54,170 61,550 6.2 28,720
BT11, BT12 0.6 55,070 59,670 5.9 29,090
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lbf. = 4.448 N; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

MayJune 2007 
 = 12 ft (BT5)
Constant moment region
= 15 ft (BT6-BT12)

= 69 ft (BT5)
Span length
= 95 ft (BT6-BT12)

Shear span Shear span

Supplementary dead load

(BT6-BT12 only)
Fatigue loading point (typ.)

Support load cell Support load cell

Laboratory floor Displacement transducer

Fig. 3. Fatigue test setup. Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m.

Fatigue Test Setup and Procedure BT7, and BT8 represent the fastest rate of loading that could be
achieved with the available testing equipment. The loading fre-
Figure 3 shows the configuration used for the fatigue tests.
quency for girders BT11 and BT12 was intentionally reduced
Each girder was simply supported near the ends, creating a
to approximately one-half the rate used for the previous girders
total span length of either 69 ft (21 m) or 95 ft (29 m). Load
to determine the corresponding effect on fatigue performance.
was applied to the girders using a pair of hydraulic actuators.
Prior to conducting the fatigue tests for girders BT5, BT6,
Figure 4 is a photograph of the fatigue loading test setup
BT7, and BT8, static load was applied to produce a flexural
used for girders BT6 to BT12.
crack in the constant moment region. Initially, it was intend-
Table 8 provides specific details associated with each fa-
ed that girder BT5 would be tested in an uncracked state.
tigue test. The target uncracked section extreme fiber tensile
However, during the initial static test, a midspan crack that
stress values shown are expressed both in units of psi and in
had formed prior to release of the strands reopened. Conse-
terms of the square root of the 10,000 psi (69 MPa) design
quently, girder BT5 was tested as a cracked girder.
concrete compressive strength. These target values represent
After these girders were cracked, longitudinally oriented
the bottom flange extreme fiber tensile stress coincident with
strain gauges were installed adjacent to the crack on the bot-
the peak (upper-bound) fatigue load applied during testing,
tom concrete surface of the lower flange. Once the gauges
as discussed later.
were installed, the four girders were loaded again to measure
The loading frequencies selected for girders BT5, BT6,
the strain response adjacent to the crack. The measured strain
data from this exercise were used to evaluate the extreme
fiber decompression load for each precracked girder using
experimental means.

Determination of Fatigue Loads

Calculations were performed to determine the net extreme
fiber concrete compressive stress in the lower flange of each
girder prior to fatigue loading. These calculations were based
on measured values for material properties, section dimen-
sions, girder weight, deck slab weight, and prestress losses.
Using these measured parameters, the concrete stress at the
extreme fiber of the lower flange resulting from various
sources was calculated for each girder assuming static equi-
librium and uncracked section properties. Table 9 provides
results from these calculations.
The total measured prestress loss at the time of testing
each girder was determined based on strand load cell read-
ings taken during girder fabrication and measured concrete
Fig. 4. Fatigue test setup. strains at specific time- or event-based intervals. As indicated
 PCI JOURNAL
Table 9. Extreme Fiber Concrete Stress Analysis Results

Extreme Fiber Concrete Stress, psi

Condition
BT5 BT6 BT7 BT8 BT11 BT12
Prestress 3072 3119 3116 3096 3199 3240
Girder
-505 -772 -789 -774 -761 -772
self-weight
Prestress loss -156 -251 -280 -286 -236 -313
Deck slab and
-892 -909 -932 -919 -969 -972
haunch
Additional dead
-299 -300 -302 -301 -304
load
Net compressive
stress at start of 1519 888 815 815 932 879
test
Design live load
+ impact bending -1497 -1247 -1269 -1276 -1273 -1285
moment
Note: All stresses were calculated assuming uncracked section properties. 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

in Table 2, initial prestress loss measured immediately after
stressing all the strands ranged from 5.3% to 6.7%. Addi-
tional measured losses occurring from the time stressing was
completed until strand release ranged from 1.4% to 2.5%.
Extreme fiber concrete stresses resulting from application of
the prestress force (reported in Table 9 as Prestress) were
based on the strand force measurements taken just prior to
release and include the losses reported in Table 2.
Prestress losses resulting from elastic shortening, con-
crete creep, and concrete shrinkage were determined from
the strain gauges installed at the level of the strand group
centroid during girder fabrication. Changes in the measured
concrete strains occurring from the time of release until age
of testing (excluding the elastic strains resulting from exter-
nal load effects) were corrected for temperature effects and
multiplied by the strand modulus of elasticity to obtain the
prestress loss. The extreme fiber concrete stresses reported in
Table 9 as Prestress Loss were calculated based on these
measured losses.
Because the six girders were tested at ages ranging from
86 days to 396 days, the corresponding prestress losses var-
ied somewhat. As shown in Table 9, the total measured pre-
stress loss reduced the lower flange extreme fiber concrete
compressive stress by 156 psi (1080 kPa) in the 54-in.-deep
(1400 mm) BT5 girder and by 236 psi to 313 psi (1.63 MPa to
2.16 MPa) in the 72-in.-deep (1800 mm) girders.
The net extreme fiber concrete compressive stress in the
lower flange of each girder was determined by summing the
calculated change in extreme fiber stress resulting from each
of the five conditions defined in Table 9 (prestress, girder self-
weight, prestress loss, deck-slab-plus-haunch, and additional
dead load). For the precracked girders, the calculated extreme
fiber concrete compressive stress values were compared with
the corresponding measured decompression loads determined
from testing for validation or verification purposes.
The design live-load-plus-impact extreme fiber concrete
stress values shown in Table 9 were calculated by dividing
MayJune 2007 
the design live-load-plus-impact bending moment by the
composite uncracked section modulus of the girder. These
values represent the calculated lower flange extreme fiber
concrete stress range resulting from application of the design
live-load-plus-impact bending moment.
The required upper- and lower-bound fatigue loads were
calculated based on the net extreme fiber concrete compres-
sive stress and design live-load-plus-impact values shown in
Table 9. The upper-bound load was determined by multiply-
ing the required change in extreme fiber stress (net compres-
sive stress plus target tensile stress) multiplying by the un-
cracked composite section modulus and dividing by the shear
span. The load range was determined in the same manner, but
by using the extreme fiber concrete stress resulting from the
design live-load-plus-impact bending moment. The lower-
bound load was established by subtracting the load range
from the upper-bound load.
Fatigue Test Procedure
After establishing the required fatigue loads, each girder
was subjected to an initial static load test to measure and
document response at service load levels. Data collected
during the initial static tests included applied loads, support
reactions, concrete strains, and midspan deflections. The
measured response from the initial static test was used as a
benchmark for subsequent intermittent static tests performed
at various stages of the fatigue test.
Supplementary dead load was added to girders BT6 to
BT12 to reduce the total load requirements for the actuators.
Load cells were used to monitor the applied loads from the
actuators and the support reactions at both ends of the girder.
Displacement transducers were used to monitor midspan de-
flection on both sides of the bottom flange. Concrete strains
were measured at the level of the bottom row of prestressing
strands and in the top flange using the sister bars installed at
midspan during girder fabrication.
The girders were tested using a closed-loop, load-con-
Table 10. Fatigue Test Parameters and Results
Bottom Fatigue
Fatigue Loads, kip/ Calculated Concrete Measured Steel Strand
Girder Flange Cycles
Actuator Stresses,* psi Stress, ksi
Status Achieved
Upper Lower Max. Range Min. Range
BT5 89.3 25.0 precracked 577 1497 167.0 9.4 5,000,000
BT6 64.5 10.8 precracked 610 1247 167.0 9.1 5,000,000
BT7 72.9 17.6 precracked 857 1269 165.0 11.8 1,910,000
BT8 67.9 12.5 precracked 750 1276 162.0 9.6 2,500,000
BT11 66.6 11.3 uncracked 600 1273 169.0 6.2 5,000,000
BT12 70.2 14.8 uncracked 750 1285 167.0 5.8 5,000,000
* Parameters calculated assuming uncracked section properties.
Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

trolled, servo-hydraulic system. For dynamic loading, the
system was programmed to maintain a forced-loading func-
tion at the required frequency. Table 8 lists the fatigue load-
ing frequencies used for the six girders.
During dynamic loading, the programmed forced-loading
function was determined based on the measured support re-
actions. Due to the dynamic inertia of the girder, the applied
maximum actuator load was less than the corresponding max-
imum support reaction, and the minimum actuator load was
greater than the corresponding minimum support reaction.
Consequently, to account for the dynamic load amplification
resulting from the bouncing mass of the girder, the forces ap-
plied by the actuators were programmed to produce support
reactions corresponding to the target upper- and lower-bound
fatigue load parameters.
Each fatigue test was conducted using consecutive 1-mil-
lion-cycle segments up to a maximum of 5 million cycles.
Each segment included the application of 1 million loading cy-
cles followed by a static load test to measure girder response at
service load levels. Midspan girder camber and prestress losses
were also measured and documented at the end of each seg-
ment. The targeted 5-million-cycle test duration was selected
to represent what is believed to be the start of the long-life
fatigue region based on published data in the ACI Committee
215 report.10 The start of the long-life fatigue region represents
the point at which fatigue fractures are not likely to occur ir-
respective of the number of additional loading cycles.
Data from the intermittent static tests and other measure-
ments were used to verify or reestablish the bottom flange
decompression load. Adjustments to the target upper- and
lower-bound loads were made as necessary for the next dy-
namic loading test segment. Performance of each girder was
evaluated based on observed changes in response to applied
static loads and any other physical indicators of degradation
(cracking, wire fracture) occurring as a result of increased
fatigue exposure.
Discussion of Results
Fatigue Test Results
Table 10 presents details and results from the six fatigue
tests. The fatigue load values are based on static equilibri-
10 PCI JOURNAL
um and do not include the dynamic inertia effect. Minimum
strand stress values were calculated based on the same as-
sumptions used to determine the test loads. Values for the
measured steel strand stress range reported in Table 10 were
determined by multiplying the measured steel strains from
the electrical resistance bar gauges located at the level of the
bottom strand row by the strand modulus of elasticity values
in Table 7.
For the four girders that were tested in a cracked state,
measured steel stress range values reported in Table 10 prob-
ably underestimate the maximum stress range experienced
by the strand at the location of a flexural crack. Although
the electrical resistance bar strain gauges used to determine
the steel stress range were installed at midspan, the flexural
cracks typically did not coincide exactly with this location.
Nonetheless, a relationship among the measured steel stress
range, the peak extreme fiber tensile stress, and overall fa-
tigue endurance was evident.
For the two girders that were tested in an uncracked state
(girders BT11 and BT12), measured steel stress range values
reported in Table 10 correlate well with corresponding cal-
culated values. Using uncracked section properties, the cal-
culated steel stress range resulting from the design live-load-
plus-impact moment is approximately 6 ksi (40 MPa). The
corresponding measured values for girders BT11 and BT12
were 6.2 ksi and 5.8 ksi (43 MPa and 40 MPa), respectively.
Consequently, there was agreement between the calculated
and measured steel stress range for the uncracked girders, as
would be expected.
As indicated in Table 10, girders BT5 and BT6 withstood
5 million cycles of fatigue loading. Both girders were tested
in a cracked state using an upper-bound fatigue load corre-
sponding to the current tensile stress limit prescribed in the
AASHTO design specifications of 6 c psi (0.5 c MPa),
where c equals 10,000 psi (69 MPa), as assumed in design.
Results from these two tests indicate that high-strength con-
crete girders incorporating midspan flexural cracks can be
expected to perform adequately under fatigue loading condi-
tions when the extreme fiber tensile stress is limited to the
current allowable level.
During testing, girder BT5 exhibited a slight but gradual
reduction in stiffness as a result of increased fatigue expo-
sure. Upon dissecting the midspan region of girder BT5 after
 100
100

90 90

80 80
Upper-bound fatigue load = 72.9 kip
70 70 Upper-bound fatigue load = 67.9 kip
Ave. support reaction, kip

Ave. support reaction, kip

60 60

50 50

40 40
0 cycles
0 cycles 1,000,000 cycles
30 1,000,000 cycles 30 2,000,000 cycles
1,910,000 cycles 2,500,000 cycles
20 20 Final
Lower-bound fatigue load = 17.6 kip
Lower-bound fatigue load = 12.5 kip
10
10

0
0
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000
Midspan deflection, in.
Midspan deflection, in.

Fig. 5. Girder BT7 static test data. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; Fig. 6. Girder BT8 static test data. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm;
1 kip = 4.448 kN. 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

completion of all testing, fatigue fractures of individual wires The fatigue test of girder BT7 used an upper-bound load
were detected on two of the thirty prestressing strands. One producing an extreme fiber tensile stress equal to 8.6 c
of these strands had three wire-fatigue fractures, and the other psi (0.7 c MPa). The test of girder BT8 used an upper-
had one wire-fatigue fracture. Girder BT6 did not exhibit any bound load producing an extreme fiber tensile stress equal to
signs of stiffness reduction or wire fracture. 7.5 c psi (0.6 c MPa).
Girders BT11 and BT12 also withstood 5 million cycles As indicated in Fig. 5 and 6, both girders BT7 and BT8
of fatigue loading without any observed degradation in stiff- exhibited significant reduction in stiffness as a result of in-
ness, concrete cracking, or wire fracture. Both of these girders creased fatigue exposure. For girder BT7, audible indications
were tested in an uncracked state. The fatigue test of girder of wire breaks were noted after approximately 1.6 million
BT11 utilized an upper-bound load producing the current ten- cycles of fatigue loading and the test was terminated after
sile stress limit prescribed in the AASHTO design specifica- 1.91 million cycles. For girder BT8, audible indications
tions2,3 of 6 c psi (0.5 c MPa), where c equals 10,000 psi of wire breaks were noted after approximately 2.2 million
(69 MPa). The test of girder BT12 used an upper-bound cycles of fatigue loading, and the test was terminated after
load producing an extreme fiber tensile stress equal to 2.5 million cycles.
7.5 c psi (0.62 c MPa). Results from these two tests After completion of all testing, the midspan regions of gird-
indicate that higher allowable extreme fiber tensile stresses ers BT7 and BT8 were dissected to examine the condition of
can be used for high-strength concrete girders without com- the prestressing strands. Three of the twenty-four strands in
promising fatigue performance if the concrete remains in an the bottom flange of girder BT7 had completely fractured,
uncracked state. and eight other strands had at least one wire break. One of the
The fatigue tests of girders BT7 and BT8 were terminated twenty-four strands in the bottom flange of girder BT8 had
prior to achieving 5 million cycles due to excessive strand completely fractured, and two other strands had at least one
wire breakage and corresponding cracking of the bottom wire break. Figure 7 shows photographs of typical fatigue
flange concrete. Both girders were tested in a cracked state. fractures.

Table 11. Girder Concrete Modulus of Rupture

Measured Concrete Measured Calculated
Measured MOR,* Calculated MOR,
Girder Compressive Strength, MOR/ c MOR/ c
psi psi
psi
BT6 9290 1065 11.05 1065 10.95
BT7 13,050 1045 9.15 930 8.14
BT8 11,850 1080 9.92 890 8.18
BT11 12,770 1075 9.51 1080 9.56
BT12 12,690 1225 10.87 1175 10.43
* Measured MOR determined from material property tests.

Calculated MOR determined from measured cracking moment for girder.

Note: 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

MayJune 2007 11
Table 12. Girder Flexural Strengths
Calculated Strength, kip-ft
Measured Flexural
Girder Standard Specifications LRFD Specifications
Strength, kip-ft
Design* Measured Design* Measured
BT5 6590 6090 6490 5980 6520
BT12 9170 9000 9100 8940 9100
* Based on properties assumed for design.

Based on measured material properties.

Note: LRFD = load and resistance factor design. 1 kip-ft = 1.3560 kN-m.

For girders BT7 and BT8, the measured steel strand
stress ranges reported in Table 10 are less than the 18.0 ksi
(124 MPa) limit specified in the AASHTO LRFD specifica-
tions.3 Also, the stress ranges are only slightly larger than
those measured in the other four girders, which had no fa-
tigue fractures. Review of previous research indicates incon-
sistent correlation among measured steel strand stress ranges,
fatigue fracture of strands, and fatigue life.5,11,12
One potential explanation for this lack of correlation is the
inherent uncertainty associated with measuring or calculating
the steel stress range. Consequently, the technical basis for
the current 18.0 ksi (124 MPa) limit cited in the AASHTO
LRFD specifications is unclear and needs to be examined and
evaluated. In addition, further systematic research is needed
to evaluate the effect of steel strand stress range and other
variables on fatigue endurance.
In a 1984 fatigue behavior study performed at the Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin,12 it was concluded that it appears
adequate to design pretensioned concrete girders for stress
ranges similar to AASHTO structural steel, Category B val-
ues for redundant load path structures. In the design recom-
mendations resulting from that study, an effective endurance
limit on the steel stress range of 16.0 ksi (110 MPa) was cited.
According to the AASHTO standard specifications,2 the al-
lowable stress range for Category B steel structures with re-
dundant load paths is 18.0 ksi (124 MPa) for 2 million cycles
of fatigue life and 16.0 ksi for over 2 million cycles of fa-
tigue life. Consequently, it appears plausible that the existing
18.0 ksi steel stress range limit cited in the current AASHTO
LRFD specifications may have been established based on the
design recommendations derived from that research but used
2 million cycles as the design fatigue life.3
Discussion of Girder Cracking Behavior
With the exception of girder BT5, all girders arrived at
CTL for testing in an uncracked state. During the fabrication
of girder BT5, a full-depth crack was observed near midspan
prior to release of the strands. This crack closed after strand
release but reopened upon static loading prior to the develop-
ment of any additional cracks.
Girders BT6, BT7, and BT8 were intentionally precracked
under static loading conditions prior to the start of fatigue
loading. Girders BT11 and BT12 were intentionally cracked
during the final static load test that took place after achiev-
ing 5 million cycles of fatigue loading. The measured crack-
ing moment recorded for each girder was used to calculate
the MOR for comparison with the corresponding measured
concrete MOR values reported in Table 5. Table 11 presents
results from these comparisons.
The calculated MOR values reported in Table 11 were

8,000

7,000

6,000
Applied bending moment, kip-ft

5,000

4,000
Legend
Girder BT12
3,000
Girder BT5

2,000

1,000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Midspan deflection, in.

Fig. 8. Applied bending moment versus midspan deflection for

girders BT5 and BT12. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip-ft =
Fig. 7. Typical fatigue strand and wire fractures. 1.356 kN-m.

12 PCI JOURNAL

Fig. 9. Girder BT12 after flexural strength test.
derived using the measured cracking load and the net lower
flange compressive stress given in Table 9. For girders BT6,
BT11, and BT12, excellent agreement was noted between the
measured and calculated MOR values. For girders BT7 and
BT8, the measured MOR values were greater than the corre-
sponding calculated values. In all cases, the concrete tensile
strength expressed in terms of the square root of the concrete
compressive strength was greater than the strength given by
7.5 c psi (0.6 c MPa).
Flexural Strength Test Results
After completion of the fatigue tests of girders BT5 and
BT12, each girder was tested to evaluate its ultimate flexural
strength. The basic setups used for the flexural strength tests
were the same as those used for the fatigue tests. The actua-
tors used to apply the fatigue loads, however, were replaced
with hydraulic jacks with larger force and stroke capabili-
ties. Results from the flexural strength tests were compared
with the corresponding calculated flexural capacities based
on AASHTO provisions.
During the ultimate flexural strength tests, each girder was
incrementally loaded to capacity. As the loading progressed,
cracking patterns were marked and documented along both
sides of the girder. Measured parameters during each test in-
cluded the applied load, midspan deflection, and steel strains
from the sister gauges installed in the top and bottom flange
at midspan. Additional details related to the flexural tests of
girders BT5 and BT12 are described elsewhere.4,7
Both girders exhibited a flexural-tension failure mode,
where the measured ultimate flexural strength coincided with
first fracture of the prestressing strand rather than crushing
of the deck slab concrete. Figure 8 shows the measured rela-
tionships between total applied bending moment and midspan
deflection for girders BT5 and BT12. The total applied bend-
ing moment reported in Fig. 8 does not include the weight of
the girder and deck slab. Figure 9 is a photograph of girder
BT12 taken after completion of the flexural strength test.
Table 12 provides the measured and calculated strengths
of the two girders. The measured strength values reported
in Table 12 include the weight of the girder and deck slab.
The calculated strengths were determined using the provi-
MayJune 2007 13
sions of the AASHTO specifications.2,3 Strength calculations
were carried out using both design material properties and
measured material properties. In all cases, the measured post-
fatigue test flexural strength exceeded the corresponding cal-
culated strength.
Conclusions
Based on the results from this research, the following con-
clusions can be made:
High-strength concrete girders incorporating midspan
flexural cracks can be expected to perform adequately
under fatigue loading conditions when the extreme
fiber tensile stress is limited to the current AASHTO
allowable level of 6 c psi (0.5 c MPa).Results
also indicated that higher allowable extreme fiber
tensile stresses can be used for high-strength concrete
girders without compromising fatigue performance if
the concrete remains uncracked.
Existing bridge design specifications address fatigue
endurance of prestressed concrete girders in
an indirect way, through limiting the tensile stress
in the precompressed tensile zone to 6 c psi
(0.5 c MPa).It appears that the 6 c psi limit was
established to keep tensile stresses below the accepted
lower-bound concrete tensile strength given by the
7.5 c psi (0.6 c MPa) expression. Although this
research and other studies have shown that high-
strength concrete girders will typically have greater
reserve tensile strength beyond the 6 c psi limit, the
potential for unanticipated cracking makes using this
reserve strength in fatigue design ill-advised.
Existing bridge design specifications provide a con-
servative basis for the prediction of flexural strength
of precast, prestressed concrete bulb-tee girders made
with high-strength concrete.
Findings from this research and similar research
performed by others indicate inconsistent correla-
tions among measured steel strand stress ranges,
fatigue fracture of strands, and fatigue life.5,11,12 In this
research and the research conducted by Rabbat et al.,11
fatigue fractures of the prestressing strands were noted
at stress ranges that were initially far less than the
18.0 ksi (124 MPa) limit specified in the AASHTO
LRFD specifications.3 Consequently, the technical
basis for the 18.0 ksi limit is unclear and needs to
be examined and evaluated. Additional systematic
research is needed to evaluate the effect of steel strand
stress range and other variables on fatigue endurance.
Recommendations
Maintaining the current 6 c psi (0.5 c MPa) tensile
stress design limit for high-strength concrete girders appears
to be the most appropriate approach because test results in-
dicate that the presence of cracking should not affect fatigue
performance. Results from this research indicate that unan-
ticipated cracking due to prerelease restrained concrete ther-
mal and shrinkage movement or accidental in-service over-
load could affect fatigue performance when higher allowable
tensile stresses are used in design. Consequently, because the
potential risks far outweigh any resulting savings or benefit,
using a higher allowable tensile stress in the design of high-
strength concrete bridge girders is not recommended.
Acknowledgments and Credits
The research described in this paper was sponsored by the
LTRC. The project team acknowledges the following organi-
zations that contributed to the success of this research: bridge
design engineer LADOTD in Baton Rouge, La.; fabricators
Sherman Prestressed Concrete of Mobile, Ala., and Gulf
Coast Pre-Stress Inc. of Pass Christian, Miss.; and concrete
tester LTRC in Baton Rouge, La.
The authors also thank the PCI Journal reviewers for their
thoughtful and constructive comments.
References
1. Bruce, R. N. 1985. A Review of Fatigue Strength and Behavior
of Prestressed Concrete Girders. Final report FAP no. HPR-
0010(004), Louisiana Department of Transportation and Devel-
opment and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of-
ficials (AASHTO). 2003. AASHTO Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges. 17th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
3. AASHTO. 2004. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
3rd ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
4. Bruce, R. N., B. T. Martin, H. G. Russell, and J. J. Roller. 1994.
Feasibility Evaluation of Utilizing High-Strength Concrete in
Design and Construction of Highway Bridge Structures. Final
report no. FHWA/LA-94-282, Louisiana Transportation Re-
search Center in Baton Rouge, LA, and FHWA.
14 PCI JOURNAL
5. Ahlborn, T., C. French, and C. Shield. 2000. High-Strength
Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders. Research report MN/RC-
2000-32, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul,
MN.
6. Zia, P., and A. Caner. 1993. Cracking in Large-Size, Long-
Span Prestressed Concrete AASHTO Girders. Research report
FHWA/NC/94-003, North Carolina Center for Transportation
Engineering Studies, Raleigh, NC.
7. Bruce, R. N., H. G. Russell, and J. J. Roller. 2005. Fatigue
and Shear Behavior of HPC Bulb-Tee Girders. Final report no.
FHWA/LA-05-395, Louisiana Transportation Research Center
in Baton Rouge, LA, and FHWA.
8. ASTM A 416-02. 2002. Standard Specification for Steel Strand,
Uncoated Seven-Wire for Prestressed Concrete. West Con-
shohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) International.
9. ASTM A 370-03. 2003. Standard Test Methods and Definitions
for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM.
10. ACI Committee 215. 1992. Considerations for Design of Con-
crete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading (Revised 1992).
ACI 215R-74. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Insti-
tute (ACI).
11. Rabbat, B. G., P. H. Kaar, H. G. Russell, and R. N. Bruce. 1979.
Fatigue Tests of Pretensioned Girders with Blanketed and
Draped Strands. PCI Journal, V. 24, No. 4. (JulyAugust): pp.
88115.
12. Overman, T. R., J. E. Breen, and K. H. Frank. 1984. Fatigue
Behavior of Pretensioned Concrete Girders. Research report
no. 300-2F, Center for Transportation Research, University of
Texas at Austin.
MayJune 2007 15