Reinforced Concrete Slab Design

Using the Empirical Method

BridgeSight Solutions
for the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

BridgeSight
Software

TM

Creators of effective and reliable solutions for the worlds bridge engineers

2688 Venado Way

Rescue, CA 95672
Phone: 530-672-1569
E-mail: rdp@BridgeSight.com
Internet: www.BridgeSight.com

Title

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method

Publication No.

BSS09011999-1

Abstract
This design example illustrates the Empirical Design Method for composite concrete bridge decks specified in Article
9.7.2 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification.

Notes

Author

Staff - BridgeSight Software

Specification

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, 2nd Edition 1998

Original Publication Date

Notice of Copyright

9/1/99

Sponsor

Date of Latest Revision

BridgeSight Software
2688 Venado Way
Rescue, CA 95672

9/1/99

Version

1.0

Copyright 1999 BridgeSight Software, All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, photocopied, recorded, or otherwise), without prior written permission from
BridgeSight Software.
i

Disclaimer
This BridgeSight Solution is provided complements of BridgeSight Software. BridgeSight Software asserts a copyright in
this work. BridgeSight Software retains the exclusive ownership of this copy of the BridgeSight Solution.
This document is provided AS IS without any warranty, express or implied by anyone using, distributing, copying or
otherwise possessing this document. The entire risk as to the use, results and performance of this document is assumed by
you. BridgeSight Software does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use of, merchantability
or fitness for a particular use of the product. Should this document prove defective, you assume the entire cost of all
necessary servicing, repair or correction. Further, BridgeSight Software does not warrant, guarantee, or make any
representations regarding the use of, or the results of the use of this document in terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability,
currentness, or otherwise and has no obligation to correct errors, make changes, support or distribute updates; and you
rely on this document solely at your own risk. BridgeSight Software will not be liable for any damages, service, repair,
correction, loss of profit, lost savings, or any other incidental, consequential, or special damages of any nature whatsoever
resulting from the use or inability to use this product including any claims, suits or causes of action involving claims of
infringement of copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, or unfair competition. The Licensee indemnifies and
holds harmless BridgeSight Software, its officials, employees, and contributors for any injury to the person or property of
third parties arising out of the use of or any defect in this document.
BridgeSight Software retains all rights not expressly granted. Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver of
BridgeSight Softwares rights under United States copyright laws or any other Federal or State law.

ii

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method

BridgeSight Software 1999

Introduction
One of the first components of a bridge that you will design is the deck. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification
suggests three different methods for the analysis of bridge decks for slab-on-beam systems. This installment of the
BridgeSight Solutions series will give a brief overview of the different analysis methods and will focus on the Empirical
Method of design. The Empirical Method is by far the easiest method provided the bridge configuration, materials, and
construction techniques satisfy some minimum criteria.
This design example is part of the BridgeSight Solutions series. The BridgeSight Solutions series is comprised of
design aids and design examples to assist practicing engineers and engineering students learn and implement the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specification. Visit the BridgeSight Solutions section of our web site at www.BridgeSite.com for
more information.

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method

BridgeSight Software 1999

Code Reference

Analysis Methods for Decks

The LRFD Specification suggests three methods of analysis for slab-on-beam bridge decks;
approximate elastic methods, specified in Article 4.6.2.1, refined methods, specified in Article 4.6.3.2,
or an empirical design method for concrete slabs specified in Article 9.5

9.6.1

The approximate elastic method of analysis simulates the behavior of the bridge deck with transverse
strips of deck. The strips are run from edge-to-edge of the bridge deck and are modeled as continuous
beams supported at the centerlines of the girders.
The refined method of analysis consist of modeling the bridge deck and girder system with finite
elements. This is a time consuming process and difficult to validate. Such a method should only be
used for special structures.
The empirical method is a no analysis method in which a prescribed amount of reinforcement is to
be provided in the slab. This BridgeSight Solution will focus on the Empirical Method.

Empirical Design Method

This example will illustrate the empirical design method. The empirical design applies only to the
main part of the slab and is not to applied to overhangs. Design of the overhang is beyond the scope of
this BridgeSight Solution. For continuous bridge decks, the contribution of the longitudinal bars
may be utilized for resisting negative moments at interior supports.

Given

The cross section and span configuration show below

Alignment of bridge is N 90 E

Bearing of piers is N 27 E (27 skew angle)

Slab concrete has a 28-day strength of 28MPa.

The slab is cast-in-place and water cured.

Assume a 15mm sacrificial wearing surface.

Full depth diaphragms are used at lines of supports

Slab and girders are made composite

Traffic barriers are composite and structurally continuous with the overhang
910mm
240mm

1175mm

Pier 1 - 5 spaces @ 2 000mm = 10 000mm

Pier 2 - 5 spaces @ 2 500mm = 12 500mm

Typical Section
(All Dimensions Normal To Alignment)

1175mm

9.5.1, 9.7.2

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method

BridgeSight Software 1999

Code Reference

28 000 mm

Span Configuration

Determine Effective Length

Because of the flared girder lines and the skewed piers, we need to use a coordinate geometry (COGO)
model to quickly find the effective length.
L1

L1/3
C

11

Girder B

C9

2C

Girder A

2
6

12

10
L2/3

L2

Pie
r2

Pie
r1

Centerline of Bridge

Framing Plan/COGO Model

(Girders C-F Omitted for Clairity)

The Framing Plan/COGO Model is shown above. The coordinates of the various points shown in the
model are:
Point

X (mm)

Y (mm)

6000

28000

7500

3142

6168

31928

7710

4000

28000

5000

2075

4074

30595

5093

30462

7631

10

29127

5040

11

22333

7196

12

21088

4753

Some important distances are:

Item
L1

Distance (mm)
28827
3

9.7.2.3

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method

Item

BridgeSight Software 1999

Code Reference

Distance (mm)

L2

28537

2C

2938

Seffective between points 9 and 10

2742

Seffective between points 11 and 12

2915

Effective Length

2915

Design Depth of Slab

Design depth is the gross depth of the slab, less any depth that is expected to be lost as a result of
grinding, grooving, or wear.
Design Depth = 240mm - 15mm = 225mm

Effective Length to Design Depth Ratio

The effective length to design depth ratio is 2915mm/225mm = 13

Core Depth
Core slab depth is shown in the figure below. It can be computed as

Slab
Depth

Core
Depth

Core Depth = Gross Slab Depth - Top Cover - Bottom Cover

Reinforcement

Table 5.12.3-1

Top Cover = 65mm (Deck surfaces subject to tire stud or chain wear)
Bottom Cover = 25mm (Bottom of cast-in-place slabs, Up to No. 36 bar)
Core Depth = 240mm - 65mm - 25mm = 150mm

Check Design Conditions

The design conditions listed below must be satisfied to use the empirical design method. If these
conditions are met and the reinforcement provisions are satisfied, for other than the deck overhang,
the deck may be assumed to satisfy service, fatigue and fracture, and strength limit states requirements.
Criteria

Satisfied (Yes/No)

Cross-frames or diaphragms are used throughout the cross-section at lines

of support;

Yes

For cross-section involving torsionally stiff units, such as individual

separated box beams;

N/A

The supporting components are mode of steel and/or concrete;

Yes
Precast Concrete IBeams

The deck is fully cast-in-place and water cured;

Yes
Check your standard
4

9.5.1
9.7.2.4

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method

Criteria

BridgeSight Software 1999

Satisfied (Yes/No)

Code Reference

specifications!

The deck is of uniform depth, except for haunches at girder flanges and
other local thickening;

Yes

The ratio of effective length to design depth does not exceed 18.0 and is
not less than 6.0;

Yes
6 13 18

Core depth of the slab is not less than 100 mm;

Yes
150mm > 100mm

The effective length, as specified in Article 9.7.2.3, does not exceed

4100mm;

Yes
2915mm < 4100mm

The minimum depth of slab is not less than 175mm, excluding a sacrificial
wearing surface where applicable;

Yes
175mm < 225mm

There is an overhang beyond the centerline of the outside girder at least

5.0 times the depth of the slab; this condition is satisfied if the overhang is
at least 3.0 times the depth of the slab and a structurally continuous
concrete barrier is made composite with the overhang;

Yes
1175mm/225mm =
5.22
5.22 > 3.0

The specified 28-day strength of the deck concrete is not less than 28MPa

Yes

The deck is made composite with the supporting structural components

Yes

Select Reinforcement
The slab configuration satisfies the necessary design conditions. The slab must be reinforced with four
layers of isotropic reinforcement. Reinforcement shall be located as close to the outside surfaces as
permitted by cover requirements. Reinforcement shall be provided in each face of the slab with the
outermost layers placed in the direction of the effective length. The minimum amount of
reinforcement shall be 0.570mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0.380mm2/mm of steel for
each top layer. Spacing of steel shall not exceed 450mm. Reinforcing steel shall be Grade 420 or
better.
Because the skew angle for this structure exceeds 25, the specified reinforcement in both direction
shall be doubled in the end zones of the deck. Each end zone shall be taken as a longitudinal distance
equal to the effective length of the slab specified in Article 9.7.2.3.

Bottom Layer Reinforcement

Use two layers of No. 16 bars. The cross-sectional area of a No. 16 bar is 199mm2. The maximum
allowable spacing of No. 16 bars is

199mm2
= 350mm
2
0.570 mm
mm .

Use No. 16 bars at 175mm in the end zones and No. 16 bars at 350mm elsewhere.

Top Layer Reinforcement

Use two layers of No. 13 bars. The cross-sectional area of a No. 13 bar is 129mm2. The maximum
allowable spacing of No. 13 bars is

129mm2
= 340mm
2
0.380 mm
mm .

Use No. 13 bars at 170mm in the end zones and No. 13 bars at 340mm elsewhere

9.7.2.5

Appendix
Conversion Factors
Multiply
in
ft
in2
ft2
in3
ft3
in4
ft4
lbf
kip
ton
lbf/in
lbf/ft
kip/in
kip/ft
lbf
lbm
slug
ft/sec2
psi
ksi
psf
ksf
F

By
25.40
0.3048
645.2
0.0929
16387
0.0283
416231
0.00863
4.448
4.448
8.896
0.175
0.015
175.2
14.6
0.453
0.453
14.594
0.3048
6894.757
6.895
47.88
0.04788
(t-32)/1.8

To Produce
mm
m
mm2
m2
mm3
m3
mm4
m4
N
kN
kN
N/mm
N/mm
kN/m
kN/m
kg
kg
kg
m/sec2
Pa
MPa
Pa
MPa
C

Reinforcing Bar Properties

Bar Size Nominal Nominal Nominal Bar Size Nominal Nominal Nominal
Mass Diameter
Area
Weight Diameter Area
No.
kg/m
mm
mm2
No
lb/ft
in
in2
10
0.560
9.5
71
3
0.376
0.375
0.11
13
0.994
12.7
129
4
0.668
0.500
0.20
16
1.552
15.9
199
5
1.043
0.625
0.31
19
2.235
19.1
284
6
1.502
0.750
0.44
22
3.042
22.2
387
7
2.044
0.875
0.60
25
3.973
25.4
510
8
2.670
1.000
0.79
29
5.060
28.7
645
9
3.400
1.128
1.00
32
6.404
32.3
819
10
4.303
1.270
1.27
36
7.907
35.8
1006
11
5.313
1.410
1.56
43
11.380
43.0
1452
14
7.650
1.693
2.25
57
20.240
57.3
2581
18
13.600
2.254
4.00

A-1