Final Report (Group 5)

Term Project: CE 5309/4363 Prestressed Concrete
Design of Bridge 205 of I-35W Extension Project and
Design of Post Tensioned Two-Way Slab
Submitted to:
Dr. Shih Ho Chao
Department of Civil Engineering
By: Group 5
Anaimallur Mani,Lokesh Kumar
Gurjar, Santosh Mahendra
Kintner, Courtney Lynn
Mukati, Gaurav Singh
Rampurawala, Sameer
Tuladhar, Shuveksha
Nukala, Vishwas
May 5, 2016

CE 5309 Prestressed Concrete Design Group 5
Project Final Report Spring 2016
1
Abstract
This project provides an opportunity to implement the knowledge gained through the prestressed
concrete design course on a real world situation. The problem statement requires group members
to divide the tasks such as planning project schedule, software analysis and preparation of design
calculations, specifications and report. Also from a technical viewpoint, by designing bridge
girders and parking floor slab with material and geometrical constraints, provides the necessary
experience for the group members in their engineering careers. It provides a more detailed study
of the various provisions in the code and its commentary. Also the recommendations stated by
various authors in field of prestressed concrete design and its practice is another addition from the
project. The invaluable benefits gained through this experience boosts the designing skills and
problem solving abilities of the group and this will surely enhance their knowledge in future design
and construction works.
The term project includes two tasks. The first task is a bridge design with pre-tensioned bridge
girders and the second task involves a building design with post-tensioned two-way slabs. The
design and analysis of the given structure is performed as per the guidelines and requirements
stated in the American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete of
(ACI 318) and American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications).

2
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... 1
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ 4
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 4
Part 1: Bridge 205 of I-35W Extension Project Design Using PGSuper ................................. 5
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Project Scope ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Software............................................................................................................................. 6
2. PROJECT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Study of Plan and General Arrangement ........................................................................... 6
2.2 Design Parameters ............................................................................................................. 6
2.3 PGSuper Analysis and Design Procedure.......................................................................... 7
3. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................................................................................... 11
4. DESIGN SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 12
5. SHOP DRAWINGS................................................................................................................ 15
6. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 15
Part 2: Designof Post-Tensioned Two Way Slab for Oak Creek Village Apartments Using
ADAPT-PT .................................................................................................................................. 16
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 17
1.1 Project Scope ................................................................................................................... 17
1.2 Software........................................................................................................................... 17
2. PROJECT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 17
2.1 Study of Plan.................................................................................................................... 17
2.2 Design Parameters ........................................................................................................... 18
2.3 ADAPT-PT Analysis and Design Procedure................................................................... 19
2.4 Calculation of effective prestressing force (fse)................................................................... 20
3. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Design Moment ............................................................................................................... 22

3
3.2 Check for stresses: ........................................................................................................... 23
3.3 Deflection: ....................................................................................................................... 24
4. DESIGN SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 24
4.1 Number of Strands............................................................................................................... 24
4.2 Tendon Profile ................................................................................................................. 25
4.3 Shear Design for punching shear..................................................................................... 25
4.4 Longitudinal Reinforcement............................................................................................ 26
4.5 Materials Summary.......................................................................................................... 26
4.6 Summary Report:............................................................................................................. 27
5. SHOP DRAWINGS........................................................................................................... 28
6. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 28
WORK DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................... 29
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 30
APPENDIX A-1: BRIDGE GIRDER DESIGN REPORT OUTPUT.................................... 31
APPENDIX A-2: BRIDGE GIRDER DESIGN MANUAL CALCULATIONS ................... 34
A. Calculation of Flexural Strength for Span 2- Girder A........................................................ 34
B. Live Load Distribution Factor for an Interior Beam (For Span 5 – Girder D) ................... 35
C. Live Load Distribution Factor for an Interior Beam (For Span 1 – Girder D)................... 36
APPENDIX A-3: BRIDGE GIRDER SHOP DRAWINGS .................................................... 38
APPENDIX B-1: SLAB DESIGN.............................................................................................. 39
INPUT DRAWINGS FOR OAKLAND CREEKS....................................................................... 39
APPENDIX B-2: SLAB DESIGN SHOP DRAWINGS .......................................................... 40

4
List of Figures
Figure 1: Overall Plan..................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Cross-Sectional View for Spans 1,3,5,6 and 7 ................................................................ 9
Figure 3: Cross-Sectional View for Span 2 .................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Cross-Sectional View for Span 4 .................................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Cross section and Debonding Pattern for Span 2 Girder A........................................... 10
Figure 6: Longitudinal View of Span 1- Girder A........................................................................ 10
Figure 7:Moment Results at Midspan‐Exterior Girder (Span 1) .................................................. 11
Figure 8: Shear Results at Midspan‐Exterior Girder (Span 1)...................................................... 11
Figure 9: Displacement Results at Midspan‐Exterior Girder (Span 1)......................................... 12
Figure 10: Plan View .................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 11: Elevation View ............................................................................................................ 18
Figure 12: Adapt Model................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 13: Moment Diagram ........................................................................................................ 22
Figure 14: Stress Diagrams........................................................................................................... 23
Figure 15: Deflection.................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 16: Tendon Height Diagram.............................................................................................. 25
List of Tables
Table 1: Girder Design Summary (All Spans).............................................................................. 12
Table 2: Mild Steel Reinforcement Design for Span 1- Girder A ................................................ 13
Table 3: Distribution Factor for an Interior Beam........................................................................ 13
Table 4:Sample Girder Schedule .................................................................................................. 14
Table 5: Sample Shear Reinforcement Detail............................................................................... 14
Table 6: Camber and Deflections.................................................................................................. 14
Table 7: Prestress Force and Strand Stresses for Span 1- Girder A.............................................. 15
Table 8:Allowable Stress limits .................................................................................................... 19
Table 9: Number of Strands and Tendon Force ............................................................................ 24
Table 10:Critical Section Stresses ................................................................................................ 25
Table 11: Punching Shear Reinforcement .................................................................................... 25
Table 12: Longitudinal Reinforcement......................................................................................... 26

5
Part 1: Bridge 205 of I-35W Extension Project
Design Using PG Super

6
1. INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this project is to design all the simply supported pre-tensioned prestressed
concrete TxDOT I-girders for the seven-span Bridge 205 of I-35W extension project in the most
economical way. The minimum number of strands, minimum number of girders, or minimum
weight, or a combination of these items is to be found and also to replace the steel plate girders at
the second span by prestressed TxDOT I-girders.
1.1 Project Scope
The project scope is to study general arrangement plan, perform analysis in PGSuper and design
all 7 spans using AASHTO LRFD and TxDOT specifications for presressed concrete bridges.
Finally prepare shop drawings and specifications along with a manual design check.
1.2 Software
The analysis was performed by using PGSuper (Prestressed Girder Superstructure Design and
Analysis), V. 2.9 (AASHTO LRFD 2014) for bridge design. Autodesk AutoCAD 2016 is used to
prepare structural drawings (shop drawings) and specifications
2. PROJECT METHODOLOGY
2.1 Study of Plan and General Arrangement
Bridge 205 is a southbound bridge on North Tarrant Expressway Segment 3A North that is 900.35'
long with 7 spans. It is on a horizontal curve with a radius of 5,800' and a vertical curve with an
entrance grade of +3% and an exit grade of – 2.46%. The second span utilizes steel girders to cross
the 230.56' between bents 2 and 3. Every other span on the bridge uses Tx54 girders. Six of the
seven bents are placed at a skew angle. The bridge has SSTR rails on either side of the deck and
an 8 ft CLF-RO fence on either side of spans 2 and 3. The overall width of the bridge varies in
span 1 and span 7 from 52'-8'' to 53'-5''. In spans 2-6, the overall width of the bridge is a constant
53'-5''.
2.2 DesignParameters
The design was based on TxDOT 2013 Bridge Design manual. As per the project statement, the
design was based on an overall bridge length of 900.35', overall width of bridge of 53'. and a
roadway width of 51'. TxDOT T551 railing was used which has a weight of 382 plf. A typical

7
composite cast-in-place deck that is 8'' thick was used with a strength of f'c=4 ksi, Ec=3605 ksi.
The various type of TxDOT girder was used for each span as per need for the most economical
design.
The girders were designed with f'c = 8.5 ksi, f'ci= 6 ksi, Ec= 5255 ksi initially but it was changed
as per the requirement. The limitation of the practical length of a precast prestressed concrete
girder is 230'. The location of the piers was not allowed to change so we had to use the same seven
span as in the original design drawings. The width of the bridge was also not allowed to be
changed.
2.3 PGSuper Analysis and DesignProcedure
The PG Super software has a built in material library and modeling template. All 7 spans are
modeled according to the alignment given in the Bridge 205 plans. The overall plan and a cross
section view of span 1 is shown in figures 1 and 2. An initial trial is performed by modeling the
similar cross-sections and number of girders for all spans as given in input drawings of Bridge
205. Multiple iterations of specification checks are performed with numerous checks to optimize
the design and meet project objectives. Girder size, number of strands, amount of mild steel
reinforcement and debonding patterns are tried in various combinations to come up with our final
design. The following are the checks PG Super does when analyzing the bridge. A sample of the
output from some of these checks can be found in Appendix A-1.
 Strand Stresses [5.9.3]
 Stress Check for Service I for Casting Yard Stage (At Release) [5.9.4.1.2]
 Stress Check for Service I for Deck and Diaphragm Placement (Bridge Site 1)
 Stress Check for Service I for Final without Live Load (Bridge Site 2) [5.9.4.2.1]
 Stress Check for Compressive Stresses for Service I for Final with Live Load (Bridge Site 3)
[5.5.3.1]
 Stress Check for Tensile Stresses for Service III for Final with Live Load (Bridge Site 3)
[5.9.4.2.2]
 Stress Check for Compressive Stresses for Fatigue I for Final with Live Load (Bridge Site 3)
[5.5.3.1]

8
 Positive Moment Capacity for Strength I Limit State for Final with Live Load Stage (Bridge
Site 3) [5.7]
 Ultimate Shears for Strength I Limit State for Bridge Site Stage 3 [5.8]
 Horizontal Interface Shears/Length for Strength I Limit State [5.8.4]
 Longitudinal Reinforcement for Shear Check - Strength I [5.8.3.5]
 Optional Live Load Deflection Check (LRFD 2.5.2.6.2)
 Girder Dimensions Detailing Check [5.14.1.2.2]
 Stirrup Detailing Check [5.8.2.5, 5.8.2.7, 5.10.3.1.2]
 Camber Check
Span 2 proved to be the most difficult span to design due to its length of 230'. The original plans
for Bridge 205 show this span using steel plate girders to make transportation and construction
feasible at site. Initial design started with 6-Tx70 girders and continued until the maximum number
of girders could fit within the width of the bridge while keeping in mind the minimum spacing
requirement of 3.5’. Due to its long span, the stress limits in concrete at initial and service stage
had to be increased beyond the project permissible values, as allowed by Dr. Chao. The final f’ci
and f’c in our design are 9 ksi and 15 ksi, respectively. Eventually 15-Tx70 girders were required
in Span 2 (Figure 3 and 4) to ensure the capacity to demand ratio was equal to or greater than 1.0
for various stress stages and girder locations listed below.
A similar approach is used to design the remaining spans and designs for every span are grouped
to streamline the designs and achieve feasibility in construction planning. 5-Tx54 girders were
safe in every span except for Span 4. For Span 4 the maximum number of girders for Tx54 with
the minimum spacing was unsafe, hence increased the girder size to 8-Tx62. An optional design
with 5-Tx70 was checked for span 4 and was finalized since the material weight was significantly
lower than 8-Tx62 (Figure 5).

9
Figure 1: Overall Plan
Figure 2: Cross-Sectional View for Spans 1,3,5,6 and 7
Figure 3: Cross-Sectional View for Span 2
Figure 4: Cross-Sectional View for Span 4

10
Figure 5: Cross section and Debonding Pattern for Span 2 Girder A
Figure 6: Longitudinal View of Span 1- Girder A

11
3. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The analysis was carried out in PG Super Software. Below are graphs depicting the shear and
moment diagrams as well as the displacement diagram for Span 1 Girder A.
Figure 7:Moment Results at Midspan‐Exterior Girder (Span 1)
Figure 8: Shear Results at Midspan‐Exterior Girder (Span 1)

12
Figure 9: Displacement Results at Midspan‐Exterior Girder (Span 1)
4. DESIGN SUMMARY
All girders used normal weight concrete and 270 ksi low-lax strands. A summary of design
specifications for all 7 spans is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Girder Design Summary (All Spans)
Span 1 Span 2 Span 3 Span 4 Span 5 Span 6 Span 7
Length of Span 102.5 ft 230.58 ft 111.17 ft 130 ft 98.09 ft 114 ft 114 ft
Girder Type TX 54 TX 70 TX 54 TX 70 TX 54 TX 54 TX 54
Number of Girders 5 15 5 5 5 5 5
Spacing 12 ft 3.52 ft 12 ft 7 ft 12 ft 12 ft 12 ft
Number of Strands 48 70 48 56 48 54 54
Dia. of Strands 0.6” 0.7” 0.6” 0.7” 0.6” 0.6” 0.6”
Straight Strands 40 70 40 40 40 46 46
Harped Strands 8 54 8 8 8 8 8
Debonded Strands 0 22 0 12 0 0 0

13
Table 2 shows a sample calculation of Mild Steel Reinforcement for a Span 1 Girder A.
Table 2: Mild Steel Reinforcement Design for Span 1- Girder A
Table 3 shows a comparison of Live Load Distribution Factors calculated by PG Super for two
sample interior beams with manual calculations.
Table 3: Distribution Factor for an Interior Beam
Distribution Factors Span/Girder Calculated PGSuper
Live Load Distribution Factor for Moment
(Strength and Service Limit States)
1D
0.8542
0.8042*
0.845
Live Load Distribution Factor for Moment
(Strength and Service Limit States)
5D 0.8612 0.908
*reduction of LLDF for moment in longitudinal beam on skewed supports

14
Table 4 show the sample girder schedule for span 1 which is extracted from the PGSuper
software.
Table 4:Sample Girder Schedule
Table 5 shows the sample shear reinforcement detail.
Table 5: Sample Shear Reinforcement Detail
Table 6: Camber and Deflections

15
Table 7: Prestress Force and Strand Stresses for Span 1- Girder A
5. SHOP DRAWINGS
CAD drawings of Span 1 Girder A were developed using the design developed in PG Super. A
cross section view, elevation view and shear stirrup details have been included in the shop
drawings. They can be found in Appendix A-3.
6. CONCLUSION
In summary, we optimized the design of this bridge to use only prestressed concrete girders and to
be the most economical design possible. In doing this, we used 5-Tx54 girders in all spans except
for Spans 2 and 4, which used 15 and 5 Tx70 girders, respectively. This design allowed our bridge
to be as lightweight as possible, while remaining safe for traffic.

16
Part 2: Design of Post-Tensioned Two Way Slab for
Oak Creek Village Apartments Using ADAPT-PT

17
1. INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this project is to design the post-tensioned two-way slab for the Oak Creek
Village Apartments by using ADAPT/PT 2015 software. This is a slab of a two story garage
building. We were assigned to carry out the design for the strip with 3 spans and a cantilever to
the left of the span.
1.1 Project Scope
The project scope is to study floor plan, perform analysis and design of the two-way slab using
ADAPT/PT 2015 software and ACI 318-2014 specifications for prestressed concrete building
design to find the number of strands, tendon layout and the amount of post tensioning force
required to balance the service load on the slab.
1.2 Software
The analysis was performed by using ADAPT-PT (AASHTO LRFD 2014) for slab design.
Autodesk AutoCAD 2016 is used to prepare structural drawings (shop drawings) and
specifications
2. PROJECT METHODOLOGY
2.1 Study of Plan
According to the plan there are 3 continuous spans of 29 ft. and a cantilever of 16.96 ft. to the left
of the spans. The width of cantilever span and first two continuous spans are 14 ft. while for the
third span it is 27 ft. For cantilever span and first two continuous spans the slab width of 14 ft.
spans on left side of the columns as on the right side there is a ramp, while for the third 27ft. span
the slab spans on both sides of the column with span width of 13 ft. on the right side. According
to the plan the columns supporting the slab have the size of 2ft. X 2ft. and a height of 12 ft.

18
Figure 10: Plan View
Figure 11: Elevation View
2.2 DesignParameters
The design was based on ACI 318-2014 Building Design Manual. As per the project statement,
the design was based on an overall slab thickness of 8-in. For design of slab the concrete strength
f’c = 4 ksi, f’ci = 3 ksi, Ec = 3605 ksi. was initially used but it was changed within the limits later.
No drop panels or transverse beams were allowed to use. A 0.5-in. diameter, Grade 270 low-
relaxation strands with initial prestress = 0.8 fpu were used. Superimposed dead load = 20 psf
(uniform) and live load = 40 psf (uniform) was given. The PT tendons were assumed to end at an
intermediate coupler and there was no effect on the slab beyond the coupler. The stress limits
according to ACI are summarized below in Table 8.

19
Table 8:Allowable Stress limits
Limits Values
Tension stress limits √𝑓′ 𝑐
At Top 6.000
At Bottom 6.000
Compression stress limits / f'c At all locations 0.450
Tension stress limits (initial) √𝑓′ 𝑐
At Top 3.000
At Bottom 3.000
Compression stress limits (initial) / f'c At all locations 0.600
2.3 ADAPT-PT Analysis and Design Procedure
All 3 continuous spans and cantilever are modeled according to given plans. The 3D view of the
slab modelled in ADAPT-PTRC 2015 is shown in figure below. Multiple iterations are performed
to optimize the design and meet project objectives. In order to design the post tension slabs we
need to input the value of effective prestressing force (fse) after all the losses. For this all the
calculations are shown below.
Figure 12: Adapt Model

20
2.4 Calculationof effective prestressing force (fse)
1.Losses due to Shrinkage
𝜀𝑠( 𝑡) =
𝑡
𝑏 + 𝑡
𝜀𝑠𝑢 𝐾𝑆𝐻 𝐾𝑆𝑆
b= 35 …for moist cured normal weight concrete
t= 21 days (assumed)
Assuming relative humidity(H) of 60%.
𝜀𝑠𝑢 = 6𝑥10−4
𝐾𝑆𝐻 = 1.40 − 0.01𝐻 = 1.40 − 0.01𝑥60 = 0.8
𝑉
𝑆⁄ = 3.91 𝑖𝑛.
𝐾𝑆𝑆 = 0.86 −
(0.86 − 0.77)
(4 − 3)
(3.91 − 3) = 0.778 > 0.6 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑎𝑔𝑒
Assume long-term losses to take place over 50 years (18250 days):
𝜀𝑠𝑡 =
18250
18250 + 35
(6𝑥10−4)(0.8)(0.778) = 3.727𝑥10−4
𝐸 𝑝𝑠 = 28500 𝑘𝑠𝑖
∴ ∆𝑓𝑝𝑠 = 28500 ∗ 3.727 ∗ 10−4
= 10.62 𝑘𝑠𝑖
2. Losses due to Creep
𝐶𝑐𝑡( 𝑡) =
𝑡0.6
10 + 𝑡0.6
𝐶𝑐𝑢 𝐾𝐶𝐻 𝐾𝐶𝐴 𝐾𝐶𝑆
𝐶𝑐𝑢 = 2.0
𝐾𝐶𝐻 = 1.27 − 0.0067𝐻 = 1.27 − 0.0067 ∗ 60 = 0.868
𝑡𝐴 = 21 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ( 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑)
𝐾𝐶𝐴 = 1.25𝑡𝐴
−0.118
= 1.25 ∗ 21−0.118
= 0.873

21
𝐾𝐶𝑆 = 0.87 −
(0.87 − 0.77)
(4 − 3)
(3.91 − 3) = 0.779 > 0.68 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝
𝐶𝑐𝑡( 𝑡) =
182500.6
182500.6 + 10
(2.0)(0.868)(0.873)(0.779) = 1.1487
𝑓𝑐𝑖
′
= 6000 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐸𝑐𝑖 = 57000√𝑓𝑐𝑖
′
= 57000 ∗
√6000
1000
= 4415 𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝑓𝑐𝑖 = 216 ∗ 1000 ∗ 17 ∗ 0.294/1680 = 642.6 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝜀 𝑐𝑖 =
𝑓𝑐𝑖
𝐸𝑐𝑖
=
642.6𝑥10−3
4415
= 1.455𝑥10−4
𝐶𝑐( 𝑡) =
𝜀 𝑐( 𝑡)
𝜀 𝑐𝑖
→ 𝜀 𝑐( 𝑡) = 𝐶𝑐( 𝑡) ∗ 𝜀 𝑐𝑖 = 1.1487 ∗ 1.455𝑥10−4
= 1.672 ∗ 10−4
∆𝑓𝑝𝑠 = 𝐸 𝑝𝑠 ∗ 𝜀 𝑐( 𝑡) = 28500∗ 1.672 ∗ 10−4
= 4.765 𝑘𝑠𝑖
3. Losses due to Relaxation of strands
∆𝑓𝑝𝑟 = 𝑓𝑝𝑖
log( 𝑡)
𝐾
[
𝑓𝑝𝑖
𝑓𝑝𝑦
− 0.55]
K=45 for Low relaxation strands
For low-relaxation strands: 𝑓𝑝𝑦 = 0.9𝑓𝑝𝑢 = 0.9 ∗ 270 = 243 𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝑓𝑝𝑖 = 0.8𝑓𝑝𝑢 = 0.8 ∗ 270 = 216 𝑘𝑠𝑖
∆𝑓𝑝𝑟 = 216 ∗
log(18250)
45
[
216
243
− 0.55] = 6.931 𝑘𝑠𝑖
∴ Total losses = 22.316 ksi
∴ 𝒇 𝒑𝒆 = 𝟐𝟏𝟔 − 𝟐𝟐. 𝟑𝟏𝟔 = 𝟏𝟗𝟑. 𝟔𝟖 𝒌𝒔𝒊

22
3. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
3.1 DesignMoment
The moment diagram is shown in Figure 13 which shows positive and negative moments at the
supports and midspan.
LOAD COMBINATION: Envelope
Moment Diagrams
Project: "Design Of Two-Way Slabs" / Load Case: Envelope
Moment Drawn on Tension Side
Figure 13: Moment Diagram

23
3.2 Check for stresses:
According to ACI 318-2014 the checks for limiting stresses at service are given by ADAPT-PT
are as follows:
Figure 14: Stress Diagrams
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
L-Cant SPAN1 SPAN2 SPAN3
Stress Diagrams
Project: "DesignOfTwo-WaySlabs" /LoadCase:Envelope
Tensile Stress Positive
Stress[psi]
AllowableStresses TopMax TopMin
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
L-Cant SPAN1 SPAN2 SPAN3
Stress Diagrams
Project: "DesignOfTwo-WaySlabs" /LoadCase:Envelope
Tensile Stress Positive
Stress[psi]
AllowableStresses BottomMax BottomMin

24
3.3 Deflection:
The figure 15 shows the deflection for all the three spans.
Figure 15: Deflection
4. DESIGN SUMMARY
4.1 Number of Strands
The number of strands as per the design parameters, loading and the strength and geometry of the
slab was calculated by the ADAPT-PT. The number of strands was 17.
Table 9: Number of Strands and Tendon Force
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
Left Cantilever Span1 Span2 Span3
Deflection Diagrams
File: final safe adapt dgn
Deflection[in]
ServiceEnv. MaxTotal ServiceEnv. MinTotal

25
4.2 Tendon Profile
The tendon profile of one of the strands is as shown in the figure below.
Figure 16: Tendon Height Diagram
4.3 Shear Designfor punching shear
The results of shear design carried out by ADAPT-PT are as follows The 2-way shear also known
as punching shear was checked near the edge of the columns. Based on the stresses shown in Table
10, shear studs rails were not provided.
Table 10:Critical Section Stresses
Label Layer
Con
d.
Factored
shear
Factored
moment
Stress
due to
shear
Stress
due to
moment
Total
stress
Allowable
stress
Stress
ratio
k k-ft ksi ksi ksi ksi
1 1 1 -97.63 -163.60 0.09 0.068 0.159 0.244 0.653
2 1 1 -92.69 +4.83 0.09 0.002 0.089 0.244 0.365
3 1 1 -138.31 +197.59 0.13 0.082 0.212 0.230 0.920
4 1 2 -85.47 -209.04 0.12 0.097 0.215 0.268 0.799
Table 11: Punching Shear Reinforcement
Reinforcement option: Shear Studs
Stud diameter: 0.5
Number of rails per side: 2
Col. Dist Dist Dist Dist Dist Dist Dist Dist Dist Dist
in in in in in in in in in in
1
2
3
4

26
Dist. = Distance measured from the face of support
Note: Columns with --- have not been checked for punching shear.
Note: Columns with *** have exceeded the maximum allowable shear stress
4.4 Longitudinal Reinforcement
This provision is in place to control cracking and increase ductility of the structure since
unbounded steel is still elastic at the time concrete crushes. The following longitudinal
reinforcement shown in Table 12 is provided. A visual representation of this reinforcement can be
seen in the shop drawings in the appendix.
Table 12: Longitudinal Reinforcement
Span ID Location From Quantity Size Length Area
ft ft in2
CL 1 TOP 0.00 4 6 31.50 1.76
1 2 TOP 17.85 3 6 22.50 1.32
2 3 TOP 17.85 3 6 22.50 1.32
3 4 TOP 17.85 3 6 11.50 1.32
CL 5 TOP 7.48 3 6 18.50 1.32
1 6 TOP 20.75 3 6 16.50 1.32
2 7 TOP 20.75 3 6 16.50 1.32
3 8 TOP 20.75 3 6 8.50 1.32
CL 9 BOT 0.00 6 8 104.00 4.74
4.5 Materials Summary
From this design the following quantities of materials will be needed.
1. Concrete
Total volume of concrete = 1527.03ft3 (56.56 yd3)
Area covered = 1832.44 ft2
2. Mild steel
Total weight of rebar = 2392.63 lbs
Average rebar usage = 1.31 psf, 1.57 pcf
3. Prestressing material
Total weight of tendon = 930.0 lb
Average tendon usage = 0.51 psf, 0.61 pcf

27
4.6 Summary Report:
ADAPT - STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SOFTWARE SYSTEM
ADAPT-PT Version "2015" Date: "05 - 01 - 2016" Time: "21:36" File: final safe adapt dgn
1 - PROJECT TITLE: "Design Of Two-Way Slabs"
1.1 Design Strip: Group-5
1.2 Load Case: Envelope
2 - MEMBER ELEVATION
[ft] 16.96 29.00 29.00 29.00
L-Cant SPAN 1 SPAN 2 SPAN 3
3 - TOP REBAR
3.1 ADAPT selected
3.2 ADAPT selected
3.3 Num. of layers
1 4#6X31'6" 2 3#6X22'6" 3 3#6X22'6" 4 3#6X11'6"
5 3#6X18'6" 6 3#6X16'6" 7 3#6X16'6" 8 3#6X8'6"
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 - TENDON PROFILE
4.1 Datum Line
4.2 CGS Distance A [in]
4.6 CGS Distance B [in]
4.10 CGS Distance C [in]
4.14 Force/Width [kips/ft]
4.3 Force A [kips]
4.7 Force B [kips]
4.11 Force C [kips]
5.005.005.00 9.00
433.872
3.50 9.00
433.872
3.503.50 9.00
433.872
1.751.75 5.00
433.872
30.99 30.99 30.99 16.07 .00
5 - BOTTOM REBAR
5.1 ADAPT selected
5.2 ADAPT selected
5.3 Num. of layers
9 6#8X104'0"
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 - REQUIRED & PROVIDED BARS
6.1 Top Bars
[ in2]r e q u i r e d
p r o v i d e d
6 . 2 B o t t o m B a r s
m a x
m a x
0.0
1.6
3.2
1.2
2.4
3.6
4.8
2.83
0.00
2.83
0.00
2.61
0.00
2.61
4.30
7 - PUNCHING SHEAR
OK=Acceptable
RE=Reinforce
NG=Exceeds code
NA=not applicable
or not performed
0.00
0.00
0.65
- 97.63
- 163.60
OK
0.37
- 92.69
4.83
OK
0.92
- 138.31
197.59
OK
0.80
- 85.47
- 209.04
OK
7.1 Stress Ratio
Shear Force [kips]
Bending Moment [kips*ft]
7.2 Status
8 - LEGEND Stressing End Dead End
9 - DESIGN PARAMETERS
9.1 Code: American ACI318 (2011)/IBC (2012) f'c = 8000 psi fy = 60 ksi (longitudinal) fy = 60 ksi (shear) fpu = 270 ksi
9 . 2 R e b a r C o v e r : T o p = 1 i n B o t t o m = 1 i n R e b a r T a b l e :
10 - MATERIAL QUANTITIES
CONCRETE
Total volume of concrete = 1527.0 ft3
Area covered = 1832.4 ft2
M I L D S T E E L
T o t a l w e i g h t o f r e b a r = 2 3 7 4 . 8 l b
Average rebar usage = 1.296 lb/ft2, 1.555 lb/ft3
P R E S T R E S S I N G S T E E L
T o t a l w e i g h t o f t e n d o n = 9 3 0 . 0 l b
Average tendon usage = 0.508 lb/ft2, 0.609 lb/ft3
11 - DESIGNER'S NOTES

28
5. SHOP DRAWINGS
A CAD drawing of tendon profile and longitudinal reinforcement details have been included in
the shop drawings. They can be found in Appendix B-2.
6. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the final design of the post tensioning two-way slab was carried out with the help
of ADAPT-PT. The minimum number of strands required to compensate the service loading in the
slab was found to be 17 in the particular strip. The strands were arranged with 4 strands banded
together in the direction of the strip. The strands in the transverse direction was equally spaced at
a distance of 3.2 ft. The limits of the stresses calculated was determined to be within the
permissible limits of 125 ksi to 300 ksi in the post tensioned strands. In this case, shear studs were
not required since the allowable stress is greater than the provided stress and safe in punching
shear.

29
WORK DISTRIBUTION
AnaimallurMani,Lokesh
Kumar
Adapt PT Model
Preparation ofSlabReport
Calculationof prestresslosses for
slab
Optimising bridge design
Gurjar, Santosh Mahendra
Adapt PT Model
Manual calculation ofgirder
flexural strength
Preparation ofSlabReport
Kintner,CourtneyLynn
Group Coordination
Modelling inPG Super,
Preparation ofBridge Report
Shop drawings
Mukati, Gaurav Singh
Calculationof prestresslosses
for slab
Preparation ofPresentation
Rampurawala, Sameer
Modelling inPG Super, Optimising
bridge design
Calculationof prestresslosses for
slab
Preparation ofBridge Report
Tuladhar, Shuveksha
Group Coordination
Modelling inPG Super, Optimising
bridge design
Calculationof Live LoadDistribution
Factors
Preparation ofBridge and Slab
report
Shop drawings andOverall Review
of Report/Presentation
Nukala, Vishwas
Preparation ofPresentation
AdaptPT Model
Group 5
Work
Distribution

30
REFERENCES
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2014.
AASHTO LRFD.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2014. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
and Commentary. ACI 318-14.
Chao, Shih Ho. CE 5309 Spring 2016 Class Lecture Notes.
Naaman, Anthoine E. 2012. Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design. Third Edition.
TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation). 2013. TxDOT Bridge Design Manual.

31
APPENDIX A-1: BRIDGE GIRDER DESIGN REPORT OUTPUT

32

33

34
APPENDIX A-2: BRIDGE GIRDER DESIGN MANUAL
CALCULATIONS
A. Calculationof Flexural Strength for Span 2- Girder A
dp = 70‐7.129 + 8 = 70.871 inch
bs = 3.75 ft f’c = 15ksi β1 = 0.65 kc = 0.28
A = 9636 in2 yb = 31.91 inch yt = 38.09 inch I = 628747in4
Sb = 19703 in3 H = 70in A’s = #4-6 = 1.2 in2 As = 0 inch2
fy= 60 ksi d’s = 1.75 inch
Aps = 70 X 0.294 = 20.58 in2
fps = fpu(1‐(kc/dp) fps = 270 ‐ 1.067 C
A’s f'y = 72 kft tf = 3.5 inch bw = 9 inch bf = 36.67 inch
Assuming rectangular section behavior
0.85 X 15 X 3.75 X 12 X 0.65C = 20.58 X (270 ‐ 1.067 C) -72
C = 34.4in > 8 inch
Our assumption is wrong.
Assuming T Section behavior
0.85 X 15 X 9 X 0.65 X C + 0.85 X 15 X (36.67-9) X 3.5 = 20.58 X (270 ‐ 1.067 C) – 72
C = 44 inch
a = 0.65 X 44 = 28.61 inch
fps = 270‐1.067(44) = 223.052 ksi
Mn = 20.58 X 223.052 X (70.871-28.61/2)-72 X (1.75-28.61/2) + 0.85 X 15 X (36.67-9) X 3.5
Mn = 21816.65 kft
Calculating Ф factor:
εt = 0.003 X (70.871-34.4)/34.4 = 0.00318 < 0.005 hence transition section.
Ф = 0.75 + 0.25(0.00318-0.002)/(0.005-0.002) = 0.848
ФMn = 0.848 X 21816.65 = 18500.51 kft
From PGSuper фMn = 20243.38 kft

35
B. Live Load Distribution Factorfor an Interior Beam(For Span 5 – Girder
D)
Beam type: I girder TX54
Type of cross-section: k
Span Length = 98.09 ft
No. of beams (Nb) = 5
S = 12 ft
Live Load Distribution Factor for moment:
(
𝐾 𝑔
12.0 𝐿 𝑡 𝑠
3 )
0.1
= 1.09 From AASHTO table 4.6.2.2.1.3
1. One Lane Design Load:
𝐷𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 0.06 + (
𝑆
14
)
0.4
(
𝑆
𝐿
)
0.3
(
𝐾𝑔
12.0 𝐿 𝑡𝑠
3
)
0.1
= 0.06 + (
12
14
)
0.4
× (
12
98.09
)
0.3
× 1.09
= 0.6057
2. Two Lane Design Load:
𝐷𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 0.075 + (
𝑆
9.5
)
0.4
(
𝑆
𝐿
)
0.2
(
𝐾𝑔
12.0 𝐿 𝑡𝑠
3
)
0.1
= 0.075 + (
12
9.5
)
0.4
× (
12
98.09
)
0.2
× 1.09
= 0.8612
Reduction of LLDF for moment in longitudinal beam in skewed supports
θ = 24.973o which is less than 30o
So, reduction is not required.

36
C. Live Load Distribution Factor for an Interior Beam(For Span 1 – Girder
D)
Beam type: I girder TX54
Type of cross-section: k
Span Length = 102.52 ft
No. of beams (Nb) = 5
S = 12 ft
Live Load Distribution Factor for moment:
(
𝐾 𝑔
12.0 𝐿 𝑡 𝑠
3 )
0.1
1. One Lane Design Load:
𝐷𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 0.06 + (
𝑆
14
)
0.4
(
𝑆
𝐿
)
0.3
(
𝐾𝑔
12.0 𝐿 𝑡𝑠
3
)
0.1
= 0.06 + (
12
14
)
0.4
× (
12
102 .52
)
0.3
× 1.09
= 0.5985
2. Two Lane Design Load:
𝐷𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 0.075 + (
𝑆
9.5
)
0.4
(
𝑆
𝐿
)
0.2
(
𝐾𝑔
12.0 𝐿 𝑡𝑠
3
)
0.1
= 0.075 + (
12
9.5
)
0.4
× (
12
102.52
)
0.2
× 1.09
= 0.8542
Reduction of LLDF for moment in longitudinal beam in skewed supports
θ = 37.164o which is greater than 30o
So, reduction is required.

37
𝑐1 = 0.25(
𝐾𝑔
12.0 𝐿 𝑡𝑠
3
)
0.25
(
𝑆
𝐿
)
0.5
(
𝐾 𝑔
12.0 𝐿 𝑡 𝑠
3 )
0.25
𝑐1 = 0.25 × (1.15)0.25
(
12
102 .52
)
0.5
= 0.0885
1 − 𝑐1( 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃)1.5
= 1 − 0.0885 ∗ (tan37.164)^1.5 = 0.9415
One Lane Design Load: 𝐷𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 0.5985 × 0.9415 = 0.5634
Two Lane Design Load: 𝐷𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 0.8542 × 0.9415 = 0.8042

38
APPENDIX A-3: BRIDGE GIRDER SHOP DRAWINGS

39
APPENDIX B-1: SLAB DESIGN
INPUT DRAWINGS FOR OAKLAND CREEKS

40
APPENDIX B-2: SLAB DESIGN SHOP DRAWINGS

Final Report (Group 5)

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Final Report (Group 5)

Final Report (Group 5)