The "maximum midspan deflection, shipping" parameter in the WSDOT Girder Schedule Report lists only the natural camber due to self-weight and prestressing. Precamber is not included in this value.

Add precamber to the listed value when transcribing the reported values from the WSDOT Girder Schedule Report to the contract drawing girder schedule.

The limit state bearing reactions at interior piers with simple span connections are incorrect. The live load distribution factor is not applied to the live load portion of the limit state load combination. This results in larger limit state reactions.

As an interim measure, subtract the product of the live load load factor and the live load reaction per lane from the limit state combination and add the product of the live load load factor, live load reaction per lane, and live load distribution factor.

Q = gDC(DC) + gDW(DW) - gLLIM(LLIM per lane) + gLLIM(LLDF)(LLIM per lane).

The net compressive force on the slab girder interface, Pc in LRFD Equation 5.7.4.3-3, is overstated. The net compressive force is taken to be the weight of the deck, less the weight of the sacrificial wearing surface. The DC limit state load factor is not applied.

Verify interface shear capacity by hand calculation. The necessary information can be found in the Horizontal Interface Shear chapter of the Details report. In the third table of the subsection titled "Details for Horizontal Interface Shear Capacity (Strength I)[5.7.4.1]" re-compute the interface shear capacity found in the column labeled "c acv + u[avf fy + pc]" using a conservative value of 0.0 for pc as suggested by AASHTO LRFD BDS C5.7.4.3.

1. Create a Details Report.
2. Go to the Camber Details chapter, Maximum Timing, and get the Deflections during Storage at the of the girder and at mid-span from the Delta_es column.
3. The correct camber is the mid-span camber minus the end camber. This is the total camber at the end of storage, measured from the end of the girder
4. Export the girder model for processing in the PGStable tool. Select File > Export > BEToolbox:PGStable.
5. Open the exported file in PGStable.
6. On the Hauling tab, change the camber to the value from step 3.
7. Review the hauling stability results from the PGStable analysis
8. Use the camber from step 3 in the WSDOT Girder Schedule instead of the camber reported in the WSDOT Girder Schedule Report.

The excess camber listing in the Camber Details chapter of the Details Report is incorrect when a future overlay is used. The excess camber reported incorrectly includes the effect of deflections due to the future overlay. This, in-turn, results in the "C" dimension reported in the Camber Details chapter to be incorrect as well.

The excess camber reported in, and used for, the Slab Haunch Details ("A" Dimension) is correct.

The "C" Dimension reported in WSDOT Girder Schedule is correct.

This issue was resolved in version 2.9.1

The elastic gain coefficient for deck shrinkage is applied to girder stresses incorrectly. The coefficient is applied to the deck shrinkage strain, and then again to the equivalent deck shrinkage force. This amounts to the coefficient being applied to the girder stresses twice.

This error will cause the final stresses in the girder to be under estimated. The magnitude of the error depends on the elastic gain coefficient. There is no error if the coefficient is 0 or 100%. If the coefficient is 50%, the elastic gain due to deck shrinkage is based on 50% of the deck shrinkage strain and the stress in the girder is based on 25% (0.5*0.5 = 0.25) of the deck shrinkage.

Fortunately the stress due to deck shrinkage are small compared to the other stresses. The overall error will be small.

This issue will be resolved in the next release.

Upgrade to version 2.9.0 or later

When girder spacing is defined span-by-span, the spacing information at the start and ends of the span will be switched each time the Span Details window is closed.

This problem only occurs if editing of the span details is initiated by either double clicking on the span or selecting Edit > Span from the menus.

This problem does not occur when editing the span details from the Framing tab of the Bridge Description window.

Upgrade to the most current version of PGSuper

There was a bug in the PGSuper Version 2.7.4 installer published prior to November 20, 2013 that prevents PGSuper from being installed or uninstalled from Windows 8.1.

If you downloaded and installed PGSuper Version 2.7.4 prior to November 20, 2013, you must uninstalled the software prior to upgrading your computer to Windows 8.1

If you downloaded and installed PGSuper Version 2.7.4 after November 20, 2013 you will not be afflicted by this problem.

If you downloaded and installed PGSuper Version 2.7.4 prior to November 20, 2013 and you are upgrading your computer to Windows 8.1 follow these steps to get around the problem:

1. Uninstall PGSuper before upgrading to Windows 8.1
2. Install Windows 8.1
3. Download and install the latest version of PGSuper. (DO NOT USE THE INSTALLER PACKAGE DOWNLOADED PRIOR TO 11/20/2013)

If you have already upgraed to Windows 8.1 and cannot uninstall or update PGSuper open a command window as Administrator and download the latest version 2.7.4 installer run the following command

msiexec /fv PGSuper_2.7.4.msi

This will repair the installation and replace the installer package cached by Windows with the corrected installer package.

This issue will be resolved in PGSuper Version 2.5.3

As a temporary work around, create a user defined vehicle that consists of the only axles that are known to produce the maximum shear. Ensure that this vehicle is shorter than the bridge length. Envelope the results of this vehicle with the other design live loads. It is also prudent to validate these live load results with an independent calculation.

The bridge stiffness, EI, for the Optional Live Load Deflections Check is computed incorrectly in some situations. This may result in live load deflections that are incorrect. Also, the deflections that are reported are for a full lane of live load and not for a girder.

For bridges where different girder types are used in each span, or when a different number of girders is used in each span, the overall stiffness of the bridge cross section is computed incorrectly. The stiffness in the first span is generally used and this is incorrect.

The live load distribution factor that should be used is (multiple presence factor)(number of design lanes)/(number of girders). The comparison of the allowable live load deflection and the computed live load deflection is based on a full lane of live load. That is, the live load distribution factor is not applied.

To correct the live load deflections by hand:

1. Compute the correct EI for the full bridge section.
2. Compute the live load distribution factor as (multiple presence factor)(number of design lanes)/(number of girders)
3. Compute the correct live load deflection by multiplying the deflection reported by PGSuper by the live load distribution factor and the ratio of (bridge EI reported by PGSuper)/(correct bridge EI).

This calculation has been fixed in version 2.5.

The check for reinforcement yielding for negative moment yields incorrect results due to two issues with PGSuper.

1. The additional stress transfered to the reinforcement due to cracking, f_bcr, has the wrong sign. This is always a tensile stress and should always be a positive value regardless of the value of M_bcr.
2. The cracked moment of inertia is computed incorrected for negative moments

The P and Theta parameters in the WSDOT Girder Schedule report are computed incorrectly for splayed girders or girders on curved alignments.

The correct values of these parameters can be obtained using the following calculations

Theta can be computed as (180 deg - (Bearing of Pier - Bearing of Girder)).

P = N/sin(Theta)

This problem will be fixed in the 2.1.1 release

"The influence of dynamic load allowance shall be included for MBJS, but need not be included for bearings".

This problem will be fixed in version 2.1.1.

In the interm, the live load reaction without impact can be obtained from the Details and Bridge Analysis Reports

The Design and Permit Live Load Reactions and Rotations listed in the Load Responses - Bridge Site section of the Detail Report are labeled incorrectly. This values are listed as being per lane, however the values reported are per girder.

To make the values per lane, divide by the live load distribution factor.

There are two problems related to the evaluation of horizontal interface shear (LRFD 5.8.4).

The parameter d_vi (distance between mid-thickness of the slab and the centroid of the tension resultant) is computed as
d_vi = t_slab/2 + Y_top Girder + Strand Eccentricity

The strand eccentricity is measured with respect to the centroid of the non-composite girder section. However, PGSuper is using Y_top for the composite section. It should be using Y_top of the non-composite section.

The minimum area of interface shear reinforcement (LRFD 5.8.4.4) is not being evaluated correctly. A_vf min is correctly computed by equation 5.8.4.4-1 and by the procedure given in the first bullet of 5.8.4.4 (also see Equation 5.8.4.1-3). The minimum area of interface shear reinforcement should be the lesser of these two values. However, PGSuper is using the greater of these two values.

The total mid-span camber at lifting is computed incorrectly. The cantilever deflection is not included in the computation. This results in an underestimation of y_r and thus an underestimation of FS_cr.

The resulting error is small when the cantilever overhangs is less than approximately 20% of the girder length.

For a more accurate analysis, compute the deflection at the ends of the cantilever and add it to the mid-span deflection. In the lifting analysis, substitute this value for D_self and finish the computation by hand.

The prestress losses at the temporary strand removal stage are computed incorrect. PGSuper is taking the loss to be Df_pR0 + Df_pES + Df_pSR + Df_pCR + Df_pR1 + Df_ptr.
The correct loss is Df_pR0 + Df_pES + Df_pSRH + Df_pCRH + Df_pR1H + Df_ptr. This error will impact the allowable stress check at the temporary strand removal stage.

To work around this problem, create a Details Report and find the correct loss value, given as Df_pH. Using this loss, hand calculate the actual stress demand and compare it to the allowable values.

The composite area for girder sections with composite decks is reported incorrectly.

This is a problem with a conversion factor and not the actual value. To get the correct composite area, multiply the reported value by 0.00064516 (US units) or 10^6 (SI units).

This problem will be corrected in Version 2.0.4

The "Stress Check for Service I for Temporary Strand Removal" stage has a few glitches.

Losses

PGSuper is using the total losses at time of deck placement to calculate stresses due to prestress (i.e. f = fpj - DfpRO - DfpES - DfpLTid - Dfptr). It should be using the total losses at time of hauling, plus losses due to temporary strand removal, for this stage (i.e. f = fpj - DfpRO - DfpES - DfpLTH - Dfptr). This is based on the assumption that the girders are shipped, erected, braced and the temporary top strands are removed all in one day, which is the worst case scenario.

Service I Stresses

PGSuper is using the total dead load on the bare section to calculate Service I stresses for this stage (i.e. Girder + Diaphragm + Slab). This stage should only be using the Girder dead load on the bare section to calculate Service I stresses since the temporary top strands must be cut prior to placing the Diaphragms and Slab.

This problem is corrected in Version 2.0.4

If user defined loads are applied to "All Girders" or "All Spans", the loading may be applied to the structure twice. Check the user defined load section of the details report to confirm how many times the load is applied.

The losses for Deck Bulb Tee girders is computed incorrectly.