You are on page 1of 11

PROOF COVER SHEET

Journal acronym: TCIE
Author(s): Sudathip Tangwongchai
Article title: Suitable effective strip width of continuous bridge deck slabs system over flexible steel I-girders
Article no: 839603
Enclosures: 1) Query sheet
2) Article proofs
Dear Author,
1. Please check these proofs carefully. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to check these and approve
or amend them. A second proof is not normally provided. Taylor & Francis cannot be held responsible for uncorrected
errors, even if introduced during the production process. Once your corrections have been added to the article, it will be
considered ready for publication.
Please limit changes at this stage to the correction of errors. You should not make insignificant changes, improve prose
style, add new material, or delete existing material at this stage. Making a large number of small, non-essential
corrections can lead to errors being introduced. We therefore reserve the right not to make such corrections.
For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please see
http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/checkingproofs.asp

2. Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first and last names are structured correctly
and that the authors are listed in the correct order of contribution. This check is to ensure that your name will
appear correctly online and when the article is indexed.
Sequence
1
2
3

Prefix

Given name(s)

Surname

Sudathip
Chartree
Somchai

Tangwongchai
Lertsima
Chucheepsakul

Suffix

(2000)’. Please either cite the reference or remove it from the references list. . (1990)’ has been modified to match the CrossRef system.tandf. AQ5 The reference ‘Barker and Puckett (1997)’ is listed in the references list but is not cited in the text.uk/preparation/permission. or other material in your article. AQ8 The reference ‘WSD (2002)’ is cited in the table but is not listed in the references list. Kindly check and approve the edit.Queries are marked in the margins of the proofs.uk/journals/authors/style/reference/tf_ChicagoAD.co. Please either delete in-table citation or provide full reference details following journal style [http://www. (Please see http://journalauthors. AQ3 The reference ‘AASHTO (2004)’ is cited in the text but is not listed in the references list. Please either delete in-text citation or provide full reference details following journal style [http://www.’ for reference ‘Wilson et al. AQ7 Please provide remaining authors name instead of ‘et al. (2000)’ to match the author name and date in the reference list. AUTHOR QUERIES General query: You have warranted that you have secured the necessary written permission from the appropriate copyright owner for the reproduction of any text. AQ1 Please provide an institutional e-mail address for corresponding author.asp. AQ6 The ‘authors name’ in the following reference ‘Fang et al.co. AQ4 Please provide the name of the city of publication for reference ‘American Concrete Institute [ACI] (2008)’.uk/journals/authors/style/reference/tf_ChicagoAD.pdf]. illustration. AQ2 The reference citation ‘SAP2000 (2002)’ has been changed to ‘Wilson et al. Please check and confirm.tandf.tandf.co.) Please check that any required acknowledgements have been included to reflect this.pdf].

.

it has been well recognized that three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA) can closely approximate flexural responses in the deck slab of such configurations. patterns of moving loads and number of loaded traffic lanes are carefully considered in this study. the effective strip width concept (Standard 2002. it is difficult to predict realistic behavior of a deck slab system using hand calculations. the slab reinforcement can be moderated for a common range of bridge deck proportions. The application of these formulas is then compared with other provisions. a set of reliable empirical formulas is proposed to determine the effective strip widths used for the direct assessment of the negative moment in a bridge deck slab. Introduction to the bridge deck analysis Determination of the transverse bending moment in a composite bridge deck has been a major concern of design engineers for many years. all parameters that influence the structural behavior of composite deck systems can be incorporated in the analysis model at the same time. a major change in the positive and negative transverse moments in the slab takes place along the span due to moving trucks. AASHTO slab moment formulas seem to inadequately reflect the actual moments due to the ignorance of moving truck loads. LRFD 2007) have been widely used by engineers for their ease of use. To take into account bridge deck analysis. accepted 30 August 2012) Applying existing design standard provisions or analytical solutions is typically acceptable for the evaluation of slab negative moments subjected to moving traffic loads. Chartree Lertsima and Somchai Chucheepsakul Department of Civil Engineering. In general. Before the invention of digital computers. a refined analysis may be required for this purpose. Using FEA. The continuity between the girders and bridge slab has been carefully treated to ensure the overall structural action of the bridge deck.doi.839603 Suitable effective strip width of continuous bridge deck slabs system over flexible steel I-girders Sudathip Tangwongchai*. and therefore. Bangkok 10140. Fang et al. the limitation in analysis calculation has been overcome. girder spacing. finite element model. In bridge deck analysis. Thailand 5 10 15 (Received 28 September 2010. current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design methods (Standard 2002.org/10. The key parameters affecting the deck slab moment such as slab system rigidity. King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi. As a breakthrough in computer technology. Email: mysudathip@hotmail.TCIE 839603 7 September 2013 CE: VK QA: SN Coll: QC: Initial Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers. girder deflection.com Ó 2013 The Chinese Institute of Engineers considerable reduction in the top reinforcing steel in bridge decks. A more realistic estimation of the slab deck moment can be obtained when the longitudinal and transverse effects of the truck location are considered at the same time. slab-over-girder bridge. In particular. In the literature. A number of load patterns may increase the bending moment in a deck slab. LRFD 2007) has been widely used to take into account the evaluation of such negative slab moments. some discrepancies can be recognized among the different approaches. more flexible girders will result in larger differential deflections among the girders leading to a smaller negative bending moment in the deck and a *Corresponding author.1080/02533839. 1990.2013. The present study performs several case studies on bridge geometries so as to investigate the 45 50 55 60 65 . As a result. Based on the present numerical results. In recent times. the finite element-based approach has become a notably versatile tool used for bridge deck analysis. and other significant characteristics of the composite deck system. In general. Based on the suggested formulas. although the negative slab moment has been studied by several researchers (Bakht and Jaeger 1985. negative slab moment 20 25 30 35 40 AQ1 1. Keywords: effective strip width. The concrete deck on steel girders with shear stud connection providing composite actions is the most popular type of bridge in service nowadays. a reliable finite element modeling technique is employed to discretize the models of a continuous bridge deck slab over steel I-girder system. In this study. 2013 http://dx. Cao 1996). various methods based on stiffness approach and specific assumptions such as the grillage analogy and orthotropic plate had been developed leading these classical approaches to be excessively simplified. The effective strip width concept has been used so as to take into account the evaluation of the slab negative moment.

a refined FEA modeling technique is employed to predict an MLL closer to the reality. is also taken into consideration in this study.1. Tangwongchai 2003) and adopted as a useful formula to compute the maximum MLL per unit width of slab. a so-called effective strip width approach has been proposed by several researchers and design provisions (AASHTO 2002. rint p r e fo no r onlin o M lou co Figure 1.31 is equal to 1220 + 0. The strip width for negative bending BE is recommended in this study. the overall deflection in Figure 1(a) can be accomplished by separated analyses of primary deflection in Figure 1(b) and secondary deflection in Figure 1(c). Extensive parametric studies on bridge geometries and the locations along the bridge span where the negative slab moment is of interest are conducted based on the refined 3D FEA.2. According to AASHTO Specifications (2002) on continuous slabs over three or more supported girders. It should be noted that BE was adopted to determine the maximum moment per unit width in a simply supported slab in the last edition of AASHTO Standard Specifications (2002). FEA modeling of bridge deck In this study.56c.25S mm (48 + 3S in. the reinforcement requirement evaluated from the present study is also investigated by comparing with AASHTO design codes. As a rule. Instead using either Specifications (2002. The effective strip width BE was developed by assuming that the moment was distributed uniformly over a certain width of a simple span slab in the direction perpendicular to the span of the slabs S as defined below: BE ¼ PS 4MLL 50 ð1Þ A modification of Westergaard’s original proposal was performed so that BE for a two-edge simply supported slab can be determined as 1. In relation to the deck slab design viewpoint.8 shall be applied to the simple span live load moment for both positive and negative moments. where S is the center-to-center spacing of the girders in meters and c is the diameter of the equivalent area of a wheel load in meters as demonstrated in Figure 2. Therefore. To be able to determine MLL. 2. When using the recommended strips. Tangwongchai et al. The effect of elastic supports as well as a number of lane loads. Effective strip width approach A slab on girders is a hybrid structure made up of concrete slab and steel girders so that this unit responds as a composite body. 55 60 65 70 75 80 . The effective strip width (BE) concept has been studied for a long time to use as a simplified method for the evaluation of MLL. (c) secondary deflection. MLL. (b) primary deflection. The early well-known study on this topic was conducted by Westergaard (1930). the approximate elastic method of analysis simulates the behavior of the bridge deck with transverse strips of deck provided to compute the moment. which have never been mentioned together in the literature. parameters influencing the maximum negative moments in the deck slab by means of the effective strip width concept. 2007. a continuity factor of 0. great reduction in the negative moment but increase in the positive moment in the slab can be clearly observed in the vicinity of midspan where the secondary deflection is predominant. 2007) or Westergaard (1930). the slab moments MLL can be computed with an equivalent one-way bending strip BE. As a result. A general design guideline of the deck slab moment is then proposed based on the effective strip width concept. In AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2007). The strips based on FEA modeling are run from edge-to-edge of the bridge deck and are modeled as continuous beams supported at the centerlines of the girders. Figure 1(b) shows the primary deflection of the bridge deck induced by truck wheel loads as the slab is supported by rigid girders.) for cast-inplace decks where S is the center-to-center spacing of the girders in mm.90S + 6. primary deflection appears to induce a significant influence on the live load negative moment in deck slab (MLL) at the location where the girders are rigidly restrained while the secondary deflection tends to produce the contrary effect. Typical deformations of bridge deck under truck loading: (a) total deflection.6. The effect of secondary deflection of the bridge deck due to truck wheel loads is demonstrated in Figure 1(c). 3.TCIE 839603 7 September 2013 2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 CE: VK QA: SN Coll: QC: Initial S. BE used to compute MLL as recommended in Table 4.

To take into account the eccentricity between the deck slab and the centroid of girder (e1 + e2). 2. the bridge deck composite-action behavior is also taken into consideration in the FEA model. It should be noted that Dy and Dx are based on an orthotropic plate theory to account for the different bending stiffnesses of a deck in the longitudinal (Dy parallel to the traffic) and transverse directions (Dx).30 m (7. Figure 3. four flexible stiffnesses Dy/Dx (Cao 1996) = 74. respectively.). the following parameters are considered as follows: S = 1. where e2 is a distance between the neutral axis of the composite section (T-shape in Figure 4(a)) and the midplane of the slab. and 0.TCIE 839603 7 September 2013 CE: VK QA: SN Coll: QC: Initial Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 3 x P c intB r p for line o n Mo lour on co S/2 E y S/2 Figure 2.25 (at quarter span). The rigid link element is short in length. all possible combinations of parameters that characterize the geometry of a composite steel-concrete bridge are considered in FEA modeling so as to reveal those influences on BE under various loading patterns of design trucks at the different span locations (y). L/H = 18 where L and H stand for span length and height of I-girders. y/L = 0 (at support). loading patterns which produce the most adverse effects due to combined global and local loading. L. The considered bridge deck configurations are demonstrated in Figure 3. Several concerns of the bridge deck configurations. many databases of bridges (Lee and Yau 2002. 2000).86 m (33. and it connects the midplane of the slab with the centroid of girder-frame.e. 1. while the others are varied to obtain all values of the parameters. Figure 4(a) and (b) show the physical configurations and ESBM in FEA for a Slab-on-girder bridge used in this study.09. and e1 is distance between the neutral axis of the T-section and that of the girder. In this study. ESBM (see Figure 4(b)) has been selected herein since it is usually reliable while retaining simplicity for the surface structure in transverse analysis as well Figure 4. In practice.15. The supports of girders are simulated by using dimensionless beam elements to account for the eccentricity between the centroid of girders and the bearing supports. To simulate an FEA model of a bridge deck more accurately. 5 AQ2 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 The analytical models are developed using a well-known computer program SAP2000 (Wilson et al. In particular. 15. the eccentricity between the deck slab and the centroid of girder. the effect of longitudinal compressive force in the slab on its flexural behavior through effect of Poisson’s ratio.24 m (50 ft). and the shear connection between the slab and girder are explicitly considered in the present study. 44.93 in. the authors use fixed values of slab thickness (t). 0. Tangwongchai and Chucheepsakul 2006) are reviewed to select the appropriate geometric parameters on the basis of applicable ranges for bridge design practice.20 m (8 in. Based mostly on construction frequencies.71. 0. the diaphragm connection with girders. 65.50 (at midspan). 3 m (10 ft). (b) 3-D physical T-section. 50 55 60 65 .29. the shell elements are connected to beam elements by a so-called rigid link element to resist shear and bending. Typical bridge deck configurations.). and H constantly 0. the eccentricity between the centroid of girder and the bearing supports. 55.50 ft).80 m (6 ft). respectively. For the finite element modeling. CAN/CSA-S6-06 2006.50 m (5 ft). Physical configuration and FEA modeling of a slabon-girder bridge: (a) 3-D physical T-section. The interaction between the deck slab discretized by shell elements and the girder discretized by beam elements is simulated into the Eccentric Shell-Beam Model (ESBM). i. BE and infinitesimal region (c) of a design load P.

(c) NL = 3. Throughout this study. single trucks and groups of trucks are placed at specific locations along the longitudinal span of the bridge and the  Figure 5.20 and 0. Tangwongchai et al. Based on the customary design practice of bridge decks.950 MPa (29. Poisson’s ratios of a concrete slab and steel girders are designated as 0. Bapat 2009).58 MPa (5. Loading conditions The bridge deck is loaded in different vehicle patterns which may occur during a real traffic situation.30. respectively. pinned-roller restraints are used for the sake of simply supported and continuous supported conditions for 1-span truck loading and 2-span truck loading.000 ksi).TCIE 839603 7 September 2013 4 5 10 CE: VK QA: SN Coll: QC: Initial S. The concrete slab has a 28-day compressive strength fc′ of 35. 4. The integer number of the Modula ratio n (Eg/Ec) of 7 is used. Possible patterns of trucks in transverse direction for MLL evaluation: (a) NL = 1. as in longitudinal direction (Chan and Chan 1999. 15 20 .16 ksi) resulting in the concrete elastic modulus Ec of 28. the magnitude of steel elastic modulus Eg is selected as 199.270 MPa (4100 ksi) according to recommendation of ACI 318-08 (2008). respectively. For steel girders. (b) NL = 2.

Dispersion of truck wheel loads on deck slab. 0.51 m (20 in. 5 10 15 20 25 AQ3 30 trucks are then placed at different transverse locations for trial and error. It is considered that a design truck (HS-20 design truck) can be placed anywhere within a clear width w of a roadway for extreme effect due to different number of traffic lanes NL. It is assumed that the wheels of a single axle are spaced at 1.33 and multiple presence factors m of 1. Near the abutment.14 m (30 ft). Figure 8 shows the typical effect of S on the proportion expressed by the ratio between MLL and an HS20-44 truck wheel load P of 72.22 m (4 ft). respectively. the bridge is divided into four sections for the purpose of result processing and comparison. impact factor IM of 1.85 for 1-lane.50).25 m (10 in. 1. the critical negative moments usually occur under the rear wheel (Y2). To attain a more accurate estimation of critical moments M. at critical sections. 2-lane. the tire print loads are enlarged by spreading outwards through the midplane of the slab Figure 7. Figure 5 demonstrates the schematic of possible patterns of truck moving laterally on a typical bridge roadway width for the evaluation  of MLL . The maximum moment M usually occurs at either the middle or rear wheel location.20. A wheel load is modeled as a patch load distributed over a finite area in FEA models.27–9.00. At the midspan as shown in Figure 6(b). (b) under Yc at flexible zones (V = 4. and 3-lane loadings. are presented to MLL/P in accordance with recommendation of AASHTO LRFD 40 45 . the maximum moment M usually occurs under the middle wheel (Yc) and when the spacing between the middle and rear axles (V) is equal to 9. with a length of 0.25 and 0.) and a width of 0.83 m (6 ft). In the loading analysis. The variations of V are varied between 4.5 kN (16 kips) (MLL/P) for three different locations along bridge span (y/L = 0. Numerical results The characteristic results of the present parameters influencing MLL in deck slab are scrutinized. and 0. In this study. Longitudinal locations of centers of governing gravity axes: (a) under Y2 at rigid zones (V = 4. The tire contact area for an HS20-44 truck is assumed as a rectangle.) (AASHTO 2007). The contact area of a wheel load is enlarged by projecting on the midplane of the slab with a distribution angle of 45° (AASHTO 2007) as illustrated in the Figure 7.27 m). 35 5.27 m (14 ft) and 9. and the minimum distance between the wheels of two side-by-side truck is 1.TCIE 839603 7 September 2013 CE: VK QA: SN Coll: QC: Initial Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 5 rint p r e fo no r onlin o M lou co Figure 6.14 m (30 ft) to produce extreme force effects (AASHTO 2004). as shown in Figure 6(a).14 m).

8 m = 2. Tangwongchai et al. y/L.5 m = 1. Based on regression analyses. the minimum BE can be observed when the bridge deck is rigidly restrained at the support. S/L 6 0. Based on the present numerical results. it can be seen that y/L is influential on BE to the greatest extent in accordance with the assumptions used by Cao and Shing (1999). y/L (c) 6. (c) three lane loaded (NL = 3). the following empirical formulas have been proposed to directly compute BE in the evaluation of MLL. In addition. However.5 m 6 S 6 3 m. and NL. With respect to the present FEA results. several provisions have recommended the minimum amount of reinforcement area (Asmin) or 55 . The formulations of BE are proposed in terms of S and y/L as follows: For support region: BE ¼ 0:12S 2  0:87S þ 2:24 5 10 45 ð2Þ 50 For other regions: BE ¼ 0:01S 2  0:19S þ 1:55 (2007).8 m = 2.50 Locations Along Bridge Span. where the structural flexibility of bridge deck is largest. BE at the quarter span is larger than the midspan. In particular. In some circumstances. LRFD 2007). 15 20 25 30 35 Locations Along Bridge Span. Instead of using Table 1. Variation of MLL/P with respect to location designated y/L: (a) one lane loaded (NL = 1). Table 1 shows the comparison between BE calculated from the present FEA with respect to spacing S and location designated y/L and those obtained from AASHTO Specifications (Standard 2002. (a) 33 30 S S S S 27 100 mMLL-/P 24 21 = 1. y/L Figure 8. Required reinforcement area in bridge deck slab In general.TCIE 839603 7 September 2013 CE: VK QA: SN Coll: QC: Initial 6 S.3 m =3 m t prin r o f line no Mo lour on co 6 3 0 0. the general relationship of BE is then developed.02. some inconsistencies can be observed between BE at the quarter span and midspan. the present BE includes not only the effect of structural flexibility of bridge deck (y/L and S) but also loading characteristics (NL). the effect of 40 ð3Þ It is noted that this formula is applicable for 1.50 Locations Along Bridge Span. Likewise. BE can be calculated according to Equation (1) for each S.5 m = 1.50). (b) two lane loaded (NL = 2). The maximum NL of three gives the maximum MLL by implying the minimum value of BE. Therefore.25 . On the other hand. In addition. the minimum BE can be observed.50 NL appears to be identical when NL is equal to two and three as illustrated in Figure 8(b) and (c). it is apparent that BE is usually maximum at the midspan section when the structural flexibility of bridge deck is largest.3 m =3 m 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 0. MLL/P starts decreasing with the increase of y/L. This is because of the accompanying effects of girder spacing S and number of lane loaded NL.25 . However. Those parameters also produce a significant influence on BE. On the other hand.8 m = 2. S/t 6 18.00 .5 m = 1. Moreover. That is to say the magnitude of MLL/P appears to be larger near the support (y/L = 0) and smaller in the region of midspan (y/L = 0. y/L (b) 33 30 S S S S 27 100MLL-/P 24 21 18 15 12 9 = 1.00 . MLL/P increases in general especially at the support region (y/L = 0). it is apparent that BE is usually maximum at the midspan section (y/L = 0. 7. Proposed effective strip widths BE 33 30 S S S S 27 100MLL-/P 24 21 = 1. NL seems to produce influence on MLL/P to a certain extent. S has considerable influence on MLL/P: as S becomes larger.25 .50). where the bridge deck is rigidly restrained at the support (y/L = 0).3 m =3 m 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 0.00 .

5) 3 (10) 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 LRFD (2007) 1. Obtaining widths BE in meter using FEA.30% has been suggested by BD 81/02 (2002) and CHBDC (2006).73 1.3 (7.67 1.22 1. flexure is the primary failure mode when a deck is subjected to moving loads (Cao 1996). S. Percentages of reinforcement area AsT/Asmin due to different methods vs. Concluding remarks The present study performs a parametric study on bridge geometries and patterns of truck loading base on a so-called ESBM technique. 40 45 50 55 Acknowledgements Figure 9. the required reinforcement areas in transverse direction of deck slab (AsT) calculated by different approaches are shown in Figure 9. It is apparent that AsT computed by the present proposed formula of BE gives moderate results of AsT compared with those obtained from AASHTO Specifications.73 0.04 1.91 0.16 1. which have the basic concept of arching action (compression membrane action).68 1. m (ft) 1.23 1.93 1. the present analysis reveals that the location designated by the ratio between distance along the bridge span away from the support y and bridge span L (y/L) can produce a significant effect on MLL. y/L Support.07 1.03 0.33 1. it has been suggested that current AASHTO design procedures should be noticeably conservative as they usually give considerably larger MLL than the present FEA. girder spacing S is also influential on MLL to a great extent.63 1.77 advantage of the present FEA is that the amounts of slab reinforcements can be lower compared with the AASHTO counterpart. AASHTO LRFD.65 1.30 1. The present study has also implied that bridge slab reinforcement may be minimized when a bridge with small girder spacing has been selected.21 1.380 mm2/mm (about 0.28 1. It should be noted that AASHTO or empirical method is based mainly on the consideration of punching shear failure. 60 . Among the parameters that have influence on the negative slab moment MLL.35 1. The first author also owes very great supports to her co-advisor (P. When compared with CHBDC (2006) and BD 81/02 (2002). 0.69 0.66 0.40 1. This should result in more realistic and economical designs of bridge deck slabs for the common ranges of deck slab proportions under various numbers of truck loadings.55 1. 0.26 1. The present research was partially supported by the Thailand Research Fund through the Royal Golden Jubilee PhD Program [grant no.67 0.59 1.20 1.03 0. Compared with other existing methods in evaluation of MLL.27 1. FEA (including m factors (LRFD 2007) AASHTO Ratios between distance along girder y and girder span L.41 1. Moreover. However.90 0. 30 35 8.25 Middle span.72 percentage of reinforcement area in gross concrete section for each top layer provided in the deck slab in each direction.93 1. The potential WSD (2002) AQ8 0.70 0.79 1. Asmin of 0.50 Number of loaded traffic lanes.00 0.38 1. empirical formulas have been proposed to determine the effective strip width BE.TCIE 839603 7 September 2013 CE: VK QA: SN Coll: QC: Initial Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 7 Table 1.15 0. it is important to note that the design of a bridge deck is expected to be more economical than traditional designs. the present study tends to give underestimated results of BE to a certain extent.78 1. In the utilization of this design concept. Benson Shing). 0 Quarter span. For instance. the proposed BE formulas appear to provide moderate results for required reinforcement areas in bridge deck slabs. NL Girder spacing S.20% reinforcement steel) has been provided according to AASHTO (2007) by means of the empirical design method while Asmin of 0.39 1.78 0.5 (5) 1. PHD/0167/2546]. and standards method. Based on the present numerical results. According to the present study.59 1.22 1.8 (6) 2. To deal with MLL.

H. and S. Cao. “Simplified Analysis Method for Slab-on-girder Highway Bridge Decks. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1990. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). J. Bapat. 2006. 2002. 95 National Roads Authority. 4th ed Washington. G. H. Lee. Puckett. 2009. Worley. Standard Specification for the Design of Highway Bridges. CA: Computers & Structures.” Master thesis. Bangkok. “A Constraint-based System for Arranging Bridge Spans. AQ7 Berkeley. Yau. L. 100 Kasetsart University. and R. N.. Thailand. “Influence of Bridge Parameters on Finite 70 Element Modeling of Slab on Girder Bridges. Westergaard. “Analysis and Design of Slab-on-girder High80 way Bridge Decks. B. AQ6 90 “Behavior of Isotropic R/C Bridge Decks on Steel Girders.. Shing. 2008. 2002. 2000. F. E. and L. 1996. 10th ed. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). C. 17th ed Washington. 110 . LRFD Bridge Designs Specifications.. London: UK Highways Agency. Tangwongchai et al...” In The East Asia Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction (EASEC-10). 2002. Use of Compressive Membrane Action in Bridge Decks. Bridge Analysis Simplified. H. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-08). Design of Highway AQ5 Bridges: Based on AASHTO LRFD.-K. Thailand. USA. SAP2000 Program User’s Manual.TCIE 839603 7 September 2013 8 S. Jaeger. M. B. Barker. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.. Wilson. New York: McGraw-Hill.” PhD thesis. 85 Chan. DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Ontario: Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. 105 August 2–4. and J..” Master thesis. USA. T. Chan. S. M. Chucheepsakul. MI: American Concrete Institute.” Public Roads 11 (1): 1–23. Fang. R.” Journal of Structural Engineering 116 (3): 659–678. BD 81/02. Boulder. 2003. 1999. “Computations of Stresses in Bridge Slabs due to Wheel Loads. Bakht. J. Klingner. S.” Journal of Bridge Engineering 125 (1): 49–59.. A. and J.” Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 25 (6): 693–706. DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. L. and P. et al. Bridge Design Specifi75 cations. “Appropriate 3-D Finite Element Modeling of RC Slabs over Girders. S. and N. Bangkok. 2006. Burns. American Concrete Institute (ACI). Canadian Standards Association. J. A. Tangwongchai. Cao.” Structural Engineering and Mechanics 8 (1): 85–102. “The Use of Eccentric Beam Elements in the Analysis of Slab-on-girder Bridges. 1985. 1930. H. “Effect of Beam Flexibility to Bending Moment in Slab of Slab Beam Bridge. T. E. V. CAN/CSA-S6-06. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. L. I. C. 1997. Nomenclature 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 AQ4 65 CE: VK QA: SN Coll: QC: Initial Asmin Minimum amount of reinforcement area in transverse direction of deck slab AsT Required amount of reinforcement area in transverse direction of deck slab BE Effective strip width c Diameter of the equivalent area of a wheel load Dx Flexible stiffness of a deck in transverse direction Dy Flexible stiffness of a deck in longitudinal direction Ec Modulus of elasticity of the concrete deck Eg Modulus of elasticity of the girder e1 Distance between neutral axis of composite section (T-shape) and that of the girder e2 Distance between neutral axis of T-section and mid-plane of the slab L Span length of I-girder MLL Live load moment in deck slab  Critical negative moment in deck slab due to live load MLL NL Number of traffic lanes P Design wheel load S Center-to-center spacing of I-girders t Slab thickness V Spacing between the middle and rear axles y Parameter of longitudinal loading locations Y1 Longitudinal location of front wheel Y2 Longitudinal location of rear wheel Yc Longitudinal location of middle wheel References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). University of Colorado. 1999. Tangwongchai. 2007.