Creep Shrinkage and Prestress Losses

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials

Research Report No. 03-11
Creep, Shrinkage, and Prestress Losses of

High-Performance Lightweight Concrete
Task 3 Report Lightweight Concrete for High-Strength/HighPerformance Precast Prestressed Bridge Girders
Prepared for
Office of Materials and Research
Georgia Department of Transportation
GDOT Research Project No. 2004
by
Mauricio Lopez, Lawrence F. Kahn,
Kimberly E. Kurtis, and James S. Lai
July 2003
Revised December 2003
Contract Research
GDOT Research Project No. 2004
Creep, Shrinkage and Prestress Losses of High Performance

Lightweight Concrete
Task 3 Report: Lightweight Concrete for High-Strength/HighPerformance Precast Prestressed Bridge Girders
Prepared for
Office of Materials and Research
Georgia Department of Transportation
by
Mauricio Lopez, Lawrence F. Kahn,
Kimberly E. Kurtis, and James S. Lai
July 2003
Revised December 2003
The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of
the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia
Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Executive Summary
The creep, shrinkage and prestress losses of high performance lightweight concrete
(HPLC) were investigated. The creep was less than that of normal weight high performance
concrete while the shrinkage was somewhat greater. Generally prestress losses measured on
AASHTO Type II girders made with HPLC were less than those predicted using AASHTO,
PCI and ACI-209 relations.
Two different HPLC mixes were developed using Type III cement, silica fume, class
F fly ash, expanded slate as coarse aggregate, natural sand, and chemical admixtures. The
first mix was an 8,000-psi HPLC (FHWA HPC Grade 2) with an air dry unit weight of 117
lb/ft3. The second mix was a 10,000-psi HPLC (FHWA HPC Grade 3) with an air-dry unit
weight of 119 lb/ft3.
In the fresh state, the two HPLC mixes performed adequately for casting precast
prestressed concrete girders. The 56-day specified strength was reached in most cases at 28
days. As expected, modulus of elasticity was up to 20% lower than that of HPC of similar
strength. Modulus of rupture was higher than the value given by AASHTO equation for
normal weight concrete.
The 620-day creep of 8,000-psi HPLC was about 1,650 and 2,000 when loaded
to 40% and 60% of initial strength, respectively. On the other hand, the 620-day creep of
10,000-psi HPLC was approximately 1,160 and 1,500 when loaded to 40% and 60% of
initial strength. Fifty and ninety percent of the 620-day creep were reached after
approximately 10 and 250 days of loading, regardless the type of HPLC.
The 10,000-psi HPLC had a specific creep similar to that of a normal weight HPC of
the same grade, but with less cement paste content; and it had significantly less creep than an
HPC of the same grade and similar cement paste content.
The 620-day shrinkage was approximately 820 for the 8,000-psi HPLC mix and
610 for the 10,000-psi HPLC mix. Fifty and ninety percent of the 620-day shrinkage were
reached after approximately 30 and 260 days of drying, regardless the type of HPLC.
Considering creep and shrinkage performance, the Shams and Kahn (2000) model
was the best model for predicting long-term strains of HPLC made with locally available
materials in Georgia.
The AASHTO-LRFD refined method for estimating prestress losses was conservative
when compared to measured long-term losses found in six AASHTO Type II precast,
prestressed girders made with HPLC. The AASHTO-LRFD lump sum method was
conservative for estimating prestress losses on the 10,000-psi girders made with HPLC. For
8,000-psi girders made with HPLC the AASHTO-LRFD lump sum method underestimated
total loses by 1.2%.
Overall, the AASHTO-LRFD refined method may be used conservatively for
predicting prestress losses in girders made of high performance lightweight concrete.
ii
Acknowledgements
The Georgia Department of Transportation sponsored the research reported herein
through Georgia DOT research project no. 2004, Task Order no. 97-22. Tindall Corporation
constructed all prestressed girders. For laboratory phases of the overall research project,
LaFarge Cement, Boral Material Technologies, and Grace Construction Products donated
cement, flyash, and concrete admixtures, respectively. Carolina Stalite Company donated all
expanded slate lightweight aggregate. The support provided by the sponsors is gratefully
acknowledged.
The findings and conclusions reported herein are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the opinions, conclusions, specifications, or policies of the Georgia
Department of Transportation, or any other sponsoring or cooperating organization.
Mr. Paul Liles, GDOT Bridge Engineer, provided valuable suggestions and guidance.
Lt. Col. Karl F. Meyer, Ph.D., P.E., Mr. Brandon Buchberg, and Mr. Adam Slapkus assisted
with specimen preparation, strain measurements, and physical testing. Mr. Charles Freeman
and Ken Harmon of Carolina Stalite provided valuable advice. Ms. Maria Wilmhof and
several other students in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Georgia Tech
also assisted in the construction and testing phases of the research. Their assistance is
gratefully acknowledged.
iii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures.............................................................................................................. xiv
1. Introduction................................................................................................................1
2. Background Review ...................................................................................................5
2.1 Creep and Shrinkage of HPLC ........................................................................ 5
2.1.1. Creep of HPLC ......................................................................................... 5
2.1.2. Shrinkage of HPLC................................................................................... 6
2.2 Creep and Shrinkage Models ........................................................................... 7
2.3 Prestress Losses ............................................................................................... 8
3. Experimental Program, Results, and Short-term Properties ..............................11
3.1 HPLC Mixes for short and long-term properties ........................................... 11
3.2 Plastic Properties............................................................................................ 13
3.3 Unit Weight.................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Compressive Strength .................................................................................... 14
3.5 Modulus of Elasticity..................................................................................... 16
3.6 Modulus of Rupture ....................................................................................... 17
3.7 Chloride Permeability .................................................................................... 18
3.8 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion................................................................. 19
4. Creep and Shrinkage Results and Analysis...........................................................21
4.1 Creep Results and Analysis ........................................................................... 21
4.1.1 Creep Behavior of Laboratory HPLC vs. Field HPLC ............................ 22
iv
4.1.2 Creep Behavior of 8,000-psi HPLC vs. 10,000-psi HPLC ...................... 25

4.2 Shrinkage Results and Analysis..................................................................... 26
4.3 Creep and Shrinkage Test Results vs. Model Estimates................................ 29
4.3.1. Creep and Shrinkage Models Results ..................................................... 29
4.3.2. Creep Models Compared ........................................................................ 30
4.3.3. Shrinkage Models Compared.................................................................. 35
4.4 Comparison of Creep and Shrinkage of HPLC with HPC............................. 38
4.4.1. Creep Comparison .................................................................................. 39
4.4.2. Shrinkage Comparison............................................................................ 40
4.4.3. Total Strain Projection ............................................................................ 42
5. Prestress Losses........................................................................................................43
6. Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................49
6.1. Conclusions................................................................................................... 49
6.1.1. High Performance Lightweight Concrete Material Properties ............... 49
6.1.2. Creep and Shrinkage Behavior ............................................................... 50
6.1.3. Prestress Losses ...................................................................................... 51
6.2. Recommendations......................................................................................... 52
6.2.1. Design Recommendations ....................................................................... 52
6.2.2. Future Research ....................................................................................... 52
7. References.................................................................................................................55
Appendix A. Introduction ...........................................................................................61
A.1 Introduction to Task 3: Short and Long-term Properties of High Performance
Lightweight Concrete Mixes......................................................................................... 61
A.2 Introduction to High Performance Concrete (HPC) ..................................... 62
A.3 Introduction to Structural Lightweight Concrete (SLC) ............................... 65

A.4 Introduction to High Performance Lightweight Concrete (HPLC) .............. 66
Appendix B. Creep and Shrinkage - Background ....................................................69
B.1 Long-term strains in concrete........................................................................ 69
B.2 Creep ............................................................................................................. 70
B.2.1. Basic Creep ............................................................................................ 71
B.2.2. Drying Creep .......................................................................................... 72
B.2.3. Factors Influencing Creep ...................................................................... 72
B.2.4. Creep Mechanisms ................................................................................. 75
B.3 Shrinkage....................................................................................................... 78
B.3.1. Autogenous Shrinkage ........................................................................... 78
B.3.2. Drying Shrinkage ................................................................................... 79
B.3.3. Factors Influencing Shrinkage ............................................................... 79
B.3.4. Shrinkage Mechanisms .......................................................................... 80
B.4 Long-Term Strains of HPC ........................................................................... 81
B.4.1. Creep of HPC ......................................................................................... 82
B.4.2. Shrinkage of HPC................................................................................... 84
B.5 Long-Term Strains of SLC............................................................................ 86
B.5.1. Creep of SLC.......................................................................................... 86
B.5.2. Shrinkage of SLC ................................................................................... 90
B.6 Long-Term Strains of HPLC......................................................................... 92
B.6.1. Creep of HPLC....................................................................................... 92
B.6.2. Shrinkage of HPLC ................................................................................ 96
Appendix C. Creep and Drying Shrinkage Models ..................................................97
vi
C.1 Models for Normal Strength Concrete .......................................................... 98

C.1.1. ACI-209 Method .................................................................................... 98
C.1.2. AASHTO-LRFD Method..................................................................... 102
C.1.3. CEB-FIP Method.................................................................................. 104
C.1.4. Baant and Panulas - BP Method........................................................ 108
C.1.5. Baant and Bawejas - B3 Method....................................................... 115
C.1.6. Gardner and Lockmans - GL Method................................................. 119
C.1.7. Sakatas - SAK 93 Method................................................................... 120
C.2 Models for High Strength Concrete ............................................................ 123
C.2.1 CEB-FIP Method as modified by Yue and Taerwe (1993)................... 123
C.2.2. Baant and Panulas - BP Method........................................................ 124
C.2.3. Sakatas - SAK 01 Method................................................................... 126
C.2.4. AFREM Method................................................................................... 128
C.2.5. AASHTO-LRFD as modified by Shams and Kahn (2000).................. 130
C.3 Models for Lightweight Concrete ............................................................... 133
C.3.1. ACI-209 Method .................................................................................. 133
C.3.2. AASHTO-LRFD Method..................................................................... 133
C.3.3. Gardner and Lockmans - GL Method................................................. 133
Appendix D. Prestress Losses - Background...........................................................135
D.1 Prestress Losses........................................................................................... 135
D.1.1. Introduction to Prestress Losses........................................................... 135
D.1.2. Prestress Losses in Normal Weight Normal Strength Concrete .......... 136
D.1.3. Prestress Losses in Special Concretes.................................................. 137
D.2 Codes........................................................................................................... 138
vii
D.2.1. PCI Method .......................................................................................... 138

D.2.2. AASHTO-LRFD Refined Estimates of Time-Dependent Losses ....... 142
D.2.3. AASHTO-LRFD Lump Sum Estimate of Time-Dependent Losses.... 145
D.2.4. ACI-209 Method .................................................................................. 146
Appendix E. Concrete Properties Experimental Program ................................151
E.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 151
E.2 Mix Design .................................................................................................. 151
E.3 Test Procedures ........................................................................................... 152
E.4 Creep Test Procedures................................................................................. 154
E.5 Shrinkage Test Procedures .......................................................................... 157
E.6 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Test Procedures.................................... 157
Appendix F. Experimental Results and Analysis....................................................159
F.1 Plastic Properties ......................................................................................... 159
F.2 Unit Weight ................................................................................................. 159
F.3 Compressive Strength.................................................................................. 161
F.4 Modulus of Elasticity................................................................................... 165
F.5 Modulus of Rupture..................................................................................... 166
F.6 Chloride Ion Permeability............................................................................ 168
F.7 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion............................................................... 169
F.8 Creep............................................................................................................ 170
F.8.1. Creep of 8L and 10L HPLC.................................................................. 170
F.8.2. Creep of 8F and 10F HPLC .................................................................. 178
F.9. Shrinkage .................................................................................................... 186
F.9.1. Shrinkage of 8L and 10L HPLC........................................................... 188
viii
F.9.2. Shrinkage of 8F and 10F HPLC ........................................................... 189

Appendix G. Analysis of Creep and Shrinkage .....................................................193
G.1 Comparison of Creep Performance of Laboratory HPLC with Field HPLC193
G.1.1. Comparison of Creep Performance of 8L HPLC with 8F HPLC ........ 194
G.1.2. Comparison of Creep Performance of 10L HPLC with 10F HPLC .... 196
G.2 Comparison of Creep of 8,000-psi HPLC with 10,000-psi HPLC ............. 198
G.3 Comparison of Shrinkage of 8,000-psi HPLC with 10,000-psi HPLC....... 202
G.4 Comparison of Creep and Shrinkage Test Results with Code Models ....... 205
G.4.1. Creep and Shrinkage Models Results .................................................. 205
G.4.2. Creep Models Performance Comparison ............................................. 208
G.4.3. Shrinkage Models Performance Comparison ...................................... 214
G.5 Comparison of Creep and Shrinkage of HPLC with HPC.......................... 219
G.5.1. Creep Comparison................................................................................ 220
G.5.2. Shrinkage Comparison......................................................................... 224
G.5.3. Total Strain Projection ......................................................................... 226
Appendix H. Comparison of Estimated Prestress Losses with Experimental Results 229
H.1. Experimental Results ................................................................................. 229
H.2. Prestress Losses Calculations from Standards ........................................... 233
H.3. Estimates vs. Experimental Laboratory Results ........................................ 237
Appendix I. Creep and Drying Shrinkage Models S.I. units .................................241
I.1 Models for Normal Strength Concrete .......................................................... 241
I.1.1. ACI-209 Method.................................................................................... 241
I.1.2. AASHTO-LRFD Method ...................................................................... 244
I.1.3. CEB-FIP Method................................................................................... 246
ix
I.1.4. Baant and Panulas - BP Method......................................................... 249

I.1.5. Baant and Bawejas - B3 Method ........................................................ 256
I.1.6. Gardner and Lockmans - GL Method .................................................. 260
I.1.7. Sakatas - SAK Method......................................................................... 261
I.2 Models for High Strength Concrete............................................................... 263
I.2.1. CEB-FIP Method as modified by Yue and Taerwe (1993) ................... 263
I.2.2. Baant and Panulas - BP Method......................................................... 264
I.2.3. Sakatas - SAK Method......................................................................... 266
I.2.4. AFREM Method .................................................................................... 268
I.2.5. AASHTO-LRFD method as modified by Shams and Kahn (2000)...... 270
Appendix J. Analysis of Variance - ANOVA...........................................................273
J.1. Three-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 8L HPLC ................................................ 273
J.2. Three-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 10L HPLC .............................................. 274
J.3. Two-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 8F HPLC .................................................. 275
J.4. Two-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 10F HPLC ................................................ 276
J.5. Four-Factor ANOVA: Creep of Laboratory HPLC (8L & 10L)................. 277
J.6. Three-Factor ANOVA: Shrinkage of Laboratory HPLC (8L & 10L) ........ 278
J.7. Three-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 8,000-psi HPLC (8L & 8F) .................... 279
J.8. Two-Factor ANOVA: Shrinkage of 8,000-psi HPLC (8L & 8F) ............... 280
J.9. Three-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 10,000-psi HPLC (10L & 10F) .............. 281
J.10. Three-Factor ANOVA: Shrinkage of 10,000-psi HPLC (10L & 10F) ..... 282
J.11. Three-Factor ANOVA: Creep of Field HPLC (8F & 10F) ....................... 283
J.12. Two-Factor ANOVA: Shrinkage of Field HPLC (8F & 10F) .................. 284
Appendix K. Experimental Results ..........................................................................285
x
K.1. Compressive Strength ................................................................................ 285

K.2. Modulus of Elasticity ................................................................................. 286
K.3. Modulus of Rupture ................................................................................... 286
K.4. Chloride Ion Permeability.......................................................................... 287
K.5. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion............................................................. 287
K.6. 8L Creep and Shrinkage............................................................................. 288
K.7. 8F Creep and Shrinkage............................................................................. 291
K.8. 10L Creep and Shrinkage........................................................................... 293
K.9. 10F Creep and Shrinkage........................................................................... 296
K.10. 8,000-psi HPLC girders Experimental Strains......................................... 298
K.11. 10,000-psi HPLC girders Experimental Strains....................................... 299
Appendix L. Model Comparison ..............................................................................301
L.1. Normal Strength Concrete Creep Models for 8,000-psi HPLC .................. 301
L.2. High Strength Concrete Creep Models for 8,000-psi HPLC....................... 304
L.3. Shrinkage Models for 8,000-psi HPLC ....................................................... 307
L.4. Normal Strength Concrete Creep Models for 10,000-psi HPLC ................ 310
L.5. High Strength Concrete Creep Models for 10,000-psi HPLC..................... 313
L.6. Shrinkage Models for 10,000-psi HPLC ..................................................... 316
Appendix M. Comparison between HPC and HPLC .............................................319
M.1. Creep and Shrinkage Results HPC-3 and HPC-6....................................... 319
M.2. Best Creep and Shrinkage Fits for HPC-3, HPC-6, and HPLC ................. 320
xi
List of Tables
Table 3.1. Actual mixes used in the laboratory specimens (8L and 10L) and used to cast the
girders tested in Task 5 (8F and 10F) ............................................................................. 11
Table 3.2. Fresh concrete Properties...................................................................................... 13
Table 4.1. Long-term shrinkage and creep coefficient .......................................................... 30
Table 4.2. Mix design and properties of HLPC and HPC, for one cubic yard ...................... 38
Table 4.3. Ultimate strain estimates for HPLC and HPC loaded at 40% and 60% of its initial
strength............................................................................................................................ 42
Table 5.1 Comparison between experimental and estimated prestress losses of 8,000-psi
HPLC prestressed girders ............................................................................................... 44
Table A.1. Designed high performance lightweight concrete mixes (SSD condition).......... 61
Table A.2. High performance concrete bridge mix specifications (Goodspeed et al., 1996) 63
Table D.1. Loss of prestress ratios for different concretes and time under loading conditions
....................................................................................................................................... 148
Table E.1. Actual mixes used in the laboratory specimens (8L and 10L) and used to cast the
girders tested on Task 5 (8F and 10F) .......................................................................... 151
Table F.1. Fresh concrete properties of HPLC mixes.......................................................... 159
Table F.2. Compressive strength of HPLC mixes (psi) ....................................................... 162
Table F.3. Rupture modulus of HPLC mixes ...................................................................... 168
Table G.1. ANOVA results for creep of 8,000-psi HPLC................................................... 194
Table G.2. ANOVA results for creep of 10,000-psi HPLC................................................. 196
Table G.3. ANOVA results for creep of HPLC................................................................... 199
Table G.4 ANOVA results for shrinkage of HPLC............................................................. 202
xii
Table G.5. Parameters used in creep prediction equations .................................................. 206

Table G.6. Long-term shrinkage and specific creep ............................................................ 206
Table G.7. Sum of squared error and coefficient of determination of creep coefficient models
....................................................................................................................................... 213
Table G.8 Sum of squared error and coefficient of determination of shrinkage models..... 218
Table G.9. Mix design and properties of HPLC and HPC, for one cubic yard ................... 220
Table G.10. Ultimate strain estimates for HPLC and HPC loaded at 40 and 60% of its initial
strength.......................................................................................................................... 226
Table H.1 Experimental strains of 39-ft long girders ().................................................... 230
Table H.2 Comparison between experimental and estimated prestress losses of 8,000-psi
HPLC prestressed girders ............................................................................................. 233
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 3.1. Unit weight of HPLC under different moisture conditions. ................................ 14
Figure 3.2. Compressive strength vs. time of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC mixes for
accelerated and ASTM curing methods.......................................................................... 15
Figure 3.3. Elastic modulus of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes.................................................. 16
Figure 3.4. 56-day elastic modulus of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes ..................................... 17
Figure 3.5. Rupture modulus of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes................................................ 18
Figure 3.6. Chloride Permeability of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes ........................................ 19
Figure 4.1. Creep test set-up and working principle.............................................................. 21
Figure 4.2. Creep coefficient of 8L and 8F HPLC in logarithmic time scale........................ 23
Figure 4.3. Creep coefficient of 10L and 10F HPLC in logarithmic time scale.................... 24
Figure 4.4. Average creep coefficient of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC in logarithmic time
scale................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 4.5. Shrinkage of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC (a) laboratory mixes and (b) field
mixes. .............................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 4.6. Average shrinkage of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC in logarithmic time scale.
......................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4.7. Comparison between measured creep coefficient and estimated from models for
normal strength concrete: (a) 8,000-psi HPLC, (b) 10,000-psi HPLC. .......................... 31
high strength concrete: (a) 8,000-psi HPLC, (b) 10,000-psi HPLC. .............................. 33
xiv
Figure 4.9. Comparison between measured shrinkage of 8L HPLC and estimated from
models for normal and high strength concrete................................................................ 36
models for normal and high strength concrete................................................................ 37
Figure 4.11. Comparison between specific creep of HPLC and HPC mixes in logarithmic
time scale ........................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 4.12. Comparison between creep coefficients of HPLC and HPC mixes in logarithmic
time scale ........................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 4.13. Comparison between shrinkage of HPLC and HPC mixes in logarithmic time
scale................................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 5.1. Experimental strains over time for the 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC 39-foot
girders. ............................................................................................................................ 44
Figure 5.2. Comparison between estimated prestress losses from PCI, AASHTO and ACI209 models ...................................................................................................................... 46
Figure B.1. Relation between various strains in concrete with time. ................................... 69
Figure B.2. Representation of three stages of creep. ............................................................ 71
Figure B.3: Relationship between creep of concrete and aggregate content (Neville, Dilger
and Brooks, 1983)........................................................................................................... 74
Figure B.4. Representation of cement paste microstructure (Mehta and Monteiro, 1993) ... 76
Figure B.5. Effect of water and cement content on shrinkage (Neville, 1996). .................... 80
Figure B.6: Relationship between 28-day compressive strength and one-year specific creep
for SLC and NWC. ......................................................................................................... 87
xv
Figure B.7: Relationship between aggregate elastic modulus and relative creep of concrete
(Pfeifer, 1968). ................................................................................................................ 89
Figure B.8: Relationship between 28-day compressive strength and one-year drying
shrinkage for SLC and NWC.......................................................................................... 91
Figure B.9: Ultimate drying shrinkage values for different lightweight concretes (Pfeifer,
1968). .............................................................................................................................. 92
Figure D.1. Example of initial and long-term strains in prestressed concrete..................... 136
Figure E.1. Elastic modulus test .......................................................................................... 153
Figure E.2. Rupture modulus test ........................................................................................ 153
Figure E.3. Chloride permeability test set up. ..................................................................... 153
Figure E.4. Creep frames components and working principle............................................. 155
Figure E.5. Creep specimens during loading process and under load in creep frames........ 155
Figure E.6. Steel mold used in casting 4 X 15 cylinders.................................................. 156
Figure E.7. Shrinkage and coefficient of thermal expansion specimens ............................. 157
Figure E.8. DEMEC gage reader for creep, shrinkage and coefficient of thermal expansion.
....................................................................................................................................... 158
Figure F.1. Unit weight of HPLC under different moisture conditions............................... 161
Figure F.2. Compressive strength vs. time of 8L mix for accelerated and ASTM curing
methods. ........................................................................................................................ 163
Figure F.3. Compressive strength vs. time of 8F mix for accelerated and ASTM curing
methods. ........................................................................................................................ 163
methods ......................................................................................................................... 164
xvi
Figure F.5. Compressive strength vs. time of 10F mixes for accelerated and ASTM curing
methods compressive strength vs. time ........................................................................ 164
Figure F.6. Elastic modulus of 8,000 and 10,000-psi HPLC mixes .................................... 166
Figure F.7. Rupture modulus of HPLC mixes and design values (ACI-318)...................... 167
Figure F.8. Chloride ion permeability of 8,000 and 10,000-psi HPLC mixes.................... 168
Figure F.9. Coefficient of thermal expansion of 8,000 and 10,000-psi HPLC mixes ......... 169
Figure F.10. 8L HPLC Total strain (a) linear scale and (b) logarithmic scale. ................... 171
Figure F.11. 10L HPLC Total strain (a) linear scale and (b) logarithmic scale. ................. 172
Figure F.12. Creep of HPLC loaded at 16 and 24 hours (a) 8L HPLC stress-to-strength ratio
of 40% and 60% (b)10L HPLC for stress-to-strength ratio of 40% and 60%. ............. 174
Figure F.13. Specific creep of 8L HPLC (a) and 10L HPLC (b) and limits for FHWA HPC
Grade 2 and 3. ............................................................................................................... 176
Figure F.14. Creep coefficient of 8L HPLC (a) and 10L HPLC (b).................................... 177
Figure F.15. 8F HPLC Total strain (a) linear scale and (b) logarithmic scale..................... 179
Figure F.16. 10F HPLC Total strain (a) linear scale and (b) logarithmic scale................... 181
Figure F.17. Creep of HPLC loaded at 16 and 24 hours (a) 8F HPLC stress-to-strength ratio
of 40% and 60% (b)10F HPLC for stress-to-strength ratio of 40% and 50%. ............. 182
Figure F.18. Specific creep of 8F HPLC (a) and 10F HPLC (b) and limits for FHWA HPC
Grade 2 and 3 ................................................................................................................ 184
Figure F.19. Creep coefficient of 8F HPLC (a) and 10F HPLC (b). .................................. 185
Figure F.20. Shrinkage of 8L HPLC (a) and 10L HPLC (b) and limits for FHWA HPC
Grade 2 and 3. ............................................................................................................... 187
xvii
Figure F.21. Shrinkage of 8F HPLC (a) and 10F HPLC (b) and limits for FHWA HPC Grade
2 and 3........................................................................................................................... 190
Figure G.1. Creep coefficient of 8L and 8F HPLC (a) linear time scale and (b) logarithmic
time scale. ..................................................................................................................... 195
Figure G.2. Creep coefficient of 10L and 10F HPLC (a) linear time scale and (b)
logarithmic time scale. .................................................................................................. 197
Figure G.3. Creep coefficient of 8L and 10L HPLC (a) linear time scale and (b) logarithmic
time scale. ..................................................................................................................... 200
Figure G.4. Average creep coefficient of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC in logarithmic time
scale............................................................................................................................... 201
Figure G.5. Shrinkage of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC (a) laboratory mixes and (b) field
mixes. ............................................................................................................................ 204
Figure G.6. Average shrinkage of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC in logarithmic time scale
....................................................................................................................................... 205
Figure G.7. Predicted-to-measured ratio of 620-day specific creep and shrinkage of HPLC
....................................................................................................................................... 207
Figure G.8. Comparison between measured creep coefficient and estimated from models for
normal strength concrete: (a) 8,000-psi HPLC, (b) 10,000-psi HPLC. ........................ 209
high strength concrete: (a) 8,000-psi HPLC, (b) 10,000-psi HPLC. ............................ 211
Figure G.10. Comparison between measured shrinkage of 8L HPLC and estimated from
models for normal and high strength concrete.............................................................. 216
xviii
models for normal and high strength concrete.............................................................. 217
Figure G.12. Comparison between specific creep of HPC and HPLC mixes (a) linear time
scale and (b) logarithmic time scale.............................................................................. 222
Figure G.13. Comparison between creep coefficient of HPC and HPLC mixes (a) linear time
scale and (b) logarithmic time scale.............................................................................. 223
Figure G.14. Comparison between shrinkage of HPC and HPLC mixes (a) linear time scale
and (b) logarithmic time scale....................................................................................... 225
Figure G.15. Best fit regressions for HPC and HPLC mixes (a) specific creep and (b)
shrinkage. ...................................................................................................................... 227
Figure H.1. Vibrating wire strain gage used to measure internal strains in the girders....... 229
Figure H.2 Measuring strains in the AASHTO Type II precast prestressed HPLC girders. 230
Figure H.3 Experimental strains over time for the 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC 39-ft
girders ........................................................................................................................... 231
Figure H.4 Experimental creep and shrinkage and exponential regression for the 8,000-psi
and 10,000-psi HPLC 39-ft girders (a) linear time scale (b) logarithmic time scale.... 232
Figure H.5. Comparison between estimated prestress losses from AASHTO-LRFD, PCI,
and ACI-209 methods (a) 8,000-psi HPLC girders, (b) 10,000-psi HPLC girders ...... 235
Figure H.6. Predicted-to-measured ratio of prestress losses from AASHTO-LRFD, PCI, and
ACI-209 models............................................................................................................ 236
Figure H.7 Comparison between 8,000-psi HPLC experimental strains and those estimated
by AASHTO-LRFD refined, PCI, and ACI-209 models.............................................. 238
xix
by AASHTO-LRFD refined, PCI, and ACI-209 models.............................................. 240
xx
1. Introduction
The overall purpose of the research was to determine if lightweight aggregate, high
strength / high performance concrete is applicable for construction of precast prestressed
bridge girders. The specific goal of this final phase of the research was to investigate the
time-dependent behavior of high performance lightweight concrete and how that long-term
behavior affects the prestress losses in HPLC precast prestressed bridge girders.
Other objectives of this final phase were to determinate the compressive strength of
high performance lightweight concretes selected in Task 2, their elastic modulus, rupture
modulus, chloride permeability, and their creep and shrinkage characteristics.
The selected mixes from Task 2 had design strengths of 8,000 psi, 10,000 psi, and
12,000 psi. After the mix design stage, it was concluded (Meyer, Kahn, Lai, and Kurtis,
2002) that the 12,000 psi design strength was not possible with the expanded slate (Stalite 1/2inch aggregate) used in the research. The existence of a strength ceiling of about 11,500 psi
limits the specifiable design strength to 10,000 psi. The 8,000 psi and 10,000 psi mix designs
are presented in Table A.1 of Appendix A.
High Performance Concrete (HPC): American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee
363 (1997) defined high strength concrete (HSC) as a concrete with a cylinder compressive
strength that exceeds 6,000 psi. ACI Committee 116 (2000) defined HPC as concrete
meeting special combinations of performance and uniformity requirements that cannot
always be achieved routinely using conventional constituent materials and normal mixing,
placing, and curing practices. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) went further in its
definition of HPC and stated that it is defined not only by the strength, but by seven other
parameters.
The advantages of HPC have been recognized by several authors (See Appendix A,
Section A.2). They can be summarized for bridge structures as: (1) lengthening of span
length for the same size pretensioned girder; (2) use of wider girder spacing for the same size
member; (3) improvement in durability and long-term service performance under static,
dynamic, and fatigue loading; and overall cost reduction of highway bridges.
Structural Lightweight Concrete (SLC): ACI Committee 213 (ACI-213, 1999)
defined structural lightweight concrete as structural concrete made with lightweight
aggregate, with an air-dried density at 28 days in the range of 90 and 115 lb/ft3 and a
compressive strength above 2,500 psi.
The three main advantages of SLC are: (1) reduction in structure dead load, which
leads to a reduction in the foundation size and seismic forces; (2) reduction in member size,
resulting in an increase in rentable space; and (3) development of a precast technology as a
result of self-weight reduction that facilitates the transport and lifting of structural members.
High Performance Lightweight Concrete (HPLC): HPLC can be conceptualized as a
combination of the above concretes. As found by Meyer and Kahn (2002) the use of 8,000to-10,000-psi HPLC would permit easier and more economic transportation of long -span
precast bridge girders. Modified BT-63, BT-72, and modified BT-72 sections could be
constructed for spans exceeding 150 ft with girder weight plus that of the transport vehicle
less than 150,000 lb. Special superload permit would not be required. Nevertheless, the use
of lightweight coarse aggregate would limit some of the mechanical properties attainable by
normal weight HPC. Nilsen and Atcin (1992) and Zhang and Gjrv, (1990) developed
HPLC with compressive strength slightly below and above 14,500 psi, respectively.
According to Atcin (1998), this strength level represents the upper strength boundary of
HPLC.
Hoff (1990) concluded that the use of HPLC will not expand unless designers have
confidence in their knowledge of its expected properties. Currently the codes do not
specifically consider HPLC. Rather, HPLC is specified as SLC by applying a capacity
reduction factor to the formulas commonly used in the design. Hoff (1990) stated that such as
practice might lead to very conservative values, undermining the HPLC application.
This page intentionally left blank
2. Background Review
2.1 Creep and Shrinkage of HPLC
2.1.1. Creep of HPLC
A detailed description of creep, its factors, and mechanisms is given in Appendix B,
Section B.2.
While it is clear that HPLC can be produced, its creep characteristics have not been
extensively or systematically investigated. Creep is typically reduced in HPC (see Appendix
B, Section B.4), but creep is typically greater in lightweight concrete (see Appendix B,
Section B.5). These competing effects make creep in HPLC difficult to predict. Moreover,
some observations and recommendations presented in the literature are not consistent. For
instance, Berra and Ferrada (1990) concluded that specific creep in HPLC is twice that of
normal weight concrete of the same strength. On the other hand, Malhotra (1990) gave values
of creep of fly ash HPLC in the range 460 to 510 . These values are fairly close to those
obtained by Penttala and Rautamen (1990) for HPC, and they are significantly lower than the
values between 878 and 1,026 reported for HPC by Huo et al. (2001).
There are only a few research works done in creep of HPLC. However, conclusions
from different researchers are sometimes opposed which makes the prediction of creep in
HPLC extremely difficult. Section B.6 of Appendix B presents a detailed literature review.
The two principle phases of HPLC, high performance matrix and lightweight
aggregate, have several possible specific implications on creep of concrete. It is commonly
assumed that normal weight aggregate does not creep at the stress levels present in concrete.
However, in HPLC, the higher stress placed on the member might induce creep in the
5
lightweight aggregate, due to its lower modulus and strength. Also, improvements in the
interfacial transition zone, afforded by the use of ultra-fine pozzolanic particles and
lightweight aggregate, can alter the mechanisms for creep. Particularly, they can alter
mechanisms compared to normal strength concrete, but also compared to high strength
concrete due to improved compatibility between the aggregate and paste. Finally, the
increased aggregate porosity and the effect of internal curing when using saturated
lightweight aggregate can influence moisture movements during creep. These possible
changes in expected behavior as compared to normal concrete and high strength concrete
which result from the use of high performance matrix and lightweight aggregate are
described in detail in Section B.6.1.
2.1.2. Shrinkage of HPLC

Section B.3 presents a detailed discussion of shrinkage, and Section B.6.2 deals with
shrinkage of HPLC. As occurs with creep of HPLC, there are only a few articles regarding
shrinkage of HPLC. Also, the authors usually do not report autogenous and drying shrinkage
separately, but as overall shrinkage. Berra and Ferrada (1990) found that compared with
HPC, HPLC had a lower shrinkage rate, but a higher ultimate value. According the authors,
the lower rate was caused by the presence of water in the aggregate which delays drying.
Holm and Bremner (1994) also observed that the HSLC mix lagged behind at early ages, but
one-year shrinkage was approximately 14% higher than the HPC counterpart. Holm and
Bremner (1994) measured a higher shrinkage when they incorporated fly ash to the HSLC
mix. Malhotras (1990) results, on the other hand, showed that fly ash particles in the HPLC
helped to reduce shrinkage after one year. Other authors (Section B.6.2) also concluded the
beneficial effect, less drying shrinkage when using saturated lightweight aggregate.
6
2.2 Creep and Shrinkage Models

According Findley, Lai and Onaran (1989), creep was first systematically observed
by Vitac (1834), but Andrade (1910) was the first in proposing a creep law. After Andrade,
several more models have been developed. Some models are general mechanistic models
which include constants for different materials and properties while other models are more
empirical for specific materials. The most used models for creep in concrete fall in the
second category, empirical models.
On the other hand, drying shrinkage of concrete was identified by the first creep
studies when they measured a higher creep rate and strain on concrete under drying
conditions. Since then, several investigators have proposed models in order to describe and
predict shrinkage.
Among the variety of methods proposed for creep and shrinkage in concrete, seven of
them are presented in this report: American Concrete Institute Committee 209 (ACI-209,
1997; Section C.1.1), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO-LRFD, 1998; Section C.1.2), Comite Euro-Internacional du Beton and Federation
Internationale de la Precontrainte (CEB-FIP, 1990; Section C.1.3), Baant and Panulas (BP,
1978; Section C.1.4), Baant and Bawejas (B3, 1995; Section C.1.5), Gardner and
Lockmans (GL, 2001; Section C.1.6), and Sakatas model (SAK, 1993; Section C.1.7).
Finally, five methods aimed to be used for high strength concrete are presented: CEB-FIP as
modified by Yue and Taerwe (1993; Section C.2.1), BP as modified by Baant and Panula
(1984; Section C.2.2), SAK as modified by Sakata et al. (2001; Section C.2.3), Association
Franaise de Recherches et d'Essais sur les Matriaux de Construction (AFREM, 1996;
Section C.2.4), and Shams and Kahns method which is a modification of AASHTO-LRFD
method for HSC (Shams and Kahn, 2000; Section C.2.5).
Even though there are not models specifically developed for lightweight concrete,
ACI-209, AASHTO-LRFD, and GL methods (presented in Section C.1) consider some
corrections when lightweight aggregate are being used. Creep and shrinkage prediction
equations proposed by the ACI-209 (Equations C.1 and C.3) were based on research done in
normal weight concrete and structural lightweight concrete, so they are entirely applicable to
normal weight, sand-lightweight, and all-lightweight concrete. Since the AASHTOLRFD method is an updated version of the ACI-209 method (see Section C.1.2), equations
C.5 and C.6 are applicable to SLC, too. Finally, Gardner and Lockman (2001) proposed a
way to incorporate aggregate stiffness in their creep and shrinkage prediction equations as
explained in Appendix C, Section C.3.3.
2.3 Prestress Losses

The prestressing force in a prestressed concrete member continuously decreases with
time (Zia et al., 1979). The Precast Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Committee on
Prestress Losses, identified the factors influencing prestress losses as friction in posttensioning operations, movement of the prestressing steel at the end anchorage, elastic
shortening at transfer, effect due to connection of the prestressed member with other
structural member, and time dependent losses due to steel relaxation, creep and shrinkage of
the concrete (PCI Committee on Prestress Losses, 1975). The same committee pointed out
that the determination of stress losses in prestressed members is an extremely complicated
problem because the effect of one factor is continuously being altered by changes in stress
due to other factors. The contribution of each loss factor to the total losses depends on the
8
structural design, material properties (concrete and steel), prestressing method (pretensioned
or posttensioned), concrete age at stressing, and the method of prestress computation (PCI,
1998).
Section D.1 presents the literature review of prestress losses in normal strength
normal weight concrete (NSNWC), as well as HPC, SLC, and HPLC. To the authors
knowledge, there is no previous research on prestress losses of HPLC; however, from the
concrete material properties some conclusions can be drawn. Elastic shortening losses are
expected to be similar or less than NWNSC but more than HPC. Creep and shrinkage losses
would be similar to those of HPC. Steel relaxation losses would tend to be higher than losses
in NWNSC because the previous losses are lower.
10
3. Experimental Program, Results, and Short-term Properties

3.1 HPLC Mixes for short and long-term properties
The main objective of Task 3 was to characterize the HPLC mixes obtained from
Task 2. This characterization included: slump, air content, and unit weight for the plastic
state, and compressive strength, elastic modulus, rupture modulus, chloride permeability,
creep and non-stress dependent strains such as shrinkage and coefficient of thermal
expansion for the hardened state.
Two HPLC mixes were suggested at the end of Task 2: (1) 8,000-psi compressive
strength (8L made in the laboratory and 8F made in the field); and (2) 10,000-psi
compressive strength (10L made in the laboratory and 10F made in the field). The mix
proportions are presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Actual mixes used in the laboratory specimens (8L and 10L) and used to cast the
girders tested in Task 5 (8F and 10F)
Component Type
cement, Type III (lb/yd3)
Fly ash, class F (lb/yd3)
Silica Fume, (lb/yd3)
Natural sand (lb/yd3)
3/8" Lightweight aggregate (lb/yd3)
Water (lb/yd3)
AEA, Daravair 1000 (fl oz/yd3)
Water reducer, WRDA 35 (fl oz/yd3)
HRWR, Adva 100 (fl oz/yd3)
8L
783
142
19
1022
947
8F
780
141
19
1018
944
10L
740
150
100
1030
955
10F
737
149
100
1025
956
268
284
227
260
7.8
47
47.5
7.8
46.8
53.4
7.4
44.4
102
5.5
44.2
95.8
All laboratory concrete specimens were taken from mixes made according to standard
procedures at the Georgia Tech Structural Engineering Laboratory. All field concrete
specimens were taken from actual field batches used in the girders made at Tindall
11
Corporation precast plant at Jonesboro, GA. Testing of all specimens was done at the
Georgia Tech Structural Engineering Laboratory. All specimens were cured and removed
from their forms as required. The following tests were performed:
1. Compressive Strength. Compressive strength was determined by testing 4 x 8
cylinders according to ASTM C 39.
2. Modulus of Elasticity. The chord modulus of elasticity was tested using 6 x 12
cylinders loaded in compression according to ASTM C 469. Figure E.1 shows elastic
modulus test.
3. Modulus of Rupture. Modulus of rupture was determined by testing 4 x 4 x 14
beams according to ASTM C78. Figure E.2 shows modulus of rupture test.
4. Chloride Permeability. Chloride permeability was determined by testing 4 x 2
cylinders according ASTM C1202. Figure E.3 shows the test set up.
5. Creep, Drying Shrinkage and Coefficient of Thermal Expansion. The procedures
for testing creep, drying shrinkage and coefficient of thermal expansion are given in
Sections E.4, E.5 and E.6, respectively.
The 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi compressive strength HPLC mixes were made in both
laboratory and field. The laboratory mixes were meant to characterize material properties
while the field mixes were made for casting six AASHTO Type II girders. This section
presents the most important experimental properties measured on laboratory and field mixes.
More properties and details are provided in Appendix F.
12
3.2 Plastic Properties

Slump, unit weight, and air content (ASTM C173: volumetric method) were
measured in laboratory and field batches. Table 3.2 present the average results of those tests.
Table 3.2. Fresh concrete Properties
Slump, in
Air Content, %
Plastic unit weight, lb/ft3
Temperature, oF
8,000-psi HPLC
8L
8F
5.0
8.0
4.0
4.5
120
117
90
85
10,000-psi HPLC
10L
10F
4.0
4.5
3.5
3.3
122
119
90
85
From the workability results shown above, the 8,000-psi HPLC slump might be
classified as 6.5 1.5 in. The 10,000-psi mix had a slump 4.0 0. 5 in. The air content, on
the other hand, averaged 4.25% for the 8,000-psi mix and 3.8% for the 10,000-psi mix.
3.3 Unit Weight

Plastic unit weight of HPLC varied from 114 to 122 lb/ft3 with most of the values
close to 120 lb/ft3. The 8,000-psi mix averaged a unit weight of 117 lb/ft3 while the 10,000psi HPLC an average unit weight of 119 lb/ft3. These values represent 78 and 79% of the
weight of an HPC.
ACI-213 (1999) proposed the air-dry condition as a standard for measuring
hardened lightweight concrete unit weight. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) of Air-dry
unit weight as well as Oven dry unit weight is shown in Section F.2.
Figure 3.1 presents measured plastic unit weight and estimated1 air-dry and oven-dry
unit weight for each mix.
Estimate was made based on actual results for those properties
13
Plastic unit weight
Air-dry unit weight
155
Oven-dry unit weight

150
Unit Weight (lb/ft3)
145
135
125
119
117
115
105
95
85
75
8F
10F
HPC
Figure 3.1. Unit weight of HPLC under different moisture conditions.
3.4 Compressive Strength

Specimens used for testing mechanical properties were cured in two different ways:
ASTM C-39 (fog room and 73oF) and accelerated curing that simulates the condition within a
precast prestressed member. Compressive strength for laboratory mixes was measured using
4 x 8-in. cylinders at 16, 20 and 24 hours, and then at, 7, 28, and 56 days. For field mixes
strength was measured at 1, 7, 28, 56, and more than 100 days after casting. The average
compressive strength of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC (including laboratory and field
mixes) is presented in Figure 3.2. Table F.2 (in Appendix F) presents the average strength
values obtained for each curing method and mix type. Figures F.2 to F.5, also in Appendix
F, show individual and average strength of three specimens tested at each age and curing
procedure.
14
Compressive Strength (psi)
12000
10000
8000
6000
8,000-psi Accelerated Cure

8,000-psi ASTM Cure
4000
10,000-psi Accelerated Cure

2000
10,000-psi ASTM Cure
0
0
14
28
42
56
70
84
98
112
126
140
154
Age (days)
Figure 3.2. Compressive strength vs. time of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC mixes for
accelerated and ASTM curing methods.
The 8,000-psi HPLC satisfied the specified strength, after the age of 28 days. At 56
days, the 8,000-psi mix reached 10,000 psi with some individual results above 10,500 psi
(Shown in Figure F.2, Appendix F). At 103 days, the 8,000-psi HPLC mix reached a
compressive strength slightly above upper limit of FHWA HPC Grade 2. At early ages,
accelerated-cured specimens presented a higher strength than the ASTM-cured ones.
However, at 28 days that relation shifts and the ASTM-cured specimens are the ones with the
higher compressive strength.
The 10,000-psi HPLC accelerated-cured specimens overcame the lower limit of the
FHWA HPC Grade 3 at 28 days with no single result below it (see Figures F.4 and F.5,
Appendix F). At 56 days the average strength was close to 11,000 psi and did not change
significantly after that. The 10,000-psi HPLC accelerated-cured specimens had a higher
strength at early ages, but lower strength than the ASTM-cured cylinders after 28 days.
15
3.5 Modulus of Elasticity

Modulus of elasticity of concrete was measured using 6 x 12-in cylinders made from
the 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes according ASTM C469. Specimens with accelerated curing
were tested at 16 hours, 24 hours, and 56 days while the ones under ASTM curing were
tested only at 56 days. Figure 3.3 shows the elastic modulus obtained for all the tests. Even
though there are no specifications for the concrete elastic modulus, experimental results were
lower than the limits given by FHWA for Grade 2 and 3 of 6,000 and 7,500 ksi, respectively.
These results were expected since lightweight concrete usually has lower elastic modulus
(see Section A.3, Appendix A). The average 56-day elastic modulus is shown in Figure 3.4
Modulus of Elasticity (ksi)
4400
4200
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
0.10
8L Accelerated Curing
8F Accelerated Curing
8L Accelerated curing average
10L Accelerated curing average
8L ASTM Curing
8F ASTM Curing
10L ASTM Curing
10F ASTM Curing
8F Accelerated curing average
10F Accelerated curing average
1.00
10.0
Age (days)
Figure 3.3. Elastic modulus of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes
16
100
4200
4000
3800
3600
3400
8L
8F
10L
ASTM
Curing
Accelerated
Curing
ASTM
Curing
Accelerated
Curing
ASTM
Curing
ASTM
Curing
3000
Accelerated
Curing
3200
Accelerated
Curing
4400
10F
Figure 3.4. 56-day elastic modulus of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes

At the age of 56 days, ASTM-cured specimens had higher modulus of elasticity than
the accelerated-cured specimens. The difference between the two curing methods ranged
from 1 to 3 %, except for 8L HPLC mix that had a difference of 9%.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of Poissons ratio indicated that none of the
considered factors (strength, age, curing procedure, and lab or field) were statistically
significant (at 90% level) in explaining variability of Poissons ratio. Average 56-day
Poissons ratio was 0.190 with 90% of the results in the range 0.188 and 0.192. Poissons
ratio results were higher than the range 0.142 to 0.152 obtained by Lopez and Kahn (2003)
for an equivalent HPC of normal weight.
3.6 Modulus of Rupture

Modulus of rupture (fr) was measured for the 8,000 and 10,000-psi HPLC at the age
of 56 days under accelerated and ASTM curing methods. Figure 3.5 shows the ratio of
modulus of rupture-to-squared root of compressive strength (fr / (fc)0.5) grouped by HPLC
17
mix and type of curing. For the four mixes, accelerated-cured specimens presented higher
56-day rupture modulus than ASTM-cured specimens. On average, 8,000-psi mixes had
higher rupture modulus than 10,000-psi mixes as shown in Table F.3 (Appendix F).
Even though "fr / (fc)0.5" was always higher than ACI-318 value of 7.5, as shown in
Figure 6.3, the compressive strength affected the mentioned ratio. Figure 6.3 also shows the
value of 6.375 (7.5 times the lightweight factor =0.85 for sand-lightweight concrete). It is
concluded that the use of f r = 7.5
f c ' with no reduction factor is conservative for
predicting modulus of rupture of HPLC.

12
11
10
10.5
10.0
10.9
10.3
8.6 8.9
fr/(fc)0.5
11.4
ASTM Curing
Accelerated Curing
9.5
7.5: NWC
6.375 (7.5 x ):
sand-lightweight
concrete
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
8L
8F
10L
HPLC Type
10F
Figure 3.5. Rupture modulus of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes
3.7 Chloride Permeability

Chloride ion permeability was measured at 56 days on 8L, 8F, 10L, and 10F
specimens. The results are presented in Figure 3.6. All HPLC mixes had a chloride ion
18
permeability classified as very low. The 8,000-psi HPLC results were in the range 615 900 coulombs while the 10,000-psi mixes presented results within the range of 100 - 350
coulombs.
10000
High
Moderate
Coulumbs
1000
Low
Very low
100
Negligible
10
1
8L
8F
10L
10F
HPLC Type
Figure 3.6. Chloride Permeability of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes
3.8 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

Coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) was measured in 8F, 10L, 10F mixes at 56
days and 100% of relative humidity. The detailed results of those tests are presented in
Section F.7.
The 8F mix CTE averaged 5.14 /oF while 10L and 10F mixes gave slightly higher
values of 5.32 and 5.17 /oF. All HPLC CTE results were higher than the one reported by
Lopez and Kahn (2003) for 10,000-psi normal weight HPC (4.9 /oF at 100%). All results
were lower than 6.0 /oF commonly used for concrete.
19
20
4. Creep and Shrinkage Results and Analysis

4.1 Creep Results and Analysis
Eight creep specimens were cast from each laboratory mix (8L and 10L) and four
specimens from each field mix. They were loaded at different ages (16 and 24 hours) and at
different stress-to-initial strength ratios (0.4 to 0.6). Figure 4.1 illustrates the creep set-up
testing program; details are given in Sections F.8.1 and F.8.2. Four measurements were
taken from each specimen.
Figure 4.1. Creep test set-up and working principle.
21
4.1.1 Creep Behavior of Laboratory HPLC vs. Field HPLC

In this section the creep behavior of the laboratory mixes is compared with that of
field mixes. Creep strains are not compared directly because the applied stress was not the
same for laboratory and field mixes due to the different initial compressive strengths.
Nevertheless, specific creep and creep coefficient can be compared regardless the applied
stress because they are expressed in terms of stress. Specific creep is the creep strain divided
by the applied stress, while creep coefficient is the creep strain divided by the initial elastic
strain which is proportional to applied stress.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) of specific creep (sc) and creep coefficient (c)
was performed. The considered factors were: time under load, stress level, and whether the
mix was prepared in laboratory or field. Tables G.1, G.2, and G.3 of Section G.1 present the
ANOVA results. Among these results two parameters are of special interest: (1) the relative
contribution of each factor to the total mean squared error (MSE), denoted as Rel MSE,
which ranges from 0.0 to 1.0; and (2) the P-value which represents the probability that the
considered factor is not significant in explaining the variance. A P-value less than 0.05
(generally adopted as confidence limit) means that there is more than a 95% chance that the
factor is significant and should be included.
Comparison of Creep Performance of 8L HPLC with 8F HPLC: The ANOVA
between 8,000-psi mixes made in laboratory (8L) and field (8F) showed that the difference
between them was not a significant for either of the creep parameters (sc or c). Even though
stress level had P-values below 0.05, the portion of MSE explained by stress level was only
2.0 and 2.7% for sc and c, respectively (see Table G.1). The low contribution of stress level
22
to the variability of sc and c was expected because the creep deformation was expressed in
terms of stress.
Figure 4.2 presents a comparison between average creep coefficient of 8L and 8F
HPLC in logarithmic time. As concluded in Section F.8, creep coefficient at 40% of initial
strength was unexpectedly higher than the one for 60% stress level. That was also seen in
ANOVA (see Table G.1) where stress level is still significant for creep coefficient.
2.00
1.75
Creep Coefficient
8L 24h-40%
1.50
8F 24h-40%
8L 24h-60%
1.25
8F 24h-60%
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.01
0.1
Time (days)
10
100
1000
Figure 4.2. Creep coefficient of 8L and 8F HPLC in logarithmic time scale.

The field mix had an average higher long-term creep for 40% of stress level, but
lower long-term creep for 60% stress level. Creep coefficient curves intercept each other
several times during the testing period which indicated that there is no constant trend.
From ANOVA and Figure 4.2 it can be concluded that the place of casting
(laboratory or field) was not a significant factor; therefore, 8L and 8F HPLC are the same
HPLC.
23
Comparison of Creep Performance of 10L HPLC with 10F HPLC: In Table G.2
(Section G.1.2) the most relevant results from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) between
10L and 10F mixes are presented. Figure 4.3 shows the creep coefficient of each mix in a
logarithmic time scale.
1.25
10L 24h-40%
10F 24h-40%
Creep Coefficient
1.00
10L 24h-60%
10F 24h-50%
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Time (days)
100
1000
Figure 4.3. Creep coefficient of 10L and 10F HPLC in logarithmic time scale.
From ANOVA it was concluded that the factor place of mixing (laboratory or field)
was significant for specific creep (sc), but it explained only 0.3% of the mean squared error
(Rel MSE=0.003). Place of mixing factor was not significant for creep coefficient (it has a Pvalue of 0.492 and Relative MSE of 0.%). Stress level was not significant for any of the
creep parameters. It also can be noticed in Figure 4.3 that creep coefficient curves are not
parallel and constantly intercept each other during the testing period which shows that there
are not consistent differences over time.
24
From ANOVA and Figure 4.3, it can be stated that the place of mixing (laboratory or
field) and stress level were not significant factors for creep of 10,000-psi HPLC. As a
conclusion, 10L and 10F are the same HPLC.
4.1.2 Creep Behavior of 8,000-psi HPLC vs. 10,000-psi HPLC

Following the same procedure used in Section 4.1.1 and described in Appendix G,
creep performance of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC was compared. The factors were time
under load, stress level (40% or 60% of initial strength), compressive strength (8,000 psi or
10,000 psi), and time of application of load (16 hours or 24 hours). The analysis of variance
(ANOVA) results are shown in Table G.3 (Appendix G).
From ANOVA, it can be concluded that all four the factors were statistically
significant since none of the P-values were above 0.05. However, age of application of load
and stress level can be dropped from ANOVA without increasing MSE by more that 4%.
This means that the differences between creep of specimens loaded at 16 and 24
hours were not appreciable. Also the use of creep coefficient regardless the stress level is
also possible without making a considerable error. Figure 4.4 presents the average creep
coefficient obtained from 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi mixes in logarithmic time scale.
Figure 4.4 shows that the 620-day creep coefficient was 1.684 and 1.143 for 8,000-psi
and 10,000-psi HPLC, respectively. The 50% and 90% of the 620-day creep coefficient were
reached after 16 and 250 days regardless the type of HPLC. When specific creep of HPLC
mixes was compared with FHWA limits (Table A.2), 8,000-psi HPLC had a slightly higher
value than the 0.41 /psi limit (see Figure F.13, Appendix F). The specific creep of 10,000psi HPC was within the suggested 0.21-to-0.31 range (see Figure F.18, Appendix F)
25
1.8
1.6
Creep Coefficient
1.4
8,000-psi HPLC
1.2
10,000-psi HPLC
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Time (days)
100
1000
Figure 4.4. Average creep coefficient of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC in logarithmic time
scale.
4.2 Shrinkage Results and Analysis

Following the same procedure used in Section 4.1, shrinkage performance of 8,000psi and 10,000-psi HPLC was compared. Shrinkage results are shown in Figure 4.5. The
factors considered in the analysis were time under drying, compressive strength (8,000 psi or
10,000 psi), and age at the beginning of drying (16 hours or 24 hours). Table G.4 (Appendix
G) presents the most relevant ANOVA results from four different comparisons: (1) Place of
mixing for 8,000-psi HPLC (8L vs. 8F); (2) Compressive strength for laboratory mixes (8L
vs. 10L); (3) Compressive strength for field mixes (8F vs. 10F); and (4) Place of mixing for
10,000-psi HPLC (10L vs. 10F).
26
1000
900
800
Shrinkage ()
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
8L16
8L24
10L16
10L24
8L Average
10L Average
0
0
100
200
300
Time (days)
400
500
600
1000
900
Shrinkage ()
800
700
600
500
400
8F Individual Reading
8F Average
10F Average
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
Time (days)
500
600
700
Figure 4.5. Shrinkage of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC (a) laboratory mixes and (b) field
mixes.
ANOVA revealed that the place of mixing was not a significant factor for shrinkage
of 8,000-psi HPLC. The factor age at the beginning of drying (16 or 24 hours) was not a
27
statistically significant factor either. Compressive strength of the mix was a significant factor
affecting shrinkage for the laboratory mix, but not for the field mix.
In addition, a significant difference was detected when comparing 10L and 10F
HPLC; P-value was less than 0.05 and relative MSE was 2.8%. Therefore, place of mixing
(laboratory or field) affected shrinkage of the 10,000-psi HPLC.
Figure 4.5 presents the shrinkage results obtained for each HPLC. As concluded
from ANOVA, there is a clear difference between 8L and 10L HPLC at any time of drying
while shrinkage of field mixes is overlapped. The 8L and 8F mixes had a similar average
value though the variance of the 8F shrinkage result was higher than the one of 8L HPLC.
Shrinkage ()
800
700
8,000-psi HPLC
600
10,000-psi HPLC
FHWA HPC Grade 2 Upper Limit
500
FHWA HPC Grade 3 Upper Limit
400
300
200
100
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
Time (days)
Figure 4.6. Average shrinkage of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC in logarithmic time scale.
Figure 4.6 presents the average shrinkage obtained from 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi
mixes in logarithmic time scale. The 620-day shrinkage was 818 and 610 for 8,000-psi
and 10,000-psi HPLC, respectively. At very early ages (less than one day), shrinkage of the
28
10,000-psi mix was considerably greater than 8,000-psi mix. After one day, shrinkage rate of
the 10,000-psi mix slowed down, and measured shrinkage was much lower than for the
8,000-psi HPLC. The 50% and 90% of the 620-day shrinkage was reached after 27 and 170
days for 8,000-psi HPLC and after 55 and 170 days for 10,000-psi mix.
Compared with FHWA limits shown in Figure 4.6, 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC
mixes overcame the upper limit of each respective grade.
4.3 Creep and Shrinkage Test Results vs. Model Estimates

4.3.1. Creep and Shrinkage Models Results
Models presented in Chapter 2 for normal and high strength concrete were used to
predict creep of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC. Since the last experimental results were
taken after at least 620 days of drying and loading, Table 4.1 presents measured and
predicted shrinkage and creep coefficient at that age. Table 4.1 also presents the predicted
values at 40 years which was taken as the ultimate creep and shrinkage states. More details
of the models and their results are presented in Appendices C and G, respectively.
The best shrinkage estimate was given by AASHTO-LRFD and Shams and Kahns
model, for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC, respectively. Those models underestimated
shrinkage by only 5 and 4%, respectively. Creep coefficient of 8,000-psi HPLC was best
predicted by AASHTO-LRFD model with an underestimate of 8% while creep coefficient of
10,000-psi HPLC was best predicted by Shams and Kahn with 6% overestimate. The
AASHTO-LRFD and Shams and Kahns models were used to estimate2 the 8,000-psi and
See Section G.4.1 of Appendix G for details of the estimate.
29
10,000-psi ultimate strains, by modifying each model to yield the same shrinkage and creep
coefficient as those measured. Based on the modified relationships, the ultimate shrinkage
would be 795 and 625 for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC, respectively. In addition, the
ultimate creep coefficient would be 1.925 and 1.431 for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC,
respectively.
Table 4.1. Long-term shrinkage and creep coefficient
Parameter
HPLC mix (psi)
Measured
AASHTO-LRFD
ACI-209
AFREM - HSC
B3
BP
BP - HSC
CEB-FIP
CEB-FIP - HSC
GL
SAK-2001 - HSC
SAK-93
Shams & Kahn
620-day
shrinkage
8,000 10,000
763
610
725
725
644
640
396
350
385
329
322
298
322
298
381
313
381
313
555
530
512
357
291
230
590
585
620-day creep
coefficient
8,000
1.66
1.965
1.739
1.137
4.465
3.928
3.357
3.727
2.896
5.112
1.451
4.464
1.479
40-year
40-year creep
shrinkage
coefficient
10,000 8,000 10,000 8,000 10,000

1.29
1.852
755
755
1.529 1.439
1.639
698
694
2.305 2.173
0.941
408
359
1.215 1.051
4.511
390
334
5.325 5.392
3.807
330
310
4.746
4.65
3.254
330
310
4.649 4.519
3.564
407
334
4.202 4.019
2.707
407
334
3.279 3.058
5.111
594
568
5.585 5.585
1.027
553
382
2.164 1.531
2.815
297
234
4.528 2.856
1.373
604
599
1.634 1.523
4.3.2. Creep Models Compared

Figure 4.7 presents a comparison between measured creep coefficient versus time and
predicted values using models for normal strength concrete. Figure 4.7a shows results for
8,000-psi HPLC and Figure 4.7b does it for 10,000-psi HPC. A more detailed comparison
for each model is presented in Appendix G, section G.4.2.
When comparing model performance from Figure 4.7a, it can be concluded that ACI209 model had the best overall performance closely followed by AASHTO-LRFD model.
30
3.0
Gardner
Lockman
Baant
Baweja
CEB-FIP
2.5
Creep Coefficient
Sakata 93
2.0
Baant
Panula
1.5
AASHTO
LRFD
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.01
3.0
8,000-psi Measured
0.10
Gardner
Lockman
1.00
10.0
100
Time under Load (days)
Baant
Baweja
1000
Sakata 93
2.0
10000
CEB-FIP
2.5
Creep Coefficient
ACI-209
ACI-209
Baant
Panula
1.5
AASHTO
LRFD
1.0
0.5
10,000-psi Measured
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
10000
normal strength concrete: (a) 8,000-psi HPLC, (b) 10,000-psi HPLC.
Even though the ACI-209 model underestimated creep for time under load less than
10 days and overestimated creep for times greater than 100 days, it was the one with best
31
overall agreement with the experimental data. The second best model was AASHTO-LRFD
model which followed the same tendency as ACI-209 at early ages, but continued
underestimating creep at all ages.
The good performance presented by ACI-209 model might be due to that model is
explicitly including SLC in its database. However, because the model was largely based on
work done between 1957 and 1970, it can be assumed that high strength concrete and
supplementary cementing materials were not part of the database.
All the other models greatly overestimated creep of 8,000-psi HPLC especially after
10 days under load. Figure 4.7b shows the same general tendencies as Figure 4.7a. The best
model among the models for normal strength concrete was AASHTO-LRFD. For 10,000-psi
HPLC, that model was in good agreement with experimental data for any time under load
between 1 and 600 days. The ACI-209 model, the second best, tended to overestimate creep
coefficient for times under load greater than 30 days.
Figure 4.8 shows a comparison between experimental creep coefficient and estimated
creep coefficient using models for high strength concrete (Section C.2). Again, part (a) of
Figure 4.8 compares data from 8,000-psi HPLC and part (b) compare 10,000-psi HPLC data
(for more details see Appendix G).
In Figure 4.8 it can be seen that the performance of creep models for HSC was better
than the ones for normal strength concrete. Even though BP and CEB-FIP were modified for
HSC, they still greatly overestimated creep of HPLC. The BP modified for HSC
overestimated creep at all ages while the CEB-FIP modified for HSC overestimated creep for
ages greater than 20 days.
32
3.0
8,000-psi Measured
Creep Coefficient
2.5
BP
MOD-HSC
CEB-FIP
MOD-HSC
Sakata
2001
2.0
1.5
1.0
Shams &
Kahn
0.5
AFREM
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
10000
3.0
10,000-psi Measured
Creep Coefficient
2.5
BP
MOD-HSC
2.0
CEB-FIP
MOD-HSC
Shams &
Kahn
1.5
1.0
Sakata
2001
0.5
AFREM
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
10000
high strength concrete: (a) 8,000-psi HPLC, (b) 10,000-psi HPLC.
33
The AFREM model, on the other hand, tended to underestimate creep. As shown in
Table 4.1 and Figure 4.8, the 620-day creep coefficient predicted by AFREM was
approximately 68 and 73% of the measured value for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC,
respectively. Shams and Kahns model (2000) and Sakatas model (2001) gave the best
estimates of the 620-day creep coefficient of 8,000-psi HPLC. Despite the fact that the two
models gave a very similar 620-day estimate, from Figure 4.8a Sakatas model
underestimated creep for time under load less than 300 days.
The best model among the models for HSC was Shams and Kahn model which not
only gave a good 620-day estimate, but also followed the shape of the experimental data as
well.
Figure 4.8b presents a similar scenario as Figure 4.8a, Sakatas model and Shams and
Kahns model gave the two best estimates after 620-day under load. The AFREM model
also gave reasonable estimates for 10,000-psi HPLC. However, the best model, including
early and late ages, was the Shams and Kahns model.
Overall, the model with the best performance for estimating creep of 8,000-psi and
10,000-psi HPLC, including models for NSC and HSC, was the Shams and Kahns model.
Table G.7 of Section G.4.2 presents the sum of squared error (SSE) and coefficient of
determination (R2) between experimental data and creep models for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi
HPLC. This statistical comparison indicated that the best model for estimating creep of
HPLC was Shams & Kahn model which presented the largest R2 (0.922 and 0.946, for 8,000psi and 10,000-psi HPLC, respectively). The AASHTO-LRFD model presented the second
best overall performance with an average3 R2 of 0.899.
Average of the parameter obtained for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC
34
The two models that better estimate creep of HPLC, utilized the maturity of concrete
at loading rather than age. Age of loading is an important factor in determining creep. For
precast prestressed concrete members, the age of application of load can be as low as 16
hours, so creep becomes very dependant of concrete mechanical properties at the moment of
loading. HPC usually includes high contents of cementitious materials which generate a high
heat of hydration. This heat of hydration is responsible for raising concrete temperature to
levels as high as 145 oF; this heat accelerates the hydration process. This self feeding
reaction increases concrete mechanical properties above the expected values. Hence,
maturity leads to more accurate estimate of concrete performance. The Shams and Kahn and
AASHTO-LRFD models were able to better estimate creep because 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi
HPLC had a maturity at 24 hours equivalent to 147 and 158 hours (6.1 and 6.6 days).
4.3.3. Shrinkage Models Compared

Figure 4.9 presents a comparison between measured shrinkage in 8L HPLC and
predicted values using normal strength concrete and HSC models (Section C.1 and C.2). A
more detailed comparison for each model is presented in Appendix G, section G.4.3.
The AASHTO-LRFD model gave the best shrinkage estimate for anytime greater
than 30 days. Shams and Kahns model also presented good performance in the range 5 to
100 days of drying. After 100 days, however, Shams and Kahns model tended to
underestimate shrinkage of 8,000-psi HPLC.
35
ACI-209
700
8,000-psi Measured
600
Shams
&Kahn
Gardner
Lockman
AASHTO
LRFD
Shrinkage ()
500
AFREM
Sakata 2001
400
300
Baant
Panula
200
100
0
0.01
Baant
Baweja
CEB-FIP
Sakata 93
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
Time under Drying (days)
1000
10000
models for normal and high strength concrete.
All models (for NSC and HSC) greatly underestimated shrinkage at early ages (less
than 3 days). A possible explanation of this poor performance at early ages might be due to
autogenous shrinkage. As explained in Section B.4.2, a large portion of autogenous
shrinkage might be included in shrinkage measurements when testing started at early ages.
Figure 4.10 presents a comparison between shrinkage of 10,000-psi specimens and
the values predicted using the models. As seen in Figure 4.10, ACI-209, Shams and Kahns
and Gardner and Lockmans (GL) models gave fairly good estimates of shrinkage for any
36
time except for the first 24 hours. The AASHTO-LRFD model overestimated shrinkage for
drying periods longer than 10 days.
700
10,000-psi Measured
600
ACI-209
Shams
&Kahn
Gardner
Lockman
AASHTO
LRFD
500
Shrinkage ()
Sakata 2001
Baant
Baweja
400
300
AFREM
200
Baant
Panula
100
CEB-FIP
Sakata 93
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
10000
All the rest of the models greatly underestimated shrinkage for times greater than 100
days of drying regardless whether they were meant for HSC or not.
The highest R2 values were very similar for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC (As
shown in Table G.8, Appendix G) and were obtained by AASHTO-LRFD and GL model,
respectively. Shams and Kahns model, which had the second best performance for 8,000psi mix, was the third best for 10,000-psi mix. When R2 values from each mix were
37
averaged in order to obtain an overall performance, Shams and Kahns and ACI-209 models
had the two highest R2 average values with 0.830 and 0.811, respectively.
4.4 Comparison of Creep and Shrinkage of HPLC with HPC

This section presents a comparison between creep and shrinkage of 10,000-psi HPLC
and two HPC mixes (called HPC-3 and HPC-6) of equivalent mechanical properties from an
HPC project carried out by Georgia Institute of Technology for the Georgia Department of
Transportation. Mix designs, mechanical properties, and properties of fresh concrete of HPC
mixes are given in Table 4.2. Section G.5 also discusses the main differences and similarities
among these three mixes.
Table 4.2. Mix design and properties of HLPC and HPC, for one cubic yard
Amount
10,000-psi
HPLC
Cement, Type I (lbs)

Cement, Type III (lbs)
Fly ash, class F (lbs)
Silica Fume, Force 10,000 (lbs)
Brown Brothers #2 sand (lbs)
Coarse Aggregate (lbs)
Water (lbs)
Water-to-cementitious ratio
Cement paste volume (yd3)
Air entrainer (oz)
Retarder (oz)
Water reducer (oz)
High-range water reducer (oz)
ASTM-cured 56-day compressive strength (psi)
Accelerated-cured 24-hour compressive strength (psi)
ASTM-cured 56-day elastic modulus (ksi)
Accelerated-cured 24-hour elastic modulus (ksi)
Slump (in)
Air content (%)
Unit weight (lb/ft3)
38
740
150
100
1030
955
227.3
0.230
0.458
9.5
0
57
132
10,25011,500
8,30011,100
4,050-4,330
3,550-4,250
4-6
3.5-4.5
114-122
HPC-3
HPC-6
675
796
100
33
1,000
1,750
208
0.257
0.381
16
21
0
188
11,619
98
70
965
1837
237
0.246
0.443
7
0
35
169
13,618
7,957
8,455
4,748
4,244
7
5
144
4,973
3,410
4.6
4.2
147
HPC-3 and HPC-6 as well as 10,000-psi HPLC might be classified as HPC Grade 3
according the strength limits given by FHWA. The HPC-6 mix had about the same paste
volume and total cementitious content as the HPLC mix; therefore it was regarded as most
similar.
4.4.1. Creep Comparison

Figures 4.11 and 4.12 present a comparison of creep of each mix in logarithmic time
scale expressed as specific creep and creep coefficient, respectively.
0.60
0.50
Specific Creep
HPLC
HPC-3
0.40
HPC-6
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Time (days)
100
1000
Figure 4.11. Comparison between specific creep of HPLC and HPC mixes in logarithmic
time scale
Average specific creep of HPLC was much lower than specific creep of HPC-6 and
slightly lower than creep of HPC-3. This was true for at any time after 40 days under load.
At early times after loading (less than 10 days) HPC-3 and HPLC had equivalent specific
39
creep. Figures 4.11 and 4.12 show that after 3 days, the creep curves of HPC-3 and HPLC
are not parallel which implies that creep rate of HPLC was lower than the one of HPC.
2.0
HPLC
Creep Coefficient
1.5
HPC-3
HPC-6
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Time (days)
100
1000
Figure 4.12. Comparison between creep coefficients of HPLC and HPC mixes in logarithmic
time scale
Because HPLC had a lower average elastic modulus than the normal weight
counterpart of similar strength, creep coefficient enlarges the differences between HPLC and
HPC-3. Further details are provided in Appendix G, section G.5.
4.4.2. Shrinkage Comparison

Figure 4.13 compares shrinkage of HPLC and the two HPC mixes in logarithmic time
scale. Average shrinkage of HPC-3, HPC-6 and HPLC was of the same magnitude for any
time up to 480 days of drying. After 480 days only HPC-6 and HPLC experimental results
are available, and they show an increasing difference as time increases. Shrinkage of HPC-6
did not increase significantly after one year while HPLC shrinkage went from 550 to 600
40
during the 365-to-600-day period. After 250 days shrinkage of HPLC was higher than
shrinkage of the other two normal weight mixes. In figure 4.13, each data point is an average
of eight readings taken on two specimens.
600
HPLC
Shrinkage ()
500
HPC-3
HPC-6
400
300
200
100
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Time (days)
100
1000
Figure 4.13. Comparison between shrinkage of HPLC and HPC mixes in logarithmic time
scale.
HPC-3 and HPLC presented very similar shrinkage rates. Figure 4.13 shows that the
two shrinkage curves were fairly parallel. HPC-6, on the other hand, showed a much faster
shrinkage rate until 100 days of drying, and after that it showed almost no increase in
shrinkage.
From creep comparison it was concluded that creep of 10,000-psi HPLC was either
lower or very similar than creep of the HPC of the same strength. On the other hand, from
shrinkage comparison, it seems that long-term shrinkage of HPLC was about 20% higher
than the HPC counterparts.
41
4.4.3. Total Strain Projection

Various mathematical models (logarithmic, hyperbolic, and exponential) were fitted
to specific creep and shrinkage of HPLC and the two HPC mixes. All details are shown in
Section G.5.3. With the best fit curves (shown in Figure G.15), values at ultimate (40 years)
were estimated for specific creep and shrinkage of HPLC and HPC as shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3. Ultimate strain estimates for HPLC and HPC loaded at 40% and 60% of its initial
strength.
HPLC
HPC-3
HPC-6
Stress
Stress
Stress
Stress
Stress
Stress
40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
Elastic Modulus1
3,663
3,949
3,350
Elastic Strain2 ()
1,092
1,638
1,013
1,519
1,191
1,786
Shrinkage3 ()
607
504
539
Specific creep3 (/psi)
0.371
0.367
0.650
stress (psi)
4,000
6,000
4,000
6,000
4,000
6,000
Creep strain4 ()
1,484
2,227
1,467
2,200
2,599
3,898
Total strain ()
3,184
4,472
2,984
4,224
4,328
6,226
Note: 1 measured from creep specimens; 2 elastic modulus times applied stress;
3
estimated from best fit; 4 specific creep multiplied by applied stress
Total strain of HPLC at 40 years stressed with 40% and 60% of its ultimate strength
was estimated to be 3,184 and 4,472 , respectively. On the other hand, the strains under
the same condition for HPC-3 were slightly lower: 2,984 and 4,224 for 40% and 60%
stress level, respectively. Finally, total strain after 40 years of HPC-6 was estimated to be
4,328 and 6,226 , respectively.
42
5. Prestress Losses
One goal of this research was to determine how the use of HPLC would affect the
loss of prestressing force in bridge girders. The creep and shrinkage data found from HPLC
cylinders and from AASHTO Type II girders made with HPLC were used to estimate
prestress losses in bridge girders. These experimental losses are compared with four models:
AASHTO refined and AASHTO lump sum (AASHTO-LRFD, 1998), ACI Committee 209
(ACI-209, 1997), and the PCI method (PCI, 1998), which are presented in detail in appendix
D. For comparison purposes, ACI-209 estimates were computed for 40 years after
prestressing assuming that time as the final state of losses. Actual losses were computed
from measured, experimental strains of AASHTO Type II girders. The experimental data did
not include steel relaxation losses. Experimental strains were projected to the 40-year
condition for comparison with the estimates from the standards.
Six AASHTO Type II girders were cast using HPLC: three each with 8,000-psi and
10,000-psi mixes. Four were 39-ft long and two were 43-ft long. Each was reinforced with
ten 0.6-inch diameter 270 ksi low relaxation strands. Approximately two months after girder
fabrication, a normal weight, 3,500-psi composite deck slab was cast at top each girder. The
girders were tested to determine flexure and shear strengths and to find strand transfer and
development length about six month after initial construction. Each girder was instrumented
to measure internal and external strains (Meyer et al., 2002).
Strain measurements of those girders as shown in Figure 5.1 provided experimental
data for actual prestress computations. Table 5.1 presents the comparison between measured
and estimated prestress losses for the 8,000-psi HPLC girder. Comparison for 10,000-psi
HPLC girder is presented in Appendix H (Table H.2).
43
Microstrains (in/in x 10-6)
-1000
-800
Deck pouring
-600
-400
8,000-psi Individual Girder Result
-200

0
0
20
40
60
80
Age (Days)
100
120
140
Figure 5.1. Experimental strains over time for the 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC 39-foot
girders.
Table 5.1 Comparison between experimental and estimated prestress losses of 8,000-psi
HPLC prestressed girders
8,000-psi HPLC
Girders
After Jacking
Elastic Shortening
Creep
Shrinkage
CR+SH
Relaxation
Total Timedependent
Total Losses
AASHTO
AASHTO
refined
Lump sum
PCI
ACI 209
(ksi)
(%)
(ksi)
(%)
(ksi)
(%)
(ksi) (%)
(ksi) (%)
202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0
-17.0 -8.4 -11.2 -5.5 -10.4 -5.2 -10.5 -5.2 -12.0 -5.9
not measured -16.4 -8.1
-14.1 -7.0 -14.8 -7.3
not estimated
separately
-6.5
-3.2
-5.1
-2.5 -11.3 -5.6
separately
-8.8
-4.3 -22.9 -11.3
-19.2 -9.5 -26.1 -12.9
4
4
-11.5 -5.7
-18.7 -9.2
-3.8
-1.9
-5.6
-2.8
Measured
-20.2
-10.0
-41.5
-20.5
-24.2
-12.0
-23.0
-11.3
-31.7
-15.7
-37.2
-18.4
-52.8
-26.1
-34.7
-17.1
-33.5
-16.5
-43.7
-21.6
Experimental total losses for 8,000-psi girders made with HPLC was 37.2 ksi. The
AASHTO-LRFD refined and ACI-209 method overestimated losses by 15.6 and 6.5 ksi,
respectively. The AASHTO-LRFD lump sum and PCI methods were close to experimental
Experimental relaxation was determinate with Equation D.11 and experimental ES, CR and SH.
44
data, but they underestimated total losses by 2.5 and 3.7 ksi, respectively. Those differences
expressed as percentage of the initial stress before losses are: 7.7, 3.2, -1.2, and -1.8%, for
the AASHTO-LRFD refined, ACI-209, AASHTO-LRFD lump sum and PCI techniques,
respectively. A positive difference indicates a predicted value greater than experimental.
The experimental prestress losses in the 10,000-psi girders were 29.6 ksi which was
lower than that of 8,000-psi girders by 7.6 ksi. The four methods overestimated the
experimental data. AASHTO-LRFD refined and lump sum methods overestimated total
loses by 22.3 and 3.7 ksi, respectively (see Figure H.5, Appendix H).
In Figure 5.2, the predicted-to-measured ratio is shown. Losses are grouped in elastic
shortening, creep and shrinkage, total time dependent and total losses. Overestimates appear
as a predicted-to-measured ratio greater than one, and the underestimates as lower than one.
The four methods underestimated elastic shortening losses regardless the type of
HPLC. The AASHTO-LRFD refined, PCI and ACI-209 overestimated creep and shrinkage
losses by at least 100%. The underestimate in steel relaxation losses given by the PCI and
ACI-209 methods was probably due to the much higher creep and shrinkage losses that they
predicted which decreased relaxation in the steel.
The fact that all methods underestimated elastic shortening was probably a
consequence of the procedures for measuring elastic shortening. The strain measurement
was taken after prestress transfer, which took approximately one hour. Therefore, the first
reading after transfer included not only instantaneous elastic strain, but also early creep and
shrinkage. The same argument can be used to explain that all methods overestimated time
dependant losses.
45
8.0
Predicted-to-measured ratio
7.0
Elastic Shortening
6.0
Creep & Shrinkage

Total Time Dependent
Total Losses
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
8,000-psi 10,000-psi
HPLC
HPLC
8,000-psi 10,000-psi
HPLC
HPLC
AASHTO refined
AASHTO lump sum
8,000-psi 10,000-psi
HPLC
HPLC
8,000-psi 10,000-psi
HPLC
HPLC
PCI
ACI 209
Figure 5.2. Comparison between estimated prestress losses from PCI, AASHTO and ACI209 models
Within time-dependant losses (TD), differences between estimates were due primarily
to shrinkage losses. The PCI method estimated shrinkage losses as 5.1 ksi (2.5%) while
ACI-209 method estimated it to be 11.3 ksi (5.6%).
As described in Chapter 4, creep and shrinkage tests were conducted on HPLC mixes.
Therefore, estimates for creep and shrinkage using prestress losses models can be compared
separately with experimental results to evaluate the performance of the models. The details
are given in Section H.3.
The three models underestimated elastic shortening by less than 10%. This difference
can be explained based on the size of the creep specimens (see Section H.3).
The largest relative differences were obtained on the shrinkage portion where PCI and
AASHTO refined methods underestimated shrinkage losses by approximately 65%. The PCI
46
method was the least accurate method to estimate creep. The AASHTO refined method also
underestimated creep losses, but by less than the PCI method. As expected, the ACI-209
method gave the best creep estimate with an only 4.4% underestimate. The fact that PCI and
AASHTO refined method underestimated creep strains in such proportion is probably
because those design methods are estimating what happens on a prestressed concrete member
rather than testing specimens. On a prestressed member creep of concrete occurs at a
decreasing stress because creep, shrinkage and steel relaxation decrease the effective stress
on concrete. That does not happen in creep testing of cylinders.
Summarizing, each of the methods for estimating prestress losses overestimated the
actual losses due to elastic shortening, creep and shrinkage measured in 8,000-psi and
10,000-psi HPLC AASHTO Type II prestressed girders. For total losses, all experimental
losses5 were overestimated by the standards. The only exceptions were the AASHTO lump
sum and PCI methods that underestimated total losses in 8,000-psi girders by 1.2 and 1.8%.
In particular, the AASHTO refined and lump sum methods were conservative in
predicting prestress losses in HPLC girders. As explained in Section D.2, AASHTO methods
do not consider lightweight concrete, so they estimate losses for a normal weight HPC.
Experimental relaxation was determinate with Equation D.11 and experimental ES, CR and SH.
47
48
6. Conclusions and Recommendations

The long-term performance of high performance lightweight concrete (HPLC) for use
in prestressed bridge girders was studied. Two different HPLC mixes were developed using
Type III cement, silica fume, class F fly ash, expanded slate as coarse aggregate, natural
sand, and chemical admixtures. The first mix was an 8,000-psi HPLC (FHWA HPC Grade
2) with an air dry unit weight of 117 lb/ft3. The second mix was a 10,000-psi HPLC
(FHWA HPC Grade 3) with an air dry unit weight of 119 lb/ft3.
Conclusions drawn from this study are divided into three areas: HPLC material
properties, creep and shrinkage behavior, and prestress losses.
6.1. Conclusions
6.1.1. High Performance Lightweight Concrete Material Properties
In the fresh state, the two HPLC mixes performed adequately for casting precast
prestressed concrete girders. They had a slump ranging from 4 to 8 inches and air content
within the range 3.5 to 4.5 %. The specified 56-day compressive strength for HPLC Grade 2
was reached after 28 days and the one for HPLC Grade 3 was reached at the age of 56 days.
The 8,000-psi HPLC mix had a 24-hour and 56-day compressive strength of 7,400 and
10,000 psi; 24-hour and 56-day modulus of elasticity were approximately 3,600 and 4,100
ksi. The 10,000-psi HPLC had a compressive strength of 9,000 psi at 24 hours and 11,500
psi af 56 days. The 24-hour and 56-day modulus of elasticity were 3,800 and 4,200 ksi. As
expected, modulus of elasticity was between 15 to 20% lower than that of an HPC of similar
strength. Measured modulus of rupture in both HPLC mixes was 33% higher than the value
given by the AASHTO equation ( f r = 7.5
f c ' ), and 57% higher than the same equation

49
when the reduction factor for sand-lightweight concrete was included. Chloride ion
permeability was within the range 100 - 1,000 coulomb which is classified as very low
permeability. The coefficient of thermal expansion at 100% RH ranged from 5.0 to 5.5
/oF.
6.1.2. Creep and Shrinkage Behavior

Creep was measured on 24 specimens stored at 50% relative humidity and 70 oF for a
period of 620 days. Twelve 4 x 15 cylinder specimens were made of 8,000-psi HPLC, and
twelve of 10,000-psi HPLC. Half of the specimens were loaded to 40% of the initial
compressive strength and the other half to 60% of the initial strength. Within each group
some specimens were loaded at 16 hours and some at 24 hours after casting.
Creep of 8,000-psi HPLC after 620 days under load was close to 1,650 for 40% of
initial strength and approximately 2,000 for 60% of initial strength. Creep of 10,000-psi
HPLC after 620 days under load was 1,160 for 40% of initial strength and 1,500 for
60% of initial strength. Fifty and ninety percent of the 620-day creep was reached after
approximately 16 and 250 days of loading, regardless the type of HPLC.
Experimental creep coefficient was compared with several empirical models
presented in the literature. Shams and Kahns and AASHTO-LRFD models most accurately
estimated creep of HPLC. Their respective average6 coefficients of determination (R2) were
0.934 and 0.899, respectively. One of the reasons behind the better performance of these two
models was that they incorporate maturity of concrete instead of age of concrete.
Average between the values obtained for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC
50
Shrinkage after 620 days of drying was approximately 820 for the 8,000-psi HPLC
mix and 610 for the 10,000-psi HPLC mix. Fifty and ninety percent of the 620-day
shrinkage was reached after approximately 30 and 260 days of drying for both 8,000-psi and
10,000-psi HPLC. Experimental results and estimates from several models were compared.
AASHTO-LRFD model gave the best overall estimate of 8,000-psi HPLC shrinkage. On the
other hand, for the 10,000-psi HPLC mix, the Gardner and Lockman model gave the best
overall performance. However, when the two HPLC mixes were analyzed together and when
the average coefficient of determination (R2) was used, the Shams and Kahn model resulted
in the best prediction.
Grade 3 HPLC (10,000-psi HPLC) had a specific creep similar to that of an HPC of
the same grade, but with less cement paste content, and it had significantly less creep than an
HPC of the same grade and similar cement paste content. The shrinkage of the HPLC was
about 20% greater than the HPC after 620 days. Therefore, the HPLC had less creep yet
somewhat more shrinkage than comparable HPC.
6.1.3. Prestress Losses

Final prestress losses were estimated using AASHTO refined, AASHTO lump sum,
PCI, and ACI-209 methods. All of them overestimated the measured time dependant losses
in 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi AASHTO Type II prestressed girders made with HPLC. This
result means that those methods are conservative for estimating time dependant losses of
HPLC. Total losses, however, were underestimated by the AASHTO lump sum and PCI
method by 1.2 and 1.8% for 8,000-psi girders, respectively.
51
6.2. Recommendations
6.2.1. Design Recommendations
The method that gave the best results for predicting creep of HPLC was Shams and
Kahns method (Shams and Kahn, 2000) which can be regarded as a modification of
AASHTO-LRFD model for HPC. The average coefficient of determination (R2) of Shams
and Kahns model was 0.934 while the one from AASHTO LRFD (1998), the second best
model, was 0.899. The best method for predicting shrinkage of HPLC was Shams and
Kahns method, but the AASHTO LRFD and Gardner and Lockmans methods gave better
particular estimates for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC, respectively.
Considering creep and shrinkage performance, the Shams and Kahn model was the
best model for predicting long-term strains of HPLC made with locally available materials in
Georgia.
The AASHTO-LRFD refined method for estimating prestress losses was
conservative. The AASHTO-LRFD lump sum method gave a good estimate of total losses
slightly underestimation total losses of 8,000-psi HPLC girders by 1.3%.
Overall, the AASHTO-LRFD refined method may be used conservatively for
predicting prestress losses in girders made of high performance lightweight concrete.
6.2.2. Future Research

The use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), chemical admixtures and
expanded slate as coarse aggregate is a key issue in the production of high performance
lightweight concrete. However, most of the research for development of models for
estimating long-term strains in concrete included none of them as a factor. Future research
52
needs to understand the role of SCMs and additives on creep and shrinkage in order to
improve the current models.
It is widely accepted that water has a main role in basic creep, drying creep,
autogenous shrinkage, and drying shrinkage. Because of the use of SCMs, and particularly
the use of silica fume, provides low permeability, it is recommended to investigate the
relationship between water permeability and long-term strains of HPLC.
The lower specific creep showed by HPLC in relation to HPC of similar mechanical
properties needs to be further investigated. The literature presents very little research on
long-term strains of high performance / high strength lightweight concrete. Some of the
previous results support the conclusions of this research, but others do not. Therefore, it is
recommended to investigate the effect of replacing normal weight coarse aggregate by
expanded slate under long-term deformation and under different drying conditions.
53
54
7. References
AASHTO-LRFD (1998) "AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications", AASHTO, Washington.
ACI-Committee116 (2000) "Cement and Concrete Terminology", ACI Manual of Concrete Practice,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 116R.1-16R.73.
ACI-Committee209 (1971). "Effect of Concrete Constituent, Environment, and Stress on the Creep
and Shrinkage of Concrete". Designing for Effects of Creep, Shrinkage, Temperature in Concrete
Structures, Farmington Hills, MI, American Concrete Institute.
ACI-Committee209 (1992/Reapproved 1997) "Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature
Effects in Concrete Structures", ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 209R.1-09R.47.
ACI-Committee213 (1987/Reapproved 1999) "Guide for Structural Lightweight Aggregate
Concrete", ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
pp. 213R.1-31R.27.
ACI-Committee363 (1992/Reapproved 1997) "State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete",
ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp.
363R.1-63R.55.
Atcin, P.-C. (1998) "High-Performance Concrete", E & FN Spon.
Alexander, M. G. (1996) "Aggregate and the Deformation Properties of Concrete", ACI Material
Journal, V. 93 No.6: p. 569-77.
Altoubat, S. A., and Lange, D.A. (2001) "Early Age Stresses and Creep-Shrinkage Interaction of
Restrained Concrete", Federal Aviation Administration Center of Excelence for Airport
Technology, Urbana, IL.
Bandyopadhyay, T. K., and Sengupta B. (1986) "Determining Time Dependent Losses of Prestressing
with Dual Considerations of Aging Coefficient and Percentage of Steel", ACI Journal, V. 83
No.2: p. 236-43.
Baant, Z. P., and Panula, L. (1978a) "Practical Prediction of Time-Dependent Deformations of
Concrete. Part I: Shrinkage", Materials and Structures, V. 11 No.65: p. 307-16.
Baant, Z. P., and Panula, L. (1978b) "Practical Prediction of Time-Dependent Deformations of
Concrete. Part II: Basic Creep", Materials and Structures, V. 11 No.65: p. 317-28.
Baant, Z. P., and Panula, L. (1978c) "Practical Prediction of Time-Dependent Deformations of
Concrete. Part III: Drying Creep", Materials and Structures, V. 11 No.66: p. 415-23.
Baant, Z. P., and Panula, L. (1978d) "Practical Prediction of Time-Dependent Deformations of
Concrete. Part IV: Temperature Effect on Basic Creep", Materials and Structures, V. 11 No.66: p.
424-34.
Baant, Z. P., and Panula, L. (1979a) "Practical Prediction of Time-Dependent Deformations of
Concrete. Part V: Temperature Effect on Drying Creep", Materials and Structures, V. 12 No.69:
p. 169-74.
Baant, Z. P., and Panula, L. (1979b) "Practical Prediction of Time-Dependent Deformations of
Concrete. Part VI: Cyclic Creep, Nonlinearity and Statistical Scatter", Materials and Structures, V.
12 No.69: p. 175-83.
Baant, Z. P., and Panula, L. (1984) "Practical Prediction of Creep and Shrinkage of High Strength
55
Concrete", Materials and Structures, V. 17 No.101: p. 375-178.

Baant, Z. P. (Ed.) (1988) "Mathematical Modeling of Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete", John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Baant, Z. P., and Baweja, S. (2000). "Creep and Shrinkage Prediction Model for Analysis and
Design of Concrete Structures: Model B3 - Short Form". The Adam Neville Symposium: Creep
and Shrinkage - Structural Design Effects, Atlanta, USA, American Concrete Institute.
Baant, Z. P. (2001) "Prediction of Concrete Creep and Shrinkage: Past, Present and Future", Nuclear
Engineering and Design, V. 302 No.1: p. 27-38.
Bentz, D. P., and Snyder, K.A. (1999) "Protected Paste Volume in Concrete Extension to Internal
Curing Using Saturated Lightweight Fine Aggregate", Cement and Concrete Research, V. 29
No.4: p. 1863-67.
Berra, M., and Ferrada, G. (1990). "Normalweight and Total-Lightweight High-Strength Concretes:
A Comparative Experimental Study". High-Strength Concrete. Second International Symposium,
Berkeley, California, American Concrete Institute.
Bilodeau, A., Chevrier, R., Malhotra, M., and Hoff, G.C. (1995). "Mechanical Properties Durability
and Fire Resistance of High Strength Lightweight Concrete". International Symposium on
Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete in Sandefjord, Sandefjord. Norway.
Buchberg, B. S. (2002) "Investigation of Mix Design and Properties of High-Strength/HighPerformance Lightweight Concrete", Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, pp. 453.
Buchberg, B. S. (2002) "Investigation of Mix Design and Properties of High-Strength/HighPerformance Lightweight Concrete", Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, pp. 453.
Buil, R. G., and Acker, P. (1985) "Creep of Silica Fume Concrete", Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 15: p. 463-66.
Burg, R. G., and Ost, B.W. (1992) In PCA Research and Development Bulletin, Vol. RD104T.
Carrasquillo, R. L., Nilson, A. H., and Slate, F. O. (1981) "Properties of High-Strength Concrete
Subject to Short-Term Loads", Journal of the American Concrete Institute, V. 78 No.3: p. 171-78.
Carrasquillo, P. M., and Carrasquillo, R.L. (1988) "Evaluation of the use of the Current Concrete
Practice in the Production of High-Strength Concrete", ACI Material Journal, V. 85 No.1: p. 4954.
Carreira, D. J., and Burg, R. G. (2000). "Testing for Concrete Creep and Shrinkage". The Adam
Neville Symposium: Creep and Shrinkage - Structural Design Effects, Atlanta, American Concrete
Institute.
Comite Euro-Internacional du Beton (CEB), Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte (FIP)
(1977) "Lightweight Aggregate Concrete. CEB/FIP Manual of Design and Technology", The
Construction Press, Lancaster.
Comite Euro-Internacional du Beton (CEB), Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte (FIP)
(1990) "Evaluation of the Time Dependent Behavior of Concrete", The Construction Press,
Lancaster.
Curcio, F., Galeota, D., Gallo, A., and Giammatteo, M.M. (1998). "High-Performance Lightweight
Concrete for the Precast Prestressed Concrete Industry". Fourth CANMET/ACI/JCI International
Symposium on Advances in Concrete Technology, Tokushima, Japan, American Concrete Institute.
de Larrand, F., Acker, P., and Le Roy, R. (1994) "Shrinkage Creep and Thermal Properties", High
Performance Concrete: Properties and Applications(Ed, Shah, S. P., and Ahmad, S. H.),
56
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 65-114.

Findley, W. N., Lai J. S. and Onaran K. (1989) "Creep ands Relaxation of Nonlinear Viscoelastic
Materials", Dover Publications, Inc, New York.
Gardner, N. J., and Lockman, M. J. (2001) "Design Provisions for Drying Shrinkage and Creep of
Normal-Strength Concrete", ACI Material Journal, V. 98 No.2: p. 159-67.
Gjrv, O. E. (1994) "Durability", High Performance Concrete: Properties and Applications(Ed,
Shah, S. P., and Ahmad, S. H.), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 139-60.
Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, Raymond A. (1996) "High-Performance Concrete
Definition for Highway Structures", Concrete International, V. 18 No.2: p. 62-67.
Han, N. (1996) "Time Dependent Behavior of High-Strength Concrete", Delft University of
Technlogy, Mekelweg, pp. 317.
Hoff, G. C. (1990). "High-Strength Lightweight Concrete - Current Status and Future Needs". HighStrength Concrete. Second International Symposium, Berkeley, California, American Concrete
Institute.
Holm, T. A., and Bremner, T. W. (1994) "High Strength Lightweight Aggregate Concrete", High
Performance Concrete: Properties and Applications(Ed, Shah, S. P. a. A., S. H.), McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, pp. 341-74.
Holm, T. A. (1995) "Lightweight Concrete and Aggregates, Standard Technical Publication STP
169C", American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Holm, T. A., and Bremner, T. W. (2000) "State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength, High-Durability
Structural Low-Density Concrete for Applications in Severe Marine Environments", US Army
Corps of Engineers. Engineer Research and Development Center, Structures Laboratory,
Vicksburg, MS.
Hsu, T. T. C. (1956) "Inelastic Behavior T-Loading", Cornell University, Ithaca, pp. 6.
Hummel, A. (1966) "Das Beton-ABC (Concrete Compendium Normal and Lightweight Concretes)",
Editores Tecnicos Asociados, Barcelona.
Huo, X. S., Al-Omaishi, N., and Tadros, M.K. (2001) "Creep, Shrinkage, and Modulus of Elasticity
of High-Performance Concrete", ACI Material Journal, V. 98 No.6: p. 440-49.
Katz, A., Bentur, A., and Kjellsen, K.O. (1999) "Normal and High Strength Concretes with
Lightweight Aggregates", RILEM Report 20: Engineering and Transport Properties of the
Interfacial Transition Zone in Cementitious Composites, Vol. 1 (Ed, Alexander, M. G., Arliguie,
G., Ballivy, G., Bentur, A., and Marchand, J.), RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., Cachan Cedex,
France, pp. 71-88.
L'Hermite, R. (1962). Fourth International Symposium in Chemistry of Cements, Washington, D.C.,
National Bureau of Standards.
Le Roy, R., De Larrard, F., and Pons, G. (1996). "The AFREM Code Type Model for Creep and
Shrinkage of High-Performance Concrete". 4th International Symposium on Utilization of HighStrength/High-Performance Concrete, Paris.
Leming, M. L. (1990) "Creep and Shrinkage of Lightweight Concrete", Department of Civil
Engineering, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, Salisbury, NC.
Lopez, M., and Kahn, L. F. (2003) "Time Dependent Behavior of High Performance Concrete:
Evaluation of a Georgia's High Performance Concrete Bridge", Office of Materials and Research
Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta.
57
Luther, M. D., and Hansen, W. (1989). "Comparison of Creep and Shrinkage of High Strength Silica
Fume Concretes with Fly Ash Concretes of Similar Strengths." Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and
Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, SP 114, American Concrete Institute.
Lyman, C. G. (1934) "Growth and Movement in Portland Cement Concrete", Oxford University
Press, London.
Malhotra, V. M. (1990). "Properties of High-Strength Lightweight Concrete Incorporating Fly Ash
and Silica Fume". High-Strength Concrete. Second International Symposium, Berkeley, California,
American Concrete Institute.
Mehta, P. K. a. M., Paulo J.M. (1993) "Concrete. Microstructure, Properties and Materials", Mc
Graw-Hill.
Meyer, K. F., Kahn, L. F., Lai, J.S., and Kurtis, K.E. (2002) "Transfer and Development Length of
High Strength Lightweight Concrete Precast Prestressed Bridge Girders", Structural Engineering,
Mechanics and Materials, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, pp. 617.
Meyer, K. F., and Kahn, L. F. (2002) "Lightweight Concrete Reduces Weight and Increases Span
Length of Pretensioned Concrete Bridge Girders", PCI Journal, V. 47 No.1: p. 68-75.
Mindess, S., Young, J.F, and Darwin, D. (2003) "Concrete", Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Mokhtarzadeh, A., and French, C.E. (1998) "Mechanical Properties of High Strength Concrete",
Center of Transportation Research, University of Minnesota, pp. 595.
Morales, J. (1982) "Short-Term Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Lightweight Concrete."
National Science Foundation, Ithaca.
Nawy, E. G. (2001) "Fundamentals of High-Performance Concrete", John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Nawy, E. G. (2003) "Prestressed Concrete: A Fundamental Approach", Pearson Education, Inc.,
Upper Saddle River.
Neville, A. M. (1964) "Creep of Concrete as a Function of its cement Paste Content", Magazine of
Concrete Research, V. 16 No.46: p. 21-30.
Neville, A. M., Dilger, W.H., and Brooks, J.J. (1983) "Creep of Plain and Reinforced Concrete",
Construction Press, London and New York.
Neville, A. M. (1996) "Properties of Concrete", Addison Wesley Logman Limited, New York.
Ngab, A. S., Nilson, A.H., and Slate, F.O. (1981) "Shrinkage and Creep of High Strength Concrete",
ACI Journal, V. 78 No.4: p. 255-61.
Nilsen, A. U., and Atcin, P.C. (1992) "Properties of High-strength Concrete Containing Light-,
Normal- and Heavy-weight Aggregate", Cement Concrete and Aggregates, V. No.Summer: p. 812.
PCI (1998) "PCI Design Handbook, Precast and Prestressed Concrete", Precast / Prestressed
Concrete Institute, Chicago.
PCI-Committee on Prestress, L. (1975) "Recommendations for Estimating Prestress Losses", PCI
Journal, V. 28 No.4: p. 43-75.
Penttala, V., and Rautanen, T. (1990). "Microporosity, Creep, and Shrinkage of High-Strength
Concretes". High-Strength Concrete. Second International Symposium, Berkeley, California,
American Concrete Institute.
58
Pfeifer, D. W. (1968) "Sand Replacement in Structural Lightweight Concrete", ACI Journal, V. 65

No.2: p. 131-39.
Pickett, G. (1956) "Effect of Aggregate on Shrinkage of Concrete and a Hypothesis Concerning
Shrinkage", ACI Journal, V. 52: p. 581-90.
Powers, T. C. (1961) Rev. Mater. Construct, V. No.545: p. 79-85.
Reichard, T. W. (1964) "Monograph No. 74: Creep and Drying Shrinkage of Lightweight and Normal
Weight Concrete", National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
Rogers, G. L. (1957). "On the Creep and Shrinkage Characteristics of Solite Concretes". World
Conference on Prestressed Concrete, San Francisco, CA.
Roller, J. J., Russell, H.G., Bruce, R.N., and Martin, B.T. (1995) "Long-Term Performance of
Prestressed, Pretensioned High Strength Concrete Bridge Girders", PCI Journal, V. 40 No.6: p.
48-59.
Sakata, K. (1993). "Prediction of Creep and Shrinkage, Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete,". Fifth
International RILEM Symposium, Barcelona, Spain, RILEM.
Sakata, K., Tsubaki, T., Inoue, S., and Ayano, T. (2001). "Prediction Equations of Creep and Drying
Shrinkage for Wide-Ranged Strength Concrete". Creep Shrinkage and Durability Mechanics of
Concrete and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States, Elsevier.
Shah, S. P., and Ahmad, S. H. (Ed.) (1994) "High Performance Concretes and Applications",
McGraw-Hill.
Shams, M. K., and Khan, L. F. (2000) "Time Dependent Behavior of High-Performance Concrete",
Georgia Department of Transportation. Office of Material and Research, Atlanta, GA.
Shideler, J. J. (1957) "Lightweight-Aggregate Concrete for Structural Use", Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, V. 54: p. 298-328.
Short, A., and Kinniburgh, W. (1963) "Lightweight Concrete", Brooks Limited, London.
Slapkus, A., and Kahn, L.F. (2002) "Evaluation of Georgia's High Performance Concrete Bridge",
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, pp. 382.
Smadi, M. M., Slate, F.O., and Nilson, A.H. (1989) "Microcracking of High and Normal Strength
Concretes under Short- and Long-Term Loadings", ACI Material Journal, V. 86 No.2: p. 117-27.
Tazawa, E., and Miyazawa, S. (1995) "Chemical Shrinkage and Autogenous Shrinkage of Concrete",
Cement and Concrete Research, V. 25 No.8: p. 1633-38.
Thomas, F. G. (1937). "Creep of Concrete under Load", London, International Association of Testing
Materials.
van der Wegen, G. J. L., and Bijen, J.M. (1985) "Properties of Concrete made with Three Types of
Artificial PFA Coarse Aggregate", The International Journal of Cement Composites and
Lightweight Concrete, V. 7 No.3: p. 159-67.
Videla, C., and Lopez, M. (2000) "Mixture Proportioning Methodology for Structural Sand
Lightweight Concrete", ACI Material Journal, V. 97 No.3: p. 281-89.
Videla, C., and Lopez, M. (2002) "Effect of Lightweight Aggregate Intrinsic Strength on Lightweight
Concrete Compressive Strength and Modulus of Elasticity", Construction Materials Journal /
Revista Materiales de Construccion, V. 52 No.265: p. 23-37.
Ward, M. A., Jessop, E.L., and Neville, A.M. (1967). "Some Factors in Creep of Lightweight
Aggregate Concrete". RILEM symposium on Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, Budapest, RILEM.
59
Weigler, H., and Karl, S. (1974) "Stahlleichtbeton (Reinforced Lightweight Concretes)", Gili,
Barcelona.
Wolseifer , J. (1982) "Ultra High Strength Field Pleaceable Concrete with Silica Fume", Concrete
International, V. 6 No.4: p. 25-31.
Yue, L., and Taerwe, L.R. (1993). "Empirical Investigation of Creep of High Strength Concrete".
Utilization of High Strength Concrete, Proceedings of the Third International Conference,
Lillehammer, Norway.
Zhang, M.-H., and Gjrv, O.E. (1990). "Development of High-Strength Lightweight Concrete". HighStrength Concrete. Second International Symposium, Berkeley, California, American Concrete
Institute.
Zhang, M.-H., and Gjrv, O.E. (1991) "Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Lightweight
Concrete", ACI Materials Journal, V. 88 No.3: p. 240-47.
Zia, P., Preston, H. Kent, Scott, Norman L., and Workman, Edwin B. (1979) "Estimating Prestress
Losses", Concrete International, V. 76 No.6: p. 32-38.
60
Appendix A. Introduction
A.1 Introduction to Task 3: Short and Long-term Properties of High
Performance Lightweight Concrete Mixes
The goal of Task 3 was to determinate the compressive strength of high performance
lightweight concretes (HPLC) selected in Task 2, their elastic modulus, rupture modulus,
chloride permeability, and their creep and shrinkage characteristics.
The selected mixes from Task 2 had design strengths of 8,000 psi, 10,000 psi, and
12,000 psi. Those were HPC Grades 2 and 3 (see Section A.2 for grade definitions). After
mix design stage, it was concluded (Meyer et al. , 2002) that the 12,000 design strength was
not possible with the expanded slate used in the research. The existence of a strength ceiling
of about 11,500 psi limits the specifiable strength to just 10,000 psi. The 8,000 and 10,000psi mix designs are presented in Table A.1.
Table A.1. Designed high performance lightweight concrete mixes (SSD condition)
8,000 psi
design mix
783
142
19
947
1022
267.8
57
57.4
9.5
0.284
39
1.5
118
Type III cement (lb/yd3)

class "F" fly ash (lb/yd3)
silica fume (lb/yd3)
1/2-in. lightweight aggregate (lb/yd3)
concrete sand (lb/yd3)
water (lb/yd3)
water reducer (fl oz/yd3)
superplasticizer (fl oz/yd3)
air entrainer (fl oz/yd3)
water/cementitious ratio
cement paste content (%)
coarse/fine ratio
theoretical unit weight (lb/ft3)
61
10,000 psi
design mix
740
150
100
955
1030
227.3
57
131.8
9.5
0.23
39
1.5
119
The 8,000-psi mix design was named as 8L when mixed in the laboratory and 8F
when mixed in the field. The 10,000-psi mix was named as 10L and 10F when made in
laboratory and field, respectively.
This report is focused on time-dependent strains of the high performance lightweight
concretes described above and on how those strains influence the prestress losses in the HPC
precast prestressed bridge girders.
A.2 Introduction to High Performance Concrete (HPC)

ACI Committee 363 (1997) defined high strength concrete (HSC) as a concrete with a
cylinder compressive strength that exceeds 6,000 psi, while ACI Committee 116 (2000)
defined HPC as concrete meeting special combinations of performance and uniformity
requirements that cannot always be achieved routinely using conventional constituent
materials and normal mixing, placing, and curing practices. The requirements may involve
enhancements of placement, compaction without segregation, long-term mechanical
properties, early-age strength, volume stability, or service life in severe environments.
Goodspeed et al. (1996), went further in its definition and stated that HPC is defined not
only by the strength, but by seven more parameters: freeze-thaw durability, scaling
resistance, abrasion resistance, chloride penetration, creep, shrinkage, and modulus of
elasticity. Table A.2 presents a summary of HPC grade 2 and 3 specifications according to
Goodspeed et al. (1996).
From the definitions above it can be concluded that HPC is a broad concept that may
include HSC, but HSC is not equivalent to HPC. To avoid confusions Atcin (1998)
proposed for HPC the term low water-to-binder ratio concrete because when concrete has a
very low water to binder ratio (less than 0.4) not only achieves higher strength, but also
62
several improved characteristics, such as higher flexural strength, lower permeability,

improved abrasion resistance and better durability.
Table A.2. High performance concrete bridge mix specifications (Goodspeed et al., 1996)
Property
Compressive strength
56 days is recommended
MPa
psi
GPa
Elastic modulus
ksi
Freeze/thaw durability (%)
Chloride permeability (coulombs)
Scaling resistance (visual rating)
Abrasion resistance (depth of wear, mm)
Specific creep
/MPa
at 180 days loading
/psi
Shrinkage () at 180 days drying
Grade 2
lower
upper
limit
limit
55
69
8,000
10,000
35
40
5,075
5,800
70
80
2000
800
2
1
1.0
0.5
60
45
0.41
0.31
600
500
Grade 3
lower
upper
limit
limit
69
97
10,000
14,000
40
50
5,800
7,250
80
90
800
500
1
0
0.5
0.25
45
30
0.31
0.21
500
400
Several authors (Atcin, 1998; Shah and Ahmad, 1994; ACI-363, 1997; Neville,
1996; Nawy, 2001; Mehta and Monteiro, 1993; Carrasquillo and Carrasquillo, 1988;
Carrasquillo et al., 1981) have summarized the advantages of the HPC with low water-tocement ratio with respect to the normal strength concrete. Some of the most important
advantages follow:
Reduction in member size, resulting in an increase in rentable space and a decrease
in the volume of concrete required
Reduction in axial shortening of compression supporting members
Improvement in long-term service performance under static, dynamic, and fatigue
loading
Reduction of creep and shrinkage
63
Improved durability
Increased stiffness as a result of a higher modulus of elasticity7
Reduction in cost for a given load capacity
Although HPC presents advantages over conventional concrete, it requires special
care during the production process in order to assure its quality. ACI Committee 363
recognized this, and in 1998 prepared the report Guide to Quality Control and Testing of
High-Strength Concrete. Moreover, Atcin (1998) stated that HPC is not a cheap concrete
that can be produced by anyone; on the contrary, it is becoming an engineered, high-tech
material.
One problem associated with some HPC is an increase in the autogenous shrinkage
with respect to normal strength concrete (Atcin, 1998). This increase can be explained
based on the creation of strong menisci in small capillaries when the cement particles
demand more water. Because normal strength concrete has larger capillaries, the autogenous
shrinkage is not an issue. Bentz and Snyder (1999) pointed out that the self-desiccation and
autogenous shrinkage may be increased by the use of low water-to-binder ratios and by
addition of silica fume. In addition to higher autogenous shrinkage, HPC also presents a
lower relaxation and a higher modulus of elasticity. The last two characteristics lead to a
decrement in the concrete extensibility. Another disadvantage of HPC is poor fire resistance
compared with normal strength concrete (Gjrv, 1994). This poor behavior is due to the very
A higher modulus of elasticity may be an advantage when a dimensional stability is desired, and the
concrete element is free to deform. However, it may be a disadvantage when it is associated with deformation
restraints because the higher modulus of elasticity decreases extensibility.
64
low permeability of HPC, which does not allow the egress of steam formed from water at
high temperatures in the hydrated cement paste.
A.3 Introduction to Structural Lightweight Concrete (SLC)

Lightweight concrete was used first by the Greeks and the Romans circa 250 B.C.,
but the main development of such a material was in the 1920s with the first manufactured
lightweight aggregate (Holm and Bremner, 2000). ACI Committee 213 (ACI-213, 1999)
defined structural lightweight concrete as structural concrete made with lightweight
aggregate, with an air-dried density at 28 days in the range of 90 and 115 lb/ft3 and a
compressive strength above 2,500 psi.
Several authors (Holm and Bremner, 2000; ACI-213, 1999; Neville, 1996; Holm,
1995; Mehta and Monteiro, 1993; Zhang and Gjrv, 1991; Short and Kinniburgh, 1963)
have studied the advantages of SLC. The most important advantages are the following:
Reduction in structure dead load, which leads to a reduction the foundation size
Reduction in member size, resulting in an increase in rentable space and a decrease
in the volume of concrete required
Development of a precast technology as a result of self-weight reduction that
facilitates the transport and lifting of structural members
Reduction in the seismic forces that are proportional to the mass of the structure
Increase in thermal insulation
Increase in fire resistance
As occurs with HPC, SLC also has disadvantages when it is compared with ordinary
concrete (Videla and Lopez, 2002; Holm and Bremner, 2000; Videla and Lopez, 2000;
65
Curcio et al., 1998; Neville, 1995; Short and Kinniburgh, 1967). Some of these
disadvantages follow:
Reduction in the modulus of elasticity for the same strength level
Increase in shrinkage and creep for the same strength level
A.4 Introduction to High Performance Lightweight Concrete (HPLC)

According to Holm and Bremner (1994), the first use of high strength lightweight
concrete was during World War I, when an American corporation built lightweight concrete
ships with strength of 5,000 psi. At that time the commercial strength of normal weight
concrete (NWC) was only around 2,000 psi. The same authors and Curcio et al. (1998)
pointed out that the principal advantage of HPLC is the structural efficiency given by a
favorable strength-to-unit weight ratio. Malhotra (1990) obtained HPLC with compressive
strength higher than 8,700 psi at one year with relatively moderate amount cementitious
materials (cement, silica fume, and fly ash). In addition, Nilsen and Atcin (1992) and Zhang
and Gjrv, (1990) presented HPLC with compressive strength slightly below and above
14,500 psi, respectively. According to Atcin (1998), this strength level represents the upper
strength boundary of HPLC.
Hoff (1990) reviewed five major joint-industry research programs using HPLC, and
concluded that lightweight concretes having compressive strength in excess of 7,250 psi can
readily be made using a competent lightweight aggregate. He also pointed out that the
addition of silica fume and superplasticizers in the mix provide significant benefits.
Malhotra (1990) concluded that HPLC with compressive strength of 10,000 psi and a density
of 125 lb/ft3 can be made with expanded slate from Canada. The same author highlighted
66
that the most promising mix that he obtained had ASTM Type III cement, fly ash and silica
fume.
According to Holm and Bremner (2000), the replacement of normal weight aggregate
by lightweight aggregate improves the mechanical properties of the concrete. This
improvement is due to enhanced elastic matching between lightweight aggregate and
cementitious matrix (conventional and high strength matrix). The elastic matching reduces
the fracture initiation in the interfacial transition zone (ITZ). However, the use of an ultrahigh-strength matrix, with a very high stiffness, produces an elastic mismatch, resulting in
fractures in the lightweight aggregate.
Although HPLC may reach a modulus of elasticity of 3,600 ksi (Malhotra, 1990),
which is fairly similar to a commercial NWC, this value is only 80% of that expected from an
HPC of the same strength. In fact, Meyer and Kahn (2002) and Morales (1982) have
proposed equations for the estimation of the elastic modulus of HPLC that includes a
correction factor for densities below 155 lb/ft3.
Hoff (1990) concluded that the use of HPLC will not expand unless designers have
confidence in their knowledge of its expected properties. Currently the codes do not
specifically consider HPLC. Rather, HPLC is specified as SLC by applying a capacity
reduction factor to the formulas commonly used in the design. Hoff (1990) stated that such as
practice might lead to very conservative values, undermining the HPLC application.
67
68
Appendix B. Creep and Shrinkage - Background

B.1 Long-term strains in concrete
Concrete as any other civil engineering material presents an instantaneous
deformation upon loading. However, it also presents other kinds of deformation because of
its aging and hygroscopic nature. Among those are stress and drying induced deformations.
Contraction
Figure B.1 presents the change of such deformation with time.
Drying Creep
Basic Creep
Drying Shrinkage
Autogenous
Shrinkage
Elastic Strain
time
Beginning of drying (to)

and loading (t)
Figure B.1. Relation between various strains in concrete with time.

As shown in Figure B.1, total strain in concrete at any given time can be broken into
three portions: initial strain which is the instantaneous response upon loading, shrinkage
which in comprised of autogenous and drying shrinkage, and creep which has basic and
drying creep portions.
69
Creep and shrinkage are usually discussed together because they are influenced by the
same factors in similar ways: both are originated in the cement paste, and both have similar
changes with time. Nevertheless, in this report they are analyzed separately because creep is
a stress-dependent strain and shrinkage is not.
B.2 Creep
In describing creep, Findley, Lai and Onaram (1976) stated that most materials
behave elastically or nearly so under small stresses and upon loading immediate elastic
(recoverable) strain response is obtained. However, when higher stresses are applied, a slow
and continuous increase in strain at a decreasing rate also occurs in some materials. These
are referred to as viscoelastic materials. Among these materials are different kinds of
plastics, wood, natural and synthetic fibers, concrete, and metals. Metals behave
viscoelastically only at elevated temperatures.
Creep in materials can be described in terms of three stages as shown in Figure B.2.
In the primary stage, creep occurs at a decreasing rate; in the secondary stage, creep is at
fairly constant rate; and finally, in the tertiary stage the creep rate accelerates and leads to
failure. According to Neville, Dilger and Brooks (1983), for the normal stress level present
in concrete, primary and secondary stages cannot be distinguished and tertiary stage does not
exist.
70
Secondary
Creep strain, Creep rate
Primary
Tertiary
Creep
Creep rate
Time
Figure B.2. Representation of three stages of creep.
ACI Committee 209 (1997) defined creep in concrete as the time dependent increase
in strain in hardened concrete subjected to sustained stress. Several authors (ACI Committee
209, 1997; Neville, 1996; Mehta and Monteiro, 1993; Baant, 1988; Neville, Dilger, and
Brooks, 1983) have divided creep in concrete into basic creep, which takes place under
conditions of no moisture exchange with the environment, and drying creep, which is
additional creep caused by drying (Figure B.1).
B.2.1. Basic Creep

Basic creep can be conceptualized as a constitutive concrete property since it depends
on the material characteristics and stress, but not on member size or ambient conditions.
Under normal loading conditions where the loading process is not instantaneous, the socalled instantaneous strain is actually comprised of elastic strain and early creep.
Therefore, an accurate measure of basic creep is not possible. Moreover, the actual elastic
strain decreases with time because the modulus of elasticity increases as the hydration
71
process develops. Consequently, basic creep, defined as the difference between total and
elastic strain under no drying conditions, is not easy to measure accurately (Neville, 1996).
Even though there are some inaccuracies in measuring basic creep, for practical purposes it is
only important to accurately determine the total strain over time.
B.2.2. Drying Creep

Sometimes referred to as the Pickett effect, drying creep not only depends on mixture
characteristics, but also on environmental parameters (relative humidity and temperature) and
member dimensions. As shown in Figure B.1, drying creep is the time-dependent
deformation of stressed concrete in drying environment, which is in excess of basic creep and
drying shrinkage (Carreira and Burg, 2000). Therefore, the only way to measure drying
creep is by measuring total strain and by subtracting the elastic strain, basic creep, and
shrinkage (autogenous and drying).
Frequently creep and shrinkage are assumed to be additive which is a convenient
simplification, but in reality they are not independent phenomena to which the superposition
principle can be applied. Again, because they occur simultaneously and from the practical
standpoint, the treatment of the two together is convenient and accurate. Baant (2001)
referred to this phenomenon as follows: Aside from aging, the most difficult aspect of creep
is the humidity variation, particularly the drying creep effect.
B.2.3. Factors Influencing Creep

Creep characteristics of any type of concrete are mainly influenced by aggregate-tocement paste proportion, aggregate characteristics, water and cement content, age (maturity)
at time of loading, type of curing, storage conditions which influence the water migration
72
conditions, amount and type of chemical and mineral admixtures, and applied stress-tostrength ratio (Neville, 1996).
Neville, Dilger, and Brooks (1983) explained the importance of the aggregate-tocement paste ratio on creep by concluding that cement paste phase is the source of creep of
concrete and aggregate acts as a restraint to that movement. The authors concluded that the
restraining effect of aggregate on deformation is independent of whether the deformation is
due to shrinkage or creep. Therefore, the expressions proposed by Pickett (1956) and Power
(1961) are entirely applicable to creep.
Powers expression (Power, 1961) modified by Neville (1964) for describing creep is
presented in Equation B.1a (power form) and B.1b (logarithmic form).
cc
= (1 g )
cp
(B.1a)
log e (cc ) = log e (c p ) log e

1 g
(B.1b)
where
cp: creep of neat cement paste
cc: creep of concrete
g: fraction of aggregate
: constant representing aggregate restraining effect; it depends on aggregate properties
Mehta and Monteiro (1993) reported values for measured by LHermite (1962)
between 1.2 and 1.7, depending on the normal weight aggregate used.
According Mehta and Monteiro (1993), Equation B.1 applies to concretes of constant
water-to-cement ratio and loaded to the same stress-to-strength ratio. Figure B.3 shows the
relationship between basic creep at 28 days under load and content of aggregate g for
73
concrete made with portland cement, loaded at 14 days to a stress-to-strength ratio of 0.5.
Figure B.3 also compares experimental data and Equation B.1b.
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure B.3: Relationship between creep of concrete and aggregate content (Neville, Dilger
and Brooks, 1983).
From Figure B.3, it can be concluded that the aggregate content (or cement paste
content), explained an important proportion of the variance in creep of concrete, but there is
still an unexplained variability around the line in the plot ( Equation B.1b with =1.71). The
variability might be due to , which can be conceptualized as the restraining effect of the
aggregate.
In spite of the fact that many of the factors affecting creep have been identified, the
mechanisms are not yet fully understood. According to Neville, Dilger, and Brooks (1983),
A number of theories have been proposed over the years, but it is probably justified to say
that, as they stand, none is capable of accounting for all the observed facts. Yet each
74
explains a number of observations and accords fully with some or other of the experimental
results. It is possible that the actual creep involves two or more mechanisms. Before
accepting such a combined theory, further verifications are, however, necessary.
Baant (2001) introduced the difficulty of predicting creep saying that much
research has been devoted to this complex problem ever since. However, despite major
successes, the phenomenon of creep and shrinkage is still far from being fully understood,
even though is has occupied some of the best minds in the field on cement and concrete
research and materials science.
Altoubat and Lange (2001) in their research for the Federal Aviation Administration
also concluded that although several theories have been proposed over the years to explain
the creep mechanism, none has adequately explained all the observed information regarding
creep in concrete.
B.2.4. Creep Mechanisms

According to the American Concrete Institute (ACI-209, 1971) the primary
mechanisms that describe creep are the following:
1. Viscous flow theory. First postulated by Thomas (1937), this theory stated that the
cement paste is a fluid with a high viscosity that flows under load. Since concrete also
includes aggregate, which typically (i.e., normal weight natural aggregates) do not flow, the
load is gradually transmitted from paste to aggregate decreasing the flow rate (Neville,
Dilger, and Brooks, 1983). When analyzing this theory, Han (1996) concludes that it is not
completely correct because viscous flow requires constant volume, which is not the case in
concrete.
75
2. Seepage theory. First postulated by Lynam (1934), this theory stated that creep is
due to seepage of water from the physically adsorbed layers to capillary voids. The applied
stress changes the pressure of the physically adsorbed water, and to obtain equilibrium, the
water is reorganized. One problem of this theory is that it predicts a total recovery after
unloading, which does not happen in concrete (Han, 1996). One possible explanation of this
inconsistency may be the formation of new bonds in calcium silicate hydrates (C-S-H) that
would prevent the strain recovery. The Figure B.4 is an illustration of the cement paste
microstructure, and the different kinds of water present in cement paste.
Interlayer
Water
Capillary
Pore
C-S-H
Sheet
Adsorbed
Water
Figure B.4. Representation of cement paste microstructure (Mehta and Monteiro, 1993)
3. Delayed elasticity. This theory rested on a two-component model of the concrete
microstructure. The first component is an elastic skeleton comprised of aggregate and
crystals hydrates while the second component is the viscous portion of the cement paste.
When the concrete is loaded the viscous component tends to take the load and progressively
deforms. Over time the load is transferred from viscous component to the elastic skeleton,
which behaves elastically. As a consequence, a delayed elastic behavior is obtained.
4. Microcracking effect. First postulated by Hsu (1956), this mechanism explained
the non-linearity in the concrete stress-strain relationship by the presence of the interface
76
between aggregate and paste. This interface is considered, by many, to be the weakest region
in the concrete. In this region, porosity and density of microcracks tend to be greater than in
the bulk paste. Hence, this theory stated that the propagation of preexisting microcracks
results in residual strain upon unloading. In addition to the permanent strain cracks, it is also
possible the formation of new bonds in C-S-H (Neville, Dilger, and Brooks, 1983), in the
same way that is presented in the seepage theory. It should be pointed out that at high
stresses the role of the microcracking becomes more important (Han, 1996).
In addition to the mechanisms discussed by ACI Committee 209, some authors have
identified additional mechanisms that may cause or influence creep: (1) plastic flow, which
is caused by sliding along planes of maximum shear stress within the crystalline components
of the cement paste (Neville, Dilger, and Brooks, 1983). Interlayer water within C-S-H
structure lubricates planes facilitating them to flow (Figure B.4). Baant (2001) also
proposed: (2) the solid solution theory, (3) load-bearing hindered absorbed water, (4)
nonlinear deformations and cracking as a contribution to the Pickett effect, (5) solidification
theory for short term aging, (6) microprestress of creep sites in the cement C-S-H
microstructure, causing the Pickett effect and long-term aging.
Shams and Kahn (2000) concluded that researchers generally agree that viscous flow
and seepage are the main contributors to creep. However, the two theories disagree about the
role of the water in the cement paste. That is, whether the water is a fundamental cause of
creep (seepage) or whether it only modifies the movement of the C-S-H (viscous flow).
Hence, it remains that water does have a role, but fundamental research is required to better
define that role in creep mechanisms.
77
B.3 Shrinkage
Shrinkage is defined by ACI Committee 209 (1997) as the reduction of concrete
volume with time. The three types of shrinkage in hardened concrete are autogenous
shrinkage, drying shrinkage, and carbonation shrinkage. The three of them are related with
water loss, but in very different ways. The first one is caused by the absorption of water
from the capillary pores due to continued hydration. Drying shrinkage is the migration of
water from concrete to unsaturated air. Finally, carbonation shrinkage is due to the reaction
of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2)with carbon dioxide (CO2) that forms calcium carbonate
(also known as calcite, CaCO3) and water. After the water evaporates, the calcium carbonate
occupies less volume than the original calcium hydroxide. In this report only autogenous and
drying shrinkage are discussed.
B.3.1. Autogenous Shrinkage

Autogenous shrinkage, also called self desiccation, is analogous to basic creep
portion found in creep. Since it depends on the concrete mix design and hydration process, it
is a constitutive property of concrete. For conventional concrete autogenous shrinkage is
relatively small with typical values of 40 at early ages and 100 at five years (Carreira
and Burg, 2000; Neville, 1996). However, it increases when rate of hydration increases, so a
higher C3A content8, a finer cement, and a lower water-to-cement ratio will increase
autogenous shrinkage.
C3A stands for tricalcium aluminate, and it is the cement nomenclature for (CaO)3Al2O3
78
B.3.2. Drying Shrinkage

Drying shrinkage is analogous to the drying creep portion seen above. Therefore, it is
not a constitutive property because it depends on external characteristics such as member
size, shape and the environment. For conventional concrete under standard ambient
conditions (73.4oF and 50% relative humidity), drying shrinkage, measured in 3 to 6 inchdeep specimens, generally ranges between 400 and 800 after two years.
B.3.3. Factors Influencing Shrinkage

Similarly to creep, shrinkage occurs in the cement paste and the aggregate acts as a
restraint to it. Therefore, aggregate-to-paste ratio is a main factor influencing shrinkage.
Shrinkage depends not only on aggregate proportion, but also on aggregate characteristics
such as stiffness, strength and shape. Water and cement contents also have a main role in
shrinkage. At high water-to-cement ratios autogenous shrinkage decreases, but drying
shrinkage increases given an overall increase in shrinkage. On the other hand, at low waterto-cement ratios the autogenous portion increases and the drying one decreases. Because the
concrete strength increases too, the overall effect of decreasing water-to-cement ratio is a
reduction in total shrinkage. Figure B.5 shows the water and cement content effect on
shrinkage measured after 450 days under drying (Neville, 1996).
79
1200
700
0.50
Shrinkage ()
1100
Cement Content (lb/yd3)

1100
900
1300
0.45
0.40 Water-to-Cement Ratio
0.35
0.30
230
1000
0.25
900
210 [354]
3)
190 [320] g/m 3 ]
t (k d
175 [295]
ten [lb/y
n
Co
ter
a
W
800
700
300
1500
400
500
600
Cement Content (kg/m3)
700
800
900
Figure B.5. Effect of water and cement content on shrinkage (Neville, 1996).
As occurs with creep, chemical and mineral admixtures affect shrinkage
characteristics. Finally, curing and storage condition will affect concrete porosity and the
rate of water migration from concrete to ambient which ultimately influences shrinkage.
B.3.4. Shrinkage Mechanisms

Shrinkage is related with water loss from the cement paste. However, the change in
volume of drying concrete is not the same as the removed water volume. The latter is due to
the existence of different kinds of water in cement paste structure (Figure B.4). When free
water is removed from capillaries, little or no shrinkage takes place. The shrinkage measured
at this level is believed to be caused by the hydrostatic tension in small capillaries (Neville,
1996 and Mindess et al., 2003).
Once the water has been totally removed from the pore system, cement paste starts to
loose adsorbed water, which is directly related with volume changes. At this level, the
80
change in volume of unrestrained cement paste is approximately equal to the volume of water
removed.
Interlayer water can also be removed at room temperature causing a higher volume
change than the adsorbed water (Mindess et al., 2003). However, this change is highly
dependent on the C-S-H particle size. At low specific surface microstructure, as the one
obtained when high pressure steam curing is used, the observed shrinkage can be 5 to 10
times lower than similar paste cured normally (Neville, 1996).
B.4 Long-Term Strains of HPC

According most of the authors working on HPC (Atcin, 1998; Shah and Ahmad,
1994; ACI 363, 1997; Neville, 1995; Nawy, 2001; Mehta and Monteiro, 1993; Carrasquillo
and Carrasquillo, 1988; Carrasquillo et al., 1981, Shams and Kahn, 2000), creep and
shrinkage of such concrete is less than that of normal strength concrete (NSC). This section
presents creep and shrinkage result of HPC given in the literature and some theories behind
such results.
The fact that HPC presents lower creep and shrinkage can be attributed to its
differences with NSC. HPC has sometimes different and usually additional constituent
materials such as finer cement, high early strength cement, silica fume, slag, fly ash, and
superplasticizers. Also, it might have different mix procedures such as time of mixing, and
type of mixer. HPC might have special curing procedures such as steam curing or heating.
All the mentioned HPC characteristics affect the long-term strain behavior of such concrete.
Among the factors making a difference in HPC behavior are cement paste mechanical
properties and water permeability of concrete.
81
B.4.1. Creep of HPC

Dilger and Wang (2000) carried out a comparison between creep of NSC and creep of
high strength concrete. They concluded that for NSC creep deformation after a long time
(several years) was normally two to four times the elastic deformation (creep coefficient 2.X
to 4.X). In contrast, the creep coefficient of HPC was somewhere in the range 1.8 to 2.4.
The authors stated that NSC and HPC are affected by the same parameters in similar ways.
However, the main factors responsible for lower creep of HPC are low water-to-cementitious
materials ratio (w/cm) and silica fume addition. The same authors also concluded that the
main difference between creep in normal and HPC is given by the significantly lower drying
creep observed in HPC.
Many times HPC is produced with Type III cement or finer cement and
supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in order to obtain high early strength derived
from a faster cement hydration. Mokhtarzadeh and French (1998) carried out an extensive
experimental program on high strength concrete where they varied type of cement (Type I
and III) with silica fume and/or fly ash cement replacement. They found that, as occurs with
NSC, the higher the compressive strength, the lower the specific creep.
Burg and Ost (1992) investigated silica fume and creep relationship and reported that
silica fume high strength mixes had specific creep ranging between 34 and 50% of the one
measured in non-silica fume mixes. Wolseifer (1982) found that creep of silica fume HPC
was 30% less than that of the reference non-silica fume concrete.
It is known that cement hydration is not only affected by the composition of
cementitious materials, but also by temperature. Faster cement hydration due to the use of
SCMs, finer cement or Type III cement can lead to important increment in temperature
82
during the first hours after casting. This rise in temperature might accelerate the hydration of
the cementitious materials generating more heat. As a result, there is an increase in maturity
of concrete at the same age which would lead to a reduction in creep. On the other hand,
Mokhtarzadeh and French (1998) investigated the effect of curing temperature on creep by
using high strength concrete made with Type I cement, Type III cement and contained either
no mineral admixtures, fly ash, silica fume, or the combination of fly ash and silica fume.
The authors reported reduced specific creep for concrete cured under lower temperatures.
The authors concluded that high temperature curing had a negative effect on creep.
As mentioned above, permeability of HPC is usually much lower than NSC. Some
authors (Dilger and Wang, 2000; Ngab et al., 1981) related low permeability of HPC with
low creep. The relationship between permeability and creep can be explained based on creep
mechanisms. As explained in Section B.2.4, it is widely accepted that water plays a central
role in creep; however, theories disagree about the specific role, that is, whether water is the
fundamental cause of creep (seepage theory) or whether it just modifies the flow of C-S-H
(viscous flow theory). Since most of the times improvement in mechanical properties also
brings a reduction in water permeability, HPC is usually a low permeability concrete, too.
Reduced permeability would reduce water migration within the concrete and from the
concrete to the atmosphere. As a consequence, low permeability concrete would lose less
water more slowly which would decrease drying creep.
According to Ngab et al. (1981), under drying conditions non-silica fume HPC
presented 30 to 50% less creep than normal strength concrete (NSC). The same authors
reported that the same HPC under non-drying condition had 10 to 25% less creep than NSC.
83
They explained the higher improvement under drying conditions based on the reduced water
content and low permeability of HPC.
Buil and Acker (1985) reported a 17.5% less creep in silica fume mixes for unsealed
specimens when compared with their non-silica fume counterparts. The same authors
registered a 12% increase in creep of concrete with silica fume when they used sealed
specimens. Buil and Ackers results would indicate that the reduction in creep of HPC,
compared with NSC, would be in the drying creep portion rather than basic creep.
B.4.2. Shrinkage of HPC

Even though HPC presents less total shrinkage than NSC, autogenous shrinkage
might be significantly increased. According Atcin (1998), at very low water-to-cement
ratios, as the ones used in HPC, the autogenous shrinkage can be as high as 700 . The
difference in autogenous shrinkage of HPC and NSC can be explained by the major
differences at the microstructure level. In NSC capillary pores are coarse, so the creation of
menisci is not very strong. Weak menisci result in a small or negligible autogenous
shrinkage. In HPC of low water-to cementitious materials ratio, hydration starts to develop
very rapidly, water is drained rapidly from capillaries that are finer. As a result, high tensile
stresses are developed leading to faster and higher autogenous shrinkage. Tazawa (1995)
concluded that for concretes with water-to-cement ratio of 0.3 and 0.4, autogenous shrinkage
was 50 and 40% of the total shrinkage, respectively.
Atcin (1998) concluded that HPC shrinkage is linked to the presence or absence of
curing and not to its cement content. Wolseifer (1984) reported that HPC moist-cured for 14
days presented 24.3% less shrinkage compared with NSC. However, he reported higher
shrinkage in the same mixes when moist-cured for only one day. Wolseifers results might
84
be explained based on autogenous shrinkage. Under the short period of curing, autogenous
shrinkage is free to develop due to the lack of water. When cured for 14 days, autogenous
shrinkage is greatly reduced as explained below.
According to de Larrand et al. (1994), there is very little information concerning
drying shrinkage of HSC. Because most shrinkage tests do not include sealed specimens, the
measured data are total shrinkage which cannot be divided into autogenous and drying
portions. The authors also pointed out that there is conflicting information of the effect of
high range water reducers (HRWR) on drying shrinkage. In first place, the use of HRWR for
reducing water content can be expected to reduce drying shrinkage. Secondly, flowing
concrete probably will require a higher cement paste content which would lead to higher
drying shrinkage.
The influence of SCMs on drying shrinkage has also been investigated. Burg and
Ost (1992) reported a reduction of 40% of drying shrinkage when using silica fume in the
mix. Luther and Hansen (1989), concluded that drying shrinkage of HSC with silica fume is
similar and in some cases less than that of HSC made with fly ash.
Buil and Acker (1985), who investigated the effect of SCMs on drying shrinkage,
reported a reduction up to 40% in shrinkage for unsealed specimens, but for sealed
specimens they obtained a 19% increase. Buil and Ackers results support the idea that the
main effect of supplementary materials is through a reduction in drying shrinkage, and
autogenous shrinkage is not reduced, but increased under certain curing conditions. Atcin
(1998) recommended water curing or fog misting during the very first hours to reduce
autogenous shrinkage. He sealed specimens later for reducing drying shrinkage.
85
The effect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio (w/cm) on drying shrinkage of

HSC with silica fume was investigated by de Larrand et al. (1994). They obtained less
drying shrinkage when the w/cm was reduced. In contrast, they measured higher autogenous
shrinkage as the w/cm decreased, so the sum remained roughly constant. They concluded
that there is a balance between the two kinds of shrinkage.
Shams and Kahn (2000), after their literature review, concluded that shrinkage is not
affected by the concrete strength, but rather by the water content in the mix. Smadi et al.
(1987) indicated significant reduction in shrinkage as concrete strength increased.
B.5 Long-Term Strains of SLC

B.5.1. Creep of SLC
As described in Section B.2.3, creep of concrete can be expressed in terms of creep of
cement paste, cement paste content, and the constant which represents the aggregate
restraining effect. The aggregate restraining effect depends on the aggregate modulus of
elasticity. A soft aggregate (low modulus of elasticity) would impose less restraint to cement
paste movements, so creep is expected to increase. Lightweight aggregate elastic modulus
usually ranges between 700 and 2,900 ksi while that of normal weight aggregate ranges
between 5,800 and 17,500 ksi. Based on that, creep in lightweight aggregate concrete is
expected to be greater than creep of normal concrete.
Figure B.6 presents some of the values proposed by ACI committee 213 (1999) for
one-year specific creep of SLC of different compressive strength.
86
One-year specific creep (/psi)
1.8
1.6
All-lightweight range
Sand-lightweight range
1.4
NWC reference values
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
3000
4000
5000
6000
28-day compressive strength (psi)
Figure B.6: Relationship between 28-day compressive strength and one-year specific creep
for SLC and NWC.
In Figure B.6 all-lightweight stands for lightweight concrete made with both coarse
and fine lightweight aggregate while sand-lightweight stands for lightweight concrete
made with coarse lightweight aggregate and normal weight fine aggregate. Figure B.6
clearly shows a decrease in one-year creep as concrete compressive strength increases. Also,
the band of all-lightweight concrete is wide for concrete having low compressive strength ,
but sharply decreases for higher strength concretes. Sand-lightweight concrete band is
narrower than all-lightweight band, and it also decreases in width as compressive strength
increases. Reference NWC values are close to the lower limits given for lightweight
concrete. It can be stated that, on average, lightweight concrete exhibits a higher creep than
NWC. Nevertheless, there are some individual lightweight concretes that present a lower
creep than the reference NWC.
87
Results of creep on lightweight concrete by Ward et al. (1967), suggested that the
lightweight aggregate restraining effect is very similar for wet and dry conditions. They
also concluded that the average value for lightweight aggregates was slightly higher than
1.0, which is lower than the 1.2 to 1.7 range obtained for normal weight aggregate.
Creep of lightweight aggregate concrete has been reported by several authors
(Weigler, 1974; Pfeifer, 1968; Short and Kinniburgh, 1968; and Hummel, 1964). Among
them Pfeifer (1968) carried out a large creep and shrinkage experimental program on 47
concrete mixes made with seven different lightweight aggregates (mostly expanded shale and
clay). Detailed properties of the aggregates were not reported, but based on Holm (1995)
and CEB/FIP (1977), elastic modulus of those aggregates was probably around 1,600 ksi.
Pfeifer (1968) also tested, under the same conditions, NWC of the same strength made with
gravel (gravel elastic modulus was approximately 14,500 ksi). Pfeifers results are shown in
Figure B.7. The Y-axis, labeled as relative creep, presents ultimate creep of SLC divided
by ultimate creep of NWC.
According to Pfeifers results, lightweight concrete made with an aggregate with one
tenth of the stiffness of a normal weight aggregate, creeps on average 12% more than its
normal weight counterpart. When each aggregate is analyzed alone, it can be seen that 5 out
of 12 lightweight mixes had an ultimate creep coefficient lower than NWC. The best
performing mix (rotary kiln expanded shale) presented an ultimate creep coefficient 30%
lower than control concrete. On the other hand, the worst performing mix (sintering grate
expanded shale) presented creep 70% higher than control NWC.
88
Holm and Bremner (2000) reported results by Shideler (1957) and by Troxell et al.
(1958) where creep in lightweight aggregate concrete is within a wide envelope with values
up to two times that of NWC.
1.8
Lightweight aggregate Ea=1,600 ksi
1.6
Normal weight aggregate Ea=14,500 ksi
Relative Creep
1.4
Normal weight average
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
1500
3000
4500
6000
7500
9000
10500 12000 13500 15000
Aggregate Elastic Modulus (ksi)
Figure B.7: Relationship between aggregate elastic modulus and relative creep of concrete
(Pfeifer, 1968).
Van der Wegen and Bijen (1985), carried out a research on influence of artificial
pulverized fuel ash (PFA) aggregate in mechanical properties of concrete. They used two
lightweight aggregates (Aardelite and Lytag) and one normal weight aggregate (river gravel).
The authors characterized their aggregates measuring strength and absorption among other
nine properties.
When they compared creep of Aardelite concrete and NWC, they concluded that
Aardelite had 58% less compressive strength and produced a concrete with much higher
89
creep (approximately two times). However, the creep obtained using Lytag aggregate was
similar to the one of NWC even though Lytag aggregate strength was 51% lower than natural
river aggregate strength. The authors could not explain the better Lytag performance since
both artificial aggregates were similar. One explanation of these results might be the
pozzolanic reactivity of the two different PFA aggregates which was not measured by the
authors. A more reactive aggregate would improve the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) which
might decrease creep.
B.5.2. Shrinkage of SLC

Shrinkage of SLC is expected to be greater than NWC because of the lower modulus
of elasticity of lightweight aggregate compared with normal weight aggregate.
Figure B.8
presents some of the values given by ACI committee 213 (1999) for one-year drying
shrinkage of SLC of different compressive strengths.
From Figure B.8 it can be stated that shrinkage of SLC increases as compressive
strength increases. The range of all-lightweight concrete was broader than sandlightweight concrete range; however, the lower limits were very similar for both types of
concrete. The observed increase in drying shrinkage might be due to the required increase in
cement paste content in order to achieve higher strengths. One-year drying shrinkage of SLC
might be in the range of 500 to 1000 for normal strength levels (4000 to 5000 psi). Oneyear drying shrinkage of reference NWC might be close to that low bound of 500 .
However, some lightweight concrete may present less drying shrinkage than NWC.
90
1100
1000
One-year drying shrinkage ()
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
All-lightweight range
Sand-lightweight range
100
NWC reference values
0
3000
4000
5000
28-day compressive strength (psi)
6000
Figure B.8: Relationship between 28-day compressive strength and one-year drying
shrinkage for SLC and NWC.
Pfeifer (1968) investigated drying shrinkage on 47 lightweight concrete mixes using
seven different lightweight aggregate. Figure B.9 presents ultimate drying shrinkage
reported by Pfeifer (1968). As shown in Figure B.9, Pfeifers results are in agreement with
the ranges proposed by ACI-213 (1999). For 3000 psi compressive strength, there were four
expanded shale concretes (#14, #16, #18, and #7) that showed lower ultimate shrinkage than
NWC. In contrast, for 5000 psi mixes, only one of the lightweight concretes (expanded shale
#14) showed less shrinkage than NWC.
91
Ultimate Shrinkage ()
1200
3000 psi lightweight concrete
1000
5000 psi lightweight concrete
800
600
400
200
0
#14: Exp. #16: Exp. #18: Exp. #7: Exp. #6: Exp. #15: Exp. #19: Exp. Normal
shale
clay aggregate
shale
shale
shale
shale
blast
furnace slag
Aggregate type
Figure B.9: Ultimate drying shrinkage values for different lightweight concretes (Pfeifer,
1968).
Holm (1995), stated that drying shrinkage of SLC is determined by the same factors
that NWC. However, SLC has three more characteristics that would affect drying shrinkage:
(1) SLC usually requires a higher cement content than NWC for a given compressive
strength; (2) stiffness of lightweight aggregate is lower than normal weight aggregate, so
lightweight aggregate allows more movement of the cement paste; and (3) SLC has a higher
water retention capacity which slows down the drying process and delays the dimensional
stabilization.
B.6 Long-Term Strains of HPLC

B.6.1. Creep of HPLC
While it is clear that HPLC can be produced with high strength lightweight concrete,
its creep characteristics have not been extensively or systematically investigated. Creep is
92
typically reduced in HPC (see Section B.4) but is typically greater in lightweight concrete
(see Section B.5). These competing effects make creep in HPLC difficult to predict.
Moreover, some observations and recommendations presented in the literature are not
consistent. For instance, Berra and Ferrada (1990) concluded that specific creep in HPLC is
twice that of normal weight concrete of the same strength. On the other hand, Malhotra
(1990) gave values of creep of fly ash HPLC in the range 460 to 510 . These values are
fairly close to those obtained by Penttala and Rautamen (1990) for HPC, and they are
significantly lower than the values between 878 and 1,026 reported for HPC by Huo et al.
(2001).
In a recent state-of-the-art report on high-strength, high-durability structural
lightweight concrete, Holm and Bremner (2000) remarked on the discrepancies found in the
literature. They contrasted the work of Rogers (1957) with the research done by Reichard
(1964) and Shideler (1957). In the former, creep of HSLC was found to be similar to that
measured in companion HSC while the last two found greater creep in all lightweight
concrete (fine and coarse lightweight aggregate), than in the normal weight concretes.
Leming (1990) compared the creep of three mixes: two 4,000-psi concrete with same
mix proportions, but with either lightweight or normal weight coarse aggregate. The third
mix was an 8,000-psi concrete with lightweight coarse aggregate. One-year creep was 1,095,
608, and 520 for the 4,000-psi lightweight, 4,000-psi normal weight concrete, and 8,000psi lightweight concrete, respectively. The result for the 8,000-psi lightweight concrete was
85% of the value obtained for the 4,000-psi normal weight concrete.
There are only a few research works done in creep of HPLC. However, conclusions
from different researchers are sometimes opposed which makes the estimate of creep in
93
HPLC extremely difficult. As a consequence, when HPLC is to be used in a certain project,

performance of a laboratory creep test for the specific mix is recommended in order to obtain
more accurate data for the design and prediction of creep in the project.
The two principle phases of HPLC: high performance matrix and lightweight
aggregate have several possible specific implications on creep in concrete. It is commonly
assumed that normal weight aggregate does not creep at the stress levels present in concrete.
However, in HSLC, the higher stress placed on the member might induce creep in the
lightweight aggregate, due to its lower modulus and strength. Also, improvements in the
interfacial transition zone, afforded by the use of ultra-fine pozzolanic particles and
lightweight aggregate, can alter the mechanisms for creep. Particularly, they can alter
mechanisms not only compared to normal strength concrete, but also compared to high
strength concrete (due to improved compatibility between the aggregate and paste). Finally,
the increased aggregate porosity and the effect of internal curing (when using saturated
lightweight aggregate) can influence moisture movements during creep. These possible
changes in expected behavior (as compared to normal concrete and high strength concrete)
resulting from the use of high performance matrix and lightweight aggregate are described in
further detail below.
Aggregate mechanical properties: In normal weight concrete, creep is largely a
phenomenon occurring in the paste, but its magnitude, and perhaps its temporal development,
can be affected by the quantity and quality of the aggregate. The high porosity of lightweight
aggregates may influence creep of concrete not only indirectly by reducing the elastic
modulus and strength of the concrete, but also directly by participating in the moisture
movements occurring during creep, as considered in the seepage theory.
94
Improved interface characteristics: Micrographs of SLC showed that the boundary

between cementitious matrix and coarse aggregate was indistinguishable from the bulk paste
(Holm and Bremner, 2000). This may result from: (1) improved physical bonding between
the paste and aggregate (due to increased aggregate porosity); (2) improved chemical
bonding between the paste and aggregate (due to pozzolanic activity); (3) reduced
microcracking (due to elastic matching between aggregate and paste); and (4) reduced
bleeding. In addition, internal curing may improve the strength and density of the ITZ.
This occurs when presoaked lightweight aggregate provides an internal reservoir of water
maintaining favorable moisture conditions and extending the local hydration processes (ACI213, 1987 -reapproved 1999; Holm and Bremner, 1990). These improvements to the ITZ
could mitigate the microcracking effect on creep. Katz et al. (1999) postulated that an
improved ITZ can be obtained by using dry lightweight aggregate. They concluded that the
suction imposed by a dry lightweight aggregate can lead to a dense ITZ, with even some
penetration of cement particles into the shell of the aggregate.
Changes in moisture migration: the seepage theory views creep as a result of water
movement under stress from micropores to the larger capillary pores. If water migration is
the main factor in concrete creep, both the aggregate porosity (i.e., volume of pores, pore
size, and pore distribution) and the permeability of the cementitious matrix become important
factors. Several (ACI-213, 1999; Holm, 1995; Neville et al., 1983) have cited the importance
of using lightweight aggregate in a saturated condition while mixing. If the aggregate is not
saturated, a more rapid movement of water from the paste would be expected to lead to
greater creep. On the other hand, the moisture conditions given by the saturated lightweight
aggregate could replace the water lost under stress (seepage).
95
B.6.2. Shrinkage of HPLC

As occurs with creep of HPLC, there are only a few articles regarding shrinkage of
HPLC. Besides, they usually do not report autogenous and drying shrinkage separately, but
as overall shrinkage. Berra and Ferrada (1990) found that compared with HPC, HPLC had a
lower shrinkage rate, but a higher ultimate value. According the authors, the lower rate was
caused by the presence of water in the aggregate which delays drying. Holm and Bremner
(1994) also observed that HSLC mix lagged behind at early ages, but one-year shrinkage was
approximately 14% higher than the HPC counterpart. Holm and Bremner (1994) measured a
higher shrinkage when they incorporated fly ash to the HSLC mix. Malhotras (1990)
results, on the other hand, showed that fly ash particles in the HPLC helped to reduce
shrinkage after one year.
Leming (1990) reported one-year shrinkage of 4,000-psi and 8,000-psi lightweight
concretes, made with saturated expanded slate, of 390 and 310 , respectively while the
corresponding shrinkage of a 4,000-psi NWC was found to be 360 . Bilodeau et al. (1995)
investigated HSLC with 28-day compressive strength ranging from 7,250 to 10,000 psi and
found that the 450-day shrinkage was in the range 518 to 667 . Curcio et al. (1998)
reported that one-year and ultimate shrinkage of HPLC with Type III cement and fly ash was
450 and 500 , respectively.
Kohno et al. (1999) found out that autogenous shrinkage is reduced by the use of
lightweight fine aggregate. They concluded that this is because water lost by self-desiccation
of the cement paste is immediately replaced by moisture from lightweight aggregate.
Atcin (1992) reported values of shrinkage of HPLC as low as 70 and 260 , after a
28-day curing.
96
Appendix C. Creep and Drying Shrinkage Models

According Findley, Lai and Onaran (1989), creep was first systematically observed
by Vitac (1834), but Andrade (1910) was the first in proposing a creep law. After Andrade,
several more models have been developed. Some models are general mechanic-rheologic
models which include constants for different materials and properties while other models are
more empirical for specific materials. The most used models for creep in concrete fall in the
second category, empirical models.
On the other hand, drying shrinkage of concrete was identified by the first creep
studies when they measured a higher creep rate and strain on concrete under drying
conditions. Since then, several investigators have proposed models in order to describe and
predict shrinkage.
Among the variety of methods proposed for creep and shrinkage in concrete, seven of
them are presented in this section: American Concrete Institute committee 209 (ACI-209,
1997), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTOLRFD, 1998), Comite Euro-Internacional du Beton and Federation Internationale de la
Precontrainte (CEB-FIP, 1990), Baant and Panulas (BP, 1978), Baant and Bawejas (B3,
1995), Gardner and Lockmans (GL, 2001), and Sakatas model (SAK, 1993). Finally, five
methods aimed to be used for high strength concrete are presented: CEB-FIP as modified by
Yue and Taerwe (1993), BP as modified by Baant and Panula (1984), SAK as modified by
Sakata et al. (2001), Association Franaise de Recherches et d'Essais sur les Matriaux de
Construction (AFREM, 1996), and AASHTO-LRFD as modified by Shams and Kahn
(2000). Finally, the applicability of the above models to SLC and HPLC is analyzed. Most
of the expressions presented here are empirical, so they have different versions depending on
97
the unit system. US customary unit version is presented in this section while S.I. unit
version is presented in Appendix I.
C.1 Models for Normal Strength Concrete

C.1.1. ACI-209 Method
American Concrete Institute through its committee 209 Prediction of Creep,
Shrinkage and Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures proposes an empirical model for
predicting creep and shrinkage strain as a function of time. The two models have the same
principle: a hyperbolic curve that tends to an asymptotic value called the ultimate value.
The shape of the curve and ultimate value depend on several factors such as curing
conditions, age at application of load, mix design, ambient temperature and humidity.
Creep Model. Creep model proposed by ACI-209 has three constants that determine
the asymptotic value, creep rate and change in creep rate. The predicted parameter is not
creep strain, but creep coefficient (creep strain-to-initial strain ratio). The latter allows for
the calculation of a creep value independent from the applied load. Equation C.1 presents the
general model.
t =
(t t ' )
u
d + (t t ' )
(C.1)
where
t: creep coefficient at age t loaded at t

t: age of concrete (days)
t: age of concrete at loading (days)
: constant depending on member shape and size

98
d: constant depending on member shape and size
u: ultimate creep coefficient
ACI-209 recommended a value of 0.6 and 10 for and d, respectively. Ultimate

creep coefficient value depends on the factors described in Section B.2. ACI proposed an
average creep coefficient value of 2.35 which is multiplied by six factors depending on
particular conditions, as shown in Equation C.2
u = 2.35 la vs s
(C.2)
where

1.25 t ' 0.118 for moist curing
; age of loading factor
la =
0.094
for steam curing
1.13 t '
1.27 0.67 h for h 0.40
=
; ambient relative humidity factor
1.00 otherwise
h: relative humidity in decimals
VS =
})
2
1 + 1.13 exp 0.54 V
; volume-to-surface ratio factor
S
3
V: specimen volume (in3)

S: specimen surface area (in2)
s = 0.82 + 0.067 s ; slump factor
s: slump (in)
= 0.88 + 0.24 ; fine aggregate content factor
99
: fine aggregate-to-total aggregate ratio in decimals

= 0.46 + 0.09 ; air content factor
: air content (%)
After applying the factors above, ultimate creep coefficient value is usually between
1.3 and 4.15, which means that creep strain is between 1.3 and 4.15 times the initial elastic
strain.
Drying Shrinkage Model. Similar to creep, ACI-209 shrinkage model has constants
that determine the shrinkage asymptotic value, shrinkage rate and rate change. Equation C.3
shows such a model.
(t t 0 )
( sh ) t =
( sh ) u
f + (t t 0 )
(C.3)
where
t0: age at the beginning of drying (days)
(sh)t: shrinkage strain after t-t0 days under drying (in/in)

f: constant depending on member shape and size
(sh)u: ultimate shrinkage strain (in/in)
ACI-209 recommends a value for f of 35 and 55, for seven days moist curing and 1 to
3 days steam curing, respectively, while a value of 1.0 is suggested for . Ultimate shrinkage
100
value depends on the factors described in Section B.3. As shown in Equation C.4, ACI-209
proposes an average value of 780 for shrinkage which is multiplied by seven factors
depending on particular conditions.
( sh ) u = 780 vs s c
(C.4)
where
(sh)u: ultimate shrinkage strain
1.40 1.0 h for 0.40 h 0.80
=
3.00 3.0 h for h > 0.80
VS = 1.2 exp 0.12 V
}; volume-to-surface ratio factor

s = 0.89 + 0.041 s ; slump factor
s: slump (in)
0.30 1.4 for 0.50
=
; fine aggregate content factor
0.90 0.2 for > 0.50
c = 0.75 + 0.00036 c ; cement content factor
c: cement content (lb/yd3)
: air content (%)
101
After applying the factors above, ultimate shrinkage value is usually between 415 and
1070 .
C.1.2. AASHTO-LRFD Method

AASHTO-LRFD method (1998) is very similar to ACI-209 method, but it
incorporates more recent data. AASHTO-LRFD method proposes slightly different
correction factors.
Creep Model. The general equation for creep coefficient is the same as ACI-209
(Equation C.1). However the expression for calculating ultimate creep coefficient differs
from ACI expression (Equation C.2). Equation C.5 presents AASHTO-LRFD expression for
ultimate creep coefficient.
u = 3.50 k la k h k c k f
(C.5)
where

k la = 1.00 t ' 0.118 for moist curing ; age of loading factor
4000
t ' = t i exp
13.65 ; maturity of concrete at loading (days)
273 + T (t i )
T0

until
loading
ti: period of time (days) at temperature T(ti) (oC) ( o C = 0.556 oF 17.778 )

T0: 1 oC
k h = 1.58 0.83 h ; ambient relative humidity factor
102
26 exp 0.36 V S
kc =
t
45 + t
+ t 1.80 + 1.77 exp 0.54 V

S
2.587

} ; size factor
4000
t = t i exp
13.65 ; maturity of concrete (days) after n days
273 + T (t i )
T0

until
day n

kf =
1
f '
0.67 + c
9
; concrete strength factor
fc: compressive strength of concrete cylinders at 28 days (ksi)

Drying Shrinkage Model. ASSHTO-LRFD general expression for shrinkage is the
same as ACI expression (Equation C.3) including the values for f of 35 and 55 for moist and
steam curing, respectively. The expression for calculating ultimate shrinkage is different
from ACI expression, and it is presented in Equation C.6.
( sh ) u = K k s k h
(C.6)
where
(sh)u: ultimate shrinkage strain (in/in)
510 for moist curing
K =
; ultimate shrinkage base value
560 for steam curing
103
(t t 0 )

V
V
26 exp 0.36 S + (t t 0 ) 1064 0.94 S
; size factor
ks =

(t t 0 )
923
45 + (t t 0 )

2.00 1.43 h for h < 0.80
kh =
4.29 4.29 h for h 0.80
C.1.3. CEB-FIP Method

CEB-FIP method has a similar concept that ACI-209 in the sense that it gives a
hyperbolic change with time for creep and shrinkage, and it also uses an ultimate value
corrected according mix design and environment conditions. One difference of CEB-FIP
method with respect to the methods above is that it predicts creep strain rather than creep
coefficient.
Creep Model. CEB-FIP general model is presented in Equation C.7. This model
predicts creep strain by multiplying creep coefficient by elastic strain. Creep coefficient has
its own equation based on two parameters, as shown in Equation C.8
cr (t , t ' ) =
c (t ' )
28 (t , t ' )
E 28
(C.7)
104
(t t ' )
28 = 0
H + (t t ' )
0.3
(C.8)
where
cr: creep strain in
c(t): applied stress (ksi)
E28: 28-day elastic modulus (ksi)
28: creep coefficient at age t loaded at t
(
1 h)
1
5.3
0 = 1 +
; notional creep coefficient
1
0.2
f c ' 0.1 + t '

Ac 3
0.367 u
1.45

Ac: cross sectional area (in2)
u: exposed perimeter (in)
H = 150 1 + (1.2 h ) 0.508

18
Ac
+ 250 1500 ; constant depending on member size and
relative humidity
Equations C.9 and C.10 are used when strength gaining different from normal is
expected.
9
t ' = t 'T
+ 1 0.5 days
1.2
2 + (t 'T )
(C.9)
105
4000
t 'T = t i exp
13.65
273 + T (t i )
T0
(C.10)
where
tT: adjusted age of concrete at loading
1 for slowly hardening cement
; cement type parameter

= 0 for normal / rapid hardening cement
+ 1 for rapid hardening high early strength cement

T0: 1 oC
When stresses between 40 and 60% of compressive strength are applied, CEB-FIP
recommends using a high stress correction to the notional creep 0 as shown in Equation
C.11.
0,k = 0 exp{1.5 (k 0.4)}
(C.11)
where
0,k: notional creep coefficient corrected by stress level

0: notional creep coefficient
k: stress-to-strength ratio at time of application of load.
Drying Shrinkage Model. Equation C.12 presents CEB-FIP expression for predicting
shrinkage.
106
s (t , t 0 ) = so s (t t 0 )
(C.12)
where
t0: age of concrete at the beginning of drying (days)
f '
s 0 = 160 + 10 sc 9 c RH ; notional shrinkage coefficient

1450
sc

8 for rapid hardening high early strength cement
RH
1.55 1 h 3
:
0.25
for 0.40 h 0.99

; relative humidity factor
for
h 0.99

(t t 0 )
s (t , t 0 ) =
sH + (t t 0 )
0.5
; shrinkage-time function
A
sH = 350 5.08 c ; geometric factor
u

When temperatures above 30oC (86oF) are applied, CEB-FIP recommends using an
elevated temperature correction for sH and RH as shown below.
107
0.08 T 20
RH ,T = RH 1 +
1.03 h 40
sH ,T = sH exp{ 0.06 (T 20 )}
where
sH ,T : geometric factor corrected by temperature

2
A
sH = 350 5.08 c ; geometric factor
u
RH ,T ; relative humidity factor corrected by temperature
RH
1.55 1 h 3
:
0.25
for 0.40 h 0.99

; relative humidity factor
for
h 0.99
T: ambient temperature (oC) ( o C = 0.556 oF 17.778 )

C.1.4. Baant and Panulas - BP Method

First proposed in the late 1970s (Baant and Panula, 1978a, 1978b, 1979a), the BP
model suggested some computations quite different from ACI and CEB models. Among
those are the modeling of creep using three portions (basic, drying, and after drying creep)
based on a double power law in time and drying shrinkage based on a square-root hyperbolic
law in time (Baant and Panula 1978b, 1978d).
Creep Model. The BP model proposed that creep of concrete is comprised of three
portions: Basic creep modeled by a double power law in time; drying creep modeled by a
hyperbolic law multiplied by drying shrinkage; and creep decrease after drying which is
108
modeled by a hyperbolic law multiplied by double power law in time. Equation C.13
presents the BP model general compliance function.
J (t , t ' ) =
1
+ C 0 (t , t ' ) + C d (t , t ' , t 0 ) C p (t , t ' , t 0 )
E0
(C.13)
where
J: compliance function
E0: Modulus of elasticity at the age of loading (ksi)
C0: basic creep portion [specific creep - (in/in)/ksi]
Cd: drying creep portion [specific creep - (in/in)/ksi]
Cp: creep decrease after drying [specific creep - (in/in)/ksi]
Basic Creep Model. Basic creep can be best approximated by a double power law
(Baant and Panula, 1978a, 1978b), in the form:
1
n
t ' m + (t t ')
E0
C 0 (t , t ' ) =
(C.14)
where
1 =
10 3n
material parameter
2 28 m +
0.07 x 6
0
.
12
+
for x > 4
6
1
a
3
5130
+
x
1.5 w
c
n=
x = 2.1
+ 0.1 ( f c ')
s
0.12 for x 4
( )
( )
109
a

g
2.2
a 1 4

w: water content (lb/yd3)
a: aggregate content (lb/yd3)
s: sand content (lb/yd3)
g: coarse aggregate content (lb/yd3)
m = 0.28 +
( f c ')
;=
1
40 w
( c ) ; material parameters
1.00 for Type I and II cements
a1: cement type coefficient 0.93 for Type III cement

1.05 for Type IV cement
Drying Creep Model:

According to Baant and Panula (1978c and 1984) drying creep can be modeled by
Equation C.15:
' m
10 sh
C d (t , t ' , t 0 ) = d t ' 2 k h ' sh 1 +
E0
t t'
cd n
where
t: age of loading (days)
t 't 0
d ' = 1 +
10 sh
110
(C.15)
1.5
0.008 + 0.027 1 + 0.7 r 1.4 for r > 0
0.3
1.3 w
s
g
d =
r = 56000 f c ' c 0.85
a
s s
0.008 for r 0

sh
k
= 600 s 50.8 V
150
ref
C1
; size-dependent factor
S C (t )
1 0
1.0 for infinite slab

1.15 for infinite cylinder
k s = 1.25 for infinite squared prism ; shape factor

1.30 for a sphere
1.55 for a cube

C1ref = 10 mm 2 / day
6.3
C1 (t 0 ) = C 7 k T ' 0.05 +
t 0
C7 =
1 w
(0.593 c ) 12
8 c
kT ' =
5000 5000
T
exp
T0
T
T0
7 C 7 21
111
T: ambient temperature oK ( o K = 0.556 oF + 255.372 )

T0: 296.15 oK (reference temperature)
0.07 x 6
0
.
12
+
for x > 4
1
a
5130 + x 6
3
1.5 w
c
n=
x = 2.1
+ 0.1 ( f c ')
s
0.12 for x 4
( )
( )
m = 0.28 +
a

g
2.2
a 1 4
1
1
;=
2
( f c ')
40 w

k h ' = h01.5 h1.5 ; humidity dependent parameter

h0: 0.98 to 1.0
s: final shrinkage in as in Equation C.17
c d = 2.8 7.5 n
Creep Decrease after Drying
Creep decrease after drying follows a function of time similar to drying creep as
shows Equation C.16:
100 sh
C0 (t , t ')
C p (t , t ' , t 0 ) = c p k h" 1 +
t t 0
where
Cp: creep decrease after drying portion [specific creep - (in/in)/ksi]
112
(C.16)

c p = 0.83
k h ' ' = h02 h 2 humidity dependent parameter

h0: 0.98 to 1.0
sh
k
= 600 s 50.8 V
150
ref
C1
S C (t )
1 0


1.30 for a sphere
1.55 for a cube

6.3
C1 (t 0 ) = C 7 k T ' 0.05 +
t 0
1 w
C 7 = (0.593 c ) 12
8 c
7 C 7 21

kT ' =
5000 5000
T
exp
T0
T
T0
113

Drying Shrinkage Model. Drying shrinkage can be approximate by square-root
hyperbolic law in time, as shown in Equation C.17
t t0
sh + t t 0
sh (t , t 0 ) = sh k h
(C.17)
where
sh: ultimate shrinkage stain
1 h 3 for h 0.98
k h = 0.2 for h = 1.00

; humidity-dependent factor
linear int erpolation for 0.98 h 1.00

sh
k
= 600 s 50.8 V
150
ref
C1
S C (t )
1 0


1.30 for a sphere
1.55 for a cube

114

6.3
C1 (t 0 ) = C 7 k T ' 0.05 +
t 0
1 w
C 7 = (0.593 c ) 12
8 c
kT ' =
7 C 7 21
5000 5000
T
exp
T0
T
T0

2
s 3
1
+
880
a
g
c
= 1210
; z = 1.25
+ 0.5
390
c
s w
+1

c
f c ' 12 0

C.1.5. Baant and Bawejas - B3 Method

B3 model was proposed by Baant and Baweja (1995) as a new improvement and an
update of previous models such as BP (Baant and Panula, 1978) and BP-KX (Baant,
Panula, Kim, Koo, and Xi, 1992). According the Baant and Baweja (1995), B3 model is
more simple, better theoretically supported and more exact than the previous ones. The main
difference with the BP model is that the B3 model only takes into account basic and drying
creep portions.
115
Creep Model. The average compliance function incorporating instantaneous

deformation, basic and drying creep, is expressed in Equation C.18:
J (t , t ' ) = q1 + C 0 (t , t ' ) + C d (t , t ' , t o )
(C.18)
where
q1 =
0.6 10 6
instantaneous strain due to unit stress (1/ksi)
E0

E0: asymptotic modulus elastic modulus (ksi) (age independent)
Basic Creep Model. Basic creep is given by Equation C.19, as follows:
t
C 0 (t , t ' ) = q 2 Q(t , t ') + q3 ln 1 + (t t ' ) n + q 4 ln
t'
(C.19)
where
q 2 = 451.1 c f c ' 0.9 ; ageing viscoelastic compliance
fc: compressive strength of concrete cylinders at 28 days (psi)
Q f (t ')
Q(t , t ') = Q f (t ') 1 +

Z (t , t ')
r (t ' )
r (t ' )
Q f (t ') = 0.086 (t ') 9 + 1.21 (t ')

n
m
; Z (t , t ') = (t ') ln 1 + (t t ')
0.12
r (t ') = 1.7 (t ') + 8
m = 0.5; n = 0.1
116
w
q3 = 0.29 q 2 ; non-ageing viscoelastic compliance
c
a
q 4 = 0.14
c
0.7
; flow compliance

Drying Creep Model. Additional creep due to drying is given by Equation C.20
C d (t , t ' , t 0 ) = q5 [exp{ 8 H (t )} exp{ 8 H (t 0 ')}]
(C.20)
where
q5 =
757000
sh
f 'c
0.6

H (t ) = 1 (1 h ) tanh
t t0
sh

t0: max(t,t0) (days)
sh: size factor as shown in Equation C.21
Drying Shrinkage Model. Drying shrinkage expression is given by Equation C.21, as
follows:
117
sh (t , t 0 ) = sh k h tanh
t t0
sh
(C.21)
where
sh: shrinkage strain
sh = 1 2 0.02565 w 2.1 ( f c ')
0.28
+ 270
607
4 + 0.85 607
(t 0 + sh )
4 + 0.85 (t 0 + sh )
1.00, for type I cement
1 = 0.85, for type II cement ; cement type factor

1.10, for type III cement
0.75, for steam cured specimens
2 = 1.00, for water or h = 1.00 cured specimens ; curing factor

1.20, for sealed specimens

1 h 3 for h 0.98
k h = 0.2 for h = 1.00

linear interpolation for 0.98 h 1.00

sh = 190.8 t 00.008 f c ' 0.25 k s 2 V
)
S
118


1.30 for a sphere
1.55 for a cube

C.1.6. Gardner and Lockmans - GL Method

Gardner and Lockman (2001) proposed a more compact model for creep coefficient
depending only on relative humidity and member geometry. Equations C.22 and C.23
present GL model equations for creep and shrinkage.
Creep Model:
1
t t 0.3 12 t t
2
2
(
'
)
7
(
'
)
+
ccr (t , t ' ) =
+
(t t ' )0.3 + 14 to (t t ' ) + 7
(C.22)
(t t ' )
2
+ 2.5 1 1.086 h
(t t ' ) + 0.15 25.4 V
S
where
ccr: specific creep at age t loaded at t (/ksi)
119
Ec 28

Ec28: 28-day elastic modulus (ksi)
Drying Shrinkage Model:
sh (t , t 0 ) = shu
(t t 0 )
4
1 1.18 h
(t t 0 ) + 0.15 25.4 V
S
(C.23)
where
shu
4.35
= 1000 K
fc '
10 6 ; ultimate shrinkage strain
1.00 for Type I cement
K = 0.70 for Type II cement ; cement factor

1.15 for Type III cement

C.1.7. Sakatas - SAK 93 Method

Sakata (1993) developed an exponential model for specific creep and drying
shrinkage. The models presented in Equations C.24 through C.26 are based on relative
humidity, member geometry, and water and cement content.
120
Creep Model. SAK method models specific creep based on two portions: basic creep
and drying creep. Equation C.24 proposes that both portions progress following an
exponential curve.
cr (t , t ' ) = ( 'bc + ' dc ) 1 exp 0.09 (t t ')
0.6
})
(C.24)
where
cr: specific creep at age t loaded at t (/ksi)
bc: basic creep portion, parameter depending on water and cement content, water-to-cement
ratio, and age of loading
dc: drying creep portion, parameter depending on water and cement content, water-tocement ratio, member volume-to-surface ratio, and relative humidity
Basic Creep Model. Basic creep is given by Equation C.25, as follows:
( c)
2
'bc = 3.641 (c + w) w
2.4
(ln[t '])
0.67
(C.25)
where
bc: basic specific creep portion (/ksi)
Drying Creep Model. Drying creep is given by Equation C.26
( c ) (ln[25.4 (V S )])
1.4
'dc = 0.015 (c + w) w
4.2
2.2
(1 h )
0.36
121
(t0 )
0.3
(C.26)
where
dc: drying specific creep portion (/ksi)
Drying Shrinkage Model
sh (t , t 0 ) = sh 1 exp 0.108 (t t 0 )
0.56
}) 10
(C.27)
where
([
( S )]) + 44 ln[t ] ; ultimate
sh = 600 + 780 (1 exp{h}) + 380 ln[0.593 w] 50 ln 25.4 V
shrinkage strain
122
C.2 Models for High Strength Concrete

C.2.1 CEB-FIP Method as modified by Yue and Taerwe (1993)
Han (1996) reported the changes suggested by Yue and Taerwe (1993) to CEB-FIP
creep equations in order to predict creep of high strength concrete. H and 0 from Equation
C.8 can be modified as shown in Equations C.28 and C.29
H =
18.85
18
1 + (0.012 h )
fc '
] 50.8 A u + 250 1500

c
(C.28)
where
H: constant depending on member size and relative humidity
(
1 h)
2.6
1
0 = 1 +
1
0.1 + t ' 0.2

fc '
Ac 3
1
0
.
367
1.45
where
0: ; notional creep coefficient
123
(C.29)
C.2.2. Baant and Panulas - BP Method

Baant and Panula (1984) proposed some modifications to drying creep portion of the
BP model to take into account high strength concrete. They found that the rest of the
expressions were still valid for HSC. Equation C.30 presents the new version of Equation
C.15 where the new parameters bd and ad are introduced.
' m
b
C d (t , t ' , t 0 ) = d t ' 2 k h ' sh 1 + d sh
E0
t t'
cd n
(C.30)
where
Cd: drying creep portion [specific creep - ()/ksi]
t 't 0
d ' = 1 +
a d sh
10 for f c ' 6000 psi
ad =
; linear interpolation between 6000 and 10000 psi
1 for f ' 10000 psi
c
sh
k
= 600 s 50.8 V
150
ref
C1
S C (t )
1 0


1.30 for a sphere
1.55 for a cube

124

6.3
C1 (t 0 ) = C 7 k T ' 0.05 +
t 0
1 w
C 7 = (0.593 c ) 12
8 c
kT ' =
7 C 7 21
5000 5000
T
exp
T0
T
T0

1
1.5
0.008 + 0.027 1 + 0.7 r 1.4 for r > 0
0.3
1.3 w
s
g c
0.85
d =
r = 56000 f c '
a
s s
0.008 for r 0

fc: compressive strength (ksi)
2
s 3
1
+
880
a
g
c
+ 0.5
= 1210
; z = 1.25
390
c
s w
+1

c
125
f c ' 12 0
m = 0.28 +
1
; material parameter
( f c ' )2
k h ' = h01.5 h1.5 humidity dependent parameter

10 for f c ' 6000 psi
bd =
; linear interpolation between 6000 and 10000 psi
100 for f ' 10000 psi
c
c d = 2.8 7.5 n
0.07 x 6
0
.
12
+
for x > 4
6
1
a
5130
+
x
3
1.5 w
c
n=
x = 2.1
+ 0.1 ( f c ')
s
0.12 for x 4
( )
( )
a

g
2.2
a 1 4
C.2.3. Sakatas - SAK 01 Method

Sakata et al. (2001) derived new Equations for predicting creep and drying shrinkage
for a wide range of concrete strength. Equations C.31 and C.32 show the new specific creep
and drying shrinkage expressions:
2.373 w (1 h ) + 350
cr (t , t ' ) =
ln[t t '+1] 6.8966
12 + 6.8966 ( f c ' (t '))
where
cr: specific creep at age t loaded at t (/ksi)
126
(C.31)
fc(t): compressive strength at the age of t(psi)

sh (t , t 0 ) =
sh (t t 0 )
+ (t t 0 )
(C.32)
where
sh =
(1 h ) 0.5933 w
1
; ultimate shrinkage strain
72.5 1 + t 0
1 + 150 exp
fc '
10 for normal portland cement

=
; cement factor
8 for slow hardening cement
= (15 exp(0.0483 f c ') + 0.1483 w) 10 4
19.8 w V
S
100 + 0.7 t 0

127
C.2.4. AFREM Method

Le Roy et al. (1996) described the AFREM model for modeling long-term
deformations of high strength concrete. AFREM method main expressions for modeling
creep and drying shrinkage are presented in Equations C.33 through C.36.
Creep Model. Equation C.33 presents AFREM creep prediction Equation which is
comprised of basic creep portion and drying creep portion.
cr (t , t ' ) =
(t ')
( b (t , t ' ) + d (t , t ' ) )
E 28
(C.33)
where
cr: creep strain in
(t): applied stress at t (ksi)
E28: 28-day elastic modulus (ksi)
b: basic creep coefficient at age t loaded at t
d: drying creep coefficient at age t loaded at t
Basic Creep Model. Basic creep coefficient can be expressed as shown in Equation
C.34, as follows:
b (t , t ') = b 0
t t'
(C.34)
bc + t t '
where
b0
1.762
f ' (t ')0.37 for silica - fume concrete
= c
1.4 for non silica - fume concrete

128
fc(t): compressive strength at the age of t (ksi)
bc
f c ' (t ')
0.37 exp2.8
for silica - fume concrete
fc '
f ' (t ')
0.40 exp3.1 c
for non silica - fume concrete
fc '

Drying Creep Model. Drying creep coefficient is given by Equation C.35
d (t , t ' , t 0 ) = d 0 ( sh (t , t 0 ) sh (t ' , t 0 ))
(C.35)
where
1000 for silica - fume concrete
d 0 =
3200 for non silica - fume concrete
sh: drying shrinkage as shown in Equation C.36
Drying Shrinkage Model. Drying creep expression is shown in Equation C.36, as
follows:
sh (t , t 0 ) =
K ( f c ') (72 exp{ 0.3172 f c '} + 75 100 h )

2
A
ds 0 50.8 c + (t t 0 )
u
(t t 0 ) 10 6 (C.36)
where
18 for f c ' 8.25 ksi
K ( f c ') =
; strength-dependent factor
30 1.448 f c ' for f c ' 8.25 ksi
129

ds 0
0.007 for silica - fume concrete
=
0.021 for non silica - fume concrete

C.2.5. AASHTO-LRFD as modified by Shams and Kahn (2000)

Shams and Kahn (2000), proposed some changes to AASHTO-LRFD creep and
shrinkage expression (see Section C.1.2) in order to better predict long-term strains of HPC.
Creep Model. Shams and Kahn method for estimating creep is presented in Equation
C.37.
t = k vs k f c
0.6
(
t t ')
k H k t ' k k m
0.6
d + (t t ')
(C.37)
where
t: creep coefficient at t loaded at t

4000
t = t i exp
273 + T (t i )
T0

until
day n
4000
t ' = t i exp
273 + T (t i )
T0

until
loading

T0: 1 oC
130
= 2.73 : ultimate creep coefficient
26 exp 0.36 V S + t 1.80 + 1.77 exp 0.54 V S

k vs =
t
2.587

45 + t
} ; size factor

k fc =
4 .8
1.645 + f c '

k H = 1.58 0.83 h ; ambient relative humidity factor

0.7 ; maturity at loading factor
k t ' = 0.65 exp
t '+0.57
exp{1.5 ( 0.4 )} for 0.4 0.6
; stress-to-strength ratio factor

k =
1.0 for 0.4
: stress-to-strength ratio at loading
k m = 1 + 0.65 (1 exp{ 0.59 m})
5.73
: moist curing period factor
m: moist curing period (days)

d=
t'
: maturity for 50% of ultimate creep coefficient
0.356 + 0.09 t '
Drying Shrinkage Model. Equation C.38 shows Shams and Kahn drying shrinkage
expression.
131
t to
sh (t , t o ) = sh k vs 'k H 'k to
f + (t t o )
0.5
(C.38)
where
510 for steam - cured concrete
sh =
560 for moist - cured concrete

4000
t = t i exp
273 + T (t i )
T0

until
day n
until
beginning
drying
4000
t 0 = t i exp
13.65 ; maturity of concrete at the beginning of
273 + T (t i )
T0

drying (days)
T0: 1 oC
(t t0 )
V
26 exp 0.36
+ (t t 0 ) 1064 0.94 V
S
S ; size factor
k vs =
(t t0 )
923
45 + (t t 0 )
2.00 1.43 h for h < 0.80

kH =
4.29 4.29 h for h 0.80
4.2
k t0 = 0.67 exp
; factor for maturity at the beginning of drying
9.45 + t o
f: 23 (days)
132
C.3 Models for Lightweight Concrete

Even though there are not models specifically developed for lightweight concrete,
some of the models presented in Section C.1 consider some corrections when lightweight
aggregate are being used.
C.3.1. ACI-209 Method

Creep and shrinkage predicting equation proposed by the ACI-209 (Equation C.1 and
C.3) were based on research done in NWC and SLC, so they are entirely applicable to normal
weight, sand-lightweight, and all-lightweight concrete.
C.3.2. AASHTO-LRFD Method

Since AASHTO-LRFD method for estimating creep and shrinkage is an updated
version of ACI-209 method (see Section C.1.2), equations C.5 and C.6 are applicable to SLC.
In fact, AASHTO-LRFD creep and shrinkage equations are in the section normal and
structural lightweight concrete section of the code.
C.3.3. Gardner and Lockmans - GL Method

Even though Gardner and Lockmans (2001) method does to include lightweight
aggregate in its scope, the authors proposed a way to incorporate aggregate stiffness in their
creep and shrinkage prediction equations (Equations C.22 and C.23). Equation C.39 shows
the proposed relationship between concrete elastic modulus and compressive strength.
Equation C.39 is a compromise between ACI-209 and ACI-363 expressions.
Ec 28 = 500 + 1.644
fc '
(C.39)
where
133

According the Gardner and Lockman (2001) stiffness corrected compressive strength
and elastic modulus are used in creep and shrinkage equations (Equations C22 and C.23) as
input data. To modify the compressive strength and stiffness, Equations C.40 and C.41 are
used.
f cEcorrected
E 500
f c '+ c 28
1.644
=
2
= 500 + 1.644
EcEcorrected
28
(C.40)
f cEcorrected
(C.41)
where
f cEcorrected : stiffness corrected compressive strength of concrete at 28 days (ksi)

EcEcorrected
: stiffness corrected 28-day elastic modulus (ksi)
28
134
Appendix D. Prestress Losses - Background

D.1 Prestress Losses
D.1.1. Introduction to Prestress Losses
The prestressing force in a prestressed concrete member continuously decreases with
time (Zia et al., 1979). The Precast Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Committee on
Prestress Losses, identified the factors influencing prestress losses as friction in posttensioning operations, movement of the prestressing steel at the end anchorage, elastic
shortening at transfer, effect due to connection of the prestressed member with other
structural member, and time dependent losses due to steel relaxation, creep and shrinkage of
the concrete (PCI Committee on Prestress Losses, 1975). The same committee pointed out
that the determination of stress losses in prestressed members is an extremely complicated
problem because the effect of one factor is continuously being altered by changes in stress
due to other factors. In describing the loss of prestress, ACI Committee 209 (1997) stated,
Prestress losses due to steel relaxation and concrete creep and shrinkage are inter-dependent
and also time dependent.
The contribution of each loss factor to the total losses depends on the following: the
structural design, material properties (concrete and steel), prestressing method (pretensioned
or posttensioned), concrete age at stressing, and the method of prestress computation (PCI,
1998).
135
D.1.2. Prestress Losses in Normal Weight Normal Strength Concrete

Bandyopadhyay and Sengupta (1986) concluded that for normal weight normal
strength concrete (NWNSC) deformations due to creep and shrinkage in concrete are several
times the elastic deformation. Figure D.1 shows a numerical example given by Nawy (2003)
where initial and long-term strains are estimated for a NWNSC subjected to 900 psi
compression stress. Figure D.1 shows how long-term prestress losses (shrinkage and creep)
Strain ()
of prestressed concrete members can be as large as five times the initial elastic strain.
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
750
500
250
Initial elastic strain one-year shrinkage

one-year creep
strain
strain
Figure D.1. Example of initial and long-term strains in prestressed concrete
In summary, partial loss of prestress in a prestressed concrete member is affected by

friction (only post-tensioned members), anchorage seating, elastic shortening, shrinkage of
concrete, creep of concrete, and relaxation of prestressing steel. Anchorage setting and
elastic shortening are usually grouped as initial losses, and shrinkage, creep and relaxation
are grouped as long-term time dependent losses. According PCI (1998) total loss of prestress
in typical members will range from about 25,000 to 50,000 psi for NWNSC.
136
D.1.3. Prestress Losses in Special Concretes

Prestress losses in special concretes such as SLC, HPC and HPLC follow the same
principles and are affected by the same factors that NWNSC, but they are influenced by the
particular properties of each.
Prestress losses in HPC: As stated in Appendices A and B, HPC usually has higher
modulus of elasticity, a lower creep and a similar or lower shrinkage than a NSC. Based on
that, it is expected to obtain fewer losses due to elastic shortening, fewer losses due to creep
losses, similar or fewer losses due to shrinkage, and more losses due to steel relaxation. The
expected increase in steel relaxation losses is a consequence of a higher stress level in the
prestressing steel due to a decrease on concrete losses. Total losses are expected to be less
than NSC. According Roller et al. (1995), measured long-term prestress losses in HPC
prestressed girder were approximately 50% less than the expected value.
Prestress losses in SLC: As seen in Appendices A and B, properties of SLC may vary
in a wide range, so the prestress losses may also widely vary. In general SLC presents a
lower modulus of elasticity than a NWC of the same strength. It also has a higher ultimate
creep and ultimate shrinkage than the NWC counterparts. Therefore, elastic shortening, and
final creep and shrinkage losses are expected to be greater in SLC. Steel relaxation losses,
however, are going to decrease due to the increase in the others. ACI-213 (1999) concluded
that combined loss of prestress in a SLC member is about 110 to 115% of the total losses for
NWC when both are cured normally. If they are steam-cured, prestress losses in SLC are
expected to be 124% of the losses in NWC. PCI (1998) gave a range for total prestress
losses of sand-lightweight members of 30,000 to 55,000 psi which is about 15% higher
than the range given for NWC.
137
Prestress losses in HPLC: To the authors knowledge, there is no previous research

on prestress losses of HPLC; however, from the material properties some conclusions can be
drawn. Elastic shortening losses are expected to be similar or less than NWNSC but more
than HPC. Creep and shrinkage losses would be similar to the one of HPC. Steel relaxation
losses would tend to be higher than losses in NWNSC because the previous losses are lower.
D.2 Codes
Prestress losses methods can be classified into two groups: (1) final prestress losses
estimate and (2) losses estimated at any time. There are three methods for estimating final
prestress losses: Precast Prestressed Concrete Institute Method (PCI, 1999), refined estimate
and approximate lump sum estimate, both proposed by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials Method (AASHTO-LRFD, 1998). For losses at any
time, American Concrete Institute Committee 209 (ACI-209, 1997) proposed a prestress loss
estimate method based on creep and shrinkage estimates (Equations C.1 and C.3).
Even though anchorage seating losses and friction losses can be an important portion
of the total prestress losses, they are not considered here because such losses are related with
the manufacturing process rather than material properties.
D.2.1. PCI Method

The PCI method gives an estimate of the final prestress losses of a prestressed
concrete member based on four equations for each type of losses. They are applicable to
NWC and SLC. Total losses are given by Equation D.1
T .L. = ES + CR + SH + RE
(D.1)
where
138
T.L.: total prestress losses (ksi)

ES: elastic shortening loss (ksi)
CR: creep of concrete loss (ksi)
SH: shrinkage of concrete loss (ksi)
RE: steel relaxation loss (ksi)
Elastic Shortening. Caused by concrete shortening around tendons as the prestressing

force is transferred, elastic shortening can be estimated by Equation D.2.
ES =
K es E ps f cir
(D.2)
E ci
where
Kes: elastic shortening constant, 1.0 for pretensioned members
Eps: elastic modulus of prestressing steel (ksi)
Eci: elastic modulus of concrete at transfer (ksi)
P
P e2
f cir = K cir i + i
A
Ig
g
Mg e
: net compressive stress in the section at the center of
I
g
gravity of the prestressing force (cgs) immediately after

transfer (ksi)
where
Kcir: a constant, 0.9 for pretensioned members
Pi: initial prestressing force after anchorage seating loss (kip)
e: eccentricity of the cgs. with respect to the center of gravity of the section at the cross
section considered. Eccentricity is negative if below concrete section neutral axis (in)
139
Ag: gross area of the section (in2)

Ig: gross moment of inertia (in4)
Mg: the dead load gravity moment applied to the section at time of prestressing (kip-in)
Creep of concrete. The final loss of prestress due to creep is given by Equation D.3.
E ps
( f cir f cds )
CR = K cr
E
c
(D.3)
where
CR: creep loss (ksi)
2.0 for NWC
K cr =
: creep constant
1.6 for SLC
Ec: elastic modulus at design age (ksi)
Eps: elastic modulus of prestressing steel (ksi)
f cds =
M sd e
: stress in concrete at the cgs due to all superimposed dead loads (ksi)
Ig
Msd: Moment due to all superimposed permanent dead loads and sustained loads after
prestressing (kip-inches)
Shrinkage of concrete. The final prestress loss due to drying shrinkage is given by
member geometry and relative humidity at which member is exposed. Equation D.4 shows
PCI expression to estimate shrinkage loss.
140
SH = 8.2 10 6 K sh E ps 1 0.06 (100 RH )

S
(D.4)
where,
SH: shrinkage loss (ksi)
Ksh: 1.0 for pretensioned members
RH: relative humidity, %
Steel relaxation. defined as the loss of stress over a certain period of time, steel
relaxation depends on the type of prestressing steel (stress-relieved or lo relaxation) and the
other prestress losses. Equation D.5 gives the loss of prestress due to steel relaxation.
RE = [K re J (SH + CR + ES ) (100 RH )] C
(D.5)
where
Kre: maximum relaxation stress, 5,000 psi for grade 270, low relaxation strands
J: parameter, 0.04 for grade 270, low relaxation strands,
C: parameter depending on the initial prestress to ultimate strand strength and strand type,
0.70 this case.
141
D.2.2. AASHTO-LRFD Refined Estimates of Time-Dependent Losses

According AASHTO-LRFD (1998), the total loss of prestress, not including
anchorage seating loss, is the sum of the elastic shortening, creep, shrinkage, and steel
relaxation losses, given by Equation D.6. Equation D.6 applies to prestressed members with
spans no greater than 250 ft., NWC and compressive strength above 3,500 psi.
f pT = f pES + f pCR + f pSH + f pR1 + f pR 2
(D.6)
where
fpT: total prestress losses (ksi)
fpES: elastic shortening loss (ksi)
fpCR: creep of concrete loss (ksi)
fpSR: shrinkage of concrete loss (ksi)
fpR1: initial steel relaxation loss (ksi)
fpR2: after transfer steel relaxation loss (ksi)
Elastic Shortening. According to AASHTO-LRFD, the Elastic shortening loss is

given by Equation D.7.
f pES =
Ep
E ci
f cgp
(D.7)
where,
P P e2 M g e
f cgp = i + i
fcgp: sum of the stresses in the concrete at the cgs due to
A
I
Ig
g
g
prestress force at transfer and the maximum dead load moment (ksi)
142

Ep: elastic modulus of prestressing steel (ksi)
Eci: elastic modulus of concrete at transfer (ksi)
Creep of concrete. The final loss of prestress due to creep is given by Equation D.8.
f pCR = 12 f cgp 7 f cdp
(D.8)
where,
f cgp
Pi Pi e 2 M g e
fcgp: sum of the stresses in the concrete at the cgs due to

=
+
A
I
Ig
g
g
prestress force at transfer and the maximum dead load moment (ksi)
143
f cds =
M sd e
: change in concrete stress at the center of gravity of prestressing strands due to
Ig
permanent loads, with the exception of the loads at the time the prestressing force is
applied. (ksi)
Shrinkage of concrete. The prestress loss due to drying shrinkage is given in
Equation D.9.
f pSR = 17.0 0.15 H
(D.9)
where,
H: relative humidity, %
Steel relaxation. Steel relaxation loss is considered to be comprised of two

components: relaxation at transfer and relaxation over the rest of the life of the girder. For
low relaxation strands, the two components are given by Equations D.10 and D.11.
f pR1 =
log(24 t ) f pj
0.55 f pj
f
40
py
(D.10)
where,
fpR1: initial steel relaxation loss (ksi)
t: time since prestressing (days)
fpj: initial prestress (ksi)
fpy: yield strength of the prestressing steel (ksi)
f pR 2 = 20 0.4 f pES 0.2 (f pSR + f pCR )
144
(D.11)
where
fpR2: after transfer steel relaxation loss (ksi)
D.2.3. AASHTO-LRFD Lump Sum Estimate of Time-Dependent Losses

Lump sum method is based on data taken from a large number of prestressed
structures, and it gives an estimate of final prestress losses due to concrete creep and
shrinkage and steel relaxation. According AASHTO-LRFD (1998), Lump sum method is
applicable to members that are made from NWC, so it is not suitable for predicting losses in
SLC. Lump sum method proposes eleven equations depending on the type of beam section
and prestressing element (strands, bars). For I-shaped girders prestressed with 235, 250, or
270 ksi wires or strands, the time-dependent losses can be obtained from Equation D.12.
f '6.0
f pTD = 33.0 1.0 0.15 c

+ 6.0 PPR
6.0
where
fpTD: time-dependent losses (ksi)
PPR =
A ps f py
A ps f py + As f y
: partial prestressing ratio
Aps: area of prestressing steel (in2)

fpy: yield stress of prestressing steel (ksi)
As: area of non-prestressing steel (in2)
145
(D.12)
fy: yield stress of non-prestressing steel (ksi)
D.2.4. ACI-209 Method

Based on creep and shrinkage equations presented in section C.1.1, ACI through its
committee 209, proposed a general expression for estimating loss of prestress in prestressed
concrete beams as shown in Equation D.13. As explained in Section C.3.1, ACI-209 creep
and shrinkage equations are applicable to SLC.
t =
[ES + CR + SH + ( f ) ] 100
sr t
(D.13)
f si
where
t: prestress losses in percent of the initial tensioning stress
(fsr)t: steel relaxation loss (ksi)
fsi: initial tensioning stress (ksi)
Elastic Shortening. Elastic shortening can be estimate by Equation D.14

ES = n f c
(D.14)
where
n: modular ratio at the time of prestressing
146
Pi Pi e 2 M g e
fc =
: net compressive stress in the section at the center of gravity of
+
+
Ag
Ig
Ig
the prestressing force (cgs) immediately after transfer (ksi)

Creep of concrete. Equation D.15 shows the expression used for creep losses
estimate.
F
CR = ES t 1 t
2 F0
(D.15)
where
t: creep coefficient as defined by ACI-209 (Equation C.1)
Ft
: Loss of prestress ratio given in Table D.1
F0
147
Table D.1. Loss of prestress ratios for different concretes and time under loading conditions
Type of concrete
Normal
SandAllweight
lightweight lightweight
concrete
concrete
concrete
0.10
0.12
0.14
For three weeks to one month between

prestressing and sustained load application
For two to three months between prestressing
and sustained load application
Ultimate
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.23
Shrinkage of concrete. Prestress losses due to drying shrinkage are estimated by

Equation D.16. The denominator KSE represents the stiffening effect of the steel and the
effect of concrete creep. Without KSE the losses due to drying shrinkage are somewhat
overestimated.
SH = ( sh )t
E ps
(D.16)
K SE
where
(sh)t: shrinkage strain as defined by ACI-209 (Equation C.3)
Eps: Elastic modulus of prestressing steel
K SE = 1 + n s =1.25 (design simplification)
n: modular ratio at the time of prestressing
: non-prestressing reinforcement ratio
s: cross section shape coefficient
Steel relaxation. Steel relaxation losses depend on the steel of the strands (stressrelieved or low relaxation), and time. For low relaxation strands, the relaxation losses are
given by Equation D.17.
148
RE = 0.005 f pj log10 [t ]
(D.17)
where
fpj: initial prestress (ksi)
t: time under load in hours (for t>105, RE = 0.025 f pj )
149
150
Appendix E. Concrete Properties Experimental Program

E.1 Introduction
The main objective of Task 3 was to characterize the HPLC mixes obtained from
Task 2. This characterization included: slump, air content, and unit weight for the plastic
state, and compressive strength, elastic modulus, rupture modulus, chloride permeability,
creep and non-stress dependent strains such as shrinkage and coefficient of thermal
expansion.
E.2 Mix Design

Two HPLC mixes were suggested: (1) 8,000-psi compressive strength (8L made in
the laboratory and 8F made in the field) and (2) 10,000-psi compressive strength (10L made
in the laboratory and 10F made in the field). The actual mix proportions used on each case
are presented in Table E.1.
Table E.1. Actual mixes used in the laboratory specimens (8L and 10L) and used to cast the
girders tested on Task 5 (8F and 10F)
Component Type
cement, Type III (lb/yd3) / [kg/m3]
Fly ash, class F (lb/yd3) / [kg/m3]
Silica Fume, (lb/yd3) / [kg/m3]
Natural sand (lb/yd3) / [kg/m3]
1/2" Lightweight aggregate (lb/yd3)
/ [kg/m3]
Water (lb/yd3) / [kg/m3]:
AEA, Daravair 1000 (oz/yd3) /
[l/m3]
Water reducer, WRDA 35 (oz/yd3) /
[l/m3]
HRWR, Adva 100 (oz/yd3) / [l/m3]
8L
783 [464]
142 [84]
19 [11]
1022
[606]
8F
780 [463]
141 [84]
19 [11]
1018
[604]
10L
740 [439]
150 [89]
100 [59]
1030
[611]
10F
737 [437]
149 [88]
100 [59]
1025
[608]
947 [562]
944 [560]
955 [566]
956 [567]
268 [159]
284 [169]
227 [135]
260 [154]
7.8 [0.3]
7.8 [0.3]
7.4 [0.3]
5.5 [0.2]
47 [1.8]
46.8 [1.8]
44.4 [1.7]
44.2 [1.7]
47.5 [1.8]
53.4 [2.1]
102 [3.9]
95.8 [3.7]
151
E.3 Test Procedures

All laboratory concrete specimens were taken from mixes made according to standard
procedures at the Georgia Tech Structural Engineering Laboratory. All field concrete
specimens were taken from actual field batches used in the girders at Tindall Corporation
precast plant at Jonesboro, GA. Testing of all specimens was done at the Georgia Tech
Structural Engineering Laboratory. All specimens were cured and removed from their forms
as required. The following tests were performed:
1. Compressive Strength. Compressive strength was determined by testing 4 x 8
cylinders according to ASTM C 39.
2. Modulus of Elasticity. The chord modulus of elasticity was tested using 6 x 12
cylinders loaded in compression according to ASTM C 469. Figure E.1 shows elastic
modulus test.
3. Modulus of Rupture. Modulus of rupture was determined by testing 4 x 4 x 14
beams according to ASTM C 78. Figure E.2 shows modulus of rupture test.
4. Chloride Permeability. Chloride permeability was determined by testing 4 x 2
cylinders according ASTM C 1202. Figure E.3 shows the test set up.
5. Creep, Drying Shrinkage and Coefficient of Thermal Expansion. The procedures
for testing creep, drying shrinkage and coefficient of thermal expansion are given in
sections E.4, E.5 and E.6, respectively.
152
Figure E.1. Elastic modulus test
Figure E.2. Rupture modulus test
Figure E.3. Chloride permeability test set up.
153
E.4 Creep Test Procedures

Creep was determined by testing 4 x 15 cylinders according the ASTM C 512
guidelines. However there were four differences with respect to the ASTM procedure.
The first difference is that the diameter of the cylinders was smaller than the
recommended in ASTM because bearing capacity of the creep frames was not enough for
applying the required stress levels to 6 x 12 cylinders. The other three deviations were the
age of loading (24 hours instead of 2 days or greater), the curing regime, and the stress-tostrength ratio (up to 60% instead of 40%). The later changes were adopted in order to match
the actual conditions of the HPC bridge prestressed girders which were loaded at 60% of the
initial strength and at very early ages.
Figure E.4 shows a schematic and working principle of the creep frames used in the
experimental program. Figure E.5 shows creep specimens during the loading process and
under load.
154
Figure E.4. Creep frames components and working principle.
Figure E.5. Creep specimens during loading process and under load in creep frames
155
The 4 x 15 cylinders were instrumented with four sets of brass inserts located
diametrically opposite on the surface of the specimen. Each set was a 10-long gage line for
measuring deformation with a detachable mechanical gage (DEMEC gage). Brass inserts
were bolted to the wall of the metal cylindrical forms (Figure E.6), and after initial set of the
concrete (4 to 6 hours); the screws holding them were removed allowing specimens to
expand freely during curing. The ends of the molds were 1/2-thick and 4 diameter metal
plates which remained attached to the specimens permanently after striping the molds. The
end plates also had 1/4-inch deep center holes in order to assure a concentric loading by
pinning the specimens to the creep frames. Figure E.6 shows one of the molds used for
preparing creep specimens.
Figure E.6. Steel mold used in casting 4 X 15 cylinders

The specimens were removed from the molds 30 minutes before loading. After that
they were placed in an environment controlled room at 50 3% of relative humidity and 70
3oF and kept there during the time of testing.
156
E.5 Shrinkage Test Procedures

Shrinkage specimens were identical to the creep specimens described in section E.4.
They were made following the same procedures that creep specimens, but they remained
unloaded for the time of testing. Figure E.7 shows some shrinkage specimens placed over
roller to allow free movement. Figure E.7 also shows four brass inserts labeled as A and
B in the specimens where DEMEC gage reader is inserted.
Figure E.7. Shrinkage and coefficient of thermal expansion specimens

As recommended in ASTM C512, shrinkage was measured at the same intervals that
creep. Creep was finally obtained by subtracting elastic strain and shrinkage from total strain
measured on creep specimens.
E.6 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Test Procedures

Coefficient of thermal expansion was determined by testing 4 x 15 cylinders and
following the guidelines of the Army Corps of Engineers Specification CRD-C39.
Specimens were heated up to 140 oF and then cooled down to 40 oF. The difference between
157
the DEMEC gage readings at 140 and 40 oF is the thermal expansion of concrete for a
gradient of 100 oF. Figure E.8 shows the specimen and measurement procedure.
Figure E.8. DEMEC gage reader for creep, shrinkage and coefficient of thermal expansion.
158
Appendix F. Experimental Results and Analysis

8,000-psi and 10,000-psi compressive strength mixes were made in both laboratory
and field. The laboratory mixes were meant to characterize material properties while the
field mixes were made for casting AASHTO Type II girders. This section presents the
experimental properties measured on laboratory and field mixes.
F.1 Plastic Properties

Slump, unit weight, and air content (ASTM C173: volumetric method) were
measured in laboratory and field batches. Table F.1 presents the average results of those
tests.
Table F.1. Fresh concrete properties of HPLC mixes
Slump, in
Air Content, %
Plastic unit weight, lb/ft3
Temperature, oF
8,000-psi HPLC
8L
8F
5.0
8.0
4.0
4.5
120
118
90
85
10,000-psi HPLC
10L
10F
4.0
4.5
3.5
3.3
122
119
90
85
From the workability results shown above, 8,000-psi HPLC slump might be classified
as 6.5 1.5 in. 10,000-psi mix had a slump 4.0 0. 50 in. The air content, on the other
hand, averaged 4.25% for 8,000-psi mix and 3.8% for 10,000-psi mix.
F.2 Unit Weight

As shown in Table F.1, plastic unit weight varied from 114 to 122 lb/ft3 with most of
the values close to 120 lb/ft3. The 8,000-psi mix averaged a unit weight of 117 lb/ft3 while
the 10,000-psi HPLC an average unit weight of 119 lb/ft3. These values represent 78 and
79% of the weight of an HPC.
159
ACI-213 (1999) proposed the air-dry condition as a standard for measuring

hardened lightweight concrete unit weight. Air-dry unit weight was measured on two sets
of samples that had 8F and 10F 4x8 cylinders cured according ASTM and accelerated
curing. The results obtained for hardened air-dry condition were compared with plastic
and hardened oven-dry conditions. Plastic unit weight was measured in fresh state before
casting, and hardened oven-dry condition was reached drying hardened samples in an oven at
230oF until constant weight.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined that the difference between curing
conditions (accelerated vs. ASTM) was less than the variation within the same curing
method. Type of curing was not a statistically significant factor in determining unit weight
of the HPLC mixes. Therefore, the average between the cure methods can be used for each
mix. From ANOVA, the authors concluded the moisture content was statistically significant
in the HPLC unit weight. Air-dry and oven-dry unit weights were 0.45 and 1.2 lb/ft3 less
than plastic unit weight regardless the type of HPLC. Those differences were lower than the
variability obtained for plastic unit weight (see Table F.1). Figure F.1 presents measured
plastic unit weight and estimated9 air-dry and oven-dry unit weight unit weight for each mix.
Estimate made based on actual results for those properties
160
Plastic unit weight
Air-dry unit weight
155
Oven-dry unit weight

150
Unit Weight (lb/ft3)
145
135
125
119
117
115
105
95
85
75
8F
10F
HPC
Figure F.1. Unit weight of HPLC under different moisture conditions.
F.3 Compressive Strength

Specimens used for testing mechanical properties were cured in two different ways:
ASTM C 39 (fog room and 73oF) and accelerated curing that simulates the condition within a
precast prestressed member. Compressive strength for laboratory mixes was measured in 4
x 8 cylinders at 16, 20 and 24 hours, and then at, 7, 28, and 56 days. For field mixes
strength was measured at 1, 7, 28, 56, and more than 100 days after casting. Table F.2
presents the average strength values obtained for each curing method and mix type. Figure
F.2 to F.5 show individual and average strength of three specimens tested at each age and
curing procedure. They also show the strength limits for FHWA HPC Grade 2 and 3 concrete
(Goodspeed et al, 1996).
161
Table F.2. Compressive strength of HPLC mixes (psi)

16
hours
20
hours
1 day
7
days
28
days
56
days
103
days
123
days
144
days
Accelerated Cure
ASTM
Accelerated Cure
ASTM
Accelerated Cure
ASTM
Accelerated Cure
ASTM
Accelerated Cure
ASTM
Accelerated Cure
ASTM
Accelerated Cure
ASTM
Accelerated Cure
ASTM
Accelerated Cure
ASTM
8L
7,324
8F
7,630
10L
9,838
10F
9,764
7,730
6,300
9,300
7,100
9,632
9,928
10,427
10,522
7,465
5,735
7,811
7,317
8,711
8,835
9,084
9,346
9,418
10,229
11,101
6,889
10,230
7,800
10,588
10,604
10,855
11,476
8,439
7,312
9,152
8,072
9,344
9,807
10,352
10,583
10,454
10,868
From the data presented in Table F.2 and Figures F.2 and F.3, it can be concluded,
that 8L and 8F mixes meet the specified strength, since the age of 28 days. At 56 days, 8L
mix overcame the 10,000 psi limit with an average strength close to 10,500 psi. At 103 days,
8F mix reached a compressive strength slightly above upper limit of FHWA HPC Grade 3.
Compressive strength of 10,000-psi mixes, laboratory (10L) and field (10F), is
presented in Figures F.4 and F.5. Figures F.4 and F.5 also show the minimum specified
strength at 56 days and the strength limits for FHWA HPC Grade 3 concrete.
162
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
8L Average Accelerated Curing
3000
8L ASTM Curing
2000
8L Average ASTM Curing
1000
Limit FHWA HPC Grade 2
0
0
14
21
28
35
Age (days)
42
49
56
methods.
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
8F Average Accelerated Curing
4000
8F ASTM Curing
3000
8F Average ASTM Curing
2000
1000
0
0
14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98
Age (days)
Figure F.3. Compressive strength vs. time of 8F mix for accelerated and ASTM curing
methods.
163
15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

10L Average Accelerated Curing
10L ASTM Curing
10L Average ASTM Curing
14
21
28
35
Age (days)
42
49
56
methods
15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
10FB Accelerated Curing

10FB Average Accelerated Curing
10FB ASTM Curing
10FB Average ASTM Curing
14
28
42
56
70
84
Age (days)
98
112
126
140
154
Figure F.5. Compressive strength vs. time of 10F mixes for accelerated and ASTM curing
methods compressive strength vs. time
164
From Figure F.4 it can be stated that 10L mix overcame the lower limit of the FHWA
HPC Grade 3 at 28 days with no single result below it. At 56 days average strength was
close to 11,500 psi. Field mixes, on the other hand reached the specified lower limit at 56
days. One out of 33 specimens had a compressive strength of 9,800 psi which was below
10,000-psi limit.
F.4 Modulus of Elasticity

Modulus of elasticity of concrete was measured on the 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes
according ASTM C 469. Specimens with accelerated curing were tested at 16 hours, 24
hours, and 56 days while the ones under ASTM curing were tested only at 56 days. Figure
F.6 shows the elastic modulus obtained for all the tests. Even though there were no
requirements in the specifications for the concrete elastic modulus, experimental results were
lower than the ones given by FHWA of 6,000 and 7,500 ksi for Grade 2 and 3, respectively.
These results were expected since lightweight aggregate was used.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that none of the considered factors
(strength, age, curing procedure, and lab or field) were statistically significant (at 90% level)
in explaining variability of Poissons ratio. Average 56-day Poissons ratio was 0.19 with
90% of the results in the range 0.188 and 0.192. Poissons ratio results were higher than the
range 0.142 to 0.152 obtained by Lopez and Kahn (2004) for an equivalent HPC of normal
weight.
165
4400
4200
4000
3800
3600
8L Acc. curing average
10L Acc. curing average
3400
3200
8L ASTM Curing
8F ASTM Curing
10L ASTM Curing
10F ASTM Curing
8F Acc. curing average
10F Acc. curing average
3000
0.1
Age (days)
10
100
Figure F.6. Elastic modulus of 8,000 and 10,000-psi HPLC mixes
F.5 Modulus of Rupture

Modulus of rupture was measured in 8,000 and 10,000-psi HPLC at the age of 56
days under accelerated and ASTM curing methods. Figure F.7 shows the modulus of rupture
grouped by HPLC mix and type of curing. The result can be compared with the compressive
strength as shown in Table F.3 where each value is an average of three tests.
For the mixes, accelerated-cured specimens presented higher rupture modulus than
ASTM-cured specimens. On average, 8,000-psi mixes had higher rupture modulus than
10,000-psi mixes.
166
Even though the ratio between rupture modulus and square root of compressive
strength (fifth column on Table F.3), was always higher than ACI-318 value of 7.5 as shown
in Figure F.7, the compressive strength affected the mentioned ratio. The 8,000-psi HPLC
yielded on average a higher ratio than 10,000-psi HPLC. From Table F.3, it can be said that
56-day modulus of rupture was increased when using accelerated curing method, while the
56-day compressive strength was decreased. As a result, the modulus of rupture-tocompressive strength ratio was higher in the accelerated cured specimens than in the ASTM
cured specimens.
Figure F.7 also shows the value of 6.375 which is the 7.5 value times the lightweight
factor (0.85 for sand-lightweight concrete). It is concluded that the use of f r = 7.5
f c ' is
conservative for predicting modulus of rupture of HPLC.

12
11
10
10.5
10.0
10.9
10.3
8.6 8.9
fr/(fc)0.5
11.4
ASTM Curing
Accelerated Curing
9.5
7.5: NWC
6.375 (7.5 x ):
sand-lightweight
concrete
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
8L
8F
10L
10F
HPLC Type
Figure F.7. Rupture modulus of HPLC mixes and design values (ACI-318)
167
Table F.3. Rupture modulus of HPLC mixes
HPLC
type
8L
8F
10L
10F
8L
8F
10L
10F
Curing
Type
ASTM
Curing
Accelerated
Curing
56-day
average
strength-fc
(psi)
10522
9346
11476
10664
10427
9084
10855
10333
56-day
modulus of
rupture - fr
(psi)
1030
992
918
981
1077
1042
926
1161
fr
fc '
10.0
10.3
8.6
9.5
10.5
10.9
8.9
11.4
F.6 Chloride Ion Permeability

Chloride ion permeability was measured at 56 days on 8L, 8F, 10L, and 10F
specimens. The results are presented in Figure F.8 including the limits given in ASTM
C1202 for each category.
10000
Coulumbs
1000
High
Moderate
Low
Very low
100
Negligible
10
1
8L
8F
10L
10F
HPLC Type
Figure F.8. Chloride ion permeability of 8,000 and 10,000-psi HPLC mixes
168
All HPLC mixes had a chloride ion permeability classified as very low. 8,000-psi
HPLC results were in the range 615 - 900 coulombs while 10,000-psi mixes presented results
within the range of 100 - 350 coulombs.
F.7 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

Coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) was measured in 8F, 10L, 10F mixes at 56
days and 100% of relative humidity. The results of those tests are presented in Figure F.9.
This test was necessary to correct creep and shrinkage by temperature. Because those tests
began at 24 hours, specimens were not at room temperature, but at the temperature reached
during the hydration process. Therefore, total change in length included creep, shrinkage,
and thermal contraction.
Coefficient of Thermal
Expansion (/oF)
6.0
5.0
5.07
5.20
8F-1
8F-2
5.47
5.17
5.17
4.90
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
10F-1
10F-2
10L-1
HPC
HPLC Type
Figure F.9. Coefficient of thermal expansion of 8,000 and 10,000-psi HPLC mixes
8F mix CTE averaged 5.14 /oF while 10L and 10FB mixes presented slightly
higher values of 5.32 and 5.17 /oF. All HPLC CTE results were higher than the one
reported by Lopez and Kahn (2004) for 10,000-psi HPC (4.9 /oF at 100%). All results
were lower than 6.0 /oF commonly used for concrete.
169
F.8 Creep
F.8.1. Creep of 8L and 10L HPLC
Eight creep specimens were cast from each laboratory mix (8L and 10L). Four of
them were loaded at 16 hours after casting (denoted by 16h). Among those, two specimens
were loaded at a stress-to-initial-strength ratio of 40% (denoted by 16h-40%) while the other
two were loaded at 60% (16h-60%). The same procedure was followed with the other four
specimens, but at 24 hours after casting (24h-40% and 24h-60%). Creep specimens were
cured with the accelerated method until 30 minutes before loading when they were stripped
and prepared for loading in the environment controlled room. As explained in Appendix E,
the deformation in creep and shrinkage specimens was measured with a DEMEC reader. The
deformation on each specimen was obtained by averaging four readings; two on each side.
The strain response (elastic strain, creep and shrinkage) of 8L is presented in linear and
logarithmic scale in Figures F.10a and F.10b, respectively.
As shown in Figure F.10a and F.10b, there was no appreciable difference in total
strain between the 16h-40% and 24h-40% specimens. 24h-60% specimens had a slightly
higher strain than 16h-60% specimens, but individual results were overlapped. The average
total strain after 620 days was 3,250 and 4,250 for a stress-to-initial strength ratio of 40%
and 60%, respectively. After 200 days the total strain was approximately 92% of the strain at
620 days. After time under load between 2 and 2.33 days, all the samples reached roughly
the 50% of the strain at 620 days. Instantaneous strain is shown by the initial strain in Figure
F.10b, and is in agreement with the strain predicted by using the initial modulus of elasticity
and the applied load. It must be pointed out that this strain includes the initial elastic portion
170
and not only delayed deformations. Figure F.10b, shows a fairly linear progression in
logarithmic scale.
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
16h-40%
16h-60%
2000
1500
24h-40%
24h-60%
1000
500
0
0
100
200
4500
300
Age (days)
400
500
600
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
16h-40%
16h-60%
24h-40%
24h-60%
1500
1000
500
0
1
10
100
1000
Age (days)
Figure F.10. 8L HPLC Total strain (a) linear scale and (b) logarithmic scale.
171
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
16h-40%
2000
16h-60%
1500
24h-40%
24h-60%
1000
500
0
0
100
200
300
Age (days)
400
500
600
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
16h-40%
2000
16h-60%
1500
24h-40%
24h-60%
1000
500
0
1
10
100
1000
Age (days)
Figure F.11. 10L HPLC Total strain (a) linear scale and (b) logarithmic scale.
The strain response (elastic strain, creep and shrinkage) of 10L is presented in linear
and logarithmic scale in Figures F.11a and F.11b, respectively. For 10L HPLC, the
172
difference between strains when loaded at 16 and 24 hours was more noticeable. This
difference might be due to the fact that the specimens loaded at 16 and 24 hours were made
from different batches. For 16h-40% and 24h-40%, total strain was below and above 3,000
after 620 days, respectively. Total strain of 16h-60% and 24h-60% specimens was about
3500 and 4,000 after 620 days, respectively. At 200 days under load and drying, all
specimens reached approximately 92% of the strain obtained at 620 days. 50% of the total
strain at 620 days was reached only a few hours after loading.
Creep strain was obtained by subtracting instantaneous, shrinkage and thermal strains
from data in Figures F.10 and F.11. Creep of 16h-40%, 16h-60%, 24h-40%, and 24h-60%
specimens is presented in Figure F.12. Figure F.12a and 12b show the mentioned data for
8L and 10L HPLC, respectively.
Measured creep strain (basic and drying creep) of 8L mix at 620 days was
approximately 1,500 and 2,150 for a stress-to-initial strength ratio of 40% and 60%,
respectively regardless the age at the time of loading. At 620 days, the ratio between creep at
60% and 40% was 1.43, which is close to the actual ratio between stresses (1.5). This
demonstrates the approximately linear proportion between stress and creep for stress levels
up to 60% of the initial strength of HPLC. A complete analysis of variance (ANOVA) of
creep results is presented in Appendix G.
Creep of 10L HPLC varied with age at application of load. Measured creep after 620
days of 16h-40% and 16h-60% specimens was quite similar (1,500 and 1,620 ,
respectively). This result was not expected since the applied stresses were considerably
different. The unexpected data comes probably from 16h-40% specimens which creep was
too high for virtually any age.
173
2000
1500
1000
500
8L Creep 16h-40%
8L Creep 16h-60%
8L Creep 24h-40%
8L Creep 24h-60%
8L Shrinkage
0
0
100
b
2000
200
300
400
500
10L Creep 16h-40%
10L Creep 16h-60%
10L Creep 24h-40%
10L Creep 24h-60%
600
10L Shrinkage
1500
1000
500
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Figure F.12. Creep of HPLC loaded at 16 and 24 hours (a) 8L HPLC stress-to-strength ratio
of 40% and 60% (b)10L HPLC for stress-to-strength ratio of 40% and 60%.
Creep of 24h-40% and 24h-60% specimens after 620 days of loading was 1,250 and
1,820 , respectively. As expected, the ratio between those creep strains after 620 days was
174
1.46, which was very close to the ratio between the applied stresses (1.5). As mentioned
before, specimens loaded at 24 hours were made from a different batch from the specimens
loaded at 16 hours. In fact, specimens loaded at 24 hours made from the first batch broke
during the loading process which may indicate that the first 10L batch was not correctly
made. Therefore, the creep results from specimens made from the first batch (16h-40% and
16h-60%) should be carefully analyzed.
Figure F.13a and F.13b show specific creep for 8L and 10L HPLC, respectively.
Figure F.13 also shows the specific creep limits given by Goodspeed et al. (1996) for a
FHWA HPC Grade 2 and 3 (Table A.2).
From Figure F.13a, it can be concluded that specific creep measured in 8L specimens
after 180 days was in the range 0.425 to 0.525 /psi which was above the higher limit of
0.41 /psi given by Goodspeed et al. (1996) for HPC Grade 2. After 620 days under load
specific creep of 8L HPLC ranged from 0.470 to 0.563 /psi. After one year under load,
creep of 8L did not significantly change showing a fairly horizontal line over time.
Figure F.13b shows the anomalous creep response of the 16h-40% specimens. When
creep strains of those specimens was divided by the applied stress, the resulting specific
creep after 620 days ranged between 0.490 and 0.512 /psi while specific creep of all other
specimens ranged between 0.289 and 0.365 /psi. After 180 days under load, specimens
loaded at 24 hours had a specific creep of 0.255 /psi, which was within the range given by
Goodspeed et al (1996) for an HPC Grade 3. Specific creep for 16h-60% specimens was
close to the upper boundary given for HPC Grade 3. Finally, 16h-40% specimens presented
a much higher specific creep than the range proposed for HPC Grade 3.
175
0.60
Specific Creep (/psi)
0.50
0.40
0.30
8L Creep 16h-40%
8L Creep 16h-60%
8L Creep 24h-40%
8L Creep 24h-60%
FHWA HPC Grade 2 Limits
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
10L Creep 16h-40%
10L Creep 16h-60%
10L Creep 24h-40%
10L Creep 24h-60%
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600

Figure F.13. Specific creep of 8L HPLC (a) and 10L HPLC (b) and limits for FHWA HPC
Grade 2 and 3.
176
2.00
1.80
Creep Coefficient
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
8L Creep Coefficient 16h-40%

0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2.00
1.80
Creep Coefficient
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
Figure F.14. Creep coefficient of 8L HPLC (a) and 10L HPLC (b).
600
Creep coefficient is the ratio between creep strain and elastic strain under a
determinate load. Creep coefficient is another common way to represent creep of concrete
independently from the magnitude of the applied load. Figure F.14a and F.14b present creep
177
coefficient of the 8L and 10L HPLC, respectively. Even though Figure F.14 shows similar
tendencies to the ones analyzed from Figure F.12, creep coefficient might have advantage
over specific creep. When using specific creep, creep data are expressed in terms of applied
stress. When using creep coefficient, creep data are expressed not only in terms of applied
stress, but also in terms of concrete stiffness (which changes with age).
The fact that creep coefficient might be a better parameter for expressing creep can be
seen when compared the coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by average)
obtained from Figure F.13a and F.14a. The 620-day coefficient of variation from creep
coefficient was 5% while the one obtained from specific creep was 7.5%.
Figure F.14b (creep coefficient of 10L HPLC) shows that creep measured in the 16h40% specimens was much higher than the all other 10L HPLC specimens.
Figures F.10a and F.11a clearly show an increasing creep strain at a decreasing creep
rate. Moreover, when the time is presented in logarithmic scale as done in Figures F.10b and
F.11b, the creep strain tends to change linearly with the log of time.
F.8.2. Creep of 8F and 10F HPLC

The same procedure of Section F.8.1 is followed here to present creep data of the
field mixes. Four creep specimens each were cast from each the 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi
field HPLC. Two specimens were loaded at 24 hours using a stress-to-initial strength ratio of
40% (denoted by 24h-40%), The other two specimens were loaded at the same age, but with
60 and 50% of the initial strength for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC, respectively (denoted
by 24h-60% and 24h-50%). Creep specimens were cured with the accelerated method for
23.5 hours. At that time they were stripped and loaded at the age of 24 hours in the
environment controlled room. As explained in Section F.8.1, four individual readings were
178
taken from each specimen (two on each side). Later they were averaged in pairs obtaining
two strain measurements per specimen.
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
24h-40%
2000
24h-60%
1500
1000
500
0
0
100
200
4500
300
400
500
600
700
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
24h-40%
24h-60%
1000
500
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
Figure F.15. 8F HPLC Total strain (a) linear scale and (b) logarithmic scale.
179
The strain response (elastic strain, creep and shrinkage) of 8F is presented in Figure
F.15 in linear time scale (a), and logarithmic time scale (b).
After 680 days, total strain of 8F was 3,550 and 4,200 for 24h-40% and 24h-60%
specimens, respectively. Total strain did not change significantly since the measurement
done at 420 days. Total strain developed faster in the 24h-60% specimens than in the 24h40% specimens. 24h-60% specimens reached 50% and 90% of the 680-day strain after 1 and
150 days, respectively while 24h-40% specimens reached those levels after 5 and 250 days.
Figure F.16 presents the total strain measured in 10F HPLC for the two testing
conditions 24h-40% and 24h-50%. Average 680-day total strain was 2,800 and 3,100 for
the two stress levels. The last three measurements performed at 580, 610, and 680 days did
not change significantly which might indicate that long term strains have reached some sort
of stable condition. The small difference in total strain between the two stress levels might
be due to the actual stress levels of 40 and 50% used for 10F. Figure F.16 includes not only
creep, but also shrinkage and elastic strain; therefore, creep differences seem smaller.
Delayed strain rate was very similar for the 24h-40% and 24h-50% specimens. Both
reached 50% and 90% of the 680-day strain after 5 and 225 days.
In order to analyze creep, elastic strain and shrinkage was subtracted from data
presented in Figures F.15 and F.16, so only deformation due to creep (basic and drying) was
obtained. Figure F.17a presents creep and shrinkage of 8F HPLC, while Figure F.17b does it
for 10F HPLC.
When analyzing creep of 8F HPLC shown in Figure F.17a, it can be seen that 24h60% specimens reached a maximum after 325 days. 24h-40% specimens, on the other hand,
had some increase of creep strain after one year.
180
3000
2500
2000
24h-40%
1500
24h-50%
1000
500
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
24h-40%
24h-50%
500
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
Figure F.16. 10F HPLC Total strain (a) linear scale and (b) logarithmic scale.
181
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
8F Shrinkage
400
8F Creep 24h-40%
8F Creep 24h-60%
200
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
10F Shrinkage
10F Creep 24h-40%
200
10F Creep 24h-50%
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Figure F.17. Creep of HPLC loaded at 16 and 24 hours (a) 8F HPLC stress-to-strength ratio
of 40% and 60% (b)10F HPLC for stress-to-strength ratio of 40% and 50%.
182
Creep of 8F HPLC after 680 days was 1,750 and 1,880 for the two stress level
conditions. In general creep of 24h-60% specimens was developed faster than the one in 24h40% specimens. 50% and 90% of the 680-day creep was reached 21 and 50 days faster by
24h-60% specimens.
Creep of 10F specimens stored at 50% of relative humidity was approximately 1,100
and 1,225 for 24h-40% and 24h-50%, respectively. Creep results at 585, 607, and 680
days under load and drying were very similar indicating a possible steady condition. Creep
rate was very alike for the two stress conditions. After 22 days 24h-40% and 24h-50%
specimens had reached 50% of the 680-day creep, and after 335 days both had reached 90%
of 680-day creep.
Figure F.18 shows the specific creep measured on the two HPLC under study. Figure
F.18 also shows the limits proposed by FHWA for HPC Grade 2 and 3 (Goodspeed et al.,
1996). As shown in Figure F.18a, 8F specific creep was quite different for 24h-40% and
24h-60% specimens. It can be seen that creep of 8F specimens was not proportional to the
applied stress. 24h-40% specimens presented too much creep in comparison to the 24h-60%
specimens. The former specimens had a 680-day specific creep of 0.618 /psi compared
with only 0.442 /psi measured in the latter. When contrasted with the FHWA limits for an
HPC Grade 2, the same conclusion can be drawn: after 180 days under load, specific creep
for 40% and 60% stress level was 0.468 and 0.377 /psi which were higher and lower than
the upper boundary of 0.41 given by FHWA. It should be noticed that creep specimens were
neither cured for 7 days nor loaded at 28 days as recommended by ASTM C 512, so FHWA
limits are not entirely applicable. In fact, if specimens had been cured and loaded according
ASTM C 512, measured creep would have been lower.
183
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
8F Creep 24h-40%
0.20
8F Creep 24h-60%
0.10
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
10FB Creep 24h-40%
0.10
10FB Creep 24h-50%

0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Figure F.18. Specific creep of 8F HPLC (a) and 10F HPLC (b) and limits for FHWA HPC
Grade 2 and 3
184
2.00
Creep Coefficient
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
8F Creep Coefficient 24h-40%
0.50
0.25
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2.00
Creep Coefficient
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Figure F.19. Creep coefficient of 8F HPLC (a) and 10F HPLC (b).
700
According Figure F.18b, 10F specific creep after 680 days was approximately 0.330
regardless of the stress level. This means that creep observed in 10F specimens was
185
proportional to the applied stress. Specific creep after 180 days of loading and drying was on
average 0.218 /psi which is very close to the lower boundary proposed by FHWA for HPC
Grade 3 of 0.21 /psi.
When creep of 8F specimens is expressed as creep coefficient, as shown in Figure
F.19a, it can be seen that the creep presented by 8F specimens 24h-40% and 24h-60% is still
quite different. After 680 days creep coefficient of those specimens was 2.05 and 1.37,
respectively. This means that the proportionally high creep observed in 24h-40% specimens
cannot be explained based on the stiffness of those specimens. Moreover, the creep
difference observed in Figure F.19a (creep coefficient) was proportionally larger than the one
observed in Figure F.18a (specific creep).
With respect to creep coefficient, 10F HPLC presented similar findings to the ones
obtained using the specific creep (see Figure F.18b). That is, creep coefficient after 680 days
was approximately the same for the two stress levels (0.126). Creep of 10F HPLC is not
only proportional to the stress, but also proportional to the elastic strain obtained under the
same load.
F.9. Shrinkage
As recommended in ASTM C 512, companion shrinkage specimens were kept at
same conditions as the creep specimens, that is, accelerated cured for either 15.5 or 23.5
hours and then placed in the environment controlled room for testing.
Shrinkage specimens were still warm at the beginning of drying period, so the
shortening obtained from the DEMEC reading (total contraction) corresponded to
shrinkage and thermal contraction. Total contraction readings were corrected for temperature
in order to obtain the shrinkage portion.
186
900
800
Shrinkage ()
700
600
Individual Reading
500
Average Shrinkage
400
Total Contraction
300
Temp Correction
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
600
900
10L Individual Reading
10L Average Shrinkage
10L Total Contraction
10L Temp Correction
FHWA HPC Grade 3 Limit
800
700
Shrinkage ()
500
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Figure F.20. Shrinkage of 8L HPLC (a) and 10L HPLC (b) and limits for FHWA HPC
Grade 2 and 3.
187
The same correction was applied to the readings taken after 230 and 260 days after
the beginning of drying because the temperature in the environment controlled room raised
above 80 oF. Although creep specimens were also under change in temperature, creep data
did not need temperature correction because it was obtained by subtracting total
contraction from readings from creep specimens. Therefore, the computed creep values
already include temperature strain correction.
F.9.1. Shrinkage of 8L and 10L HPLC

Figure F.20 presents total contraction, temperature movement and shrinkage of the
8L and 10L HPLC. Figure F.20 also shows the drying shrinkage limits proposed by
Goodspeed et al. (1996) for FHWA HPC Grades 2 and 3 (Table A.2).
The 180-day shrinkage measured in 8L HPLC specimens at 50% relative humidity
was higher than the upper FHWA limit for HPC Grade 2 as shown in Figure F.20a.
However, the difference was less than 10%. In fact, average shrinkage after 180 days of
drying was approximately 650 while the upper boundary of HPC Grade 2 is 600 . As
stated for creep results, since shrinkage was not measured following the curing procedures of
ASTM C 157 (28-day moist curing), FHWA limits are not entirely applicable. FHWA limits
might be too severe for shrinkage measured after only one day of curing in HPLC mixes
because the specimens probably included important autogenous shrinkage as well as drying
shrinkage.
Figure F.18b shows that 180-day shrinkage of 10L HPLC was about 330 which is
below the upper boundary given for HPC Grade 3 of 400 . Figure F.20 also shows the
experimental variation of drying shrinkage by comparing individual readings with average
188
reading. From the experimental variation it can be concluded that even though 8L HPLC
presented much higher shrinkage than 10L HPLC, it had lower variance.
Differences among individual shrinkage results ranged between 33 and 50 and
between 56 and 77 for 8L and 10L HPLC, respectively. In spite of the higher variance of
10L HPLC shrinkage results, there were no individual values above 400 at 180 days.
As shown in Figure F.20a, 620-day shrinkage of 8L HPLC was 760 . 50% and 90%
of the 620-day shrinkage was reached approximately after 20 and 100 days of drying,
respectively. Figure F.20b shows that 620-day shrinkage of 10L HPLC was on average 427
. The 90% of the 620-day shrinkage was reached after one year of drying while the 50%
was reached after approximately 20 days.
F.9.2. Shrinkage of 8F and 10F HPLC

Figure F.21a presents detailed information about shrinkage of 8F HPLC which
includes individual results, average shrinkage, thermal correction and average shrinkage
before thermal correction. Figure F.19b gives the same information of Figure F.21a, but for
10F HPLC. Figure F.21 also includes the limits proposed by FHWA for HPC Grade 2 and 3.
8F HPLC had average 680-day shrinkage of 855 . However the variance around
the average value ranged between 700 to 1,000 . When analyzing shrinkage rate, two
portions can be distinguished: first, a fairly high and constant rate until 150 days of drying,
and secondly a flat portion with shrinkage around 860 between 150 and 680 days. All
individual readings of shrinkage after 180 days of drying were higher than FHWA upper
limit of 600 . Based on shrinkage change with time, it can be stated that the increase in
total strain of 8F HPLC (see Figure F.15) after 150 days was mostly due to creep since
shrinkage average did not change importantly.
189
1000
900
800
Shrinkage ()
700
600
500
8F Average Shrinkage
8F Total Contraction
8F Temp Correction
400
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1000
900
800
Shrinkage ()
700
600
500

10F Average Shrinkage
400
10F Total Contraction

10F Temp Correction
300
200
FHWA HPC Grade 3 Limit
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Figure F.21. Shrinkage of 8F HPLC (a) and 10F HPLC (b) and limits for FHWA HPC Grade
2 and 3.
190
10F HPLC had an average shrinkage after 680 days of drying of 788 . Individual
readings ranged from 712 to 868 which was considerably less than the variance seen in
Figure F.21a for 8F HPLC. Measured shrinkage after 180 days of drying was much higher
than the 400 limit proposed by FHWA.
In Figure F.21b, it can be also distinguished two main portions in shrinkage rate: one
from the beginning of drying to approximately 170 days and one from 170 to 680 days. The
first portion presents an accelerated and fairly constant rate while the second portion shows a
very slight change with time. As seen in Figure F.21b, shrinkage at 50% of relative humidity
developed very fast, but after six month stabilized. The change in length observed on the
creep specimens after 170 days was mainly due to creep since the change in shrinkage was
not important.
191
192
Appendix G. Analysis of Creep and Shrinkage

G.1 Comparison of Creep Performance of Laboratory HPLC with Field HPLC
As explained, 8,000 and 10,000-psi HPLC mixes were made in laboratory (8L/10L)
and field (8F/10F) using the same mix design. In Appendix F their mechanical properties
including creep and shrinkage are analyzed separately. In this section the performance of the
laboratory mixes is compared with the one of the field mixes. Creep is not compared directly
because the applied stress was not the same for laboratory and field mixes. Even though the
mixes were loaded to the same stress-to-initial strength ratio, they did not have the same
initial strength at 24 hours, so the applied stress was different. Nevertheless, specific creep
and creep coefficient can be compared regardless the applied stress because they are
expressed in terms of it.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) of specific creep (sc) and creep coefficient (c)
was performed. The considered factors were: time under load, stress level, and whether the
mix was prepared in laboratory or field. The tables presented with the ANOVA results (see
Tables G.1, G.2, and G.3) show in their first column the factors that are tested against the
variance of sc and c. Second and fourth columns present the contribution of each factor to
the total mean squared error (MSE). It is a number below 1.0; the closer to 1.0, the higher the
portion of the mean squared error explained by the factor. The third and fifth columns give
the P-value obtained for each factor. P-value represents the probability that the considered
factor is not significant in explaining the variance. A P-value less than 0.05 (generally
adopted as confidence limit) means that there is more than a 95% chance that the factor is
significant and should be included.
193
G.1.1. Comparison of Creep Performance of 8L HPLC with 8F HPLC

An analysis of variance was carried out between 8,000-psi mixes made in laboratory
(8L) and field (8F). The 8L HPLC was loaded at 16 and 24 hours while 8F was loaded only
at 24 hour. Hence, the comparison was performed for creep of specimens loaded at 24 hour
with a stress of 40% and 60% of initial strength. Table G.1 presents the most relevant results
from the ANOVA.
Table G.1. ANOVA results for creep of 8,000-psi HPLC
Factors
Time
Stress Level
Lab/Field
Specific Creep
Rel MSE
P-value
0.436
0.000
0.020
0.000
-0.001
0.746
Creep Coefficient
Rel MSE
P-value
0.447
0.000
0.027
0.000
0.001
0.145
Form Table G.1 it can be concluded that the factor Lab/Field is not a significant
factor for any of the creep parameters (sc or c). The relative MSE were less than 0.1% and
the P-values much greater than 0.05. Even though stress level had P-values below 0.05, the
portion of MSE explained by stress level was only 2.0 and 2.7% for sc and c, respectively.
The low contribution of stress level to the variability of sc and c was expected because the
creep deformation was divided by applied stress and elastic strain, respectively. Time was a
significant factor and explained 43.6 and 44.7% of variance. The fact that the relative MSE
of time was far from 1.0 is due to ANOVA model which considers a linear effect of the
factors. As it is shown in Section F.8, creep was not linear with time, but approximately
logarithmic.
Figure G.1 presents a comparison between average creep coefficient of 8L and 8F
HPLC. As concluded in section F.8, creep coefficient at 40% of initial strength was
194
somehow higher than the one for 60% stress level. That was also seen in ANOVA (see Table
G.1) where stress level is still significant for creep coefficient.
2.00
Creep Coefficient
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
8L 24h-40%
0.75
8F 24h-40%
8L 24h-60%
0.50
8F 24h-60%
0.25
0.00
0
100
200
300
Time (days)
400
500
600
2.00
1.75
Creep Coefficient
8L 24h-40%
1.50
8F 24h-40%
8L 24h-60%
1.25
8F 24h-60%
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.01
0.1
Time (days)
10
100
1000
Figure G.1. Creep coefficient of 8L and 8F HPLC (a) linear time scale and (b) logarithmic
time scale.
195
It also can be noticed in Figure G.1a that field mix had an average higher long-term
creep for 40% of stress level, but lower long-term creep for 60% stress level. From Figure
G.1b it can be seen that creep coefficient curves intercept each other several times during the
testing period.
Results for less than one day show that field mix had more early creep than the
laboratory mix. However, after 100 days under load the opposite conclusion can be drawn.
The multiple intersections between creep curves from laboratory and field indicates that even
though the averages show visible differences there are overlaps in the results.
From ANOVA it can be concluded that the place of casting (laboratory or field) was
not a significant factor; therefore, 8L and 8F HPLC are the same HPLC and from now on
they might be referred as 8,000-psi HPLC.
G.1.2. Comparison of Creep Performance of 10L HPLC with 10F HPLC

Four specimens of the 10L HPLC were loaded at 16 hours and four more at 24 hours.
Field mix (10F) specimens were loaded only at 24 hours. Therefore, the comparison was
performed for creep of specimens loaded at 24 hours with two stress levels: 40% and 60% of
initial strength for laboratory mix and 40% and 50% for field mix. Table G.2 presents the
most relevant results from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Figure G.2 shows the
average specific creep and creep coefficient for each type of mix.
Table G.2. ANOVA results for creep of 10,000-psi HPLC
Factors
Time
Stress Level
Lab/Field
Specific Creep
Rel MSE
P-value
0.364
0.000
0.002
0.072
0.003
0.024
196
Creep Coefficient
Rel MSE
P-value
0.365
0.000
0.000
0.412
0.000
0.492
1.25
Creep Coefficient
1.00
0.75
10L 24h-40%
0.50
10F 24h-40%
10L 24h-60%
0.25
10F 24h-50%
0.00
0
100
200
300
Time (days)
400
500
600
1.25
10L 24h-40%
10F 24h-40%
Creep Coefficient
1.00
10L 24h-60%
10F 24h-50%
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Time (days)
100
1000
Figure G.2. Creep coefficient of 10L and 10F HPLC (a) linear time scale and (b)
logarithmic time scale.
197
From Table G.2 it can be concluded that the factor Lab/Field was significant for sc,
but it explained only 0.3% of the mean squared error (Rel MSE=0.003). Lab/Field factor was
not significant for creep coefficient (it has a P-value of 0.492 and Relative MSE of 0.%).
Stress level was not significant for any of the creep parameters; P-values were greater than
0.05 and relative MSE was 0.2% and 0% for sc and c, respectively.
Figure G.2 presents a comparison between creep coefficient of 10L and 10F HPLC.
From ANOVA results it was concluded that stress level was not a significant factor for creep
coefficient.
The same conclusion can be observed from Figure G.2a and G.2b. It also can be
noticed in Figure G.2a that field mix had an average higher long-term creep coefficient than
laboratory mix. However, Figure G.2b shows that creep coefficient curves are not parallel
and constantly intercept each other during the testing period.
From ANOVA and Figure G.2, it can be stated that the place of casting (laboratory or
field) and stress level were not significant factors for creep of 10,000-psi HPLC. As a
conclusion 10L and 10F are the same HPLC and from now on they might be referred as
10,000-psi HPLC.
G.2 Comparison of Creep of 8,000-psi HPLC with 10,000-psi HPLC

Following the same procedure described in Section G.1, creep performance of 8,000psi and 10,000-psi HPLC was compared. The factors considered were time under load, stress
level (40% or 60% of initial strength), compressive strength (8,000 psi or 10,000 psi), and
time of application of load (16 hours or 24 hours). Table G.3 presents the most relevant
results from the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data used in this comparison came from the
198
laboratory mixes because they included two ages of loading. However, as it was concluded in
last section they are representative of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes.
Table G.3. ANOVA results for creep of HPLC
Factors
Time
Compressive Strength
Age at loading
Stress Level
Specific Creep
Rel MSE
P-value
0.610
0.000
0.099
0.000
0.040
0.000
0.024
0.000
Creep Coefficient
Rel MSE
P-value
0.587
0.000
0.068
0.000
0.025
0.000
0.015
0.000
From Table G.3 it can be concluded that all the four factors were statistically
significant since none of the P-values were above 0.05. Stress level was the least important
factor. It explained 2.4 and 1.5% of the mean squared error (MSE) of sc and c, respectively.
Age of loading was more important than stress level, but explained only 4 and 2.5% of the
mean squared error (MSE) of sc and c, respectively. As a result, if age of loading and stress
level are dropped from creep coefficient as factors, the mean squared error decreases only
4%. Compressive strength was more important than the two previous factors explaining 9.9
and 6.8% of mean squared error. Therefore, if strength of mix is not considered as a factor,
the mean squared error would increase more importantly. Finally, time under load was, as
expected, the most important factor explaining variance of sc and c.
Figure G.3 presents a comparison between creep coefficient of 8L and 10L HPLC.
Figure G.3a shows creep coefficient at different age of loading; stress levels are also
presented. From the data it was concluded that, besides from the series 10L 16h-40%, age
at application of load and stress level did not importantly change creep of 8,000-psi and
10,000-psi HPLC. After 620 days under load and drying, 8,000-psi creep coefficient ranged
between 1.59 and 1.74. 10,000-psi HPLC had a 620-day creep coefficient between 1.03 and
1.25.
199
1.75
1.50
Creep Coefficient
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
8L 16h-40%
8L 24h-40%
10L 16h-40%
10L 24h-40%
8L 16h-60%
8L 24h-60%
10L 16h-60%
10L 24h-60%
0.00
0
1.75
Creep Coefficient
1.50
1.25
100
200
300
Time (days)
8L 16h-40%
8L 24h-40%
10L 16h-40%
10L 24h-40%
8L 16h-60%
8L 24h-60%
10L 16h-60%
10L 24h-60%
400
500
600
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
Time (days)
Figure G.3. Creep coefficient of 8L and 10L HPLC (a) linear time scale and (b) logarithmic
time scale.
200
Figure G.3b shows that creep coefficient curves are fairly parallel showing that creep
of 10,000-psi (excluding10L 16h-40%) was lower for almost any time under load.
From ANOVA and Figure G.3, it can be concluded that age at application of load (16
or 24 hours) and stress level were not important factors for creep of HPLC, and 10,000-psi
HPLC had on average lower creep than 8,000-psi HPLC.
Figure G.4 presents the average creep coefficient obtained from 8,000-psi and
10,000-psi mixes in logarithmic time scale.
Figure G.4 shows that 620-day creep coefficient was 1.684 and 1.143 for 8,000-psi
and 10,000-psi HPLC, respectively. The 50% and 90% of 620-day creep coefficient were
reached after 16 and 250 days regardless the type of HPLC.
1.8
1.6
Creep Coefficient
1.4
8,000-psi HPLC
1.2
10,000-psi HPLC
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Time (days)
100
1000
Figure G.4. Average creep coefficient of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC in logarithmic time
scale.
201
G.3 Comparison of Shrinkage of 8,000-psi HPLC with 10,000-psi HPLC

Following the same procedure described in Section G.1, shrinkage performance of
8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC was compared. The factors considered were time under
drying, compressive strength (8,000 psi or 10,000 psi), age at the beginning of drying (16
hours or 24 hours). Table G.4 presents the most relevant ANOVA output from four different
comparisons: (1) Place of mixing for 8,000-psi HPLC (8L vs. 8F); (2) Compressive strength
for laboratory mixes (8L vs. 10L); (3) Compressive strength for field mixes (8F vs. 10F);
and (4) Place of mixing for 10,000-psi HPLC (10L vs. 10F).
Since relative mean squared error (MSE) was negative and P-value was greater than
0.05 for the first comparison (8L vs. 8F), it can be concluded that the place of mixing was not
a significant factor for shrinkage of 8,000-psi HPLC.
Table G.4 ANOVA results for shrinkage of HPLC
Factors
Time under drying

Compressive Strength
Age at drying
Laboratory/Field
Shrinkage
8L vs. 8F
Rel
PMSE value
0.472 0.000
-0.002
Shrinkage
8L vs. 10L
Rel
PMSE value
0.851 0.001
0.021 0.000
-0.001 0.588
0.675
Shrinkage
8F vs. 10F
Rel
PMSE value
0.618 0.000
0.000 0.303
Shrinkage
10L vs. 10F
Rel
PMSE value
1.028 0.000
0.028
0.007
Age at the beginning of drying (16 or 24 hours) was also analyzed for the laboratory
mixes (8L and 10L). ANOVA results showed that it was not a statistically significant factor.
10L HPLC had considerable less shrinkage than 8L mix. ANOVA demonstrated that
compressive strength of the mix was a significant factor affecting shrinkage (P-value less
than 0.001). On the contrary, shrinkage was not clearly different within the field mixes (8F
202
vs. 10F). Therefore, compressive strength was not significant (P-value above 0.05) for field
mixes.
In addition, a significant difference was detected when comparing shrinkage of 10L
and 10F HPLC; P-value was less than 0.05 and relative MSE was 2.8%. Therefore, place of
mixing (laboratory or field) affected shrinkage of 10,000-psi HPLC.
Figure G.5 presents the shrinkage results obtained for each HPLC. As concluded
from ANOVA, there is a clear difference between 8L and 10L HPLC at any time of drying
(Figure G.5a). 8L and 8F mixes had a similar average value though the variance of the 8F
shrinkage result was higher than the one of 8L HPLC.
Figure G.6 presents the average shrinkage obtained from 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi
mixes in logarithmic time scale.
Figure G.6 shows that 620-day shrinkage was 818 and 610 for 8,000-psi and
10,000-psi HPLC, respectively. At very early ages (less than one day) shrinkage of 10,000psi mix was considerably greater than 8,000-psi mix. After one day, shrinkage rate of the
10,000-psi mix slowed down, and measured shrinkage was much lower for that HPLC. 50%
and 90% of 620-day shrinkage was reached after 27 and 170 days for 8,000-psi HPLC and
after 55 and 170 days for 10,000-psi mix.
203
1000
900
800
Shrinkage ()
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
8L16
8L24
10L16
10L24
8L Average
10L Average
0
0
100
200
300
Time (days)
400
500
600
1000
900
Shrinkage ()
800
700
600
500
400
8F Average
10F Average
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
Time (days)
500
600
700
Figure G.5. Shrinkage of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC (a) laboratory mixes and (b) field
mixes.
204
800
700
Shrinkage ()
600
500
8,000-psi HPLC
10,000-psi HPLC
400
300
200
100
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Time (days)
100
1000
Figure G.6. Average shrinkage of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC in logarithmic time scale
G.4 Comparison of Creep and Shrinkage Test Results with Code Models
G.4.1. Creep and Shrinkage Models Results
Models presented in section C.1 for normal strength concrete and models presented in
section C.2 for high strength concrete were used to predict creep of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi
HPLC. The parameters used in the models are presented in Table G.5.
Since the last experimental results were taken after 620 days of drying and loading,
Table G.6 presents measured and predicted shrinkage and specific creep at that age. Table
G.6 also presents the predicted values at 40 years which represents the ultimate creep and
shrinkage values.
205
Table G.5. Parameters used in creep prediction equations

Parameter
t: age of concrete at loading
t0: age of concrete at drying
Steam curing
fci: initial compressive strength (psi)
fc: 56-day compressive strength (psi)
Ec: 56-day elastic modulus (ksi)
c (40%): stress at 40% fci (psi)
Elastic strain at c (40%)
c (60%): stress at 60% fci(psi)
Elastic strain at c (60%)
Slump (in)
Air Content (%)
1
Mix
8,000
10,000
1 day
1 day
1 day
7,730
11,100
10,000 11,475
4,020
4,240
2,845
3,517
890
1,059
4,273
5,276
1,307
1,470
4.5
4.0
3.75
3.50
Parameter
V: specimen volume
S: specimen surface
area
V/S: volume-tosurface ratio
Mix design (lb/yd3)
c: cement
w: water
a: total aggregate
s: sand content
g: lightweight agg1
h: relative humidity
Mix
8,000 10,000
188.5 in3
188.5 in2
1 in
944
990
268
227
2,764 2,787
1022
1030
1724
1757
50%
weight occupied by the same volume of normal weight aggregate.

Table G.6. Long-term shrinkage and specific creep
Parameter
Measured
ACI-209
AASHTO-LRFD
CEB-FIP
BP
B3
GL
SAK-93
Shams & Kahn
CEB-FIP - HSC
BP - HSC
SAK-2001 - HSC
AFREM - HSC
620-day
40-year
shrinkage
shrinkage
8,000 10,000 8,000 10,000

763
610
644
640
698
694
725
725
755
755
381
313
407
334
322
298
330
310
385
329
390
334
555
530
594
568
291
230
297
234
590
585
604
599
381
313
407
334
322
298
330
310
512
357
553
382
396
350
408
359
620-day creep
coefficient
40-year creep
coefficient
8,000
1.66
1.739
1.965
3.727
3.928
4.465
5.112
4.464
1.479
2.896
3.357
1.451
1.137
8,000
10,000
2.305
1.529
4.202
4.746
5.325
5.585
4.528
1.634
3.279
4.649
2.164
1.215
2.173
1.439
4.019
4.65
5.392
5.585
2.856
1.523
3.058
4.519
1.531
1.051
10,000
1.29
1.639
1.852
3.564
3.807
4.511
5.111
2.815
1.373
2.707
3.254
1.027
0.941
In order to establish a better comparison, Figure G.7 presents the predicted-tomeasured ratio creep coefficient and shrinkage after 620 days of drying and loading. The
computed ratio was greater and lower than one for overestimates and underestimates,
respectively.
206
Predicted-to-measured value
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
ACI-209
AASHTO-LRFD
CEB-FIP
BP
B3
GL
SAK-93
SHAMS & KAHN
CEB-FIP - HSC
BP - HSC
SAK-2001 - HSC
AFREM - HSC
8,000-psi 620-day Shrinkage

8,000-psi 620-day Creep Coefficient
10,000-psi 620-day Shrinkage
10,000-psi 620-day Creep Coefficient
Figure G.7. Predicted-to-measured ratio of 620-day specific creep and shrinkage of HPLC
Figure G.7 shows that the best shrinkage estimate is given by AASHTO LRFD and
Shams and Kahns model, for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC, respectively. Those models
underestimated shrinkage by only 5 and 4%, respectively. Creep coefficient of 8,000-psi
HPLC was best predicted by AASHTO LRFD model with an underestimate of 8% while
creep coefficient of 10,000-psi HPLC was best predicted by Shams and Kahn with 6%
overestimate. If it is assumed that such models are the most adequate for predicting HPLC
207
long-term performance and that the 620-day predicted-to-measured ratio is maintained at

ultimate, the ultimate shrinkage would be 795 and 625 for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi
HPLC, respectively. In addition, ultimate creep coefficient would be 1.925 and 1.431 for
8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC, respectively.
Hence, at 50% of relative humidity, ultimate total strain of 8,000-psi HPLC (elastic,
shrinkage and creep) would be approximately 3,400 and 4,620 , for stress-to-strength ratio
of 0.4 and 0.6, respectively. Under the same conditions 10,000-psi HPLC would have a total
strain of 3,200 and 4,200 when stressed at 40 and 60% of it initial strength.
G.4.2. Creep Models Performance Comparison

Figure G.8 presents a comparison between measured creep coefficient versus time
and predicted values using normal strength concrete models (section C.1). Figure G.8a
shows results for 8,000-psi HPLC and Figure G.8b does it for 10,000-psi HPC. A more
detailed comparison for each model is presented in Appendix L.
When comparing model performance from Figure G.8a, it can be concluded that ACI209 model had the best overall performance closely followed by AASHTO-LRFD model.
Even though ACI-209 model under estimated creep for time under load less than 10 days and
overestimated creep for times greater than 100 days, it was the one with best agreement with
the experimental data. The second best model was AASHTO-LRFD model which followed
the same tendency as ACI-209 at early ages, but continued underestimating creep at all ages.
208
3.0
Gardner
Lockman
Baant
Baweja
CEB-FIP
2.5
Creep Coefficient
Sakata 93
2.0
Baant
Panula
1.5
AASHTO
LRFD
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.01
3.0
8,000-psi Measured
0.10
Gardner
Lockman
1.00
10.0
100
Baant
Baweja
1000
Sakata 93
2.0
10000
CEB-FIP
2.5
Creep Coefficient
ACI-209
ACI-209
Baant
Panula
1.5
AASHTO
LRFD
1.0
0.5
10,000-psi Measured
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
10000
normal strength concrete: (a) 8,000-psi HPLC, (b) 10,000-psi HPLC.
The good performance presented by ACI-209 model might be due to that model is
explicitly including SLC in its data base. However, because the model was largely based on
209
work done between 1957 and 1970 it can be assumed that high strength concrete and
supplementary cementing materials were not part of the database.
All the other models greatly overestimated creep of 8,000-psi HPLC especially after
10 days under load. Figure G.8b shows the same general tendencies of Figure G.8a. The best
model among the models for normal strength concrete was AASHTO-LRFD. For 10,000-psi
HPLC that model was in great agreement with experimental data for any time under load
between 1 and 600 days. ACI-209 model, the second best, tended to overestimate creep
coefficient for times under load greater than 30 days.
Figure G.9 shows a comparison between experimental creep coefficient and estimated
creep coefficient using high strength concrete models (section C.2). Again, part (a) of Figure
G.9 compares data from 8,000-psi HPLC and part (b) compares 10,000-psi HPLC data (for
more details see Appendix L).
In Figure G.9 it can be seen that the performance of creep models for HSC was in
general better than the ones for normal strength concrete. Even though BP and CEB-FIP
were modified for HSC, they still greatly overestimated creep of 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi
HPLC. BP modified for HSC overestimated creep at all ages while CEB-FIP Modified for
HSC did it for ages greater than 20 days.
The AFREM model, on the other hand, tended to underestimate creep. As shown on
Table G.6 and Figure G.9, 620-day specific creep predicted by AFREM was approximately
68 and 73% of the measured value for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC, respectively. Shams
and Kahns model (2000) and Sakatas model (2001) gave the best estimates of the 620-day
creep coefficient of 8,000-psi HPLC.
210
3.0
8,000-psi Measured
Creep Coefficient
2.5
BP
MOD-HSC
CEB-FIP
MOD-HSC
Sakata
2001
2.0
1.5
1.0
Shams&
Kahn
0.5
0.0
0.01
AFREM
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
10000
3.0
10,000-psi Measured
Creep Coefficient
2.5
BP
MOD-HSC
2.0
CEB-FIP
MOD-HSC
Shams&
Kahn
1.5
1.0
Sakata
2001
0.5
AFREM
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
10000
high strength concrete: (a) 8,000-psi HPLC, (b) 10,000-psi HPLC.
211
Despite the fact that the two models gave a very similar 620-day estimate, from
Figure G.9a Sakatas model underestimated creep for time under load less than 300 days.
The best model among the models for HSC was Shams and Kahn model which not
only gave a good 620-day estimate, but also followed the shape of the experimental data as
well.
Figure G.9b presents a similar scenario as Figure G.9a, Sakatas model and
AASHTO-LRFD as modified by Shams and Kahn gave the two best estimates after 620-day
under load. The AFREM model also gave reasonable estimations for 10,000-psi HPLC.
However, the best model, including early and late ages, was AASHTO-LRFD model as
modified by Shams and Kahn.
Overall, the model with the best performance for estimating creep of 8,000-psi and
10,000-psi HPLC, including models for NSC and HSC, was AASHTO-LRFD model as
modified by Shams and Kahn.
Table G.7 presents the sum of squared error (SSE) and coefficient of determination
(R2) between experimental data and creep models for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC.
Models are presented ordered by performance (best performance model at the top).
As shown in Table G.7 the best model for estimating creep was AASHTO-LRFD
model as modified by Shams and Kahn, which presented the lowest SSE for 8,000-psi and
10,000-psi (0.9 and 0.3, respectively) and consequently the largest R2 (0.922 and 0.945,
respectively). AASHTO-LRFD model presented the overall second best performance with
an average10 SSE of 0.95 and the second largest average10 R2 (0.899). In third place, but far
10
Average of the parameter obtained for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC
212
away from the first two was ACI-209 model with average10 SSE and R2 of 2.55 and 0.608,
respectively.
Baant and Bawejas model (B3) and Gardner and Lockmans model (GL) gave the
least good performance for HPLC. Negative values in Table G.7 indicate that SSE between
model estimate and data were greater than the variance in the data itself. The latter means
that the model estimates were so deviated from data that using only the average of data
(average includes results at any time regardless the time under drying) gives a lower SSE
than the model.
Table G.7. Sum of squared error and coefficient of determination of creep coefficient models
8,000-psi HPLC
Model
SSE
Shams & Kahn
ACI-209
AASHTO
AFREM
SAK2001
CEB HSC
BP HSC
CEB-FIP
BP
SAK1993
B3
GL
0.9
1.2
1.5
5.0
6.0
17.3
46.0
53.9
89.4
108.2
138.9
304.4
10,000-psi HPLC
Model
SSE
R2
0.922
0.895
0.871
0.561
0.467
<0.0
<0.0
<0.0
<0.0
<0.0
<0.0
<0.0
Shams & Kahn

AASHTO
AFREM
ACI-209
SAK2001
CEB HSC
SAK1993
BP HSC
CEB-FIP
BP
B3
GL
0.3
0.4
2.2
3.9
4.2
26.3
33.4
64.0
70.4
107.8
186.4
365.5
R2
0.946
0.927
0.606
0.295
0.292
<0.0
<0.0
<0.0
<0.0
<0.0
<0.0
<0.0
AASHTO-LRFD as modified by Shams and Kahn and AASHTO-LRFD, the two

models that better estimate creep of HPLC, utilized the maturity of concrete at loading rather
than age. As shown in Section B.2, age of loading is an important factor in determining
creep. For precast prestressed concrete members the age of application of load can be as low
as 16 hours, so creep becomes very dependant of concrete mechanical properties at the
moment of loading. HPC usually includes high contents of cementitious materials which
generate more heat of hydration than normal strength concrete. This heat of hydration is
213
responsible for raising concrete temperature at levels as high as 145 oF which accelerates the
hydration process. This self feeding reaction increases concrete mechanical properties above
the expected values. Because maturity includes temperature history, it leads to more accurate
estimate of concrete performance. Shams and Kahns and AASHTO-LRFD models were
able to better estimate creep because 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC had a maturity at 24
hours equivalent to 147 and 158 hours (6.1 and 6.6 days).
G.4.3. Shrinkage Models Performance Comparison

8,000-psi HPLC
Figure G.10 presents a comparison between measured shrinkage in 8L HPLC and
predicted values using normal strength concrete and HSC models (section C.1 and C.2). A
more detailed comparison for each model is presented in Appendix L.
As shown in Table G.4, AASHTO-LRFD model gave the best shrinkage estimate at
620 days after the starting of drying. The same conclusion was also true for anytime greater
than 30 days. For drying times less than 5 days AASHTO-LRFD model underestimated
shrinkage. AASHTO-LRFD model as modified by Shams and Kahn also presented good
performance in the range 5 to 100 days of drying. After 100 days, however, the latter model
tended to underestimate shrinkage of 8,000-psi HPLC. ACI-209 shrinkage model
underestimated shrinkage at any age, but the shape of the shrinkage curve was very similar to
the experimental data.
The other five models for normal strength concrete behaved similarly and
underestimated shrinkage at anytime after drying started. Sakatas (1993) and BP models
presented the two lowest estimates on this group. They estimated shrinkage at 620 days as
214
300 and 330 , respectively. Models that include HSC in its scope (AFREM and Sakata
2001) did not behave better, and their estimates were in the range given by NSC ranges.
All considered models (for NSC and HSC) greatly underestimated shrinkage at early
ages (less than 3 days). Early age experimental shrinkage was between 100 and 170 while
all the estimates were in the range 0 to 100 .
A possible explanation of this poor performance at early ages might be due to
autogenous shrinkage. As explained in Section B.4.2, autogenous shrinkage might be
included on shrinkage measurements when testing started early ages such as 24 hours.
215
ACI-209
700
8,000-psi Measured
600
Shams
&Kahn
Gardner
Lockman
AASHTO
LRFD
Shrinkage ()
500
AFREM
Sakata 2001
400
300
Baant
Panula
200
100
0
0.01
Baant
Baweja
CEB-FIP
Sakata 93
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
10000
10,000-psi HPLC
Figure G.11 presents a comparison between shrinkage of 10,000-psi and the values
predicted using the models presented in the literature.
216
As seen in Figure G.11, ACI-209, Shams and Kahns and Gardner and Lockmans
(GL) models gave fairly good estimated of shrinkage for any time except for the first 24
hours. AASHTO-LRFD model overestimated shrinkage for drying periods longer than 10
days.
700
10,000-psi Measured
600
ACI-209
Shams
&Kahn
Gardner
Lockman
AASHTO
LRFD
500
Shrinkage ()
Sakata 2001
Baant
Baweja
400
300
AFREM
200
Baant
Panula
100
CEB-FIP
Sakata 93
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
1000
10000
All the rest of the models greatly underestimated shrinkage for times greater than 100
days of drying regardless whether they were meant for HSC or not. Experimental shrinkage
of 10,000-psi HPLC was generally bounded by the estimates of Gardner and Lockmans
(GL) and ACI-209 models. After 620 days experimental shrinkage was 610 while GL and
217
ACI-209 estimated 530 and 640 , respectively. If it is assumed that GL and ACI-209 are
good bounds for ultimate shrinkage, it can be stated that ultimate shrinkage would be less
than 694 (ACI-209 estimate).
Table G.8 presents the sum of squared error (SSE) and coefficient of determination
(R2) between experimental shrinkage and of models.
Table G.8 Sum of squared error and coefficient of determination of shrinkage models
8,000-psi HPLC
Model
SSE
AASHTO
159118
Shams and Kahn 406485
ACI-209
598791
GL
745030
SAK2001
1348516
AFREM
1869585
B3
2211313
CEB-FIP
2247762
BP
2629329
SAK1993
3396498
R2
0.929
0.820
0.734
0.669
0.401
0.170
0.019
0.002
<0.0
<0.0
10,000-psi HPLC
Model
SSE
GL
74390
ACI209
121631
Shams and Kahn 172596
AASHTO
412376
AFREM
516334
SAK2001
640493
B3
666277
CEB-FIP
759697
BP
770986
SAK1993
1290219
R2
0.931
0.887
0.840
0.617
0.521
0.406
0.382
0.295
0.284
<0.0
As shown in Table G.8, the highest R2 values were very similar for 8,000-psi and
10,000-psi HPLC and were obtained by AASHTO-LRFD and GL model, respectively.
AASHTO-LRFD model as modified by Shams and Kahn, which had the second best
performance for 8,000-psi mix, had the third best for 10,000-psi mix. It must be noted that
the same four models obtained the four best performances for the two types of HPLC. When
R2 values from each mix were averaged in order to obtain an overall performance,
AASHTO-LRFD as modified by Shams and Kahn and ACI-209 models had the two highest
R2 average values with 0.830 and 0.811, respectively.
218
G.5 Comparison of Creep and Shrinkage of HPLC with HPC

Since 1998, Georgia Institute of Technology and Georgia Department of
Transportation have been developing and investigating High Performance Concrete of
normal weight with locally available materials in Georgia. During Task 3: Use of High
Strength/High Performance Concrete for Precast Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders, timedependent behavior of high performance concrete (HPC) was investigated. Six HPC mixes
were developed, and creep and shrinkage of each were measured for 480 days after loading
and drying. In Task 6 Evaluation of Georgias High Performance Concrete Bridge creep
performance of an HPC Grade 3 mix was measured and evaluated for 650 days.
This section presents a comparison between creep and shrinkage of 10,000-psi HPLC
and HPC mixes from Task 3 and Task 6 of HPC project. Testing parameters and mechanical
properties of mix G2/27 mix (from Task 3) and 2S mix (from Task 6) were adequately
similar for comparison with HPLC. Table G.9 presents mix design, mechanical properties
and some fresh properties of HPC-3 (G2/27 mix), HPC-6, and the 10,000-psi HPLC11 mixes.
HPC-3 and HPC-6 might be classified as an HPC Grade 3 according to the FHWA
designation. They are a 10,000-psi compressive strength mix with most of its properties
equivalent to the one obtained for HPLC. The HPC-6 mix had about the same paste volume
and total cementitious content as the HPLC mix; therefore it was regarded as most similar.
From Table G.9 it can be seen that HPLC and the two HPC had similar water-tocementitious material ratio and similar compressive strength at 24 hours. At 56 days HPC-3
and HPC-6 had a compressive strength higher than the average value measured on HPLC.
11
In this section 10,000-psi HPLC is referred as HPLC because there is no other HPLC being
compared
219
The 24-hour elastic modulus of HPC-3 was similar to the maximum obtained for its HPLC
counterpart. HPC-6 had a 24-hour modulus of elasticity lower than HPLC mix. HPC-6 and
HPLC had very similar cement paste content (0.443 yd3 and 0.458 yd3, respectively), but that
was considerably higher than that of HPC-3 (0.381 yd3). As explained in Section B.2.3,
creep and shrinkage of concrete increase as the relative amount of cement paste increases.
Table G.9. Mix design and properties of HPLC and HPC, for one cubic yard
Amount
10,000-psi
HPLC
Cement, Type I (lbs)

Cement, Type III (lbs)
Fly ash, class F (lbs)
Silica Fume, Force 10,000 (lbs)
Brown Brothers #2 sand (lbs)
Coarse Aggregate (lbs)
Water (lbs)
Water-to-cementitious ratio
Cement paste volume (yd3)
Air entrainer (oz)
Retarder (oz)
Water reducer (oz)
High-range water reducer (oz)
ASTM-cured 56-day compressive strength (psi)
Accelerated-cured 24-hour compressive strength (psi)
ASTM-cured 56-day elastic modulus (ksi)
Accelerated-cured 24-hour elastic modulus (ksi)
Slump (in)
Air content (%)
Unit weight (lb/ft3)
740
150
100
1030
955
227.3
0.230
0.458
9.5
0
57
132
10,25011,500
8,30011,100
4,0504,330
3,5504,250
4-6
3.5-4.5
114-122
HPC-3
HPC-6
675
796
100
33
1,000
1,750
208
0.257
0.381
16
21
0
188
11,619
98
70
965
1837
237
0.246
0.443
7
0
35
169
13,618
7,957
8,455
4,748
4,973
4,244
3,410
7
5
144
4.6
4.2
147
G.5.1. Creep Comparison

Figure G.12 presents a comparison of creep expressed as specific creep of each mix.
Figure G.12 (a) and (b) show the same data, but the time after loading is in linear and
220
logarithmic time scale, respectively. From Figure G.12a and G.12b it can be concluded that
average specific creep of HPLC was much lower than the specific creep of HPC-6 and
slightly lower than the specific creep of HPC-3. This was true for at any time after 20 days
under load.
At early times after loading (less than 10 days) HPC-3 and HPLC had equivalent
specific creep. Figure G.12b shows that after 3 days, the creep curves of HPC-3 and HPLC
are not parallel which implies that creep rate of HPLC was lower than the one of HPC.
Figure G.13 presents creep coefficient of the mixes presented in Table G.9. Creep
coefficient represents creep as a function of the elastic strain obtained under the same load.
The HPLC had a lower average elastic modulus than the normal weight counterpart of the
same strength.
From Figure G.13 it can be seen that the difference between HPC-3 and HPLC was
slightly greater than the one obtained using specific creep. On the contrary, the difference
between HPC-6 and HPLC was slightly lower due to the lower 24-hour modulus of elasticity
of HPC-6. Figure G.13 demonstrates that HPLC had the lowest 620-day creep in relation to
the elastic strain. The first hours of measurements creep of HPLC was significantly lower
than that of HPC-6, but the difference decreased as the time under load increased. The ratio
between HPC-6 and HPLC creep coefficients was 2.03, 1.86, and 1.53 for 40, 100 and 500
days. After 40 days the creep coefficient of HPLC started to be noticeably lower than that of
HPC-3. After 40 days the ratio between HPC-3 and HPLC creep coefficients remained fairly
steady around 1.13.
221
0.60
Specific Creep
0.50
0.40
0.30
HPLC
0.20
HPC-3
HPC-6
0.10
0.00
100
200
300
400
Time (days)
500
600
0.60
0.50
Specific Creep
HPLC
HPC-3
0.40
HPC-6
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Time (days)
100
1000
Figure G.12. Comparison between specific creep of HPC and HPLC mixes (a) linear time
scale and (b) logarithmic time scale
222
2.0
Creep Coefficient
1.5
1.0
HPLC
HPC-3
0.5
0.0
HPC-6
100
200
2.0
500
600
HPLC
1.5
Creep Coefficient
300
400
Time (days)
HPC-3
HPC-6
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Time (days)
100
1000
Figure G.13. Comparison between creep coefficient of HPC and HPLC mixes (a) linear
time scale and (b) logarithmic time scale.
223
G.5.2. Shrinkage Comparison

Figure G.14 compares shrinkage of HPLC and the two HPC mixes. Figure G.14 is
comprised of a linear time scale plot (G.14a) and a logarithmic time scale plot (G.14b) for
highlighting long-term and early-age behavior, respectively.
Average shrinkage of HPC-3, HPC-6 and HPLC was of the same magnitude for any
time up to 480 days of drying. After 480 days only HPC-6 and HPLC experimental results
are available, and they show an increasing difference as time increases. Shrinkage of HPC-6
did not increase significantly after one year while HPLC shrinkage went from 550 to 600
during the 365-to-600-day period.
Before one year of drying, there were some periods in which one of the mixes had
more shrinkage than the others. For instance, before 10 days under drying, HPC-6 had the
least shrinkage, and HPC-3 had the most. Between 10 and 100 days after the beginning of
dying the experimental results overlapped. After 250 days shrinkage of HPLC was higher
than shrinkage of the other two normal weight mixes. HPC-3 and HPLC presented very
similar shrinkage rate. Figure G.14b, shows that the two shrinkage curves were fairly
parallel. HPC-6, on the other hand, showed a much faster shrinkage rate until 100 days of
drying, and after that it showed almost no increase in shrinkage.
From creep comparison it was concluded that creep of HPLC was either lower or very
similar to creep of the HPC of the same strength. On the other hand, from shrinkage
comparison it seems that shrinkage of HPLC was higher than HPC counterparts after one
year.
224
600
Shrinkage ()
500
400
300
HPLC
HPC-3
200
HPC-6
100
0
0
100
300
400
Time (days)
500
600
600
HPLC
500
Shrinkage ()
200
HPC-3
HPC-6
400
300
200
100
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Time (days)
100
1000
Figure G.14. Comparison between shrinkage of HPC and HPLC mixes (a) linear time scale
and (b) logarithmic time scale.
225
G.5.3. Total Strain Projection

Various mathematical models (logarithmic, hyperbolic, and exponential) were fitted
to specific creep and shrinkage of HPLC and the two HPC mixes. Exponential model (based
on Sakatas model, 1993) gave good12 fits for specific creep for the three mixes. On the
other hand, hyperbolic tangent model (based on B3 model) gave good3 fits for shrinkage of
HPLC and HPC mixes. Figure G.15a shows specific creep of the mixes and its respective
exponential regressions. Figure G.15b shows shrinkage data and the hyperbolic tangent
regressions.
With the best fit curves, values at ultimate (40 years) can be estimated for specific
creep and shrinkage of HPLC and HPCs. Once ultimate specific creep and ultimate
shrinkage were estimated; the total strain at 40 years (elastic strain, creep and shrinkage) was
calculated. Table G.10 presents the obtained estimates.
Table G.10. Ultimate strain estimates for HPLC and HPC loaded at 40 and 60% of its initial
strength.
HPLC
HPC-3
HPC-6
Stress
Stress
Stress
Stress
Stress
Stress
level
level
level
level
level
level
40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
Elastic Modulus1
3,663
3,949
3,350
stress (psi)
4,000
6,000
4,000
6,000
4,000
6,000
Elastic Strain2 ()
1,092
1,638
1,013
1,519
1,191
1,786
Shrinkage3 ()
607
504
539
Specific creep3 (/psi)
0.371
0.367
0.650
Creep strain4 ()
1,484
2,227
1,467
2,200
2,599
3,898
Total strain ()
3,184
4,472
2,984
4,224
4,328
6,226
Note: 1 measured from creep specimens; 2 elastic modulus times applied stress; 3 estimated
from best fit; 4 specific creep times applied stress
12
Exponential fit was not the best mathematical model for each mix, but it gave the overall best
performance if only one model was to be used in the three mixes
226
a
0.60
HPLC
HPC-3
HPC-6
Best fit HPLC
Best fit HPC-3
Best fit HPC-6
Specific Creep
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.01
1.00
10.0
100
1000
10000
100000
1000
10000
100000
Time (days)
600
HPLC
HPC-3
HPC-6
Best fit HPLC
Best fit HPC-3
Best fit HPC-6
500
Shrinkage ()
0.10
400
300
200
100
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
100
Time (days)
Figure G.15. Best fit regressions for HPC and HPLC mixes (a) specific creep and (b)
shrinkage.
227
Total strain of HPLC at 40 years stressed with 40% and 60% of its ultimate strength
was estimated to be 3,184 and 4,472 , respectively. On the other hand, the strains under
the same condition for HPC-3 were slightly lower: 2,984 and 4,224 for 40% and 60%
stress level, respectively. Finally, total strain after 40 years of HPC-6 was estimated to be
4,328 and 6,226 , respectively.
The difference of about 6% between HPC-3 and HPLC was due in first place to the
higher elastic strain obtained in HPLC, and secondly, due to shrinkage. As seen in Figure
G.15a, there is virtually no difference between 40-year creep strain of HPLC and HPC. The
40% higher total strain predicted for HPC-6 were mainly due to the 75% higher specific
creep predicted on that concrete.
228
Appendix H. Comparison of Estimated Prestress Losses with

Experimental Results
H.1. Experimental Results
Actual losses were computed from experimental strains of concrete. The
experimental data did not include steel relaxation losses. Experimental strains were
projected to ultimate condition in order to compare with the estimates from the codes. Six
AASHTO Type II girders were cast using HPLC: three each with 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi
mixes. Four were 39-ft long and two were 43-ft long. Each was reinforced with ten 0.6-inch
diameter 270 ksi low relaxation strands. Approximately two month after girder fabrication, a
normal weight. 3,500-psi, composite deck slab was cast atop of each girder. The girders
were tested to determine flexure, shear and strand development strength about six month
after initial construction. Each girder was instrumented to measure internal and external
strains (Meyer et al., 2002). Figure H.1 shows the 6-inch embedded vibrating wire gage used
to measure strains at the center of gravity of the strands. Figure H.2 shows the six AASHTO
Type II girders at the laboratory before the deck placement.
Figure H.1. Vibrating wire strain gage used to measure internal strains in the girders.
229
Figure H.2 Measuring strains in the AASHTO Type II precast prestressed HPLC girders.
Strain measurements of the girders over time provided experimental data for actual
prestress computations. Table H.1 present the strain data obtained from the girders.
Table H.1 Experimental strains of 39-ft long girders ()
DAYS
Init1
Init2
Release
2
3
7
14
106
113
8,000-psi
G1A
0
0
-583
-661
-696
-768
-822
-865
G1B
0
0
-609
-695
-731
-811
-870
-945
10,000-psi
DAYS
G2A
Init1
0
Init2
0
Release
-426
1
-475
3
-482
7
-506
14
-506
125
-531
140
230
G2B
0
0
-417
-471
-479
-496
-506
-520
Experimental strains are also shown in Figure H.3 for the 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi
HPLC 39-ft girders. Elastic strain of the 8,000-psi HPLC girders was about 600 while
total strain after 110 days was approximately 900 . The 10,000-psi HPLC girders, on the
other hand, had an elastic strain of 400 and total strain after 130 days of 530 .
-1000
-800
Deck pouring
-600
-400
-200

0
0
20
40
60
80
Age (Days)
100
120
140
Figure H.3 Experimental strains over time for the 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC 39-ft
girders
Creep and shrinkage strains of the girders were computed as the difference between
total strain and initial elastic strain. After approximately 110 days, creep and shrinkage
strains were 309 for the 8,000-psi HPLC girders, and after 130 days they were 104 for
the 10,000-psi HPLC girders. Figure H.4 presents creep and shrinkage strains for individual
girders and the exponential regression obtained for each. Figure H.4(a) presents the data in a
linear time scale until the time of the last measurement, and Figure H.4(b) presents the data
in a logarithmic time scale projected until 10,000 days (27.4 years).
231
-400
8,000-psi Regression
10,000-psi Regression
-300
-200
-100
0
0
20
40
60
80
Age (Days)
100
120
140
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.0
Age (Days)
100
1000
10000
Figure H.4 Experimental creep and shrinkage and exponential regression for the 8,000-psi
and 10,000-psi HPLC 39-ft girders (a) linear time scale (b) logarithmic time scale.
After 100 days under load and drying, creep and shrinkage of the 8,000-psi and
10,000-psi HPLC girders were approximately 300 and 100 , respectively. The regression
predicts that after 100 days creep and shrinkage are not going to increase significantly.
Based on the regressions shown in Figure H.4b, the creep and shrinkage strains at ultimate
would be 309 and 104 for the 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC girders, respectively.
232
H.2. Prestress Losses Calculations from Standards

Prestress losses for AASHTO Type II girders were computed by using the models
presented in section D.3. Table H.2 presents a comparison among the four models and the
actual losses in the 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC prestressed girders.
Table H.2 Comparison between experimental and estimated prestress losses of 8,000-psi
HPLC prestressed girders
8,000-psi HPLC
Girders
Stress After Jacking
Elastic Shortening
Creep
Shrinkage
CR+SH
Relaxation
Total Timedependent
Total Losses
10,000-psi HPLC
Girders
Stress After Jacking
Elastic Shortening
Creep
Shrinkage
CR+SH
Relaxation
Total Losses
AASHTO
AASHTO
refined
Lump sum
PCI
ACI 209
(ksi)
(%)
(ksi)
(%)
(ksi)
(%)
(ksi) (%)
(ksi) (%)
202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0
-17.0 -8.4 -11.2 -5.5 -10.4 -5.2 -10.5 -5.2 -12.0 -5.9
-14.1 -7.0 -14.8 -7.3
separately
-6.5
-3.2 not estimated -5.1
-2.5 -11.3 -5.6
separately
-8.8
-4.3 -22.9 -11.3
-19.2 -9.5 -26.1 -12.9
11.513 -5.74 -18.7 -9.2
-3.8
-1.9
-5.6
-2.8
Measured
-20.2
-10.0
-37.2
-18.4
-41.5
-20.5
-24.2
-12.0
-23.0
-11.3
-31.7
-15.7
-52.8 -26.1 -34.7 -17.1 -33.5 -16.5 -43.7 -21.6

AASHTO
AASHTO
Measured
refined
Lump sum
PCI
ACI 209
(ksi)
(%)
(ksi)
(%)
(ksi)
(%)
(ksi) (%)
(ksi) (%)
202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0 202.5 100.0
-12.0 -5.9 -10.1 -5.0
-9.8
-4.8
-9.0
-4.4 -10.9 -5.4
-13.0 -6.4 -12.7 -6.3
separately
-6.5
-3.2 not estimated -5.1
-2.5 -11.2 -5.6
separately
-3.0
-1.5 -22.6 -11.2
-18.1 -8.9 -24.0 -11.8
4
4
-14.6 -7.2
-19.2 -9.5
-3.9
-1.9
-5.6
-2.8
-29.6 -14.6 -51.9 -25.6 -33.3 -16.4 -31.0 -15.3 -40.5 -20.0
The PCI and the two AASHTO models estimate final prestress losses while ACI-209
model estimates losses at any time after prestressing. For comparison purposes, ACI-209
estimates were computed for 40 years after prestressing assuming that as the final state of
13
Relaxation was determinate with Equation D.11 and experimental ES, CR and SH.
233
losses. Actual losses were computed from experimental strains of concrete at the center of
gravity of the strands. The AASHTO lump sum model gives a single time-dependent losses
estimate, so comparison of creep, shrinkage and relaxation is not possible for that model.
The experimental data, on the other hand, included only losses associated with
concrete: elastic shortening (ES), creep (CR) and shrinkage (SH). Steel relaxation was not
measured. Rather the experimental relaxation was computed using the AASHTO-LRFD
refined technique, considering the measured elastic, creep and shrinkage losses.
Experimental strains were projected to ultimate condition for comparison with the estimates
from the standards as shown in Figure H.4.
Figure H.5 (a) and (b) shows a comparison of estimated prestress losses with
experimental prestress losses, for the 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi ASSHTO Type II girders.
Figure H.5 presents elastic, creep and shrinkage, total time-dependent and total losses.
Experimental total losses for 8,000-psi HPLC girders was 37.2 ksi. The AASHTOLRFD refined and ACI-209 method overestimated losses by 15.6 and 6.5 ksi, respectively.
The AASHTO-LRFD lump sum and PCI methods were close to experimental data, but they
underestimated total losses by 2.5 and 3.7 ksi, respectively. Those differences expressed as
percentage of the initial stress before losses are: 7.7, 3.2, -1.2, and -1.8%, for the AASHTOLRFD refined, ACI-209, AASHTO-LRFD lump sum and PCI techniques, respectively.
The experimental prestress losses in the 10,000-psi girders were 29.6 ksi which was
lower than that of 8,000-psi girders by 7.6 ksi. The four methods shown in Figure H.5b
overestimated the experimental data. AASHTO-LRFD refined and lump sum methods
overestimated total losses by 22.3 and 3.7 ksi, respectively. When compared with initial
234
stress those differences are: 75.3, 12.5, 4.7, and 36.8%, for the AASHTO-LRFD refined,
AASHTO-LRFD lump sum, PCI, and ACI-209 techniques, respectively.
Prestress Losses (ksi)
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Experimental 8,000-psi girders

AASHTO Refined
AASHTO Lump sum
PCI
ACI 209
ES
Prestress Losses (ksi)
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
CR+SH
RE
Total Time Total Losses

Dependent
Experimental 10,000-psi girders

AASHTO Refined
AASHTO Lump sum
PCI
ACI 209
ES
CR+SH
RE
Total Time Total Losses

Dependent
Figure H.5. Comparison between estimated prestress losses from AASHTO-LRFD, PCI,
and ACI-209 methods (a) 8,000-psi HPLC girders, (b) 10,000-psi HPLC girders
Figure H.5 also shows that the four methods underestimated elastic shortening losses
regardless the type of HPLC. The AASHTO-LRFD refined, PCI and ACI-209 overestimated
creep and shrinkage losses by at least 100%. The underestimate in steel relaxation losses
given by the PCI and ACI-209 methods is probably due to the much higher creep and
235
shrinkage losses that they predicted which decreases relaxation in the steel. AASHTOLRFD refined method also predicted a much lower relaxation after transfer (see Equation
D.11), but the losses before transfer (see Equation D.10) are still greatly overestimated. This
overestimate leads to a total relaxation loss higher than the computed from the experimental
data.
In Figure H.6, the predicted-to-measured ratio is shown. Losses are grouped in
elastic shortening, creep and shrinkage, total time dependent and total losses. Overestimates
appear as a predicted-to measured ratio greater than one, and the underestimates as lower
than one.
8.0
Predicted-to-measured ratio
7.0
Elastic Shortening
6.0
Creep & Shrinkage

Total Time Dependent
Total Losses
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
8,000-psi 10,000-psi
HPLC
HPLC
8,000-psi 10,000-psi
HPLC
HPLC
AASHTO refined
AASHTO lump sum
8,000-psi 10,000-psi
HPLC
HPLC
PCI
8,000-psi 10,000-psi
HPLC
HPLC
ACI 209
Figure H.6. Predicted-to-measured ratio of prestress losses from AASHTO-LRFD, PCI, and
ACI-209 models
The fact that all methods underestimated elastic shortening was probably a
consequence of the procedures for measuring elastic shortening. The strain measurement
236
was taken after prestress transfer, which took approximately one hour. Therefore, the first
reading after transfer included not only instantaneous elastic strain, but also early creep plus
autogenous and drying shrinkage. The AASHTO-LRFD refined, PCI and ACI methods
greatly overestimated creep and shrinkage losses. The closest estimate was almost 120%
higher than experimental data. The same argument used to explain the underestimate of
elastic shortening can be used to explain overestimate of creep and shrinkage. Hence, the first
measurement after transfer probably included some creep and shrinkage which makes
experimental creep and shrinkage seem lower. All four methods overestimated total timedependent losses, which means that they are conservative for estimating those losses.
However, for the AASHTO-LRFD lump sum and PCI methods (8,000-psi HPLC girders),
the overestimate of time-dependent losses did not overcome the underestimate in elastic
losses, so the total predicted losses were lower than experimentally determined losses.
Nevertheless, the differences were small.
H.3. Estimates vs. Experimental Laboratory Results

As described in Appendix F, creep and shrinkage tests were conducted on HPLC
mixes. Therefore, estimates for such strains using prestress losses models can be compared
with experimental results to evaluate the performance of the models.
Code estimates for creep and shrinkage strains can be obtained by dividing the
equations given in Section D.2 by elastic modulus of prestressing steel. Figure H.7 presents
those estimates for 8,000-psi HPLC specimens by PCI, AASHTO refined and ACI-209
standards. It should be noted that actual conditions of creep and shrinkage testing were used
on Figure H.2 results. Actual conditions were 50% of relative humidity and a volume-to-
237
surface ratio of 1 inch, so the magnitudes obtained were higher than the ones discussed in
Section H.2.
Microstrains (in/inx10-6)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1307
1192
Elastic
Strain
1127
1192
2616
1791
Creep
1599
2459
828
Shrinkage
Measured
AASHTO refined
PCI
ACI 209
228
231
698
by AASHTO-LRFD refined, PCI, and ACI-209 models.
The AASHTO-LRFD refined, PCI and ACI-209 models gave a good estimate of
elastic shortening. The 10% difference was probably caused by the fact that model used
experimental elastic modulus measured on 6x12 cylinders while creep specimens were
4x15 cylinders. A higher slenderness might have led to higher elastic strain. As seen
before, the largest differences were obtained on the shrinkage portion where PCI and
AASHTO refined methods underestimated shrinkage by more than 70%. The PCI method
was the least accurate method for estimating creep; it underestimated it by slightly less than
238
40%. The AASHTO refined method also underestimated creep losses, but by 30%. The
ACI-209 method gave the best creep estimate with only 4.4% underestimate. The fact that
the PCI and AASHTO refined methods underestimated creep strains in such proportion is
probably because those design methods are estimating what happens on a prestressed
concrete member rather than for test specimens. On a prestressed member, creep of concrete
occurs at a decreasing stress because creep, shrinkage and steel relaxation decrease the
effective stress on concrete. In creep testing, creep develops at a constant stress, so no
decrease in such stress occurs over time, and the resulting creep is larger. The ACI-209
prestress losses method is based on ACI-209 creep and shrinkage models which were derived
from material testing at constant stress. The ACI-209 model also uses many more factors in
modeling creep and shrinkage.
Figure H.8 compares the measured strains in 10,000-psi HPLC cylinders specimens
and the values obtained from standard estimates.
As occurred with 8,000-psi HPLC, elastic shortening was underestimated due to the
slenderness of the creep specimens that have an apparent lower modulus of elasticity. Creep
was overestimated by 13 and 35% by the AASHTO refined and ACI-209 methods,
respectively. The PCI method again gave the least accurate estimate of creep. The PCI creep
loss expression (Equation D.3) estimates creep of concrete as a factor (Kcr) times long-term
stresses on concrete. As presented in Sections B.2, C.1 and C.2, creep of concrete is a
complex phenomenon that depends on many factors. The PCI expression oversimplifies
creep leading to large differences with other more sophisticated methods such as ACI-209.
Shrinkage was underestimated by more than 60% by the PCI and AASHTO refined
methods, and it was overestimated by the ACI-209 method.
239
Microstrains (in/inx10-6)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1470
1275
Elastic
Strain
1148
1275
1850
2099
Creep
1773
2481
Measured
610
Shrinkage
AASHTO refined
PCI
228
231
ACI 209
694
by AASHTO-LRFD refined, PCI, and ACI-209 models.
All the analyzed methods for estimating prestress losses overestimated the actual
losses measured in 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC AASHTO Type II prestressed girders. In
particular, AASHTO refined and lump sum methods were conservative in predicting strains
in HPLC. As explained in Section D.2, the AASHTO methods do not consider lightweight
concrete, so they estimate losses for a normal weight HPC.
240
Appendix I. Creep and Drying Shrinkage Models S.I. units

I.1 Models for Normal Strength Concrete
I.1.1. ACI-209 Method
Creep Model:
(t t ' )
t =
u
d + (t t ' )
(I.1)
where
t: creep coefficient at age t loaded at t


d: constant depending on member shape and size
u = 2.35 la vs s
(I.2)
where

1.25 t ' 0.118 for moist curing
; age of loading factor
la =
0.094
for steam curing
1.13 t '
241
1.27 0.67 h for h 0.40

=
1.00 otherwise
VS =
})
2
1 + 1.13 exp 0.0213 V
; volume-to-surface ratio factor
S
3
V: specimen volume (mm3)

S: specimen surface area (mm2)
s = 0.82 + 0.00264 s ; slump factor

s: slump (mm)
= 0.88 + 0.24 ; fine aggregate content factor

: air content (%)
( sh ) t =
(t t 0 )
( sh ) u
f + (t t 0 )
(I.3)
where
(sh)t: shrinkage strain after t-t0 days under drying (mm/mm)
f: constant depending on member shape and size
242
(sh)u: ultimate shrinkage strain (mm/mm)
( sh ) u = 780 vs s c
(I.4)
where
1.40 1.0 h for 0.40 h 0.80
=
3.00 3.0 h for h > 0.80
VS = 1.2 exp 0.00472 V S ; volume-to-surface ratio factor

s = 0.89 + 0.00161 s ; slump factor

s: slump (mm)
0.30 1.4 for 0.50
; fine aggregate content factor
=
0.90 0.2 for > 0.50
c = 0.75 + 0.00061 c ; cement content factor

c: cement content (kg/m3)

: air content (%)
243
I.1.2. AASHTO-LRFD Method

Creep Model:
u = 3.50 k la k h k c k f
(I.5)
where
k la = 1.00 t ' 0.118 for moist curing ; age of loading factor
4000
t = t i exp
273 + T (t i )
T0

until
day n
4000
t ' = t i exp
273 + T (t i )
T0

until
loading
ti: period of time (days) at temperature T(ti) (oC)

T0: 1 oC
k h = 1.58 0.83 h ; ambient relative humidity factor

t
26 exp 0.0142 V S
kc =
t
45 + t
+ t 1.80 + 1.77 exp 0.0216 V

S
2
.
587

244
} ; size factor
kf =
1
f '
0.67 + c
9
fc: compressive strength at 28 days (ksi)

Shrinkage Model:
( sh ) u = K k s k h
(I.6)
where
510 for moist curing
K =
; ultimate shrinkage base value
560 for steam curing
(t t 0 )

V
V
26 exp 0.0142 S + (t t 0 ) 1064 0.037 S
; size factor
ks =
(t t 0 )
923
45 + (t t 0 )

2.00 1.43 h for h < 0.80
kh =
4.29 4.29 h for h 0.80
245
I.1.3. CEB-FIP Method

Creep Model:
cr (t , t ' ) =
28
c (t ' )
28 (t , t ' )
E 28
(t t ' )
= 0
H + (t t ' )
(I.7)
0 .3
(I.8)
where
cr: creep strain in
c(t): applied stress (MPa)
E28: 28-day elastic modulus (MPa)
28: creep coefficient at age t loaded at t
(1 h )
0 = 1 +
2 Ac
u
0.46
100
5.3
1
; notional creep coefficient

1
0.2
f c ' 0.1 + t '
3

10


Ac: cross sectional area (mm2)
u: exposed perimeter (mm)
fc: compressive strength at 28 days (MPa)
246
H = 150 1 + (1.2 h )
18
Ac
100
u + 250 1500 ; constant depending on member size and
relative humidity
When cement different from normal hardening is used and/or special curing regime is
followed, t is modified following Equations I.9 and I.10 which incorporate the maturity
concept.
9
t ' = t 'T
+ 1 0.5 days
1.2
2 + (t 'T )
(I.9)
4000

t 'T = t i exp
13.65
273 + T (t i )
To

(I.10)
where

+ 1 for rapid hardening high early strength cement
tT: adjusted age of concrete at loading

T0: 1 oC
When stresses between 40 and 60% of compressive strength are applied, CEB-FIP
recommends using a high stress correction to the notional creep 0 as shown in Equation
I.11.
0,k = 0 exp{1.5 (k 0.4)}
(I.11)
247
where
k: stress-to-strength ratio at time of application of load.
s (t , t 0 ) = so s (t t 0 )
(I.12)
where
f '
s 0 = 160 + 10 sc 9 c RH ; notional shrinkage coefficient

10
sc

8 for rapid hardening high early strength cement
RH
1.55 1 h 3
:
0.25
for 0.40 h 0.99

for
h 0.99

fc: compressive strength of concrete cylinders at 28 days (MPa)
(t t 0 )
s (t , t 0 ) =
sH + (t t 0 )
sH
2 Ac
u
= 350
100
0.5
; shrinkage function

248

When temperatures above 30oC (86oF) are applied, CEB-FIP recommends using an
elevated temperature correction for sH and RH as shown below.
sH ,T = sH exp{ 0.06 (T 20)}
0.08 T 20
RH ,T = RH 1 +
1.03 h 40
sH ,T : geometric factor corrected by temperature

RH ,T ; relative humidity factor corrected by temperature
T: ambient temperature (oC)
I.1.4. Baant and Panulas - BP Method

Creep Model:
J (t , t ' ) =
1
+ C 0 (t , t ' ) + C d (t , t ' , t 0 ) C p (t , t ' , t 0 )
E0
where
E0: Modulus of elasticity at the age of loading (MPa)
C0: basic creep portion [specific creep - (mm/mm)/MPa]
Cd: drying creep portion [specific creep - (mm/mm)/MPa]
Cp: creep decrease after drying [specific creep - (mm/mm)/MPa]
249
(I.13)
Basic Creep Model:
1
n
(t ' m + ) (t t ')
E0
C 0 (t , t ' ) =
(I.14)
where
1 =
10 3n
material parameter
2 28 m +

0.07 x 6
for x > 4
0
.
12
+
6
1
a
+
x
5130
3
1.5 w
c
n=
x = 2.1
+ 0.1 (0.145 f c ')
s
0.12 for x 4

w: water content (kg/m3)
a: aggregate content (kg/m3)
s: sand content (kg/m3)
g: coarse aggregate content (kg/m3)

250
a

g
2.2
a 1 4
m = 0.28 +
1
1
;=
2
(0.145 f c ')
40 w
Drying Creep Model:

According to Baant and Panula (1978c and 1984) drying creep can be modeled by
Equation I.15:
' m
10 sh
C d (t , t ' , t 0 ) = d t ' 2 k h ' sh 1 +
E0
t t'
cd n
(I.15)
where
t 't 0
d ' = 1 +
10 sh
1.5
0.008 + 0.027 1 + 0.7 r 1.4 for r > 0
0.3
1.3 w
g
s
r = 56000 0.145 f c ' c 0.85
d =
a
s s
0.008 for r 0

251
sh
k
= 600 s 2 V
150
ref
C1
size-dependent parameter
S C (t )
1 0
1.0 for in finite slab

1.15 for in finite cylinder
k s = 1.25 for in finite squared prism ; shape factor

1.30 for a sphere
1.55 for a cube

C1ref = 6451 mm 2 / day
6.3
C1 (t 0 ) = C 7 k T ' 0.05 +
t 0
C7 =
1 w
c 12
8 c
kT ' =
5000 5000
T
exp
T0
T
T0
7 C 7 21
T0: 296.15 K (reference temperature)

T: ambient temperature K
m = 0.28 +
(0.145 f c ')2
; material parameters
0.07 x 6
0
.
12
for x > 4
+
6
1
a
+
5130
3
x
1.5 w
c
+ 0.1 (0.145 f c ')
n=
x = 2.1
s
0.12 for x 4

252
a

g
2.2
a 1 4

h0: 0.98 to 1.0
c d = 2.8 7.5 n
s: final shrinkage in as in Equation I.17
Creep Decrease after Drying

100 sh
C p (t , t ' , t 0 ) = c p k h ' '1 +
t t0
C 0 (t , t ')
where
Cp: creep decrease after drying portion (specific creep)
c p = 0.83
k h ' ' = h02 h 2 humidity dependent parameter
h0: 0.98 to 1.0
sh
k
= 600 s 2 V
150
ref
C1
S C (t )
1 0
253
(I.16)


1.30 for a sphere
1.55 for a cube

C1ref = 6451 mm 2 / day
6.3
C1 (t 0 ) = C 7 k T ' 0.05 +
t 0
1 w
C 7 = c 12
8 c
7 C 7 21
0.07 x 6
0
.
12
for x > 4
+
6
1
a
+
5130
3
x
1.5 w
c
+ 0.1 (0.145 f c ')
n=
x = 2.1
s
0.12 for x 4


254
a

g
2.2
a 1 4
sh (t , t 0 ) = sh k h
t t0
sh + t t 0
(I.17)
where
sh: ultimate shrinkage stain
1 h 3 for h 0.98
k h = 0.2 for h = 1.00


sh
k
= 600 s 2 V
150
ref
C1
S C (t )
1 0


1.30 for a sphere
1.55 for a cube

C1ref = 6451 mm 2 / day
6.3
1 w
C1 (t 0 ) = C 7 k T ' 0.05 +
; C 7 = c 12
t0
8 c
kT ' =
5000 5000
T
exp
T0
T
T0
255
7 C 7 21
T0: 296.15 K (reference temperature)

T: ambient temperature K
3
2
s
1
+
880
g
a
c 0.145 f ' 12 0
; z = 1.25
= 1210
+ 0.5
c
390
c
s w
+1

I.1.5. Baant and Bawejas - B3 Method

Creep Model:
J (t , t ' ) = q1 + C 0 (t , t ' ) + C d (t , t ' , t o )
(I.18)
where
q1 =
0.6 10 6
instantaneous strain due to unit stress
E0

256

E0: asymptotic modulus elastic modulus (MPa) (age independent)
Basic Creep Model
Basic creep is given by Equation I.19, as follows:
t
C 0 (t , t ' ) = q 2 Q(t , t ') + q3 ln 1 + (t t ' ) n + q 4 ln
t'
(I.19)
where
q 2 = 451.1 1.6856 c (145 f c ')
0.9
; ageing viscoelastic compliance

Q f (t ')
Q(t , t ') = Q f (t ') 1 +

Z (t , t ')
r (t ' )
r (t ' )
Q f (t ') = 0.086 (t ') 9 + 1.21 (t ')

n
m
; Z (t , t ') = (t ') ln 1 + (t t ')
0.12
r (t ') = 1.7 (t ') + 8
m = 0.5; n = 0.1
4
w
q3 = 0.29 q 2 ; non-ageing viscoelastic compliance
c
a
q 4 = 0.14
c
0.7
; flow compliance

257
Drying Creep Model

Additional creep due to drying is given by Equation I.20
C d (t , t ' , t 0 ) = q5 [exp{ 8 H (t )} exp{ 8 H (t 0 ')}]
(I.20)
where
q5 =
5220.7
sh
f 'c
0.6

sh: ultimate shrinkage as shown in Equation I.21
H (t ) = 1 (1 h ) tanh
t t0
sh

t0: max(t,t0) (days)
sh: size factor as shown in Equation I.21
sh (t , t 0 ) = sh k h tanh
t t0
(I.21)
sh
where
258
607
4 + 0.85 607
sh = 1 2 0.00856 w 2.1 (145 f c ')0.28 + 270
(t 0 + sh )
4 + 0.85 (t 0 + sh )
1.00, for type I cement
1 = 0.85, for type II cement ; cement type factor

1.10, for type III cement
0.75, for steam cured specimens
2 = 1.00, for water or h = 1.00 cured specimens ; curing factor

1.20, for sealed specimens

1 h 3 for h 0.98
k h = 0.2 for h = 1.00

sh = 190.8 t 00.008 (145 f c ')0.25 k s 0.0787 V S


1.30 for a sphere
1.55 for a cube

259
I.1.6. Gardner and Lockmans - GL Method

Creep Model:
2 (t t ' )0.3 7 12 (t t ' ) 12
+
ccr (t , t ' ) =
+
(t t ' )0.3 + 14 to (t t ' ) + 7
(I.22)
(t t ' )
+ 2.5 1 1.086 h
(t t ' ) + 0.15 V
S
( )
Ec 28
where
ccr: creep coefficient at age t loaded at t (/MPa)
Ec28: 28-day elastic modulus (MPa)
sh (t , t 0 ) = shu
(t t 0 )
4
1 1.18 h
(t t 0 ) + 0.15 V
S
( )
where
260
(I.23)
shu
30
= 1000 K
fc '
10 6 ; ultimate shrinkage strain
1.00 for Type I cement
K = 0.70 for Type II cement ; cement factor

1.15 for Type III cement

I.1.7. Sakatas - SAK Method

Creep Model:
cr (t , t ' ) = ( 'bc + ' dc ) 1 exp 0.09 (t t ')0.6
})
(I.24)
where
cr: specific creep at age t loaded at t (/MPa)
bc: basic creep portion, parameter depending on water and cement content, water-to-cement
ratio, and age of loading
dc: drying creep portion, parameter depending on water and cement content, water-tocement ratio, member volume-to-surface ratio, and relative humidity
Basic Creep Model
261
Basic creep is given by Equation I.25, as follows:
( )
'bc = 1.5 (c + w)2 w c
2.4
(ln[t '])
0.67
(I.25)
where
bc: basic specific creep portion (/MPa)
Drying Creep Model

Drying creep is given by Equation I.26
( ) (ln[V S ])
' dc = 0.0045 (c + w)1.4 w c
4.2
2.2
(1 h )
0.36
(t 0 )
0.3
(I.26)
where
dc: drying specific creep portion (/MPa)
})
sh (t , t 0 ) = sh 1 exp 0.108 (t t 0 )0.56 10 5

where
262
(I.27)

( [ ]) + 44 ln[t ] ; ultimate shrinkage
sh = 600 + 780 (1 exp{h}) + 380 ln[w] 50 ln V S
strain
I.2 Models for High Strength Concrete

I.2.1. CEB-FIP Method as modified by Yue and Taerwe (1993)
H =
130
18
A
1 + (0.012 h ) 2 c + 250 1500
u
fc '
(I.28)
where
H: constant depending on member size and relative humidity
(1 h )
0 = 1 +
2 Ac
u
0.46
100
1
3
2.6
fc '
1
10
1
0.1 + t ' 0.2
263
(I.29)
where
0: ; notional creep coefficient

I.2.2. Baant and Panulas - BP Method

' m
b
C d (t , t ' , t 0 ) = d t ' 2 k h ' sh 1 + d sh
E0
t t'
cd n
(I.30)
where
Cd: drying creep portion [specific creep - ()/MPa]
t 't 0
d ' = 1 +
a d sh
10 for f c ' 41.4 MPa
ad =
; linear interpolation between 41.4 and 69.0 MPa
1 for f ' 69.0 MPa
c
sh
k
= 600 s 2 V
150
ref
C1
S C (t )
1 0


1.30 for a sphere
1.55 for a cube

264

C1ref = 6451 mm 2 / day
6.3
C1 (t 0 ) = C 7 k T ' 0.05 +
t 0
1 w
C 7 = c 12
8 c
kT ' =
7 C 7 21
5000 5000
T
exp
T0
T
T
0
T: ambient temperature oK
1
1.5
0.008 + 0.027 1 + 0.7 r 1.4 for r > 0
0.3
1.3 w
s
g c
r = 56000 f c '
d =
0.85
a
s s
0.008 for r 0

2
1 + s 3
880
g
a
c
= 1210
; z = 1.25
+ 0.5
0.145 f c ' 12 0 :
390
c
s w
+1
final shrinkage in
265
m = 0.28 +
1
(0.145 f c ')2

h0: 0.98 to 1.0
10 for f c ' 41.4 MPa
bd =
; linear interpolation between 41.4 and 69.0 MPa
100 for f ' 69.0 MPa
c
c d = 2.8 7.5 n
0.07 x 6
0
.
12
for x > 4
+
6
1
a
3
5130
x
+
1.5 w
c
n=
x = 2.1
+ 0.1 (0.145 f c ')
s
0.12 for x 4

I.2.3. Sakatas - SAK Method

cr (t , t ' ) =
4 w (1 h ) + 350
ln[t t '+1]
12 + f c ' (t ')
(I.31)
where
cr: specific creep at age t loaded at t (/MPa)
266
a

g
2.2
a 1 4
fc(t): compressive strength at the age of t(MPa)

sh (t , t 0 ) =
sh (t t 0 )
+ (t t 0 )
(I.32)
where
sh =
1
(1 h ) w
500 1 + t 0
1 + 150 exp
fc '
10 for normal portland cement

; cement factor
=
8 for slow hardening cement
= (15 exp(0.007 f c ') + 0.25 w) 10 4
4w V
S
100 + 0.7 t 0

267
I.2.4. AFREM Method

Creep Model:
cr (t , t ' ) =
(t ')
( b (t , t ' ) + d (t , t ' ) )
E 28
(I.33)
where
cr: creep strain in
(t): applied stress at t (MPa)
E28: 28-day elastic modulus (MPa)
b: basic creep coefficient at age t loaded at t
d: drying creep coefficient at age t loaded at t
Basic Creep Model
b (t , t ') = b 0
t t'
(I.34)
bc + t t '
where
b0
3.6
f ' (t ')0.37 for silica fume concrete
= c
1.4 for non silica fume concrete
bc
f c ' (t ')
for silica fume concrete
0.37 exp2.8
fc '
f ' (t ')
0.40 exp3.1 c
for non silica fume concrete
fc '
fc(t): compressive strength at the age of t (MPa)

268

Drying Creep Model
d (t , t ' , t 0 ) = d 0 ( sh (t , t 0 ) sh (t ' , t 0 ))
(I.35)
where
d 0
1000 for silica fume concrete
=
3200 for non silica fume concrete
sh: drying shrinkage as shown in Equation I.36

sh (t , t 0 ) =
K ( f c ') (72 exp{ 0.046 f c '} + 75 100 h )

2
ds 0 2 Ac u + (t t 0 )
(t t 0 ) 10 6 (I.36)
where
18 for f c ' 57 MPa
K ( f c ') =
; strength-dependent factor
30 0.21 f c ' for f c ' 57 MPa
ds 0
0.007 for silica fume concrete
=
0.021 for non silica fume concrete

269
I.2.5. AASHTO-LRFD method as modified by Shams and Kahn (2000)

Shams and Kahn (2000), proposed some changes to AASHTO-LRFD creep
expression (see Section I.1.2) in order to better predict creep of HPC. Shams and Kahn
method for estimating creep is presented in Equation I.37.
t = k vs k f k H k t ' k k m
c
(t t ')0.6
0.6
d + (t t ')
(I.37)
where
t: creep coefficient at t loaded at t

4000
t = t i exp
273 + T (t i )
T0

until
day n
4000
t ' = t i exp
273 + T (t i )
T0

until
loading

T0: 1 oC
= 2.73 : ultimate creep coefficient

t
26 exp 0.0142 V S
k vs =
t
45 + t
+ t 1.80 + 1.77 exp 0.0216 V

S
2
.
587

270
} ; size factor
k fc =
4 .8
1.645 + 145 f c '
fc: compressive strength of concrete cylinders at 28 days (MPa)

k H = 1.58 0.83 h ; ambient relative humidity factor

0.7 ; maturity at loading factor
k t ' = 0.65 exp
t '+0.57
exp{1.5 ( 0.4 )} for 0.4 0.6
k =
; stress-to-strength ratio factor
1.0 for 0.4
: stress-to-strength ratio at loading
k m = 1 + 0.65 (1 exp{ 0.59 m})
5.73
: moist curing period factor
m: moist curing period (days)

d=
t'
: maturity for 50% of ultimate creep coefficient
0.356 + 0.09 t '
Drying Shrinkage Model: Equation I.37 shows Shams and Kahn drying shrinkage
expression.
t to
sh (t , t o ) = sh k vs 'k H 'k to
f + (t t o )
0.5
(I.38)
where
510 for steam - cured concrete
sh =
560 for moist - cured concrete

4000
t = t i exp
273 + T (t i )
T0

until
day n
271
until
beginning
drying
4000
t 0 = t i exp
13.65 ; maturity of concrete at the beginning of
273 + T (t i )
T0

drying (days)
T0: 1 oC
t
26 exp 0.0142 V S
k vs =
t
45 + t
+ t 1.80 + 1.77 exp 0.0216 V

S
2.587

} ; size factor

2.00 1.43 h for h < 0.80
kH =
4.29 4.29 h for h 0.80
4.2
k t0 = 0.67 exp
; factor for maturity at the beginning of drying
9
.
45
t
+
o
f: 23 (days)
272
Appendix J. Analysis of Variance - ANOVA

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed using JMP 5.01 statistical software.
The same analysis was performed using creep deformation, creep coefficient, specific creep
and shrinkage.
Note: =0.05 was adopted through the analysis of variance presented in this section.
Therefore, when it is concluded that a certain factor is statistically significant, it means that
P-value is smaller than 0.05.
J.1. Three-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 8L HPLC
Factors
Levels
Age at Loading
Stress Level
Time under Load
16 hours
40% initial strength
24 hours
34 levels (see Appendix K)
Creep
Step
Alpha
0.05
Parameter Estimate df
SS
Fratio
Prob
Intercept
-239.403
1
0
0
1
Log(time) 212.40439
1 208333836
13501.1329
0.00E+00 Significant at alpha level
1
13517120
875.980769
6.67E-114 Significant at alpha level
Stress Leve16.000189
1
7.30E+02
0.04733253
0.82785633 Not signigicant at alpha level
Age Loadin 0.2940341
Parameter Action
DF error Sgg pro
Seq SS
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
527
229937447 436313.9412
1.000
0.000
1 Log(time) Entered
526
2.75E-272
208333836
41072
0.094
0.906 876.0281
525
4.14E-114
13517120
15403
0.035
0.965 2.0473325
2 Stress LeveEntered
3 Age LoadinEntered
524 0.82785633
730.380682
15431
0.035
0.965
4
2
3
4
Specific Creep
Step
Alpha
0.05
SS
Fratio
Prob
Intercept 0.3838421
1
0
0
1
Log(time) 0.0606254
1 16.9723559
21681.3996
1 0.31703001
404.99117
Stress Leve -0.00245
1
2.07E-01
264.813848
Age Loadin -0.004954
Parameter Action
Seq SS
p
DF error Sgg pro
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
527
17.906875
0.03397889
1.000
0.000
1 Log(time) Entered
526
0.00E+00
16.9723559
0.001777
0.052
0.948 669.80502
525
3.43E-49
0.31703001
0.001176
0.035
0.966 266.81385
3 Age LoadinEntered
524
1.72E-48
0.20729819
0.000783
0.023
0.977
4
2
3
4
Creep Coefficient
Step
Alpha
0.05
SS
Fratio
Prob
Intercept 0.9296568
1
0
0
1
Log(time) 0.1955531
1 176.588379
22692.4061
1 2.32113648
298.276545
1
1.23E-01
15.8500842
0.00007824 Significant at alpha level
Age Loadin -0.003821
Parameter Action
Seq SS
p
DF error Sgg pro
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
527
183.11054
0.34745833
1.000
0.000
1 Log(time) Entered
526
0.00E+00
176.588379
0.012400
0.036
0.964 314.12663
525
4.14E-52
2.32113648
0.008002
0.023
0.977 17.850084
3 Age LoadinEntered
524 0.00007824
0.12334261
0.007782
0.022
0.978
4
273
2
3
4
J.2. Three-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 10L HPLC
Factors
Levels
Age at Loading
Stress Level
Time under Load
16 hours
24 hours
Creep
Step
Intercept
279.3054
1
Log(time)
154.1747
1
Stress Leve 10.76042
1
Age loading -15.0251
1
Parameter Action
DF error
527
1 Log(time) Entered
526
525
3 Age LoadinEntered
524
SS
Fratio
Prob
0
1
6561.9803
1.66E-298
342.23707
3.52E-59
106.76362
6.66E-23
Seq SS
MSE
134600665 255409.2315
5.92E-236 117219528
33044
2.25E-51 6113530.7
21462
6.66E-23 1907165.3
17863
0
117219528
6113530.7
1.91E+06
Sgg pro
Alpha
0.05
Significant at alpha level

Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
1.000
0.000
0.129
0.871 449.00069
0.084
0.916 108.76362
0.070
0.930
4
2
3
4
Specific Creep
Step
Intercept
0.502678
1
Log(time)
0.036619
1
1
1
Parameter Action
DF error
527
1 Log(time) Entered
526
525
3 Age LoadinEntered
524
SS
Fratio
Prob
0
1
4109.7526
3.62E-250
194.74794
7.33E-38
863.21249
7.38E-113
Seq SS
MSE
9.1584241 0.017378414
2.35E-148 6.6129225
0.004839
1.03E-16 0.3133651
0.004252
7.38E-113 1.3889783
0.001609
0
6.6129225
0.3133651
1.39E+00
Sgg pro
Alpha
0.05

p
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
1.000
0.000
0.278
0.722 1057.9604
0.245
0.756 865.21249
0.093
0.908
4
2
3
4
Creep Coefficient
Step
SS
Intercept
1.586833
1
0
Log(time)
0.126168
1
78.50038
1 1.9207722
1 1.55E+01
Parameter Action
DF error Sgg pro
527
1 Log(time) Entered
526 1.82E-152
525
1.73E-09
3 Age LoadinEntered
524 6.59E-100
Fratio
Prob
0
1
3621.6345
1.69E-237
88.615302
1.51E-19
714.15659
6.59E-100
Seq SS
MSE
107.25869 0.203526926
78.50038
0.054674
1.9207722
0.051119
15.47963
0.021675
274
Alpha
0.05

p
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
1.000
0.000
0.269
0.732 802.77189
0.251
0.750 716.15659
0.106
0.894
4
2
3
4
J.3. Two-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 8F HPLC
Factors
Levels
Stress Level
Time under Load

Creep
Step
SS
Intercept
-301.6422
1
0
Log(time)
164.5522
1 84123632
1 34708267
Stress Leve 34.24291
Age Loadin
0
0 0.00E+00
Parameter Action
DF error Sgg pro
295
1 Log(time) Entered
294
8.36E-60
293
1.25E-61
Specific Creep
Intercept
0.414483
1
Log(time)
0.046714
1
1
Age Loadin
0
0
Step
Parameter Action
DF error
295
1 Log(time) Entered
294
293
Alpha
0.05
1
.
.
Not signigicant at alpha level
Seq SS
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
141154912 478491.2271
1.000
0.000
84123632
193984
0.405
0.596 456.5622 2
34708267
76188
0.159
0.842
3 3
Fratio
Prob
0
1104.162
455.56223
Alpha
0.05
1
4.64E-01 Not signigicant at alpha level
.
.
Seq SS
p
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
9.2091726 0.031217534
1.000
0.000
4.64E-87 6.7795888
0.008264
0.265
0.736 1.537928 2
0.463879 0.0044524
0.008277
0.265
0.737
3 3
SS
0
6.7795888
0.0044524
0.00E+00
Sgg pro
Creep Coefficient
SS
Intercept
3.036545
1
0
Log(time)
0.216522
1 145.6516
1 17.563658
Age Loadin
0
0 0.00E+00
Step
Parameter Action
DF error Sgg pro
295
1 Log(time) Entered
294
4.48E-66
293
1.31E-16
Fratio
Prob
0
819.09765
0.5379283
Alpha
0.05
1
.
.
Seq SS
p
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
229.84613 0.779139424
1.000
0.000
145.6516
0.286376
0.368
0.634 78.23374 2
17.563658
0.227409
0.292
0.710
3 3
Fratio
Prob
0
640.48268
77.233742
275
J.4. Two-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 10F HPLC
Factors
Levels
Stress Level
Time under Load

Creep
Step
Parameter
Intercept
Log(time)
Stress Level
Age loading
Parameter
Estimate df
118.77542
1
112.8567
1
3.7102679
1
0
0
Action
DF error
279
1 Time under l Entered
278
2 Stress Level Entered
277
Fratio
0
0
37001430 2687.763
246688.29
17.9193
0.00E+00 .
Sgg pro Seq SS
41061474
1.05E-141 37001430
3.14E-05 246688.3
Alpha
0.05
1
.
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
147173.74
1.000
0.000
14604
0.099
0.901
18.9193
13767
0.094
0.907
3
2
3
SS
Fratio
0
0
2.9423712 2677.352
0.0316519 28.80101
0.00E+00 .
Sgg pro Seq SS
3.278442
1.58E-139 2.942371
1.70E-07 0.031652
Prob
Alpha
0.05
1
.
p
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
0.0117507
1.000
0.000
0.001209
0.103
0.897 29.80101
0.001099
0.094
0.907
3
2
3
SS
Prob
Alpha
0.05
1
.
p
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
0.1718518
1.000
0.000
0.016182
0.094
0.906
9.74533
0.015744
0.092
0.909
3
2
3
SS
Prob
Specific Creep
Step
Parameter
Intercept
Log(time)
Stress Level
Age loading
Parameter
Estimate df
0.147995
1
0.0318249
1
-0.001329
1
0
0
Action
DF error
279
1 Log(time)
Entered
278
277
Creep Coefficient
Step
Parameter
Intercept
Log(time)
Stress Level
Age loading
Parameter
Estimate df
0.4562763
1
0.1222933
1
-0.002772
1
0
0
Action
DF error
279
1 Log(time)
Entered
278
277
Fratio
0
0
43.447929 2759.688
0.1376846
8.74533
0.00E+00 .
Sgg pro Seq SS
47.94664
7.16E-145 43.44793
3.37E-03 0.137685
276
J.5. Four-Factor ANOVA: Creep of Laboratory HPLC (8L & 10L)
Factors
Levels
Compressive
Strength
Age at Loading
Stress Level
Time under Load
8,000-psi
10,000-psi
16 hours
24 hours
Creep
Intercept
1055.015
1
Time Load 1.957662
1
Stress leve
1314.5
1
Strength
-93.6476
1
1
Age at load -3.78604
Step
Parameter Action
DF error
927
1 Time Load Entered
926
925
2 Stress leveEntered
3 Strength Entered
924
4 Age at loadEntered
923
Specific Creep
Intercept
0.942578
1
Time Load 0.000513
1
1
Stress leve -0.24545
Strength
-0.05004
1
1
Step
Parameter Action
DF error
927
1 Time Load Entered
926
2 Strength Entered
925
924
923
Creep Coefficient
Intercept
2.63176
1
Time Load 0.001702
1
1
Strength
-0.13428
1
1
Step
Parameter Action
DF error
927
1 Time Load Entered
926
2 Strength Entered
925
924
923
SS
Fratio
Prob
Alpha
0
1.33E+08
16034703
8138447
2.13E+05
Sgg pro
5.90E-123
8.71E-23
3.09E-13
0.231736
0
895.564439
107.895964
54.7628234
1.43206139
Seq SS
294597710
133057904
16019079.3
8138447.23
212822.411
1
4.45E-138
5.59E-24
3.06E-13
0.2317356
MSE
317796.88
174449
157320
148682
148613

Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
1.000
0.000
0.549
0.452 162.9857
0.495
0.506 57.19488
0.468
0.534 4.432061
0.468
0.534
5
2
3
4
5
SS
Fratio
8.15E-102
9.24E-38
2.10E-18
3.56E-12
Alpha
0.05
Prob
0
1
812.666873 1.02E-128 Significant at alpha level
Seq SS
p
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
23.347006
0.02519
1.000
0.000
9.12786482
0.01536
0.610
0.391 339.2365
2.32390164
0.01286
0.511
0.491 134.7798
0.94677652
0.01185
0.470
0.531 52.66762
0.55906467
0.01126
0.447
0.555
5
2
3
4
5
SS
Fratio
Alpha
0.05
Prob
0
1
Seq SS
p
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
242.88055
0.26201
1.000
0.000
100.404664
0.15386
0.587
0.413 212.0071
16.7331894
0.13594
0.519
0.482 80.58791
6.23097134
0.12934
0.494
0.508 32.90632
3.75079495
0.12542
0.479
0.523
5
2
3
4
5
0
9.147475
0.559065
2.323902
9.40E-01
Sgg pro
0
100.5712
3.750795
16.73319
6.19E+00
Sgg pro
2.27E-109
6.11E-27
7.34E-12
5.84E-08
277
0.05
J.6. Three-Factor ANOVA: Shrinkage of Laboratory HPLC (8L & 10L)
Factors
Levels
Compressive
Strength
Age at Loading
Time under Load
8,000-psi
10,000-psi
16 hours
24 hours
Shrinkage
Step
Intercept
4724.043
1
Time Load 0.789139
1
Strength
-448.483
1
1
DF error
Parameter Action
443
442
1 Drying Tim Entered
2 Strength Entered
441
3 Loading @ Entered
440
SS
0
10186141
68848089
250207
Sgg pro
Fratio
0
11.9895374
81.0372355
0.29450468
Seq SS
452607454
1.83E-17 68380396
5.91E-04 10159076.6
0.587623 250207.008
Prob
Alpha
1
5.87E-04
6.72E-18
5.88E-01
MSE
1021687
869292
848227
849586

Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
1.000
0.000
0.851
0.151 12.25219
0.830
0.174 2.294505
0.832
0.174
4
278
0.05
2
3
4
J.7. Three-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 8,000-psi HPLC (8L & 8F)
Factors
Levels
Place of Mixing
Stress Level
Time under Load
Laboratory
Field
Intercept
234.3627
Time Load 2.627139
Stress leve 1164.236
Lab:1 Field -81.09722
SS
Fratio
Prob
1
0
0
1
1 93920489 603.63518
8.63E-84
1 5855526 37.633974
1.94E-09
1
710290 4.565096
0.03319634
Creep
Step
Parameter Action
DF error Sgg pro

431
430 3.97E-79
429 2.25E-09
428 3.32E-02
1 Time Load Entered

3 Lab:1 FieldEntered
Specific Creep
Intercept
0.323232
1
Time Load 0.000736
1
Stress leve
-0.25
1
Lab:1 Field -0.003509
1
Step
Parameter Action
DF error
431
1 Time Load Entered
430
429
428
Creep Coefficient
Intercept
1.194014
1
Time Load 0.002425
1
1
Lab:1 Field -0.052708
1
Step
Parameter Action
DF error
431
1 Time Load Entered
430
429
428
SS
Seq SS
MSE
167079457
93920489
5855525.5
710290.02
Prob
0
584.12772
21.412428
0.1054768
Seq SS
MSE
13.033754
9.10E-80 7.3655581
4.80E-06
0.27
7.46E-01
0.00133
0
7.365558
0.27
1.33E-03
Sgg pro
Fratio
Alpha
0.05

Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
1.000
0.000
0.439
0.562 42.19907
0.405
0.597 6.565096
0.401
0.601
4
2
3
4
Alpha
0.05
1
p
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
0.03024
1.000
0.000
0.01318
0.436
0.565 21.51791
0.01258
0.416
0.586 2.105477
0.01261
0.417
0.586
4
2
3
4
387655
170137
156884
155591
SS
Fratio
Prob
0
0
1
80.02417 568.32986
1.51E-80
3.969225 28.189349
1.77E-07
3.00E-01 2.130893
0.14509021
Sgg pro Seq SS
MSE
144.55834
0.33540
2.56E-77 80.024167
0.15008
1.83E-07 3.9692252
0.14118
0.14509 0.3000422
0.14081
279
Alpha
0.05

p
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
1.000
0.000
0.447
0.554 30.32024
0.421
0.581 4.130893
0.420
0.583
4
2
3
4
J.8. Two-Factor ANOVA: Shrinkage of 8,000-psi HPLC (8L & 8F)
Factors
Levels
Place of Mixing
Laboratory
Time under Load
Field
Shrinkage
Step
Intercept
221.1937
1
Time Load 1.342174
1
1
Lab:1 Field 12.92593
DF error
Parameter Action
215
1 Drying TIm Entered
214
213
2 Lab:1 & FIeEntered
SS
Fratio
Prob
0
0
1
12256931 240.204 8.92E-37
9022.296 0.176814 6.75E-01
Sgg pro Seq SS
MSE
23134743 107603.5
6.40E-37 12256931
50831
0.67455 9022.296
51027
280
Alpha
0.05

Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
1.000
0.000
0.472
0.530 1.176814
0.474
0.530
3
2
3
J.9. Three-Factor ANOVA: Creep of 10,000-psi HPLC (10L & 10F)
Factors
Levels
Place of Mixing
Stress Level
Time under Load
Laboratory
Field
Creep
Intercept
427.689
Time Load 1.918871
Lab:1 Field -305.183
Step
Parameter Action
SS
Fratio
Prob
1
0
0
1
1 49982264 670.8149 8.47E-91
1 4838291 64.93498 7.22E-15
1 10431309 139.9992 2.89E-28
DF error
447
446
445
444
1 Time Load Entered

Specific Creep
Intercept
0.156805
1
Time Load 0.000455
1
1
1
Lab:1 Field -0.01274
Step
Parameter Action
DF error
447
1 Time Load Entered
446
445
444
Creep Coefficient
Intercept
0.34536
1
Time Load 0.001668
1
1
1
Step
Parameter Action
DF error
447
1 Time Load Entered
446
445
444
Alpha
0.05

Sgg pro
Seq SS
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
98334202
219987
1.000
0.000
9.42E-71 49982264
108412
0.493
0.508 204.9342
2.66E-25 10431309
85215
0.387
0.614 66.93498
7.22E-15 4838291
74510
0.339
0.664
4
Prob
Alpha
0
791.8002
3.241475
5.124803
Seq SS
4.410896
4.91E-100 2.81E+00
7.38E-02 0.011492
2.41E-02 0.018169
1
9.56E-101
7.25E-02
2.41E-02
MSE
0.009868
0.003596
0.003578
0.003545

p
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
1.000
0.000
0.364
0.636 8.366278
0.363
0.639 7.124803
0.359
0.643
4
SS
Prob
Alpha
1
1.26E-99
4.12E-01
0.491549
MSE
0.132832
0.048470
0.048505
0.048562

p
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
1.000
0.000
0.365
0.636 1.149226
0.365
0.636 2.473919
0.366
0.637
4
SS
Fratio
0
2.807139
0.011492
1.82E-02
Sgg pro
0
37.75847
0.032794
2.30E-02
Sgg pro
Fratio
0
777.5278
0.675307
0.473919
Seq SS
59.37589
6.62E-100 37.75847
4.11E-01 0.032794
0.491549 0.023015
281
2
3
4
0.05
2
3
4
0.05
2
3
4
J.10. Three-Factor ANOVA: Shrinkage of 10,000-psi HPLC (10L & 10F)
Factors
Levels
Place of Mixing
Stress Level
Time under Load
Laboratory
Field
Shrinkage
Step
Intercept
115.3497
1
Time Load 0.824243
1
1
DF error
Parameter Action
227
1 Time Load Entered
226
225
SS
Fratio
0
0
4655163 101.029
337664.1 7.32818
Sgg pro Seq SS
15330445
2.27E-19 4625348
0.007309 337664.1
Alpha
0.05
1
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
67535
1.466
0.000
47368
1.028
0.302 8.32818
46077
1.000
0.324
3
Prob
282
2
3
J.11. Three-Factor ANOVA: Creep of Field HPLC (8F & 10F)
Factors
Levels
Compressive
Strength
Stress Level
Time under Load
8,000-psi
10,000-psi

Creep
Intercept
-13.3363
Time Load 2.092374
Strength
-2.38051
Step
Parameter Action
SS
Fratio
Prob
1
0
0
1
1 89525212 916.14116 2.08E-118
1 9189872 94.043008 1.32E-20
1 20454109 209.31367 2.50E-40
DF error
543
542
541
540
1 Time Load Entered

3 Strength Entered
Specific Creep
Intercept
0.201499
1
Time Load 0.000602
1
1
Strength
-0.00061
1
Step
Parameter Action
DF error
543
1 Time Load Entered
542
541
3 Strength Entered
540
Creep Coefficient
Intercept
0.795909
1
Time Load 0.002071
1
1
Stress leve -0.3948
Strength
-0.00127
1
Step
Parameter Action
DF error
543
1 Time Load Entered
542
541
3 Strength Entered
540
Alpha
0.05

Sgg pro
Seq SS
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
160516237
295610
1.000
0.000
2.46E-91 85341224
138699
0.469
0.532 229.2908
1.57E-24 13216401
114526
0.387
0.614 96.04301
1.32E-20 9189872.3
97720
0.331
0.671
4
SS
Fratio
0
7.42199
0.001803
1.33E+00
Sgg pro
0
745.74811
0.1811516
133.43002
Seq SS
14.096894
9.01E-85 7.1168985
2.80E-06 0.277745
9.80E-28 1.3279501
SS
0
87.70273
0.722102
5.84E+00
Sgg pro
Fratio
0
815.34215
6.7131348
54.255951
Seq SS
153.23087
2.65E-98 85.587631
3.37E-18 8.8357343
0.009829 0.7221021
Prob
Alpha
1
8.46E-104
6.71E-01
9.80E-28
MSE
0.025961
0.012878
0.012389
0.009952

p
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
1.000
0.000
0.496
0.505 161.3373
0.477
0.525
135.43
0.383
0.619
4
Prob
Alpha
1
5.48E-110
9.83E-03
6.62E-13
MSE
0.282193
0.124803
0.108701
0.107566

p
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
1.000
0.000
0.442
0.559 88.85592
0.385
0.616 8.713135
0.381
0.621
4
283
2
3
4
0.05
2
3
4
0.05
2
3
4
J.12. Two-Factor ANOVA: Shrinkage of Field HPLC (8F & 10F)
Factors
Levels
Compressive
Strength
Time under Load
8,000-psi
10,000-psi
Shrinkage
Step
Intercept
217.5329
1
Time Load 1.076373
1
Strength
0.360069
1
DF error
Parameter Action
327
1 Time Load Entered
326
2 Strength Entered
325
SS
Fratio
0
0
14487633 200.826
76713.95
1.0634
Sgg pro Seq SS
38205917
3.27E-36 14683624
0.303208 76713.95
Alpha
0.05
1
MSE
Rel MSE Rsquared Cp
p
116837.7
1.000
0.000
72154
0.618
0.384
2.0634
72140
0.617
0.386
3
Prob
284
2
3
Appendix K. Experimental Results

K.1. Compressive Strength
Accelerated-Cured
Age
8L
(days)
Single test
16 hours 7278.951
16 hours 6992.472
16 hours 7699.916
20 hours 8004.698
20 hours 7672.064
20 hours 7212.106
1
6996
1
8259
1
7935
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
8915
7
9460
7
9524
28
9689
28
9651
28
9556
56
10375
56
10503
56
10402
103
144
10L
8F
10F
Single test Single test Single test
9375.818
9980.606
10157.27
9609.775
9896.254
9786.437
11388
7314
8540
11265
6753
7983
10651
7212
8415
7340
8534
7772
8062
7577
8480
8401
8331
7783
8738
8689
8266
7268
8028
7292
8015
7171
7737
6959
0
7183
0
7259
0
10123
8130
9472
9955
7717
8812
10612
7586
9174
10739
8641
9193
10722
8742
9295
10303
8750
9545
10625
9036
10371
10970
9038
10115
10971
9178
10261
9418
10454
ASTM-Cured
Age
8L
(days)
Single test
1
6570.712
1
6168.05
1
6162.479
7
7
7
28
9945.592
28
10060.98
28
9776.092
56
10699.19
56
10751.71
56
10115.09
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
103
144
10L
Single test
6764.085
7013.958
6888.226
10678.5
10375.31
10758.87
11494.97
11345.36
11588.07
285
8F
Single test
5619.761
5611.008
5973.085
7323.515
7109.451
7519.275
8826.733
8712.142
8966.789
9328.867
9070.24
9656.726
9347.966
9718.001
9659.113
9305.79
9938.43
10259.13
8716.916
8873.684
8552.987
9212.684
9072.628
9470.515
10229
10229
10F
Single test
6686.895
6825.36
6147.36
8332.557
8206.029
7676.043
9964.691
9593.064
9862.036
10574.25
10325.97
9832.592
10758.08
10694.42
11175.86
10389.63
10364.17
10459.66
10496.27
10723.86
10349.85
10868
10868
K.2. Modulus of Elasticity

8L
Time Accelerated
(days)
Curing
0.67
3460
0.67
3660
0.67
3470
1
3750
1
3690
1
3560
56
4030
56
4040
56
3990
56
56
Values in ksi
ASTM
Curing
4380
4460
4320
10L
Accelerated
Curing
4060
4020
4170
4220
4260
4260
4210
4210
4300
ASTM
Curing
8F
Accelerated ASTM
Curing
Curing
4430
4300
4260
3670
3520
3510
3810
3900
3880
10F
Accelerated ASTM
Curing
Curing
3875
3810
3500
4060
4025
3960
3880
3770
4100
3590
3820
4130
3920
4130
K.3. Modulus of Rupture

8L
Time Accelerated ASTM
(days)
Curing
Curing
1
649
761
56
1077
1,030
Values in psi
10L
Accelerated
Curing
645
926
ASTM
Curing
678
918
8F
Accelerated ASTM
Curing
Curing
1042
992
286
10F
Accelerated ASTM
Curing
Curing
1161
981
K.4. Chloride Ion Permeability

8L
10L
8F
10F
Time Accelerated Accelerated Accelerated Accelerated
(days)
Curing
Curing
Curing
Curing
630
342
903
193
56
618
106
888
298
618
105
767
230
616
764
186
Values in coulombs
K.5. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

Time
(days)
56
8F
10F
Accelerated Accelerated
Curing
Curing
5.07
193
5.20
186
Values in /oF
287
K.6. 8L Creep and Shrinkage

Corrected by Temperature
NOT corrected by temperature
Shrinkage Shrinkage Shrinkage Shrinkage Shrinkage Shrinkage Shrinkage Shrinkage Shrinkage Shrinkage
Drying Time 1 top
1 bottom 2 top
2 bottom Average 1 top
1 bottom 2 top
2 bottom Average SH
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.43
0.83
1.88
3.00
5.04
7.19
8.98
16.17
23.02
27.09
37.06
55.68
68.97
83.06
111.04
138.83
167.19
195.23
224.94
258.23
282.93
336.81
363.78
504.86
532.77
567.98
600.73
621.93
0
25
109
144
136
146
175
164
136
146
228
244
241
325
344
348
486
569
579
608
636
650
640
644
662
657
672
709
700
728
749
735
738
766
0
60
104
149
141
146
175
145
126
131
219
249
241
316
340
349
472
554
564
569
617
621
641
640
648
653
663
700
696
734
750
751
744
752
0
135
175
105
117
115
144
134
141
120
173
204
221
293
329
333
456
549
574
579
631
636
638
668
677
668
667
720
703
761
772
761
752
761
0
165
180
65
107
115
154
149
151
140
198
234
226
328
369
378
501
579
609
599
651
661
658
693
687
688
687
730
723
766
782
776
777
771
0
96
142
116
125
130
162
148
138
134
205
232
232
316
346
352
479
563
581
589
634
642
645
662
669
666
672
715
705
748
763
756
753
763
0
100
200
240
240
250
250
250
240
250
330
340
340
430
430
449
579
659
669
699
729
749
739
759
779
729
789
829
769
859
869
879
879
899
0
135
195
245
245
250
250
230
230
235
320
345
340
420
425
450
565
645
655
660
710
720
740
755
765
725
780
820
765
865
870
895
885
885
0
135
175
105
120
115
155
155
165
155
200
225
245
320
340
360
475
565
590
595
650
660
665
695
720
665
710
765
740
820
820
830
795
820
0
165
180
65
110
115
165
170
175
175
225
255
250
355
380
405
520
595
625
615
670
685
685
720
730
685
730
775
760
825
830
845
820
830
288
0
134
187
164
179
182
205
201
202
204
269
291
294
381
394
416
535
616
635
642
690
704
707
732
749
701
752
797
759
842
847
862
845
859
16h-40%
Time Load3 top
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.10
0.14
0.18
0.41
0.93
1.84
3.17
5.16
7.31
9.10
16.31
23.15
27.22
37.17
55.81
69.10
83.19
111.17
138.95
167.32
195.36
225.08
258.36
283.06
336.94
363.90
504.99
532.89
568.11
600.83
621.84
0
850
1019
1124
1189
1249
1269
1404
1449
1549
1689
1789
1904
1944
2134
2319
2359
2539
2679
2769
2809
2904
2968
3003
3028
3053
3073
3118
3158
3143
3238
3233
3298
3263
3258
Total strains
Creep
Total strains
Creep
16h-40% 16h-40% 16h-40%
1
1
1
1
16h-60% 16h-60% 16h-60% 16h-60%
1
1
1
1
3 bottom 4 top
4 bottom 3 top
3 bottom 4 top
4 bottom Average C 5 top
5 bottom 6 top
6 bottom 5 top
5 bottom 6 top
6 bottom Average C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
855
885
950
0
0
0
0
1230
1220
1360
1294
0
0
0
0
1020
1050
1130
36
31
31
46
36
1540
1385
1560
1459
176
31
66
31
76
1125
1150
1230
87
83
77
93
85
1460
1455
1679
1529
43
48
132
47
67
1180
1215
1285
176
161
166
171
169
1575
1590
1839
1673
181
206
316
216
230
1235
1280
1355
221
201
216
226
216
1625
1640
1899
1728
216
241
361
256
269
1260
1300
1385
237
223
232
253
236
1635
1700
1989
1818
223
298
447
342
327
344
447
1395
1420
1515
350
335
330
360
1800
1871
2079
1963
365
445
515
464
1430
1479
1560
399
374
394
409
394
1885
1931
2159
2038
454
509
599
543
526
1540
1584
1655
497
483
497
503
495
2050
2081
2319
2208
618
658
757
712
686
1680
1719
1805
636
621
631
651
635
2220
2246
2489
2368
786
822
926
870
851
1760
1824
1900
671
636
671
681
665
2380
2406
2659
2543
881
917
1031
980
952
1875
1919
2005
763
729
743
764
750
2485
2516
2729
2658
964
1004
1078
1073
1030
794
1086
1925
1974
2045
801
776
796
801
2560
2571
2789
2703
1036
1057
1136
1115
2115
2174
2260
903
879
908
929
905
2745
2801
2999
2957
1134
1199
1258
1282
1218
2300
2344
2430
1076
1052
1066
1086
1070
2905
2981
3199
3152
1281
1367
1446
1465
1390
2340
2399
2475
1093
1069
1098
1109
1092
2980
3061
3239
3222
1334
1424
1463
1512
1433
2495
2529
2620
1154
1105
1110
1135
1126
3175
3251
3439
3432
1410
1496
1544
1603
1513
2640
2689
2775
1213
1169
1188
1209
1195
3335
3411
3579
3577
1489
1575
1603
1667
1583
2710
2769
2840
1284
1220
1250
1255
1252
3415
3481
3679
3677
1550
1626
1684
1748
1652
2760
2809
2875
1317
1263
1282
1283
1286
3480
3541
3769
3747
1608
1678
1767
1810
1716
2850
2904
2975
1364
1305
1329
1335
1334
3580
3631
3829
3807
1660
1721
1779
1823
1746
2910
2959
3040
1415
1352
1371
1387
1381
3640
3686
3889
3861
1706
1762
1826
1864
1790
2945
2984
3065
1447
1383
1392
1408
1407
3690
3711
3929
3886
1753
1783
1862
1885
1821
2960
3024
3100
1447
1373
1407
1418
1411
3925
3711
3929
3916
1963
1758
1837
1890
1862
3005
3049
3120
1455
1402
1416
1422
1424
3945
3756
3969
3951
1967
1787
1861
1909
1881
3020
3034
3105
1523
1464
1448
1454
1472
3935
3766
3949
3916
2004
1845
1888
1921
1915
3060
3094
3165
1517
1453
1457
1463
1472
4005
3821
4039
3971
2023
1848
1927
1925
1931
3095
3164
3250
1511
1443
1482
1503
1485
4025
3851
4059
4016
1998
1833
1902
1925
1915
3075
3099
3170
1535
1462
1456
1462
1479
3845
3796
4039
3976
1856
1817
1921
1924
1880
3185
3239
3315
1546
1488
1512
1523
1517
4165
3926
4159
4141
2093
1863
1957
2005
1980
3170
3224
3300
1536
1468
1492
1503
1500
4130
3911
4129
4081
2053
1843
1922
1940
1940
3240
3289
3365
1586
1523
1542
1553
1551
4185
3966
4189
4156
2093
1883
1967
2000
1986
3200
3279
3355
1569
1500
1549
1560
1545
4200
3971
4149
4156
2125
1906
1944
2018
1998
3195
3239
3315
1550
1482
1496
1507
1509
4225
4006
4189
4181
2137
1927
1971
2029
2016
289
Total strains
Creep
Total strains
Creep
24h-40% 24h-40% 24h-40% 24h-40%
1
1
1
1
24h-60% 24h-60% 24h-60% 24h-60%
1
1
1
1
9 bottom 10 top
10 bottom 9 top
9 bottom 10 top
10 bottom Average C
Time Load 7 top
7 bottom 8 top
8 bottom 7 top
7 bottom 8 top
8 bottom Average C9 top
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
989
824
835
935
0
0
0
0
1325
1370
1347
1309
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
31
0.02
1149
959
1000
1090
26
1
31
21
1490
1555
1492
1474
31
51
11
31
0.06
1214
1044
1070
1150
37
32
48
27
1620
1650
1586
1583
108
92
52
86
36
85
0.10
1264
1094
1130
1195
111
106
131
96
1755
1790
1721
1698
266
256
211
225
111
239
0.14
1259
1079
1090
1190
91
76
76
76
1750
1775
1706
1693
246
226
181
205
80
215
74
267
0.18
1234
1074
1115
1185
62
67
98
68
1810
1825
1771
1742
303
272
242
251
0.41
1329
1164
1215
1295
135
135
175
155
1891
1910
1826
1807
360
335
274
293
150
315
0.93
1379
1214
1240
1330
189
189
204
194
1991
2005
1951
1912
464
434
402
401
194
425
1.84
1764
1604
1630
1720
572
577
593
582
2146
2174
2095
2051
618
602
546
539
581
576
732
692
3.17
1904
1759
1785
1880
711
731
746
741
2271
2294
2195
2175
742
721
644
662
5.16
2049
1894
1920
2020
791
801
817
816
2471
2499
2404
2409
877
861
789
831
806
839
7.31
2094
1934
1945
2070
813
818
819
844
2551
2564
2479
2474
934
904
841
874
823
888
9.10
2134
1964
2010
2095
851
846
882
866
2646
2674
2584
2564
1027
1011
944
961
861
986
968
1069
16.31
2309
2153
2220
2300
938
948
1004
984
2856
2859
2734
2704
1149
1108
1006
1013
23.15
2458
2288
2365
2439
1075
1070
1137
1111
3111
3134
2993
3017
1392
1371
1253
1314
1098
1332
27.22
2508
2343
2415
2499
1103
1103
1164
1149
3246
3274
3123
3106
1504
1488
1360
1381
1130
1433
37.17
2628
2473
2565
2629
1104
1114
1195
1160
3431
3469
3307
3315
1571
1565
1426
1471
1143
1508
1228
1618
55.81
2808
2643
2716
2794
1203
1203
1264
1243
3631
3679
3492
3484
1689
1693
1529
1559
69.10
2868
2713
2816
2869
1244
1254
1346
1300
3716
3739
3592
3579
1756
1735
1610
1634
1286
1684
83.19
2888
2738
2846
2889
1256
1271
1368
1312
3781
3804
3637
3633
1813
1792
1647
1682
1302
1734
111.17
2973
2818
2921
2979
1294
1304
1396
1355
3921
3944
3766
3743
1906
1884
1729
1744
1337
1816
1356
1857
138.95
3013
2853
2936
3019
1320
1325
1397
1381
3966
4014
3821
3793
1937
1941
1771
1780
167.32
3093
2933
3006
3089
1396
1401
1463
1447
4041
4069
3891
3863
2008
1992
1837
1846
1427
1921
195.36
3078
2923
3011
3094
1356
1366
1443
1427
4046
4084
3886
3882
1988
1982
1807
1841
1398
1904
225.08
3118
2978
3066
3144
1380
1405
1482
1461
4061
4099
3911
3877
1987
1981
1815
1820
1432
1901
1471
1964
258.36
3108
2968
3056
3139
1417
1442
1519
1503
4051
4104
3951
3907
2025
2033
1903
1897
283.06
3163
3028
3121
3194
1421
1451
1533
1507
4146
4214
3981
3962
2068
2092
1882
1900
1478
1986
336.94
3248
3088
3161
3224
1461
1466
1528
1492
4216
4294
4051
4142
2093
2127
1906
2035
1487
2040
363.90
3218
3063
3141
3204
1470
1480
1547
1511
4231
4294
4061
4091
2147
2166
1955
2024
1502
2073
1549
2071
504.99
3358
3213
3256
3324
1526
1546
1578
1547
4316
4369
4170
4151
2148
2157
1981
1999
532.89
3313
3158
3236
3289
1476
1486
1553
1507
4311
4374
4155
4146
2138
2157
1961
1989
1506
2061
568.11
3363
3193
3271
3334
1511
1506
1573
1537
4366
4439
4190
4176
2178
2207
1981
2004
1532
2093
600.83
3358
3208
3306
3379
1523
1538
1626
1600
4356
4439
4220
4201
2186
2224
2028
2047
1572
2121
621.84
3343
3233
3291
3384
1495
1550
1597
1591
4396
4464
4215
4206
2212
2236
2010
2038
1558
2124
290
K.7. 8F Creep and Shrinkage

1 bottom 2 top
2 bottom Average S1 top
1 bottom 2 top
2 bottom Average S
Drying Tim1 top
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.42
0.63
0.83
1.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
16.00
23.00
27.00
37.00
55.00
79.00
107.00
149.00
167.14
194.82
223.34
251.36
279.27
307.44
336.45
364.22
393.47
422.03
588.01
615.93
679.93
0
-248
-218
-212
-111
-228
-92
-12
143
248
268
378
403
443
448
508
583
588
613
673
658
648
768
958
978
980
977
964
946
946
922
929
958
986
1028
1009
984
0
-258
-237
-372
-331
-172
-247
-177
-217
-162
73
-42
-12
33
18
207
157
217
222
282
322
332
482
662
662
669
666
648
630
630
606
603
632
670
702
703
678
0
-497
-262
-167
-156
-213
-118
-88
-48
152
137
346
351
396
361
466
451
456
486
441
481
466
631
816
812
799
801
748
740
740
731
723
752
760
822
819
813
0
32
47
-42
74
97
117
177
147
187
302
282
312
312
362
432
457
497
502
512
532
637
797
976
967
959
947
908
910
905
886
878
907
920
967
959
944
0
-243
-168
-198
-131
-129
-85
-25
6
106
195
241
263
296
297
403
412
440
456
477
498
521
669
853
854
851
848
817
807
805
786
783
812
834
880
873
855
0
-225
-190
-180
-70
-190
-55
25
180
285
305
415
440
480
486
545
620
625
650
710
695
685
805
995
1015
1025
1020
1025
1010
1010
935
945
1035
1055
1100
1095
1075
0
-235
-210
-340
-290
-135
-210
-140
-180
-125
110
-5
25
70
55
245
195
255
260
320
359
369
519
699
699
714
709
709
694
694
619
619
709
739
774
789
769
0
-474
-235
-135
-115
-165
-70
-40
0
200
185
394
400
444
410
514
499
504
534
489
529
514
679
864
849
844
844
809
804
804
744
739
829
829
894
904
904
0
55
75
-10
115
145
165
225
195
235
350
330
360
360
410
480
505
545
550
560
580
685
845
1024
1004
1004
989
969
974
969
899
895
984
989
1039
1044
1034
291
0
-220
-140
-166
-90
-86
-42
18
49
149
237
284
306
339
340
446
455
482
498
520
541
563
712
896
892
897
891
878
871
869
799
799
889
903
952
958
946
Total strains
24h-40% 24h-40% 24h-40% 24h-40%
1 bottom 2 top
2 bottom 1 top
Time Load1 top
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.42
0.63
0.83
1.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
16.00
23.00
27.00
37.00
55.00
79.00
107.00
149.00
166.88
194.56
223.08
251.10
279.01
307.18
335.70
363.96
393.22
421.77
587.74
615.66
679.69
822
921
856
792
868
956
1046
1091
1096
1131
1191
1276
1346
1406
1606
1650
1860
1910
1890
1970
2070
2315
2565
2785
2830
2892
2955
2961
3033
3058
3079
3111
3155
3198
3375
3327
3321
832
851
871
662
933
1411
1446
1666
1636
1835
1785
1940
2010
1860
2310
2225
2380
2410
2430
2470
2575
2795
2984
3184
3255
3322
3369
3431
3503
3553
3594
3631
3660
3718
3800
3851
3846
857
1041
1051
1057
1098
1181
1301
1466
1555
1650
1595
1925
1860
1790
1825
1885
2165
2220
2260
2300
2405
2624
2904
3114
3180
3232
3249
3285
3348
3403
3468
3471
3564
3592
3729
3731
3726
908
192
1058
934
384
1083
1153
1218
1183
1303
1308
1383
1513
1483
1738
1718
1923
1963
1963
2059
2149
2394
2649
2864
2930
2962
2985
3031
3088
3073
3099
3101
3155
3183
3326
3327
3322
0
319
175
137
136
221
267
252
226
161
132
171
218
245
444
383
584
606
570
629
708
930
1031
1067
1117
1174
1243
1261
1341
1367
1458
1490
1444
1473
1602
1547
1554
Creep
1
1 bottom 2 top
0
239
180
-3
191
665
656
816
755
855
716
825
872
690
1138
947
1093
1096
1100
1118
1202
1400
1441
1457
1531
1593
1647
1721
1801
1852
1962
2000
1939
1983
2016
2062
2069
0
404
335
367
331
411
487
592
650
645
501
785
698
595
629
583
854
881
905
924
1007
1205
1336
1362
1431
1478
1502
1551
1621
1677
1812
1815
1818
1833
1921
1916
1924
Total strains
1
24h-60% 24h-60% 24h-60% 24h-60%
3 bottom 4 top
4 bottom 3 top
0
-497
290
192
-434
261
287
292
226
246
162
191
299
236
490
364
561
573
557
631
700
922
1029
1061
1130
1157
1186
1245
1310
1296
1391
1394
1358
1372
1466
1461
1468
0
117
245
173
56
389
424
488
464
477
378
493
522
442
675
569
773
789
783
825
904
1114
1209
1237
1302
1351
1394
1445
1518
1548
1656
1675
1640
1665
1751
1747
1754
292
1337
1427
1517
1473
1798
1537
1667
1692
1857
1926
1996
2086
2136
2086
2326
2401
2591
2626
2681
2726
2911
3176
3446
3646
3712
3754
3756
3773
3760
3780
3776
3823
3837
3870
4012
3964
3958
1332
1472
1377
1408
1824
1592
1617
1682
1712
1777
1957
2112
2132
2017
2327
2392
2587
2632
2677
2716
2896
3156
3381
3586
3702
3734
3757
3788
3785
3795
3881
3908
3912
3950
4092
4034
4029
1411
1501
1311
1497
2082
1821
1970
2000
2065
2290
2295
2725
2570
2345
2650
2835
2995
3050
3170
3110
3274
3509
3784
4004
4085
4137
4134
4210
4218
4228
4228
4321
4354
4397
4495
4471
4466
1411
1660
1600
1836
1911
1984
1890
1974
2079
2149
2299
2409
2454
2399
2574
2694
2878
2938
2958
3043
3273
3448
3588
3807
3893
3950
4012
4099
4106
4121
4112
4254
4272
4305
4388
4344
4339
0
309
320
302
551
286
372
337
471
441
422
466
493
411
649
618
800
807
846
870
1033
1276
1397
1413
1483
1520
1529
1558
1552
1574
1639
1687
1610
1630
1723
1669
1676
Creep
1
3 bottom 4 top
0
359
185
242
581
346
327
332
331
296
387
496
493
346
654
613
800
817
846
865
1023
1261
1337
1359
1478
1505
1534
1578
1583
1594
1749
1777
1690
1715
1808
1744
1751
0
309
40
252
761
495
602
572
605
730
646
1030
853
595
899
978
1129
1156
1260
1179
1322
1535
1661
1697
1781
1828
1832
1921
1936
1947
2018
2110
2054
2083
2132
2102
2109
1
4 bottom Average C
0
469
329
591
591
660
521
546
620
590
651
715
737
650
823
837
1013
1046
1049
1113
1321
1474
1465
1501
1590
1642
1711
1810
1825
1841
1902
2044
1973
1992
2025
1976
1983
0
362
218
346
621
447
456
447
507
514
527
677
644
500
756
762
935
956
1000
1006
1175
1386
1465
1493
1583
1624
1652
1717
1724
1739
1827
1904
1832
1855
1922
1873
1880
K.8. 10L Creep and Shrinkage

Corrected by Temperature NO corrected by Temperature
Corrected by Temperature NO corrected by Temperature
Shrinkage Shrinkage ShrinkageShrinkage Shrinkage Shrinkage
Shrinkage Shrinkage ShrinkageShrinkage Shrinkage Shrinkage
Drying Tim1 top
1 bottom Average SDrying Tim2 top
2 bottom Average S
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.38
0.79
1.81
3.17
4.82
7.04
9.10
15.93
23.18
28.22
36.95
55.25
69.81
82.87
111.02
139.31
167.36
194.93
225.23
251.25
279.31
306.49
335.00
371.98
495.95
523.87
559.06
591.89
620.72
0
58
65
86
61
68
83
96
76
51
76
108
84
171
186
246
273
293
296
350
321
331
305
320
324
310
336
346
367
378
394
367
431
406
421
0
43
60
76
46
43
68
71
56
31
41
88
54
151
161
216
264
279
271
316
296
316
280
295
300
275
312
307
322
339
354
333
391
381
377
0
50
62
81
53
55
76
83
66
41
58
98
69
161
173
231
269
286
284
333
309
324
293
307
312
292
324
326
344
358
374
350
411
393
399
0
95
110
150
135
145
155
165
150
120
145
180
145
235
255
310
340
360
360
430
385
395
390
410
415
355
395
450
465
490
500
455
545
520
525
0
80
105
140
120
120
140
140
130
100
110
160
115
215
230
280
330
345
335
395
360
380
365
385
390
320
370
410
420
450
460
420
505
495
480
0
87
107
145
127
132
147
152
140
110
127
170
130
225
242
295
335
352
347
412
372
387
377
397
402
337
382
430
442
470
480
437
525
507
502
0.00
0.03
0.07
0.11
0.15
0.20
0.24
0.49
1.19
2.12
3.44
5.03
7.57
9.44
16.38
23.17
27.03
37.16
55.31
68.99
83.33
111.02
139.45
167.41
196.38
223.52
252.56
307.72
335.03
365.19
489.13
517.05
552.23
591.20
619.97
0
21
5
-40
32
47
117
147
150
96
121
148
156
146
155
235
230
288
293
298
309
322
323
344
349
350
319
407
416
395
441
424
485
461
466
0
76
75
45
92
92
127
167
165
126
146
153
161
155
165
260
260
298
303
318
339
342
358
359
349
345
338
391
390
405
450
419
465
455
446
293
0
48
40
2
62
70
122
157
157
111
133
150
159
151
160
247
245
293
298
308
324
332
340
352
349
347
329
399
403
400
446
422
475
458
456
0
50
50
5
80
95
165
195
200
125
150
185
180
180
195
280
280
325
330
335
365
370
365
405
405
395
345
470
495
480
520
485
575
540
540
0
105
120
90
140
140
175
215
215
155
175
190
185
190
205
305
310
335
340
355
395
390
400
420
405
390
365
455
470
490
530
480
555
535
520
0
78
85
47
110
118
170
205
208
140
163
188
183
185
200
293
295
330
335
345
380
380
383
413
405
393
355
463
483
485
525
483
565
538
530
Total strains
Creep
Total strains
Creep
16h-40% 16h-40% 16h-40% 16h-40%
1
1
1
1
16h-60% 16h-60% 16h-60% 16h-60%
1
1
1
1
3 bottom 4 top
4 bottom 3 top
3 bottom 4 top
5 bottom 6 top
6 bottom 5 top
5 bottom 6 top
6 bottom Average C
Drying Tim3 top
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
865
850
875
950
0
0
0
0
1320
1300
1323
1294
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
1070
1015
1105
1140
118
78
142
102
1510
1490
1522
1479
103
103
112
97
110
104
0.05
1165
1130
1205
1245
193
173
222
187
1575
1550
1627
1563
148
143
197
161
194
162
0.09
1260
1240
1305
1340
250
245
285
245
1705
1665
1702
1648
240
220
234
208
256
226
0.13
1305
1290
1325
1385
313
313
322
307
1720
1670
1687
1658
273
243
237
236
314
247
0.17
1320
1305
1335
1385
323
323
327
302
1755
1715
1726
1692
303
283
271
266
319
281
0.38
1340
1380
1414
1455
328
383
392
357
1835
1790
1796
1767
368
343
326
325
365
340
0.79
1466
1465
1469
1530
448
463
442
427
1890
1860
1866
1817
418
408
391
370
445
396
1.81
1561
1555
1549
1605
555
565
535
515
2005
1955
1955
1936
545
515
493
502
543
514
3.17
1641
1635
1619
1670
665
675
635
610
2080
2065
2040
2001
650
655
607
596
646
627
4.82
1756
1705
1704
1780
763
728
702
702
2195
2165
2159
2125
748
738
709
703
724
724
7.04
1781
1730
1734
1825
745
710
690
705
2255
2220
2224
2185
765
750
731
720
713
742
9.10
1931
1870
1884
1920
935
890
880
840
2376
2340
2333
2304
925
910
881
880
886
899
15.93
2106
2045
2069
2120
1015
970
970
945
2586
2555
2562
2533
1040
1030
1014
1014
975
1025
23.18
2206
2180
2179
2240
1098
1088
1062
1047
2686
2640
2642
2608
1123
1098
1076
1071
1074
1092
28.22
2296
2260
2269
2320
1136
1115
1100
1075
2791
2750
2766
2727
1175
1155
1148
1138
1106
1154
36.95
2346
2315
2319
2365
1146
1130
1110
1080
2856
2830
2840
2787
1200
1195
1183
1157
1116
1184
55.25
2436
2410
2414
2475
1218
1208
1187
1172
2961
2915
2925
2876
1288
1263
1250
1229
1196
1257
69.81
2491
2445
2469
2535
1278
1248
1247
1237
3006
2960
2975
2931
1338
1313
1305
1289
1253
1311
82.87
2556
2520
2529
2605
1278
1258
1242
1243
3116
3055
3074
3020
1383
1343
1339
1314
1255
1345
111.02
2581
2565
2564
2585
1343
1343
1317
1263
3136
3085
3099
3040
1443
1413
1404
1374
1316
1408
139.31
2571
2540
2564
2595
1318
1303
1302
1258
3131
3070
3094
3045
1423
1383
1384
1364
1295
1388
167.36
2601
2590
2614
2655
1358
1363
1362
1328
3171
3125
3154
3100
1473
1448
1454
1428
1353
1451
194.93
2651
2625
2644
2680
1388
1378
1372
1333
3231
3160
3198
3145
1513
1463
1478
1453
1368
1477
225.23
2651
2635
2679
2710
1383
1383
1402
1357
3231
3170
3193
3135
1508
1468
1468
1438
1381
1471
251.25
2616
2605
2589
2635
1413
1418
1377
1348
3221
3115
3173
3110
1563
1478
1514
1478
1389
1508
279.31
2656
2625
2674
2725
1408
1393
1417
1392
3246
3185
3238
3170
1543
1503
1533
1493
1403
1518
306.49
2736
2730
2729
2780
1441
1450
1424
1400
3296
3225
3278
3199
1545
1495
1525
1475
1429
1510
335.00
2766
2745
2759
2790
1458
1453
1442
1397
3386
3335
3367
3284
1623
1593
1602
1547
1438
1591
371.98
2781
2750
2769
2805
1446
1430
1424
1385
3356
3285
3343
3254
1565
1515
1550
1490
1421
1530
495.95
2846
2815
2839
2870
1501
1485
1484
1440
3436
3375
3417
3344
1636
1595
1615
1570
1478
1604
523.87
2851
2805
2849
2875
1548
1518
1537
1487
3431
3365
3422
3344
1673
1628
1662
1612
1523
1644
559.06
2916
2865
2899
2920
1526
1490
1499
1445
3491
3435
3487
3414
1646
1610
1640
1594
1490
1622
591.89
2926
2900
2904
2925
1553
1543
1522
1468
3471
3425
3477
3409
1643
1618
1647
1607
1521
1629
620.72
2911
2875
2894
2930
1543
1523
1517
1478
3471
3425
3477
3409
1648
1623
1652
1612
1515
1634
294
Total strains
Creep
Total strains
Creep
24h-40% 24h-40% 24h-40% 24h-40%
1
1
1
1
24h-60% 24h-60% 24h-60% 24h-60%
1
1
1
1
7 bottom 8 top
8 bottom 7 top
7 bottom 8 top
9 bottom 10 top
10 bottom 9 top
9 bottom 10 top
10 bottom Average C
Drying Tim7 top
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
1339
1565
1008
1020
0
0
0
0
1824
1598
1525
1576
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
1469
1655
1103
1114
52
13
17
17
1979
1748
1660
1831
77
72
57
178
25
96
0.07
1539
1730
1173
1169
115
80
80
64
2089
1863
1760
1916
180
180
150
255
85
191
0.11
1539
1745
1193
1209
152
133
137
141
2209
1983
1875
1986
337
337
303
363
141
335
0.15
1624
1820
1283
1263
175
145
164
134
2239
2003
1905
2006
305
295
270
320
154
297
0.20
1654
1830
1312
1278
197
147
187
141
2334
2118
2000
2081
392
402
357
388
168
385
0.24
1654
1835
1312
1293
145
100
134
103
2354
2148
2025
2106
360
379
330
360
121
357
0.49
1799
1965
1477
1452
255
195
264
227
2519
2323
2190
2251
490
519
460
470
235
485
1.19
1839
2035
1547
1512
292
262
331
285
2524
2323
2205
2286
492
517
472
503
293
496
2.12
1889
2050
1567
1552
410
345
419
392
2644
2432
2300
2377
680
694
635
660
391
667
3.44
1959
2115
1662
1642
457
387
491
459
2679
2467
2325
2412
692
707
637
673
449
677
5.03
1984
2140
1697
1672
457
387
501
464
2759
2547
2420
2487
747
761
707
723
452
735
7.57
2124
2290
1851
1826
602
542
661
623
2839
2657
2540
2597
832
876
832
838
607
845
9.44
2119
2285
1846
1826
595
535
653
621
2934
2722
2575
2647
924
939
865
886
601
903
16.38
2229
2390
1971
1950
690
625
763
730
3059
2842
2715
2832
1034
1044
990
1056
702
1031
23.17
2354
2495
2091
2060
722
637
790
747
3194
2992
2845
2962
1077
1101
1027
1093
724
1075
27.03
2349
2505
2091
2065
715
645
788
750
3204
2997
2855
2962
1084
1103
1035
1091
724
1078
37.16
2449
2595
2201
2174
779
700
863
824
3328
3107
2995
3092
1174
1178
1140
1186
792
1170
55.31
2524
2650
2251
2224
849
750
908
869
3453
3227
3090
3197
1294
1293
1230
1286
844
1276
68.99
2624
2760
2346
2323
939
850
992
958
3518
3297
3175
3272
1349
1353
1305
1351
935
1340
83.33
2649
2800
2395
2363
929
855
1007
963
3613
3391
3270
3372
1409
1413
1365
1416
939
1401
111.02
2659
2800
2405
2378
939
855
1017
978
3643
3431
3325
3427
1439
1453
1420
1471
947
1446
139.45
2729
2845
2475
2438
1007
897
1085
1035
3728
3531
3410
3522
1522
1550
1502
1564
1006
1535
167.41
2769
2890
2505
2467
1017
912
1084
1035
3768
3566
3435
3533
1531
1555
1497
1544
1012
1532
196.38
2794
2915
2535
2477
1049
945
1122
1052
3793
3591
3465
3563
1564
1588
1535
1581
1042
1567
223.52
2819
2920
2560
2517
1087
962
1159
1105
3813
3626
3490
3578
1596
1635
1572
1609
1078
1603
252.56
2799
2925
2555
2502
1104
1005
1192
1127
3868
3681
3520
3638
1689
1728
1640
1706
1107
1691
307.72
2959
3050
2685
2642
1157
1022
1214
1159
3953
3816
3610
3733
1666
1755
1622
1694
1138
1684
335.03
2994
3090
2710
2661
1172
1042
1219
1159
3998
3791
3625
3738
1691
1710
1617
1679
1148
1674
365.19
3004
3100
2760
2691
1179
1050
1267
1186
4013
3811
3675
3803
1704
1728
1665
1742
1171
1710
489.13
3054
3155
2810
2756
1189
1065
1276
1211
4098
3866
3725
3858
1749
1743
1675
1757
1185
1731
517.05
3069
3174
2805
2741
1247
1127
1314
1239
4103
3901
3755
3888
1796
1820
1747
1829
1232
1798
552.23
3134
3239
2845
2806
1229
1110
1271
1221
4178
3966
3845
3983
1789
1802
1755
1842
1208
1797
591.20
3149
3259
2875
2836
1272
1157
1329
1278
4173
3966
3840
3988
1811
1830
1777
1874
1259
1823
619.97
3154
3254
2885
2841
1284
1160
1346
1291
4183
3981
3830
3968
1829
1852
1775
1862
1270
1829
295
K.9. 10F Creep and Shrinkage

Drying Tim1 top
1 bottom 2 top
1 bottom 2 top
2 bottom Average S
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.13
0.17
0.24
0.42
0.83
1.00
1.92
2.92
4.92
6.92
8.92
15.92
22.92
26.92
36.92
54.92
78.92
106.92
147.92
167.03
194.74
223.13
253.00
278.92
306.96
335.71
364.96
418.56
584.70
607.65
680.08
0
40
125
-44
52
165
234
140
170
175
175
155
135
240
244
264
175
200
150
259
254
329
469
676
695
657
659
676
663
716
676
640
680
705
742
747
0
10
-20
-34
7
180
165
335
275
115
115
122
130
145
214
214
194
234
184
279
274
354
504
731
750
702
718
711
713
765
731
670
730
740
776
787
0
7
-13
23
29
157
27
82
107
127
127
127
132
227
262
287
252
312
297
382
387
467
617
789
832
774
781
808
791
863
799
743
823
828
864
885
0
0
-25
1
-3
55
5
60
70
95
95
90
85
120
180
200
145
190
140
250
314
364
539
697
745
692
714
721
703
786
726
675
740
745
787
807
0
14
17
-14
21
139
108
154
155
128
128
123
120
183
225
241
191
234
193
293
308
379
532
723
780
837
718
729
718
782
733
682
743
755
792
807
0
45
135
-30
75
195
265
170
200
205
205
185
165
270
275
295
205
230
180
290
285
360
500
709
714
684
699
719
709
719
674
699
734
759
814
809
0
15
-10
-20
30
210
195
365
305
145
145
152
160
175
245
245
225
265
215
310
305
385
534
764
769
729
759
754
759
769
729
729
784
794
849
849
0
12
-2
37
52
187
57
112
137
157
157
157
162
257
292
317
282
342
327
412
417
497
647
822
852
802
822
852
837
867
797
802
877
882
937
947
0
5
-15
15
20
85
35
90
100
125
125
120
115
150
210
230
175
220
170
280
345
395
570
729
764
719
754
764
749
789
724
734
794
799
859
869
296
0
19
27
1
44
169
138
184
186
158
158
154
150
213
255
272
222
264
223
323
338
409
563
756
813
870
759
772
764
786
731
741
797
809
865
869
Total strains
Creep
Total strains
Creep
24h-40% 24h-40% 24h-40% 24h-40%
1
1
1
1
24h-60% 24h-60% 24h-60% 24h-60%
1
1
1
1
7 bottom 8 top
8 bottom 7 top
7 bottom 8 top
9 bottom 10 top
10 bottom 9 top
9 bottom 10 top
10 bottom Average C
Time Load7 top
0
0
0
0
0.00
902
895
815
765
0
0
0
0
1055
1031
965
966
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
972
985
910
855
51
71
76
71
1155
1161
1115
1076
81
111
131
91
67
103
0.04
992
975
930
880
63
53
88
88
1210
1151
1125
1111
128
93
133
118
73
118
0.06
1012
960
975
860
110
64
159
94
1280
1236
1220
1191
224
204
254
225
107
227
0.08
1022
985
945
885
76
46
86
76
1285
1296
1205
1196
186
221
196
186
71
197
0.13
1132
1125
1065
935
61
61
81
1
1295
1161
1195
1161
71
-39
61
26
51
30
0.17
1012
1155
1020
945
-28
122
67
42
1225
1211
1185
1161
32
42
82
57
51
53
0.22
1142
1140
1030
915
56
61
31
-34
1210
1201
1135
1106
-29
-14
-14
-44
28
-26
0.42
1233
1245
1120
985
145
164
119
34
1263
1241
1195
1151
23
25
44
0
116
23
0.83
1303
1324
1190
1040
243
272
217
117
1370
1321
1315
1241
157
132
192
117
212
150
1.00
1333
1374
1230
1075
273
322
257
152
1459
1391
1405
1351
247
202
282
227
251
240
1.92
1333
1384
1275
1150
277
336
306
231
1464
1446
1420
1436
256
262
301
317
288
284
2.92
1333
1444
1350
1260
280
399
384
344
1554
1591
1685
1491
349
410
570
375
352
426
4.92
1363
1439
1355
1285
248
332
327
307
1539
1611
1735
1526
272
367
557
347
303
386
6.92
1473
1639
1510
1360
316
489
439
340
1689
1701
1780
1671
379
415
560
450
396
451
8.92
1653
1729
1565
1420
480
563
478
383
1754
1716
1810
1696
428
414
573
459
476
469
15.92
1583
1684
1545
1450
460
568
508
463
500
1779
1736
1785
1736
503
484
598
549
533
22.92
1734
1709
1659
1570
568
551
581
541
560
1849
1801
1865
1841
531
506
636
612
571
26.92
1744
1764
1709
1565
619
647
672
577
629
1879
1816
1920
1856
602
562
732
668
641
36.92
1864
1924
1739
1640
639
707
602
552
2039
1926
1990
1947
662
572
702
658
625
649
54.92
1954
1919
1874
1720
714
687
722
617
2064
2086
2090
2007
672
717
787
703
685
720
78.92
2054
1994
1969
1780
743
691
746
606
2149
2141
2175
2127
686
701
801
752
696
735
106.92
2325
2169
2149
2000
860
712
772
672
2384
2371
2430
2367
767
778
902
838
754
821
147.92
2405
2319
2339
2155
747
668
768
633
2594
2581
2660
2567
783
794
939
845
704
840
167.02
2485
2439
2394
2210
770
731
766
632
2644
2626
2720
2632
776
782
942
853
725
838
194.73
2525
2489
2424
2240
753
724
739
605
2669
2721
2750
2647
744
821
915
811
705
823
223.12
2605
2549
2499
2360
945
896
926
836
2769
2826
2810
2737
956
1037
1086
1013
901
1023
252.99
2636
2594
2524
2370
961
927
937
832
2799
2866
2815
2747
972
1063
1078
1009
914
1030
278.92
2676
2609
2529
2395
1010
951
951
866
2814
2886
2825
2742
996
1092
1096
1013
944
1049
306.95
2706
2614
2534
2410
1018
933
933
859
2819
2896
2835
2737
978
1080
1084
985
936
1032
335.70
2736
2629
2549
2440
1103
1003
1003
944
2854
2901
2855
2742
1068
1140
1159
1045
1013
1103
364.94
2696
2654
2559
2425
1053
1018
1003
918
2874
2916
2865
2762
1078
1145
1159
1055
998
1109
418.54
2716
2654
2594
2450
1016
962
982
887
2964
2976
2955
2847
1112
1148
1193
1084
962
1134
584.67
2846
2804
2744
2605
1135
1101
1121
1031
3059
3096
3090
2972
1196
1257
1316
1198
1097
1242
612.60
2846
2804
2774
2620
1079
1044
1094
990
3069
3091
3075
2957
1149
1196
1245
1127
1052
1179
680.09
2916
2849
2839
2675
1146
1086
1156
1041
3099
3106
3135
3042
1176
1207
1301
1208
1107
1223
297
K.10. 8,000-psi HPLC girders Experimental Strains

G1A
Date Cast
11:30
7/10/01
7/10/01
7/10/01
7/11/01
7/12/01
7/13/01
7/17/01
7/24/01
10/24/01
10/29/01
G1B
Date Cast
11:30
7/10/01
7/10/01
7/10/01
7/11/01
7/12/01
7/13/01
7/17/01
7/24/01
11/2/01
11/4/01
(8F)
7/10/01
0.48
0.51
0.63
0.32
0.32
0.30
0.27
0.29
0.50
0.50
DAYS
0.00
0.03
0.15
0.84
1.84
2.82
6.79
13.81
106.02
111.02
Init1
Init2
Release
1
2
3
7
14
106
111
8 ksi Shrinkage 1T1A 39 ft beam

24 hours
Defl CL Defl CL Ohms Temp oC
1.703
0.00
2128
33.2
1.703
0.00
2128
33.2
2.063
0.36
2128
33.2
2.078
0.38
2.094
0.39
2470
29.6
2.094
0.39
2515
29.2
2.109
0.41
2884
26.0
2.125
0.42
2568
28.7
3780
20.0
3131
24.2
temp
0.0
0.0
0.0
CTE
Hz
924.84
924.84
822.05
2.76
Strain
0
0
-583
-3.5
-3.9
-7.1
-4.4
-13.2
-9.0
809.31
802.8
790.57
778.42
774.77
763.93
-661
-696
-768
-822
-865
-908
temp
0.0
0.0
0.0
CTE
Hz
929.61
929.61
822.64
2.76
Strain
0
0
-609
-4.7
-5.5
-8.7
-5.2
-9.7
-14.5
808.81
802.4
788.66
775.01
762.59
754.38
-695
-731
-811
-870
-945
-999
(8F)
7/10/01
0.48
0.51
0.64
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.29
0.50
0.50
DAYS
0.00
0.03
0.16
0.85
1.85
2.84
6.83
13.81
115.02
117.02
Init1
Init2
Release
1
2
3
7
14
113
115

24 hours
Defl CL Defl CL Ohms Temp oC
0.00
2009
34.5
0.00
2009
34.5
0.00
2009
34.5
0.00
0.00
2448
29.8
0.00
2534
29.0
0.00
2905
25.9
0.00
2499
29.4
3035
24.9
3770
20.0
298
K.11. 10,000-psi HPLC girders Experimental Strains

G2A
10F
Date Cast
10:15

24 hours
Defl CL Defl CL Ohms Temp oC temp
2.047
0.00
1377
43.9
0.0
Init1
2.047
0.00
1377
43.9
0.0
Init2
2.359
0.31
1410
43.3
-0.6
Release
2.313
0.27
2771
27.0
-16.9
1
7/13/01
7/13/01
7/13/01
7/13/01
7/14/01
0.43
0.43
0.65
0.31
DAYS
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.88
7/16/01
7/20/01
7/27/01
11/16/01
11/21/01
0.28
0.33
0.29
0.27
0.27
2.85
6.90
13.86
125.84
130.84
G2B
10F
Date Cast
12:40
3
7
14
125
130
2.32
2.344
2.344
0.27
0.30
0.30
2813
2556
2759
3450
3450
26.6
28.8
27.1
22.0
22.0
-17.3
-15.0
-16.8
-21.9
-21.9
CTE
Hz
920.4
920.4
846.4
844.75
2.43
Strain
0
0
-426
-475
843.64
838.23
839.09
836.69
836.12
-482
-506
-506
-531
-534
CTE
Hz
900.40
900.40
826.40
823.30
2.43
Strain
0
0
-417
-471
822.40
818.38
817.30
817.63
813.30
-479
-496
-506
-520
-540
7/13/01
7/13/01
7/13/01
7/13/01
7/14/01
0.53
0.54
0.63
0.29
DAYS
0.00
0.01
0.10
0.76
7/16/01
7/20/01
7/27/01
11/28/01
12/5/01
0.28
0.30
0.27
0.27
0.27
2.76
6.77
13.74
137.74
144.74

24 hours
Defl CL Defl CL Ohms Temp oC temp
1.875
0.00
1363
44.1
0.0
Init1
1.875
0.00
1363
44.1
0.0
Init2
2.172
0.30
1396
43.5
-0.6
Release
2.094
0.22
2653
28.0
-16.2
1
3
7
14
140
142
2.117
2.148
2.164
0.24
0.27
0.29
2789
2614
2797
3760
3550
26.8
28.3
26.7
20.1
21.3
299
-17.3
-15.8
-17.4
-24.1
-22.8
300
Appendix L. Model Comparison

L.1. Normal Strength Concrete Creep Models for 8,000-psi HPLC
creep coefficient
ACI-209 AASHTO-L CEB-FIP
8L
GL2001 SAK1993
Baant Panula - BP
Baant Baweja - B3
Time undecreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeffbasic creepdrying creeafter dryingcreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeff
0.6
0.6
0.3 coeff
coeff
coeff
basic creepdrying cree total creep
d
10
10
326.2
u
2.378599 1.662089 4.229596
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.02
0.555
0.166
-0.037
1.182
0.081
0.04
0.024
0.027
0.239
0.683
1.263
0.853
0.042
0.06
0.656
0.210
-0.052
1.283
0.102
0.06
0.041
0.045
0.313
0.814
1.385
1.240
0.071
0.10
0.729
0.243
-0.064
1.349
0.118
0.17
0.057
0.060
0.370
0.907
1.467
1.520
0.100
0.14
0.779
0.267
-0.073
1.393
0.130
0.18
0.071
0.073
0.412
0.972
1.523
1.708
0.123
0.18
0.818
0.286
-0.081
1.426
0.139
0.20
0.082
0.085
0.446
1.022
1.565
1.848
0.144
0.41
0.954
0.354
-0.110
1.535
0.173
0.29
0.132
0.133
0.571
1.198
1.708
2.286
0.233
0.93
1.111
0.438
-0.149
1.650
0.216
0.35
0.208
0.208
0.729
1.400
1.866
2.727
0.374
1.84
1.262
0.523
-0.193
1.752
0.263
0.55
0.300
0.296
0.893
1.592
2.014
3.116
0.551
3.17
1.396
0.603
-0.236
1.836
0.309
0.68
0.396
0.382
1.050
1.763
2.145
3.440
0.745
5.16
1.529
0.683
-0.283
1.915
0.360
0.76
0.502
0.471
1.213
1.929
2.275
3.728
0.969
7.31
1.632
0.747
-0.322
1.974
0.403
0.81
0.590
0.544
1.344
2.057
2.377
3.923
1.163
9.10
1.700
0.790
-0.350
2.011
0.433
0.87
0.650
0.593
1.433
2.141
2.445
4.039
1.300
16.31
1.896
0.916
-0.435
2.114
0.531
0.97
0.828
0.735
1.697
2.377
2.645
4.309
1.727
23.15
2.024
0.998
-0.496
2.178
0.604
1.14
0.945
0.824
1.874
2.527
2.782
4.444
2.025
27.22
2.086
1.039
-0.526
2.208
0.642
1.18
1.001
0.865
1.960
2.598
2.850
4.499
2.172
37.17
2.211
1.119
-0.591
2.266
0.723
1.22
1.110
0.944
2.134
2.739
2.990
4.594
2.468
55.81
2.385
1.229
-0.687
2.345
0.847
1.30
1.255
1.045
2.375
2.927
3.192
4.698
2.871
69.10
2.482
1.288
-0.744
2.387
0.919
1.36
1.331
1.097
2.506
3.027
3.306
4.746
3.083
83.19
2.570
1.340
-0.796
2.424
0.986
1.39
1.395
1.140
2.622
3.114
3.411
4.785
3.265
111.17
2.713
1.422
-0.886
2.483
1.096
1.44
1.494
1.206
2.804
3.249
3.579
4.840
3.537
138.95
2.828
1.484
-0.962
2.529
1.183
1.47
1.567
1.254
2.944
3.350
3.712
4.880
3.731
167.32
2.928
1.534
-1.029
2.568
1.254
1.52
1.625
1.293
3.058
3.433
3.822
4.911
3.879
195.36
3.014
1.576
-1.089
2.601
1.312
1.52
1.673
1.324
3.150
3.501
3.913
4.936
3.990
225.08
3.095
1.612
-1.146
2.632
1.362
1.53
1.714
1.352
3.233
3.561
3.994
4.959
4.083
258.36
3.176
1.646
-1.205
2.661
1.408
1.58
1.753
1.378
3.311
3.617
4.070
4.980
4.164
283.06
3.230
1.668
-1.245
2.681
1.437
1.59
1.778
1.394
3.361
3.654
4.118
4.994
4.212
336.94
3.337
1.709
-1.325
2.720
1.487
1.60
1.823
1.425
3.452
3.721
4.206
5.020
4.292
363.90
3.385
1.726
-1.362
2.737
1.507
1.60
1.843
1.438
3.491
3.749
4.243
5.032
4.323
504.99
3.599
1.793
-1.529
2.810
1.576
1.64
1.920
1.491
3.642
3.863
4.386
5.081
4.423
532.89
3.635
1.803
-1.558
2.822
1.585
1.62
1.932
1.499
3.665
3.880
4.407
5.089
4.435
568.11
3.679
1.814
-1.593
2.837
1.595
1.66
1.946
1.508
3.691
3.900
4.432
5.098
4.448
600.83
3.718
1.824
-1.624
2.850
1.603
1.67
1.957
1.516
3.714
3.918
4.453
5.106
4.458
621.84
3.741
1.830
-1.643
2.858
1.607
1.66
1.965
1.521
3.727
3.928
4.465
5.112
4.464
5000
5.522
2.016
-3.119
3.369
1.667
2.243
1.718
4.150
4.418
5.036
5.423
4.528
14600
6.745
2.039
-4.037
3.658
1.667
2.305
1.764
4.202
4.746
5.325
5.585
4.528
301
Basic Input
0.4
890
eelast @24
stress
2845
elast/stress
0.313
t'
1.0
t0
1.0
f'@24h
7730
f'c
10500
E28
4020000
RH
50
v
188.50
s
188.50
c
944
g
1742
s
1022
w
267.8
0.6
1307
4273
0.306
day
day
psi
psi
psi
%
in3
in2
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
ACI 209 Coeficients

assumption steam cured for 1 day
Creep
d
10
f
t
u
Base
2.35
Loading Age la
1.130 t'
Differential Shrink
1
Inicial Mois Curing
1
Ambient Relative Hum
0.935 RH
Volume Surface Ratio
1.106 v/s
1
Temperature other tha
Slump s
1.122 slump:
Fine Aggregate %
0.969 fa%
Cement Content c
1
Air Content
0.7975 air%
Ultimate value
2.378599
t 0 .6
? ?
?? u
d ? t 0 .6
1.0
50 %
1 in
4.5 in
37.0 %
3.75 %
not used for creep
AASHTO-LRFD
t' (maturity)
6.1 day
Creep
MPA
psi
f'@24h
53.3
7730
f'c
72.4
10500
d
10
0.6
u
Base
3.5
Loading Age
0.807594
Strength factor kf
0.544465
1.08
Ultimate value
1.662089
v
188.5
1 in
s
188.5
CEB-FIP
t'
1.0 day
psi
(t ' )
f'@24h
53.3
7730
(t , t ' ) =
f'c
72.4
10500 cr
E 28
c (40%)
19.6
2845
c (60%)
29.5
4273
E28
27724 4020000
RH
50 %
h
50.8 mm2
H
326.2
(t t ' )
RH
2.362252
50 (fm)
1.969542 28 = 0
H + (t t ' )
(t')
0.909091
o
4.229596
MPA
28
302
18

RH h
H = 150 1 + 1 .2
+ 250

100 100

Baant Panula
Baant Baweja
t'
1
day
t'
1.0
to
1
day
to
1.0
f'@24h
7730
f'@24h
7730
f'c
10500
f'c
10500
1/E0
8.28E-08
1/E0
0.104535
40%
60%
1307 Basic Creep
eelast @24 890
stress
2845
4273
0.3
Estat
3195107
3269815 m
0.5
Estat bar 3232461
n
0.1
Basic Creep
0.001
1
3.865
q0
1.9518
m
0.289
Drying Creep
x
6.857
RH
50
a1
0.93
H(t')
1
n
0.187
q5
0.571429
0.088
Kh'
Drying Creep
v
188.5
RH
50
s
188.5
cd
1.400
sh
128
cp
0.830
'd
0.031
d
0.031
Kh'
0.646 cylinder
Kh''
0.75
C1
122.4
Ks
1.15
v
188.5
s
188.5
sh
34.1
s?
356.2
sh?
377.9
r
2.932
a
2764
c
944
g
1742
s
1022
w
267.8
Gardner Lockman
Sakata
t'
1.0 day
t'
to
1.0 day
to
f'@24h
7730.0
f'@24h
E28
f'c
10500.0
f'c
eelast @24RH
0.5
40% v
188.5
RH
890 s
188.5
v
60% v/s
1 in
s
1307
40%
60%
eelast @24
890
1307 a
stress
2845
4273 c
g
s
%
w
e'bc
e'dc
day
day
303
1.1
1.0
7730
10500
50
3088889
121609.8
1639.8
560.1
1033.5
606.3
158.9
182.1
20.6
day
day
psi
psi
25.4 mm
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
L.2. High Strength Concrete Creep Models for 8,000-psi HPLC

Baant Panula for HSC
AFREM
8F-8L
Shams&KaB-FIP modif
Sakata 2001
Time unde creep coeffSpecific Cr Specific Cr basic creepdrying creeafter dryingcreep coef creep coef creep coef creep coef
0.6
0.3 coeff
coeff
coeff
basic creepdrying creep
d
6.747
341.2
u
2.73 1.019259
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.02
0.555
0.091
-0.037
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.036
0.184
0.608
0.041
-0.855
0.06
0.656
0.115
-0.052
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.060
0.241
0.719
0.063
-0.652
0.10
0.729
0.133
-0.064
0.08
0.00
0.17
0.081
0.285
0.797
0.082
-0.526
0.14
0.779
0.146
-0.073
0.09
0.00
0.18
0.098
0.317
0.851
0.097
-0.445
0.18
0.20
0.113
0.343
0.818
0.157
-0.081
0.893
0.11
0.00
0.109
-0.386
0.41
0.954
0.194
-0.110
0.15
0.01
0.29
0.176
0.440
1.038
0.159
-0.200
0.93
1.111
0.240
-0.149
0.21
0.02
0.35
0.270
0.561
1.202
0.226
-0.016
1.84
1.262
0.287
-0.193
0.26
0.04
0.55
0.378
0.688
1.356
0.301
0.138
3.17
1.396
0.331
-0.236
0.31
0.06
0.68
0.479
0.809
1.491
0.375
0.260
5.16
1.529
0.376
-0.283
0.36
0.09
0.76
0.579
0.935
1.622
0.453
0.370
7.31
1.632
0.412
-0.322
0.40
0.12
0.81
0.659
1.036
1.721
0.516
0.449
9.10
1.700
0.436
-0.350
0.42
0.14
0.87
0.711
1.104
1.786
0.558
0.498
16.31
1.896
0.507
-0.435
0.48
0.19
0.97
0.854
1.308
1.968
0.674
0.630
23.15
2.024
0.556
-0.496
0.52
0.23
1.14
0.939
1.444
2.084
0.745
0.709
27.22
2.086
0.579
-0.526
0.53
0.25
1.18
0.977
1.511
2.139
0.776
0.745
37.17
2.211
0.628
-0.591
0.56
0.27
1.22
1.047
1.646
2.248
0.834
0.816
55.81
2.385
0.697
-0.687
0.60
0.31
1.30
1.132
1.833
2.396
0.903
0.907
69.10
2.482
0.737
-0.744
0.61
0.32
1.36
1.174
1.935
2.476
0.936
0.956
83.19
2.570
0.773
-0.796
0.63
0.34
1.39
1.208
2.025
2.546
0.962
0.998
111.17
2.713
0.832
-0.886
0.65
0.35
1.44
1.258
2.167
2.658
0.999
1.063
138.95
2.828
0.880
-0.962
0.66
0.36
1.47
1.294
2.276
2.746
1.024
1.113
167.32
2.928
0.922
-1.029
0.68
0.37
1.52
1.322
2.366
2.820
1.043
1.155
195.36
1.52
1.344
2.439
3.014
0.958
-1.089
2.883
0.68
0.37
1.058
1.190
225.08
3.095
0.992
-1.146
0.69
0.38
1.53
1.364
2.504
2.940
1.070
1.222
258.36
3.176
1.026
-1.205
0.70
0.38
1.58
1.382
2.565
2.996
1.081
1.253
283.06
3.230
1.048
-1.245
0.70
0.38
1.59
1.393
2.604
3.034
1.088
1.274
336.94
3.337
1.093
-1.325
0.71
0.39
1.60
1.414
2.677
3.105
1.101
1.313
363.90
3.385
1.113
-1.362
0.72
0.39
1.60
1.423
2.708
3.137
1.106
1.331
504.99
3.599
1.201
-1.529
0.73
0.39
1.64
1.459
2.828
3.271
1.126
1.404
532.89
1.62
1.464
2.846
3.635
1.216
-1.558
3.294
0.73
0.39
1.129
1.417
568.11
3.679
1.234
-1.593
0.74
0.40
1.66
1.470
2.867
3.320
1.132
1.431
600.83
3.718
1.249
-1.624
0.74
0.40
1.67
1.476
2.885
3.343
1.135
1.444
621.84
3.741
1.259
-1.643
0.74
0.40
1.66
1.479
2.896
3.357
1.137
1.451
5000
5.522
1.791
-3.119
0.79
0.41
1.606
3.237
4.193
1.201
1.922
14600
6.745
1.942
-4.037
0.81
0.41
1.634
3.279
4.649
1.215
2.164
304
Basic Input
0.4
eelast @24
890
stress
2845
elast/stress
0.313
t'
1.0
t0
1.0
f'@24h
7730
f'c
10500
E28
4020000
RH
50
v
188.50
s
188.50
c
944
g
1742
s
1022
w
267.8
Shams&Kahn
0.6 assumption steam cured for 1 day
1307
4273
0.306
day
day
psi
psi
psi
%
in3
in2
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
d
?
Kfc
Kh
Kt'
Ks
Km
v
s
6.747479
2.73
0.395224
1.083333
0.721737
1.161834
1.555365
188.4956
188.4956
CEB-FIP modified by Yue and Taerwe (1993)

t'
1.0 day
MPA
psi
f'@24h
53.3
7730
f'c
72.4
10500
c (40%)
19.6
2845
c (60%)
29.5
4273
E28
27724 4020000
RH
50 %
h
50.8 mm
H
341.2
RH
2.362252
(fm)
1.537569
(t')
0.909091
o
3.301933
6.12 days
m tm
f'c
tm' (loading
stress/strength
RH
10500 psi
6.12 days
0.5
50 %
28
305

t'
1.0 day
to
1.0 day
f'@24h
7730
f'c
10500
1/E0
8.28E-09
0.4
0.6
eelast @24
890
1307
stress
2845
4273
Estat
31951074 32698152
Estat bar 32324613
Basic Creep
1
3.865
m
0.289
x
6.857
a1
0.93
n
0.187
0.088
Drying Creep
RH
50 %
cd
1.399684
cp
0.83
'd
0.031
d
0.031
ad
1.000
Kh'
0.646 cylinder
Kh''
0.75
C1
122.4
1
Ks
1.15
v
188.5
s
188.5
bd
100.0
sh
34.1
s?
356.2
sh?
377.9
r
2.932
a
2764
c
944
g
1742
s
1022
w
267.8
AFREM model
t'
1.0
to
1.0
f'@24h
53.3
f'c
72.4
1/E0
95.45147
0.4
eelast @24
890
stress
2845
Estat
31951074
Estat bar 32324613
SF?
yes
Basic Creep
bo
0.827
bc
2.907
Drying Creep
RH
50
Sakata
t'
to
f'@24h
E28
f'c
eelast @241/E0
0.6 RH
1307 v
4273 s
32698152
a
c
g
s
w
e'bc
%
e'dc
do
K(fmc)
A(fmc,H)
ds0
h
mm
1.0
14.793
27.574
0.007
50.8
day
day
1
1.0
7730
10500
0.105
0.5
3088889
121609.8
1639.8
560
1033
606
159
day
day
psi
psi
25.4 mm
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
26.4
306
L.3. Shrinkage Models for 8,000-psi HPLC

Measured ACI209
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.43
0.83
1.88
3.00
5.04
7.19
8.98
16.17
23.02
27.09
37.06
55.68
68.97
83.06
111.04
138.83
167.19
195.23
224.94
258.23
282.93
336.81
363.78
504.86
532.77
567.98
600.73
621.93
5000
14500
0
96
142
116
125
130
162
148
138
134
205
232
232
316
346
352
479
563
581
589
634
642
645
662
669
666
672
715
705
748
763
756
753
763
0
1
1
2
2
3
5
10
23
36
59
81
98
159
207
231
282
353
390
422
469
502
528
547
563
578
587
603
609
632
635
639
642
644
693
698
AASHTO CEB
0
1
2
3
4
5
11
21
46
71
113
151
180
274
339
370
430
503
538
567
605
631
649
663
674
684
690
700
704
718
720
722
724
725
753
755
BP
0
9
12
15
18
20
28
39
58
73
94
111
123
159
184
196
220
252
268
282
303
317
329
337
344
351
355
362
365
376
377
379
380
381
404
407
B3
0
12
16
20
23
26
37
51
76
94
119
138
151
188
210
220
239
260
271
278
289
296
301
305
308
311
312
315
316
320
321
321
322
322
330
330
GL
0
8
11
14
16
18
26
36
53
67
86
102
114
149
174
187
212
247
266
282
306
323
336
346
354
360
364
371
374
382
383
384
385
385
390
390
SAK-93
0
12
17
21
25
28
40
55
82
103
133
157
174
226
261
279
314
360
385
405
436
458
474
487
499
508
515
525
530
546
548
551
553
555
590
594
0
5
8
10
12
13
19
28
42
54
70
82
92
119
138
147
165
190
203
214
231
243
252
259
265
270
273
279
281
288
289
290
290
291
297
297
307
SAK-2001 AFREM
0
0
1
1
2
2
5
9
19
30
49
67
81
130
169
189
229
286
315
340
377
403
422
438
450
461
468
480
485
503
506
508
511
512
550
553
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
18
38
58
89
116
135
193
229
245
274
308
323
335
351
361
368
373
378
381
384
387
389
394
395
395
396
396
407
408
Shams and
0
1
3
4
5
7
13
25
55
83
129
169
198
286
341
366
412
464
486
504
527
542
552
559
565
570
573
578
580
587
588
589
589
590
603
604
Basic Input
eelast @24h
stress
elast/stress
t'
t0
f'@24h
f'c
E28
RH
0.4
890
2845
0.313
1.0
1.0
7730
10500
4020000
50
day
day
psi
psi
psi
%
ACI 209 Coeficients

0.6 assumpyion steam cured for 1 day
1307
Shrink
4273 d
0.306 f
55
(sh)u
Base
780
Loading Ag
1
Differential
1
Inicial Mois
1
Ambient R
0.900
0.5 @50%
v
s
c
188.50 in3
188.50 in2
944 lb/yd3
VS Ratio
Temperatu
Slump s
1.064
1.0
1
1.075 slump:
1742 lb/yd3
Fine Agg %
0.818 fa%
1022 lb/yd3
267.8 lb/yd3
Cement Co 1.08984 c
Air Content
0.98 air%
701
Ultimate va
AASHTO
Cure
steam
K
560
h
50 %
Kh
1.286
v
188.5 in3
s
188.5 in2
v/s
1 in
CEB-FIP
H
sRH
RH
SC
f'c
so
sH
Ac
u
Ac/u
50
0.875
-1.356
8
10500
407.8
90.3224
12.57
12.57
1
in2
in
in
BP model
to
t'
f'c
a
c
g
s
w
to
RH
Kh
C1
K't
4.5 in
1.0
1.0
10500
2764
944
1742
1022
267.8
1
50
0.875
26.71904 k't
1.327905 Ks
37.0 %
188.5
944 lb/yd3
188.5
3.75 %
not used for shrinkage
sh
z
y
s8
E(28)
E(7+600)
E(7+sh)
sh?
fc'
308
34.06
10.619
0.970
356.2
4020000
4343498
4094197
378
10.5
1
D
607
35.1
B3 model
to
t'
f'c
a
c
g
s
w
to
RH
Kh
Ks
sh
1.0
1.0
10500
2764
944
1742
1022
267.8
1
0.5
0.5
0.926
1
10500
644
188.5 in3
188.5 in2
96.8
SAK-93
to
H
w
sh8
V
S
SAK-2000
1.0 drying startto
0.5
H
267.8
w
296.5
f'c
188.5 in3
188.5 in2
sh8
V
S
0.875
1.15
99.7
188.5
188.5
1
2
E(607)
E(to+sh)
sh8
GL
drying startH
loading sta Khum
psi
K
lb/yd3
f'c
lb/yd3
shu
lb/yd3
V
lb/yd3
S
lb/yd3
Kvs
1
0.75
1.080
1.060
390
607
309
1.0
0.5
267.8
10.5
10
52.7
0.243
556
188.5
188.5
AFREM
drying startfc'
K(fc')
SF?
ksi
ds
H
72 exp
Ac
u
in3
2xAc/u
in2
10.500
14.80
yes
0.007
0.5
27.58
12.57
12.57
2
ksi
in2
in
in
Best
Shams and Kahn
exponentia tm' (start of
6.12
514.0376 Cure
member-cu
0.014329 eshu
510
1.214075 h
50
KH
1.286
v
188.5
s
188.5
v/s
1
kt0
0.87751
L.4. Normal Strength Concrete Creep Models for 10,000-psi HPLC

creep coefficient
ACI-209 AASHTO-L CEB-FIP
10L
GL2001 SAK1993
Baant Panula - BP
Baant Baweja - B3
Time undecreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeffbasic creepdrying creeafter dryingcreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeffcreep coeff
0.6
0.6
0.3 coeff
coeff
coeff
basic creepdrying cree total creep
d
10
10
326.2
u
2.242345 1.555625 4.045742
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.02
0.542
0.130
-0.032
1.204
0.078
0.07
0.022
0.024
0.223
0.640
1.283
0.824
0.025
0.05
0.630
0.160
-0.044
1.295
0.096
0.13
0.035
0.038
0.284
0.746
1.391
1.154
0.040
0.09
0.710
0.189
-0.056
1.373
0.113
0.20
0.051
0.053
0.344
0.844
1.486
1.469
0.059
0.13
0.764
0.210
-0.064
1.421
0.125
0.21
0.064
0.066
0.386
0.909
1.546
1.671
0.074
0.17
0.807
0.226
-0.072
1.459
0.135
0.24
0.076
0.077
0.421
0.962
1.594
1.827
0.088
0.38
0.935
0.278
-0.096
1.565
0.166
0.25
0.119
0.119
0.533
1.116
1.731
2.243
0.140
0.79
1.073
0.336
-0.127
1.670
0.203
0.33
0.179
0.178
0.664
1.282
1.873
2.638
0.215
1.81
1.254
0.417
-0.173
1.796
0.257
0.39
0.280
0.275
0.850
1.498
2.052
3.107
0.344
3.17
1.393
0.483
-0.214
1.885
0.304
0.49
0.374
0.357
1.005
1.662
2.189
3.441
0.470
4.82
1.506
0.538
-0.250
1.955
0.346
0.54
0.458
0.428
1.137
1.794
2.300
3.688
0.589
7.04
1.617
0.593
-0.288
2.020
0.391
0.55
0.547
0.501
1.272
1.923
2.410
3.903
0.719
9.10
1.697
0.634
-0.317
2.065
0.426
0.68
0.613
0.555
1.371
2.014
2.490
4.039
0.820
15.93
1.885
0.732
-0.391
2.166
0.517
0.74
0.773
0.682
1.612
2.225
2.683
4.300
1.078
23.18
2.023
0.804
-0.450
2.236
0.593
0.82
0.891
0.771
1.793
2.377
2.829
4.444
1.278
28.22
2.099
0.845
-0.485
2.273
0.639
0.85
0.955
0.818
1.894
2.459
2.912
4.510
1.391
36.95
2.208
0.903
-0.536
2.325
0.708
0.86
1.045
0.882
2.038
2.574
3.034
4.592
1.553
55.25
2.381
0.995
-0.623
2.405
0.828
0.93
1.180
0.976
2.266
2.753
3.233
4.696
1.804
69.81
2.488
1.051
-0.680
2.453
0.906
0.98
1.258
1.029
2.404
2.859
3.359
4.748
1.951
82.87
2.569
1.093
-0.725
2.488
0.967
1.02
1.314
1.066
2.506
2.937
3.455
4.784
2.057
111.02
2.714
1.167
-0.809
2.549
1.076
1.05
1.408
1.128
2.682
3.072
3.625
4.840
2.230
139.31
2.832
1.225
-0.880
2.597
1.162
1.05
1.478
1.174
2.817
3.177
3.759
4.880
2.355
167.36
2.932
1.272
-0.942
2.636
1.232
1.11
1.532
1.210
2.925
3.262
3.868
4.911
2.446
194.93
3.017
1.310
-0.996
2.670
1.287
1.12
1.576
1.239
3.012
3.331
3.957
4.936
2.516
225.23
3.100
1.347
-1.051
2.701
1.338
1.13
1.616
1.265
3.093
3.396
4.039
4.959
2.575
251.25
3.164
1.374
-1.094
2.726
1.374
1.15
1.645
1.285
3.152
3.444
4.100
4.976
2.616
279.31
3.228
1.400
-1.137
2.749
1.407
1.18
1.673
1.303
3.208
3.490
4.156
4.992
2.652
306.49
3.284
1.422
-1.177
2.770
1.434
1.19
1.696
1.318
3.255
3.530
4.204
5.006
2.681
335.00
3.340
1.443
-1.215
2.790
1.459
1.21
1.718
1.333
3.299
3.567
4.249
5.020
2.706
371.98
3.406
1.467
-1.263
2.814
1.485
1.20
1.742
1.349
3.349
3.611
4.299
5.035
2.732
495.95
3.595
1.531
-1.401
2.880
1.544
1.24
1.806
1.392
3.477
3.725
4.425
5.078
2.787
523.87
3.632
1.542
-1.429
2.893
1.554
1.28
1.818
1.400
3.499
3.745
4.447
5.086
2.795
559.06
3.677
1.555
-1.463
2.908
1.564
1.26
1.831
1.409
3.525
3.769
4.472
5.096
2.804
591.89
3.716
1.567
-1.493
2.922
1.572
1.29
1.842
1.417
3.547
3.790
4.494
5.104
2.810
620.72
3.750
1.576
-1.518
2.933
1.578
1.29
1.852
1.423
3.564
3.807
4.511
5.111
2.815
5000
5.547
1.811
-3.004
3.459
1.637
2.115
1.608
3.970
4.354
5.095
5.423
2.856
14600
6.783
1.843
-3.976
3.755
1.637
2.173
1.651
4.019
4.650
5.392
5.585
2.856
310
Basic Input
0.4
1059
eelast @24
stress
3517
elast/stress
0.301
t'
1.0
t0
1.0
f'@24h
11101
f'c
11476
E28
424000
RH
50
v
188.50
s
188.50
c
990
g
1757
s
1030
w
227.3
0.6
1470
5276
0.279
day
day
psi
psi
psi
%
in3
in2
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
ACI 209 Coeficients

assumption steam cured for 1 day
Creep
d
10
f
t
u
Base
2.35
Loading Age la
1.130 t'
Differential Shrink
1
Inicial Mois Curing
1
0.935 RH
Volume Surface Ratio
1.106 v/s
1
Temperature other tha
Slump s
1.088 slump:
Fine Aggregate %
0.969 fa%
Cement Content c
1
Air Content
0.775 air%
Ultimate value
2.242345
t 0 .6
? ?
?? u
d ? t 0 .6
1.0 day
50 %
1 in
4 in
37.0 %
3.5 %
not used for creep
AASHTO-LRFD
t' (maturity)
6.6 day
Creep
MPA
psi
f'@24h
76.6
11101
f'c
79.1
11476
d
10
0.6
u
Base
3.5
Loading Age
0.800493
Strength factor kf
0.514109
1.08
Ultimate value
1.555625
v
188.5
1 in
s
188.5
CEB-FIP
t'
1.0 day
psi
(t ' )
f'@24h
76.6
11101
(t , t ' ) =
f'c
79.1
11476 cr
E 28
c (40%)
24.3
3517
c (60%)
36.4
5276
E28
2924
424000
RH
50 %
h
50.8 mm2
H
326.2
(t t ' )
RH
2.362252
50 (fm)
1.883929 28 = 0
H + (t t ' )
(t')
0.909091
o
4.045742
MPA
28
311
18

RH h
H = 150 1 + 1 .2
+ 250

100 100

Baant Panula
Baant Baweja
t'
1
day
t'
1.0
to
1
day
to
1.0
f'@24h
11101
f'@24h
11101
f'c
11476
f'c
11476
1/E0
7.88E-08
1/E0
0.103797
40%
60%
1470 Basic Creep
eelast @24 1059
stress
3517
5276
0.3
Estat
3321119
3588648 m
0.5
Estat bar 3454883
n
0.1
Basic Creep
0.001
1
3.714
q0
1.866959
m
0.288
Drying Creep
x
7.310
RH
50
a1
0.93
H(t')
1
n
0.188
q5
0.52283
0.109
Kh'
Drying Creep
v
188.5
RH
50
s
188.5
cd
1.392
sh
128
cp
0.830
'd
0.030
d
0.030
Kh'
0.646 cylinder
Kh''
0.75
C1
122.4
Ks
1.15
v
188.5
s
188.5
sh
55.1
s?
342.1
sh?
354.8
r
2.157
a
2787
c
990
g
1757
s
1030
w
227.3
Gardner Lockman
Sakata
t'
1.0 day
t'
to
1.0 day
to
f'@24h
11101.0
f'@24h
E28
f'c
11476.0
f'c
eelast @24RH
0.5
40% v
188.5
RH
1059 s
188.5
v
60% v/s
1 in
s
1470
40%
60%
eelast @24
1059
1470 a
stress
3517
5276 c
g
s
%
w
e'bc
e'dc
day
day
312
1.1
1.0
11101
11476
50
3088889
121609.8
1653.5
587.3
1042.4
611.1
134.9
110.6
8.5
day
day
psi
psi
25.4 mm
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
L.5. High Strength Concrete Creep Models for 10,000-psi HPLC

AFREM
8F-8L
Shams&KaB-FIP modif
Sakata 2001
Time unde creep coeffSpecific Cr Specific Cr basic creepdrying creeafter dryingcreep coef creep coef creep coef creep coef
0.6
0.3 coeff
coeff
coeff
basic creepdrying creep
d
6.944
333.5
u
2.73
0.8857
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.02
0.542
0.071
-0.032
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.032
0.169
0.581
0.019
-0.618
0.05
0.630
0.088
-0.044
0.03
0.00
0.13
0.049
0.214
0.674
0.028
-0.491
0.09
0.710
0.104
-0.056
0.04
0.00
0.20
0.069
0.260
0.759
0.038
-0.388
0.13
0.764
0.115
-0.064
0.04
0.00
0.21
0.085
0.292
0.815
0.047
-0.326
0.17
0.807
0.124
-0.072
0.05
0.00
0.24
0.100
0.319
0.859
0.054
-0.280
0.38
0.935
0.152
-0.096
0.07
0.01
0.25
0.153
0.403
0.991
0.080
-0.155
0.79
1.073
0.184
-0.127
0.10
0.02
0.33
0.226
0.502
1.131
0.115
-0.037
1.81
1.254
0.229
-0.173
0.14
0.03
0.39
0.342
0.643
1.309
0.174
0.095
3.17
1.393
0.265
-0.214
0.18
0.05
0.49
0.437
0.760
1.444
0.229
0.184
4.82
1.506
0.295
-0.250
0.20
0.08
0.54
0.515
0.860
1.552
0.281
0.251
7.04
1.617
0.326
-0.288
0.23
0.10
0.55
0.594
0.962
1.655
0.335
0.312
9.10
1.697
0.349
-0.317
0.25
0.12
0.68
0.651
1.037
1.728
0.375
0.353
15.93
1.885
0.403
-0.391
0.30
0.17
0.74
0.778
1.219
1.897
0.471
0.442
23.18
2.023
0.445
-0.450
0.34
0.20
0.82
0.863
1.356
2.017
0.538
0.502
28.22
2.099
0.468
-0.485
0.35
0.22
0.85
0.906
1.433
2.082
0.573
0.533
36.95
2.208
0.502
-0.536
0.38
0.24
0.86
0.963
1.542
2.174
0.620
0.576
55.25
2.381
0.557
-0.623
0.41
0.27
0.93
1.042
1.715
2.315
0.685
0.641
69.81
2.488
0.592
-0.680
0.43
0.29
0.98
1.085
1.819
2.400
0.720
0.678
82.87
2.569
0.619
-0.725
0.45
0.30
1.02
1.115
1.897
2.463
0.745
0.705
111.02
2.714
0.667
-0.809
0.47
0.31
1.05
1.163
2.031
2.573
0.783
0.752
139.31
2.832
0.707
-0.880
0.49
0.32
1.05
1.197
2.134
2.660
0.810
0.788
167.36
2.932
0.741
-0.942
0.51
0.32
1.11
1.224
2.216
2.731
0.831
0.818
194.93
3.017
0.770
-0.996
0.52
0.33
1.12
1.245
2.283
2.791
0.847
0.842
225.23
3.100
0.798
-1.051
0.53
0.33
1.13
1.264
2.345
2.848
0.861
0.865
251.25
3.164
0.821
-1.094
0.54
0.34
1.15
1.277
2.390
2.891
0.871
0.883
279.31
3.228
0.843
-1.137
0.54
0.34
1.18
1.290
2.433
2.933
0.881
0.899
306.49
3.284
0.862
-1.177
0.55
0.34
1.19
1.301
2.469
2.970
0.889
0.914
335.00
3.340
0.881
-1.215
0.55
0.34
1.21
1.311
2.503
3.006
0.896
0.929
371.98
3.406
0.904
-1.263
0.56
0.34
1.20
1.323
2.541
3.048
0.905
0.945
495.95
3.595
0.970
-1.401
0.58
0.35
1.24
1.352
2.639
3.164
0.926
0.991
523.87
3.632
0.982
-1.429
0.58
0.35
1.28
1.358
2.656
3.186
0.930
1.000
559.06
3.677
0.998
-1.463
0.59
0.35
1.26
1.364
2.676
3.212
0.934
1.010
591.89
3.716
1.011
-1.493
0.59
0.35
1.29
1.369
2.693
3.235
0.938
1.019
620.72
3.750
1.023
-1.518
0.59
0.35
1.29
1.373
2.707
3.254
0.941
1.027
5000
5.547
1.532
-3.004
0.67
0.36
1.495
3.020
4.076
1.029
1.360
14600
6.783
1.711
-3.976
0.69
0.36
1.523
3.058
4.519
1.051
1.531
313
Basic Input
eelast @24
stress
elast/stress
t'
t0
f'@24h
f'c
E28
RH
v
s
c
g
s
w
0.4
1059
3517
0.301
1.0
1.0
11101
11476
424000
50
188.50
188.50
990
1757
1030
227.3
Shams&Kahn
0.6 assumption steam cured for 1 day
1470
5276
0.279
day
day
psi
psi
psi
%
in3
in2
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
lb/yd3
d
?
Kfc
Kh
Kt'
Ks
Km
v
s
6.944136
2.73
0.365826
1.083333
0.71674
1.161834
1.577384
188.4956
188.4956
6.59 days
m tm
f'c
tm' (loading
stress/strength
RH
11476 psi
6.59 days
0.5
50 %
CEB-FIP modified by Yue and Taerwe (1993)

t'
1.0 day
MPA
psi
f'@24h
76.6
11101
f'c
79.1
11476
c (40%)
24.3
3517
c (60%)
36.4
5276
E28
2924
424000
RH
50 %
h
50.8 mm
H
333.5
RH
2.362252
(fm)
1.433874
(t')
0.909091
o
3.079248
28
314

t'
1.0 day
to
1.0 day
f'@24h
11101
f'c
11476
1/E0
7.88E-09
0.4
0.6
eelast @24
1059
1470
stress
3517
5276
Estat
33211192 35886477
Estat bar 34548834
Basic Creep
1
3.714
m
0.288
x
7.310
a1
0.93
n
0.188
0.109
Drying Creep
RH
50 %
cd
1.392073
cp
0.83
'd
0.030
d
0.030
ad
1.000
Kh'
0.646 cylinder
Kh''
0.75
C1
122.4
1
Ks
1.15
v
188.5
s
188.5
bd
100.0
sh
55.1
s?
342.1
sh?
354.8
r
2.157
a
2787
c
990
g
1757
s
1030
w
227.3
AFREM model
t'
1.0
to
1.0
f'@24h
76.6
f'c
79.1
1/E0
79.92243
0.4
eelast @24
1059
stress
3517
Estat
33211192
Estat bar 34548834
SF?
yes
Basic Creep
bo
0.723
bc
5.553
Drying Creep
RH
50
Sakata
t'
to
f'@24h
E28
f'c
eelast @241/E0
0.6 RH
1470 v
5276 s
35886477
a
c
g
s
w
e'bc
%
e'dc
do
K(fmc)
A(fmc,H)
ds0
h
mm
1.0
13.380
26.889
0.007
50.8
day
day
1
1.0
11101
11476
0.104
0.5
3088889
121609.8
day
day
psi
psi
1653.5
587
1042
611
135
#DIV/0!
10.9
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
25.4 mm
315
L.6. Shrinkage Models for 10,000-psi HPLC

Measured ACI209
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.16
0.24
0.45
1.10
2.02
3.18
4.97
7.24
9.18
16.15
23.04
26.97
37.04
55.11
77.54
108.97
167.22
195.56
223.33
252.78
307.34
335.37
365.07
587.95
613.81
5000
14500
32
19
90
83
127
138
120
100
108
154
169
199
179
237
225
291
299
344
430
542
518
519
528
573
553
531
590
610
0
1
1
2
3
6
14
25
38
58
81
100
158
206
229
280
349
407
463
524
544
559
572
591
598
605
637
639
689
694
AASHTO CEB
1
2
3
4
6
12
28
49
75
111
152
183
273
339
369
430
502
556
603
649
663
674
682
695
699
704
723
724
753
755
BP
6
9
12
14
17
24
37
49
62
76
91
102
130
151
161
181
206
228
248
270
277
282
287
294
297
300
312
313
332
334
B3
7
11
14
17
20
28
43
58
72
89
106
117
148
169
178
197
220
237
253
269
274
278
281
286
288
289
297
297
309
310
GL
6
9
12
13
17
23
35
48
60
74
89
99
129
151
161
183
212
238
262
288
297
303
308
315
318
320
329
329
334
334
SAK-93
10
15
20
23
28
39
60
81
102
126
150
168
216
250
266
300
344
380
415
454
466
476
485
497
502
507
528
530
565
568
316
3
5
8
9
11
16
25
35
44
55
65
73
94
109
116
131
150
166
182
199
205
209
213
218
220
222
229
230
234
234
SAK-2001 AFREM
0
1
1
1
2
4
9
17
25
38
53
65
102
130
144
173
211
243
271
302
312
319
325
334
338
341
356
357
379
382
1
1
2
3
5
9
21
36
54
78
103
121
170
202
216
242
271
292
309
325
329
333
336
340
341
343
349
350
359
359
Shams and
1
2
4
5
7
14
33
58
87
126
169
200
283
339
363
409
459
494
522
547
555
560
565
571
573
575
584
585
598
599
Basic Input
ACI 209 Coeficients

0.6 assumpyion steam cured for 1 day
1470
Shrink
5276 d
0.279 f
55
(sh)u
Base
780
t
Loading Ag
1
( sh ) t =
Differential
1
f +t
Inicial Mois
1
Ambient R
0.900
0.5 @50%
eelast @24h
stress
elast/stress
t'
t0
f'@24h
f'c
E28
RH
0.4
1059
3517
0.301
1.0
1.0
11101
11476
424000
50
v
s
c
188.50 in3
188.50 in2
990 lb/yd3
VS Ratio
Temperatu
Slump s
1.064
1.0
1
1.054 slump:
1757 lb/yd3
Fine Agg %
0.817 fa%
1030 lb/yd3
Cement Co
227.3 lb/yd3
Air Content
Ultimate va
day
day
psi
psi
psi
%
1.1064 c
0.978 air%
697
( sh ) u
AASHTO
Cure
steam
K
560
h
50 %
Kh
1.286
v
188.5 in3
s
188.5 in2
v/s
1 in
CEB-FIP
H
sRH
RH
SC
f'c
so
sH
Ac
u
Ac/u
50
0.875
-1.356
8
11476
334.8
90.3224
12.57
12.57
1
in2
in
in
BP model
to
t'
f'c
a
c
g
s
w
to
RH
Kh
C1
K't
4 in
1.0
1.0
11476
2787
990
1757
1030
227.3
1
50
0.875
16.50905 k't
1.327905 Ks
37.0 %
188.5
990 lb/yd3
188.5
3.5 %
not used for shrinkage
sh
z
y
s8
E(28)
E(7+600)
458120.2
607
E(7+sh)
441746.7
56.1
sh?
fc'
317
55.13
12.926
0.986
342.1
424000
355
11.476
B3 model
to
t'
f'c
a
c
g
s
w
to
RH
Kh
Ks
sh
1.0
1.0
11476
2787
990
1757
1030
227.3
1
0.5
0.5
0.926
1
11476
616
188.5 in3
188.5 in2
96.8
SAK-93
to
H
w
sh8
V
S
SAK-2000
1.0 drying startto
0.5
H
227.3
w
234.2
f'c
188.5 in3
188.5 in2
sh8
V
S
0.875
1.15
97.5
188.5
188.5
1
2
E(607)
E(to+sh)
sh8
GL
drying startH
loading sta Khum
psi
K
lb/yd3
f'c
lb/yd3
shu
lb/yd3
V
lb/yd3
S
lb/yd3
Kvs
1
0.75
1.080
1.060
334
607
318
1.0
0.5
227.3
11.476
10
44.7
0.387
383
188.5
188.5
AFREM
drying startfc'
K(fc')
SF?
ksi
ds
H
72 exp
Ac
u
in3
2xAc/u
in2
11.476
13.38
yes
0.007
0.5
26.89
12.57
12.57
2
ksi
in2
in
in
Best
Shams and Kahn
exponentia tm' (start of
6.59
514.0376 Cure
member-cu
0.014329 eshu
510
1.214075 h
50
KH
1.286
v
188.5
s
188.5
v/s
1
kt0
0.870522
Appendix M. Comparison between HPC and HPLC

M.1. Creep and Shrinkage Results HPC-3 and HPC-6
HPC-3
Shrinkage Creep
Time
24h-40%
0.01
0
0
0.05
20
92
0.09
30
120
0.14
30
199
0.26
50
195
0.41
60
167
0.89
90
297
1.02
100
310
1.41
110
363
1.89
130
387
2.45
120
363
2.89
150
335
4.91
170
410
5.36
210
517
5.86
180
513
6.09
170
504
6.41
200
497
6.93
200
522
7.93
220
557
9.01
220
572
9.99
190
635
11.14
240
675
11.94
190
659
13.99
150
715
15.93
220
745
18.91
210
724
21.99
210
799
25.91
230
832
28.99
260
874
31.99
250
895
34.91
340
914
39.99
330
942
42.91
270
959
46.91
300
972
51.97
340
989
61.91
290
1062
69.9
360
1062
84.92
430
1066
99.86
480
1124
112.9
400
1193
136.9
410
1231
152.96
450
1263
179.92
450
1301
221.95
470
1373
262.91
510
1424
308.91
470
1413
361.02
460
1456
423.84
490
1496
461.23
513
1516
stress
4774
elastic strain
1209
E (ksi)
3949
HPC-6
Shrinkage Shrinkage Creep
Creep
Time
24h-40% 24h-60%
0.06
-182
-135
246
332
0.09
-204
-136
284
397
0.18
-232
-182
374
490
0.27
-227
-190
402
535
0.38
-205
-155
412
581
0.92
-168
-93
739
995
2.00
-13
50
710
989
2.85
40
102
705
1047
4.85
5
80
855
1193
6.85
67
142
862
1255
8.85
105
202
913
1328
15.85
130
215
1047
1453
22.85
193
299
999
1435
26.85
200
332
1081
1525
36.85
278
378
1275
1723
54.84
416
1215
1724
83.26
501
1394
1924
110.88
530
1370
1922
139.01
522
1413
1954
167.32
512
1463
2020
195.36
519
1462
2032
222.93
511
1502
2057
253.24
511
1477
2051
279.24
510
1524
2148
307.32
486
1668
2273
334.49
482
1613
2270
363.88
479
1705
2405
619.95
493
1664
2342
648.91
488
1682
2359
stress
2857
4286
elastic strain
829
1310
E (ksi)
3446
3272
319
M.2. Best Creep and Shrinkage Fits for HPC-3, HPC-6, and HPLC
Best fits
0.373
0.367
0.655
607.452 503.859 538.513
0.208
0.174
0.356
132.077
70.629
86.455
0.333
0.397
0.271
time under Best fit
Best fit
Best fit
time under Best fit
Best fit
Best fit
load
HPLC
HPC-3
HPC-6
drying
HPLC
HPC-3
HPC-6
0.03
0.024
0.016
0.086
0.03
9.5
10.8
10.4
0.07
0.031
0.021
0.104
0.07
13.9
15.8
15.2
0.11
0.035
0.026
0.117
0.11
17.6
20.0
19.3
0.15
0.039
0.029
0.126
0.15
20.7
23.4
22.6
0.19
0.042
0.032
0.134
0.19
23.3
26.4
25.5
0.41
0.054
0.042
0.160
0.41
34.0
38.5
37.2
0.88
0.067
0.056
0.191
0.88
49.5
56.1
54.2
1.92
0.085
0.074
0.227
1.92
72.9
82.3
79.7
3.08
0.097
0.087
0.251
3.08
92.1
103.8
100.5
5.08
0.112
0.104
0.278
5.08
117.6
132.0
128.0
7.15
0.123
0.116
0.298
7.15
138.9
155.2
150.8
9.05
0.131
0.125
0.312
9.05
155.5
173.0
168.4
16.15
0.153
0.150
0.347
16.15
204.2
224.1
219.3
23.07
0.167
0.167
0.370
23.07
240.1
260.3
255.8
27.11
0.173
0.175
0.380
27.11
257.8
277.5
273.5
37.09
0.187
0.190
0.401
37.09
294.8
312.3
309.6
55.40
0.204
0.211
0.427
55.40
346.3
357.4
357.8
77.57
0.220
0.229
0.449
77.57
391.7
393.5
397.7
167.10
0.255
0.270
0.497
167.10
491.6
459.4
475.6
194.96
0.262
0.278
0.506
194.96
509.1
468.8
487.6
224.08
0.268
0.285
0.515
224.08
523.9
476.1
497.1
254.73
0.273
0.291
0.522
254.73
536.3
481.8
504.8
281.03
0.278
0.295
0.528
281.03
545.1
485.5
510.0
336.32
0.285
0.303
0.538
336.32
559.5
491.2
518.1
363.93
0.289
0.307
0.542
363.93
565.1
493.2
521.0
594.29
0.308
0.326
0.567
594.29
590.2
500.8
532.9
618.75
0.310
0.328
0.569
618.75
591.6
501.2
533.4
5000.00
0.363
0.365
0.637 5000.00
607.4
503.9
538.5
14600.00
0.371
0.367
0.650 14600.00
607.5
503.9
538.5
320

Creep Shrinkage and Prestress Losses

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Creep Shrinkage and Prestress Losses

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials

Creep, Shrinkage, and Prestress Losses of

Creep, Shrinkage and Prestress Losses of High Performance

4.1.2 Creep Behavior of 8,000-psi HPLC vs. 10,000-psi HPLC ...................... 25

A.3 Introduction to Structural Lightweight Concrete (SLC) ............................... 65

C.1 Models for Normal Strength Concrete .......................................................... 98

D.2.1. PCI Method .......................................................................................... 138

F.9.2. Shrinkage of 8F and 10F HPLC ........................................................... 189

I.1.4. Baant and Panulas - BP Method......................................................... 249

K.1. Compressive Strength ................................................................................ 285

Table G.5. Parameters used in creep prediction equations .................................................. 206

This page intentionally left blank

2.1.2. Shrinkage of HPLC

2.2 Creep and Shrinkage Models

2.3 Prestress Losses

This page intentionally left blank

3. Experimental Program, Results, and Short-term Properties

3.2 Plastic Properties

3.3 Unit Weight

Estimate was made based on actual results for those properties

Plastic unit weight

Air-dry unit weight

Oven-dry unit weight

Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

Figure 3.1. Unit weight of HPLC under different moisture conditions.

3.4 Compressive Strength

Compressive Strength (psi)

8,000-psi Accelerated Cure

10,000-psi Accelerated Cure

10,000-psi ASTM Cure

3.5 Modulus of Elasticity

Modulus of Elasticity (ksi)

Modulus of Elasticity (ksi)

Figure 3.4. 56-day elastic modulus of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes

3.6 Modulus of Rupture

f c ' with no reduction factor is conservative for

predicting modulus of rupture of HPLC.

Figure 3.5. Rupture modulus of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes

3.7 Chloride Permeability

Figure 3.6. Chloride Permeability of 8,000 and 10,000-psi mixes

3.8 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

This page intentionally left blank

4. Creep and Shrinkage Results and Analysis

Figure 4.1. Creep test set-up and working principle.

4.1.1 Creep Behavior of Laboratory HPLC vs. Field HPLC

Figure 4.2. Creep coefficient of 8L and 8F HPLC in logarithmic time scale.

4.1.2 Creep Behavior of 8,000-psi HPLC vs. 10,000-psi HPLC

4.2 Shrinkage Results and Analysis

FHWA HPC Grade 3 Upper Limit

4.3 Creep and Shrinkage Test Results vs. Model Estimates

See Section G.4.1 of Appendix G for details of the estimate.

10,000 8,000 10,000 8,000 10,000

4.3.2. Creep Models Compared

Average of the parameter obtained for 8,000-psi and 10,000-psi HPLC

4.3.3. Shrinkage Models Compared

4.4 Comparison of Creep and Shrinkage of HPLC with HPC

Cement, Type I (lbs)

4.4.1. Creep Comparison

4.4.2. Shrinkage Comparison

4.4.3. Total Strain Projection

Microstrains (in/in x 10-6)

10,000-psi Individual Girder Result