ISSN No.

: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

ASSESSMENT OF INTERNAL AND
EXTERNAL PRESTRESSING OF
PRESTRESSED BOX GIRDERS
Ali MurtazaRasool1, Usman Khan2, Asif Hammed3
E-Mail id: [email protected]
1
Graduate School of Science &Engineering, Saitama University, Japan
2
Senior Engineer, National Engineering Services Pakistan, Lahore, Pakistan
3
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, UET Lahore, Pakistan
Abstract- Bridges have been built since many years also box girder bridges are being constructed since the
1920s. Initially, only mild steel reinforced box girder bridges were used. But as the requirement of long spans
box girders with minimum depths was arising, the use of high strength prestressing steel in the construction of
box girders was started. The major work for prestressing or post-tensioning was done by Freyssinet (for internal
prestressing). The use of external post-tensioning was evolved in the 1930s in Germany initially. External
prestressing had been abandoned in late 1960's and early 1970’s, because of several drawbacks, the main one
was corrosion of steel. The strengthening capabilities of external tendons became the reason for its re-
introduction in late 1970’s. In this study, an effort is done to briefly explain the procedure for the design of box
girders with internal and external prestressing systems. Also, the cost of the two systems is compared for
different spans considering stress limitations and serviceability criteria. This has been done by modeling box
girders with spans ranges from 30m to 90m and for the span to depth ratios of 15, 20 and 25. In general, this
study quantitatively indicates the prestressing force required for the two systems.
Key Words: Prestressing, Internal & External Prestressing, Post-tensioning, Box Girder
1. INTRODUCTION
The popularity of using box girder bridges is increasing with time. As the name indicates a box girder bridge is
basically a box may or may not be of trapezoidal shape with cantilevered top flange extensions on both sides.
The top slab width is selected such as that it can accommodate entire roadway width. Box girder bridges can be
cast-in-placed or constructed using segmental construction. Old cast-in-place box girders are designed using
mild steel reinforcement or post tensioning tendons. For wide roadways, the box portion generally has internal
webs and is referred to as a multi-cell box girder. Concrete box girder bridges are typically either single span or
continuous multi-span structures. Spans can have a straight or curved alignment and are generally exceed 40 m
in length. The first bridge with post-tensioning was been built in Germany [7]. Post-tensioning in concrete
bridges started in 1936 in Aue, Saxony.

External Tendon Anchorage

Deviator
External Tendon

Deviator External Tendon

Fig.1.1 Typical External Tendon Layout

pg. 536
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved
 ISSN No.: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

German engineers developed a number of construction methods for concrete bridges in same time span. Those
construction concepts are efficient and are used across the world [2]. Box girder bridges in the past were mostly
designed with the internal prestressing system, in which prestressing tendons are completely embedded inside
concrete webs of the box girder. In the recent past, box girders are designed with the combination of internal and
external prestressing tendons or only with the external prestressing tendons. External prestressing is a special
technique of post-tensioning, which is used to apply prestress forces to the concrete after hardening. External
tendons are placed outside of the section being stressed. The forces are only transferred to the anchorage blocks
or deviators. In the internal prestressing system, tendons lie within the cross-section of the structure. Internal
prestressing can be carried out by using bond between structure and prestressing steel (grouted ducts). The other
possibility is internal post-tensioning without a bond between duct and tendon. Prestressing force is transferred
through anchorages and contact pressure against the surface of the duct. Typical straight & deviated tendon
layouts are shown in Fig.1. As straight tendons do not require deviators, therefore construction is easy, less
costly and no loss of prestress occurs due to friction. However, prestressing force produced by the straight
tendons does not have a vertical component, thus it is less effective in resisting shear forces. the deviated
tendons are usually more practical as they produce bending moments and shear force distributions closer to
applied loads compared to straight tendons, also, these tendons can be made continuous in statically
indeterminate structures, reducing number of anchorages, when a straight tendon is employed in these structures.
However, loss of prestress due to friction occurs when the tendon deviates and also these tendons are susceptible
to fretting fatigue problems due to high contact pressure combined with friction and slip during cyclic loads at
deviator [2,3].
An external tendon is connected to the concrete only at deviators and anchorage location, where prestress force
is transferred to concrete. Deviators are mainly of three types: diaphragm, rib or stiffener and saddle or block as
shown in Fig.2. The advantage of using a diaphragm or a stiffener type deviator is a better distribution of tendon
deviator forces occur compared to the saddle type whereas more localized stresses due to tendon force occur
combined with local bending. Thus, saddles must be properly reinforced and detailed to avoid failure.
Diaphragms or stiffeners are bulky and increase the structure weight and pose construction difficulties when
compared to saddle type, saddle type deviators are a small block located near the intersection of the web and a
bottom slab of box girder Fig.2c. Saddles are easy to construct (less complicated formwork than diaphragms or
stiffeners) and are lightweight [6, 7].

Diaphragm
External
Tendon

Stiffener
Saddle

Fig. 1.2 Deviator Types

External prestressing was initially developed for the strengthening of bridges, now a day it is used both for the
strengthening of existing as well as for newly built structures. Prestressed concrete bridges with external
prestressing are becoming popular because of their advantages like simplicity and cost-effectiveness. External
prestressing is when unbonded tendons are placed, and prestressed, outside the structure anchored at the ends
and sometimes with one or several deviators during the length of the structure. This method is advantageous for
the strengthening of a structural member to obtain improved load carrying capacity. External tendons can be
made of steel or fiber reinforced polymer. They provide one of the most efficient solutions to increase the load
carrying capacity of existing bridges when the infrastructures are in need of renewal and made of all structural
materials, such as concrete, steel, and timber, Håkan Nordin (2005) [4].
Bridges with post-tensioning have been in use since 1950's and there are many examples throughout the world.
Mostly load is applied through single prestressing cables or grouped strands. In some cases, stress has applied
through high tensile bars. In few cases, the stress is applied using the more unconventional technique. For
example, stress in a tendon can be developed by anchoring straightened on in place and imposing deflection at
mid span. The deflection is then retained by fixing the deflected points. Prestress can also be developed by
applying a load to impose deflection in deck prior to anchoring the tendons or bars. An extension on use of

pg. 537
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved
 ISSN No.: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

external tendons is to place them at large eccentricities. This is possible only when external prestressing is used
since tendons need not be arranged within the concrete section as shown in Fig.3. Sunthavaravidel &
Aravinthan, (2005) [9].

a. Conventional Tendon Placement

b. Tendon with Large Eccentricity

Fig. 1.3 Possible Tendon Placement in External Post-Tensioning
Types of external tendons mostly depend on the corrosion protection system and technology adopted, i.e.
whether prestressing tendon is bonded or unbonded at deviators. When the tendon is bonded, it cannot be
replaced or re-strengthened but construction cost is less compared to unbonded external tendons, this non-
replaceable technology is most common in the USA. The bond between concrete and steel tendon is developed
in a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) duct embedded in concrete. The duct is filled with cement grout. In
France, most of the European countries, the external tendon is unbonded at deviators, thus allowing future
replacement and re-tensioning of the tendon. Several methods are available to make the tendon unbonded at
deviators. One method is an injection of grease or wax in the HDPE duct at high temperature (80 to 90 C),
thus ducts must resist this temperature. Galvanizing strands is another method, which does not require a duct,
but long unsupported tendon lengths should be avoided. The most economical solution, as mentioned by
Virlogeux (1993), issue of a double tubing system at deviators allowing for the replacement. This consists of
injecting HDPE ducts with cement grout, but with the double tubing system at the deviators the replacement of
tendons becomes possible.
2. STRESS CALCULATION IN THE EXTERNAL TENDONS
In past five decades, a number of experimental and analytical studies have focused on prediction of unbonded
tendon stress at ultimate limit state. Baker (1949) [10] was one of the pioneers worked on this topic, and many
methods have been proposed since then. In current investigation, these methods to predict the ultimate tendon
stress are reviewed critically and three broad categories are identified, (i) based on bond reduction coefficients,
such as the equations proposed by Baker (1949), Pannell (1969), Harajli (1990), Naaman &Alkhairi (1991) and
others; (ii) based on regression analyses, such as Warwaruk et al. (1962), Du & Tao (1985) and others; and (iii)
method based on member deformation, Ghallab & Beeby (2004) [5].
2.1 Prediction Equations Based on Bond Reduction Coefficients
Baker (1949) [10] expressed the tendon strain at ultimate limit state as a sum of effective prestress fpe and stress
increment fps which is determined by using bond reduction coefficient F having value 0.1. Janney et al. (1956)
also adopted a bond reduction coefficient for unbonded tendon stress, taken as a ratio of the neutral axis depth c
to the depth to the prestressing steel dp, i.e. F=c/dp. Pannell (1969) investigated experimentally the effect of
span-depth ratio, effective prestress & amount of reinforcement on flexural behavior of PC beams with
unbonded tendons, his formula based on assumptions, (i) width L0 of plastic zone at the ultimate is ten times the
neutral axis depth `c` at ultimate, i.e. L0 = 10c, (ii) elongation of prestressing tendon in elastic zone is negligible
compared with tendon elongation within the plastic zone, (iii) frictional stresses along tendons are neglected and

pg. 538
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved
 ISSN No.: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

tendon stress is constant between end anchorage, (iv) plane sections remain plane before and during bending.
Therefore, ultimate tendon stress fps can be obtained as
Epecu  d p  c  L0
fps  fpe  2.1
c Li
Epecu  d p  c  10c
f ps  f pe 
c Li 2.2
10E p ecu  d p  c 
f ps  f pe  2.3
Li
Where fpe is effective prestress, Ep is the modulus of elasticity of prestressing tendon, cu is an ultimate concrete
compressive strain in the extreme compression fiber, Li is the length between end anchorages. In Eq.2& 3 term
L0/Li or 10c/Li is bond reduction coefficient. In BS 8110, the ultimate stress of unbonded tendons is predicted
from Eq. 1.4.

7000     1.7f pu A ps 
f ps  f pe      1    0.7f pu Mpa 2.4
Li d p  2   fcu bd p 
Canadian Code A23.3 suggests

f ps  f pe  900
d  c  f
p
2.5
py
Le
For which,
A ps f py + As f y
cy   f py 2.6
1fc 0 b
/

1  .85  .0015f c 2.7

0  .97  .0025f c 2.8
Starting from 1998 version of AASHTO LRFD [1] Bridge Design Specifications, a prediction equation A23.3
has been adopted Eq.9 & 10. Le is effective tendon length, Ns is number of support hinges crossed by tendon,

f ps  f pe  900
d  c  f
p
2.9
py
Le
2Le
Le  2.10
2 + Ns
For T-section

Apsf py + Asf y  Asf y  0.85f c1 (b  bw )h f

c 2.11
0.85fc1bw
For rectangular section behavior

Apsf py + Asf y  Asf y

c 2.12
0.85fc1bw

Factor b1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths not exceeding 4.0 ksi, exceeding 4.0 ksi, b1 shall
be reduced at a rate of 0.05/1.0 ksi of strength in excess of 4.0 ksi, except b1 shall not be taken be less than
0.65.
2.1 Prediction Equations Based on Bond Regression Analysis
In addition to the approach of bond reduction coefficients to determine unbonded tendon stress, regression
analysis is used. Warwaruk et al. (1962) studied that on ultimate tendon stress of unbonded prestressed beams
increase in tendon stress fps is related to ρp / f'c. Eq.13 is based on regression analysis, given by
pg. 539
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved
 ISSN No.: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

P
f ps  f pe  30000  x1010 2.13
fc
Mattock et al. (1971) showed Eq.2.13 was too conservative and proposed Eq.14.

1.4fc
f ps  f pe  10000  < fpy 2.14
100P
Eq.2.14 was adopted in 1971 and 1977 versions of ACI Building Code with the modification shown in Eq. 2.15.

fc
f ps  f pe  10000  < f py 2.15
100P
With the following limitations
fps ≤ fse + 60000
fps ≤ fpy
fpe ≥ 0.5 fpu

Eq.2.16 & 2.17 has been adopted in ACI Building Code since 1983,
For L/d ≤ 35
fc
f ps  f pe  10000  2.16
100P
For L/d > 35
fc
f ps  f pe  10000  2.17
300P
Du & Tao (1985) tested 26 beams under third-point loading with a constant span-depth ratio of 20. A linear
relationship was found between the ultimate tendon stress fps and the combined reinforcement index q0, the best
correlation led to Eq.2.18.
fps  fpe  (786 1920qo ) < fpy
2.18
The limitations are
q0 ≤ 0.3
0.55fpy≤ fpe≤ 0.65fpy
2.2 Prediction Equations Based on Bond Regression Analysis
Ghallab & Beeby (2004) [2] proposed a different approach to estimate unbonded tendon stress, applicable to
concrete beams externally prestressed tendons. Assumptions are (i) axial shortening of the beam is negligible(ii)
displacement of end anchorages are neglected, (iii) friction stresses along the tendons are neglected, (iv) beam
deflection is solely due to plastic hinge deformation. The unbonded tendon stress at the ultimate stage is
expressed by Eq.19.
f ps  f pd  f pr 2.19
fpr could be evaluated from deformation of member illustrated in Fig.4. Total initial length of tendon Lt is sum
of the lengths of segments AB, BC and CD, i.e.
Lt = AB + BC + CD 2.20
Where,
AB = L2 AB  (yb  ya )2 2.21
BC = L2 BC  (yb  yc )2 2.22
CD = L2CD  (yc  yd )2 2.23
*
The tendon length after loading L t is
L*t  AB  BC  CD 2.24
Where,
AB = L2AB  (yb  ya  b )2 2.25
BC = L2BC  (yb  b  yc  c )2 2.26
CD = L2CD  (yc  yd  c )2 2.27

pg. 540
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved
 ISSN No.: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

Elongation of the tendon L can be obtained as follows,
L  L*t  Lt 2.28
Total tendon strain pr is
f pe L 2.29
 pr   pd   pr  
Ep Lt
For FRP tendon, stress-strain relationship is linear until failure, tendon stress can be calculated from Eq. 2.30.
L
f pr   pr E p  E p ( pd   pr )  f pd  Ep 2.30
Lt
L can be calculated from Eq. 2.31.
 cu
L   L2 2.31
c
2.3 Illustrative model Prestressed Box Girder Bridge
To observe the behavior of prestressed box Girder Bridge with internal and external tendons three span bridge
with three span to depth ratios of 15, 20 and 25 for spans range from 30m to 90m was modeled using CSI
BRIDGE software.

Bridge Deck

Pier

Pilecap

Pile
Fig. 2.1 Typical Cross section of Prestressed Box Girder

Fig. 2.2 Box Girder with Internal Tendons Fig. 2.3 Box Girder with External Tendons
Continuous Box Girder Bridge with internal & external prestressed tendons is shown in Fig.5 & 6. Pier, Pile-
cap, & pile have a compressive strength of 28MPa, Box Girder 40MPa, Steel 420MPa & Prestressing steel
1890MPa. A three span continuous bridge has been subjected to various loads including dead, live &
earthquake, Design Lanes & Multiple Presence of Live Load as per AASHTO LRFD [1]. Live loads include
pg. 541
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved
 ISSN No.: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

Design Truck or tandem & Design Lane. Prestressed box girder properties with internal & external tendons are
listed in table 2.1.
Table-2.1 Prestressed Box Girder Properties
Prestressed Box Girder Bridge with Tendons
Property Internal External
No. of spans 3 3
Span depth ratios 15 to 25 15 to 25
Span length 30m to 90m 30m to 90m
0.6 in dia 0.6 in dia
Tendon type
(bonded) (unbonded)
Pier size (mm) 3000x1800 3000x1800
Pile cap thickness Variable Variable
Pile diameter 1200 mm 1200 mm
No. of Piles Variable Variable
Live Load includes Design truck or design tandem, and Design lane load, design tandem comprises of a pair of
25.0kip axles with a spacing of 4.0 ft., AASHTO LRFD [1] design lane load has taken as0.64klf uniformly
distributed in longitudinal direction design truck load is shown in Fig.7.

Fig. 2.4 Characteristics of Design Truck

Dynamic load allowance factor applied to the static load is taken as (1 + IM/100). For earthquake loading, Zone
1 of AASHTO LRFD [1] has been considered for both the bridges with internal and external tendons. Response
spectrum of AASHTO 2007 has been applied to design the bridge components with applicable response
modification factors. CSI Bridge 15.2.0 was used for analysis and design of frame elements purpose, a product
of Computer & Structures.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1 Friction Losses for Internal and External Prestressing
Fig.2.8, 2.9 and 2.10 shows a comparison between frictional losses for box girder bridges with Internal&
External prestressing arrangement for three different span to depth ratios (L/h) of 15, 20 and 25 respectively. All
graphs show that friction losses for all span to depth ratios for the external prestressing system are lesser than
the internal prestressing system.
pg. 542
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved
 ISSN No.: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

60
50
Friction Loss (%)

40
30
20
INT-h/15 EXT-h/15
10
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)
Fig. 3.1 Friction Losses for Int. & Ext. Box Girders, span to depth ratio, L/h=15

50

40
Friction Loss (%)

30

20
INT-h/20 EXT-h/20
10

0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)
Fig. 3.2 Friction Losses for Int. & Ext. Box Girders, span to depth ratio, L/h=20
Fig. 3.1 indicates maximum friction losses are 30% & 53% for L/h=15, for internal system with L/h=20 are
about 22% & 45% as in Fig. 3.2. Fig. 3.3 with L/h=25, friction losses for internal system are about 16% and
39%. For external prestressing figures shows min. and max. friction losses are about 20% and 32%, 17% and
27% and 12% and 20% for L/h=15, 20 and 25 respectively, decrease in friction loss as decrease in section depth.

50

40
Friction Loss (%)

30

20

10
INT-h/25 EXT-h/25
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)
Fig. 3.3 Friction Losses for int. & ext. Box Girders, span to depth ratio, L/h=25
3.2 Jacking Force Required for int. & ext. Prestressing

250
Jacking Force, P (kN) x1000

200
INT-h/15 EXT-h/15
150

100

50

0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)
Fig. 3.4 Req. Jacking Force for Int.& Ext. Box Grders, Span to Depth ratio, L/h=15
pg. 543
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved
 ISSN No.: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

250
Jacking Force, P (kN) x1000 200
INT-h/20 EXT-h/20
150

100

50

0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)
Fig. 3.5 Req. Jacking Force for Int.& Ext. Box Girders, Span to depth ratio, L/h=20
Fig. 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 shows required an amount of jacking force for internally and externally box girder bridges
having different span lengths and span to depth ratios, graphs show amount of jacking friction increases as span
increases for both systems. Fig.11 (L/h=15) shows required jacking force for internal system is lesser than
external prestressing system up to span of about 58m, Fig.12 (L/h=20) shows required jacking force for internal
system is lesser than external prestressing system up to span about 65m, Fig.13 (L/h=25) shows that required
jacking force for internal system is lesser than external prestressing system up to span of about 71m. Generally,
amount of required jacking force depends on a number of variables but in our study, it majorly depends on
eccentricity, friction losses & allowable stress.

300
Jacking Force, P (kN) x1000

250 INT-h/25 EXT-h/25

200
150
100
50
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)
Fig. 3.6 Req. Jacking Force for Int. & Ext. Box Girders, Span to Depth Ratio, L/h=25
2500

2000 INT-h/20 EXT-h/20

Eccentricity (mm)

1500

1000

500

0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)
Fig. 3.7 Eccentricity Variation for Int. & Ext. Girders with Span to Depth Ratio, L/h=20
Fig. 3.7 shows variation of eccentricity along span for both int. & ext. prestressing systems. For span 30m
external system gives less eccentricity as compared to internal one and at span of 40m eccentricity for both the
systems is about equal in magnitude. Based on Fig.12 (L/h=20 four spans 30m, 50m, 65m and 80m were
selected for complete analysis and design of prestressed box girder bridge with internal and external tendons.
3.3 Influence of Girder Depth on Required Amount of Prestressing
Fig. 3.8 shows influence of girder depth on the required amount of prestressing for internal and external
prestressing systems, for sections with overall section depth up to 2m amount of required jacking force for
external is more as compared to the internal system. If 3m section depth is used for spans from 50m to 70m
jacking force requirement for external system starts decreasing after 65m span.
pg. 544
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved
 ISSN No.: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

250
Jacking Force, P (kN)x1000 Internal System
200 External System

150
100
50
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)
Fig. 3.8 Influence of Girder Depth on Required Amount of Prestressing
3.4 Web Shear Reinforcement Required for Prestressing System
Fig. 3.9 shows variation in the amount of web shear reinforcement required for both internal and external
prestressed box girder bridges, external prestressing system shear reinforcement requirement in webs is more as
compared to the internal prestressing system.
20

15
Av (sq-mm/mm)

10
Internal External
5

0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)
Fig. 3.9 Required Web Shear Reinforcement for int. & ext. Prestressing Systems
3.5 Pier Reinforcement Required for Prestressing Systems
Fig. 3.10 shows variation in the amount of pier reinforcement required for both internal and external prestressed
box girders, for external prestressing system main reinforcement requirement in piers of box girder is less as
compared to the internal prestressing system. For external system thin webs have been used as tendons are
placed outside concrete section, reduction in web thickness reduces overall weight. Lighter superstructure
results in lesser load applied to the substructure that reduces the requirement of main pier reinforcement for
bridges with external tendons as compared to internal systems.
5

4
Internal External
Pier Steel (%)

0
30 40 65 80
Span (m)
Fig. 3.10 Required Pier Reinforcement for int. & ext. Prestressing Systems
3.6 Pile Load for Internal and External Prestressing System

500
400
)Pile Load (KN

300
200
Internal External
100
0
30 50 65 80
Span (m)
Fig. 3.11 Pile Load for Internal and External Prestressing Systems
pg. 545
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved
 ISSN No.: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

Fig. 3.11 shows variation in pile load required for both internal and external prestressed box girders, for the
external prestressing system pile load requirement in piles of box girder is less as compared to the internal
prestressing system. For external system thin webs have been used as tendons are placed outside the concrete
section, reduction in web thickness reduces overall weight. Lighter superstructure results in lesser load
application to substructure that reduces the applied pile load for bridges with external tendons as compared to
internal systems.
3.7 Pile Cap Thickness for int. & ext. Prestressing System
Fig. 3.12 shows variation in pile cap thickness required for both internal and external prestressed box girder
bridges, for external prestressing system pile cap thickness requirement in pile caps of box girder is less as
compared to pile internal system. For external system thin webs have been used as tendons are placed outside
concrete section, reduction in web thickness reduces overall weight. Lighter superstructure results in lesser load
application to substructure that reduces Pilecap thickness for bridges with external tendons as compared to
internal systems.
4.0

3.0
Thickness (m)

2.0
Internal External
1.0

-
30 50 65 80
Span (m)
Fig. 3.12 Pilecap Thickness for Internal and External Prestressing Systems
3.8 Pilcap Reinforcement req. for Prestressing System
Fig. 3.13 shows variation in pile cap reinforcement required for both internal and external prestressed box
girders, for external prestressing system pile cap reinforcement requirement in pile caps of box girder is more as
compared to the internal system. For external system, thin pile caps as compared to internal systems have been
used. So the requirement of reinforcement in pile caps for external prestressing systems is more.

200
Reinforcement (kg/m3)

160

120

80
Internal External
40

-
30 50 65 80
Span (m)
Fig. 3.13 Pilecap Reinforcement for Internal and External Prestressing Systems
CONCLUSIONS
The outcomes and observations made from this study are as follows.
 The super structure model results indicate that for box girder bridges with external tendons only, more
jacking force is required for spans up to 60m as compared to for box girders with internal tendons.
 Thin webs can be used for externally prestressed bridges due to the absence of tendons inside the webs,
so a reduction in web thickness also reduces the shear resistance of the webs of externally prestressed
box Girder Bridge. Therefore, more shear requirements in webs are more for the external system than
an internal system.
 Thin webs for the external system also reduces the overall superstructure weight that results in a
reduction in pile and pier load and pile cap thickness and their reinforcement ratios.

pg. 546
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved
 ISSN No.: 2454- 2024 (online)

International Journal of Technical Research & Science

 For smaller spans up to 30m superstructure and overall cost for the internal system are less than the
same required for the external system, but substructure cost is more for all span ranges of the internal
system.
REFERENCES
[1] AASHTO LRFD. (2010). (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) “Bridge
Design Specifications.”
[2] Burdet, Olivier. and Badoux, Marc. (2000). “Comparison of internal and external prestressing for typical
highway bridges.” 16th Congress of IABSE, Lucerne.
[3] FHWA NHI 03-001. (2006). (Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute) "Bridge
Inspector's Reference Manual"
[4] Håkan Nordin (2005). “Strengthening structures with externally prestressed tendons.” Technical Report.
[5] Ghallaba, Ahmed. and Beebyb, A.W. (2005). “Factors affecting the external prestressing stress in externally
strengthened prestressed concrete beams.” Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 27, pp. 945-957.
[6] Konrad, Zilch. and Buba, Richard. (1998). “External Prestressing, Bavarian Examples.” 3rd International
Conference on Bridges across the Danube, Regensburg, Germany, pp. 165-175.
[7] Konrad, Hermann and Mathias. (1998). “Concrete Bridges in Germany.” Technische Universität München,
Munich, Germany.
[8] Rombach, G. (2002). “Precast segmental box girder bridges with external prestressing, design and
construction.” INSA Rennes.
[9] Suntharavadivel, T.G. and Aravinthan, Thiru. (2005). “Overview of External Post-Tensioning in Bridges.”
Southern Engineering Conference.
[10] Baker, A.L.L. “A Plastic theory of design ordinary reinforced and prestressed concrete”. Magazine of
Concrete Research, June 1949, Vol.1 No. 2.

pg. 547
www.ijtrs.com
www.ijtrs.org
Paper Id: IJTRS-V2-I9-005 Volume 2 Issue IX, September 2017
@2017, IJTRS All Right Reserved