Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorM. Saiidi
dc.contributor.authorE. Hutchens
dc.contributor.authorD. Gardella
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-08T21:24:41Z
dc.date.available2017-05-08T21:24:41Z
dc.date.copyrightAugust 1998
dc.date.issued1998
dc.identifier.other%28asce%291084-0702%281998%293%3A3%28111%29.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/50400
dc.description.abstractA posttensioned, simply supported, box-girder bridge in southern Nevada was instrumented during construction beginning in June 1992. The study was triggered by concerns over the potential adverse effects of low relative humidity on prestress losses. The variation of prestress forces and deflection was monitored over a 24-month period. These measured data were compared with four loss prediction models: (1) American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) specifications; (2) American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 209; (3) Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Committee report; and (4) Naaman's time-step method. The measured data showed that the actual creep and shrinkage losses were less than those predicated by AASHTO by approximately 30%. Of the three time-step methods, namely, the ACI 209, Naaman, and the PCI Committee methods, the first two yielded creep and shrinkage losses that closely matched the measured data, whereas the PCI method underestimated the losses by 15%.
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titleBridge Prestress Losses in Dry Climate
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume3
dc.journal.issue3
dc.journal.titleJournal of Bridge Engineering
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(1998)3:3(111)
dc.treeJournal of Bridge Engineering:;1998:;Volume ( 003 ):;issue: 003
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record