See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245282021

Experimental Performance of Full-Depth Precast, Prestressed Concrete

Overhang, Bridge Deck Panels

Article  in  Journal of Bridge Engineering · September 2010

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000098

CITATIONS READS
8 321

6 authors, including:

Thomas Mander Reece M. Scott

University of Texas at San Antonio 5 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   
17 PUBLICATIONS   60 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Monique Head J.B. Mander

University of Delaware Texas A&M University
46 PUBLICATIONS   92 CITATIONS    235 PUBLICATIONS   7,590 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Strengthening of Inverted-T Bent Cap Ledges View project

Damage Avoidance Design (DAD) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Monique Head on 16 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Experimental Performance of Full-Depth Precast,
Prestressed Concrete Overhang, Bridge Deck Panels
Thomas J. Mander1; Matthew D. Henley2; Reece M. Scott3; Monique Hite Head, A.M.ASCE4;
John B. Mander5; and David Trejo6

Abstract: The performance of a new full-depth precast overhang panel system for concrete bridge decks is investigated experimentally.
In contrast to conventional cast-in-place deck overhangs, the proposed full-depth precast overhang system has the potential to speed up
construction, reduce costs, and improve safety. Load-deformation behavior up to factored design load limits is first investigated. The panel
is then loaded near its edge to examine the collapse capacity and the associated failure modes—particularly the influence of panel-to-panel
connections that exist, transverse to the bridge deck axis. Comparative tests are also conducted with a conventional cast-in-place overhang
system. When compared to the conventional cast-in-place overhang behavior, the experimental results show that the precast full-depth
overhang introduces different behavior modes, largely due to the influence of the partial depth panel-to-panel connection, which reduces
the capacity by some 13%.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲BE.1943-5592.0000098
CE Database subject headings: Bridges, concrete; Bridge decks; Prestressed concrete; Panels; Load factors.
Author keywords: Precast bridge panels; Concrete bridge overhang; Accelerated construction; Monotonic loading.

Introduction and Background
Approximately 85% of new concrete bridge decks in the State of
Texas use stay-in-place 共SIP兲, precast, prestressed panels span-
ning between adjacent beams. SIP precast panels were first used
in the 1950s in Illinois, and became incorporated for use in other
states in the late 1960s and early 1970s 共Goldberg 1987兲. SIP
precast panels have exhibited comparable strength to conven-
tional bridge decks, while adding value in accelerated construc-
tion, increased safety, and reduced construction costs through less
on-site labor requirements 共Buth et al. 1972兲. Research has shown
the added value of SIP concrete deck panels to be stronger, stiffer,
and more crack-resistant when compared to fully cast-in-place
共CIP兲 concrete decks 共Tsui et al. 1986兲.
However, construction of bridge overhangs can be a time-
consuming, costly, and potentially dangerous operation, as the
formwork and falsework have to be removed from beneath the
1
Graduate Assistant Researcher, Zachry Dept. Civil Engineering,
Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843-3136.
2
Captain, U.S. Air Force; formerly, Graduate Student, Zachry Dept.
Civil Engineering, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX. 77843-3136.
3
Graduate Assistant Researcher, Zachry Dept. Civil Engineering,
Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843-3136.
4
Assistant Professor, Zachry Dept. Civil Engineering, Texas A&M
Univ., College Station, TX 77843-3136 共corresponding author兲.
5 ceptable riding surface. Such a system requires a low tolerance of
Inaugural Zachry Professor I, Zachry Dept. Civil Engineering, Texas
A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843-3136.
6
Zachry Career Development Professor I and Division Head, Con-
structed Facilities, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX
77843-3136.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 22, 2009; approved on
December 14, 2009; published online on December 16, 2009. Discussion
period open until February 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submit-
ted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 5, September 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-
0702/2010/5-503–510/$25.00.
deck overhang once the deck concrete has been placed and gained
sufficient strength. To address this concern, many studies have
examined SIP precast, prestressed concrete panels with the first
interior precast panel extended to include the overhang to elimi-
nate field forming of the overhang. Some examples include the
NUDECK system 共Badie et al. 1998, 1999; Yamane et al. 1998兲
and deck replacement using full-depth precast, concrete deck pan-
els with deck continuity over immediate support 共Babaei et al.
2001兲. Moreover, full-depth, 200-mm-thick, precast panels placed
adjacent to one another, spanning transverse beams have also
been investigated previously by Yamane et al. 共1998兲 and Fallaha
et al. 共2004兲. These full-depth bridge decks are precast off-site,
requiring no steel placement or concrete deck placement on-site.
The panels achieve shear transfer with the girders similar to the
system developed in the research presented herein via composite
pockets with a mechanical connector 共threaded rod or stud兲. To
achieve continuity between adjacent panels, grouted shear keys
are used in transverse joints. These shear keys are typically
female-female connections 共Issa et al. 1995兲. Joints need to be
designed such that grout can freely flow, while not leaking
through the small gap 共typically 12.5 mm兲 between adjacent pan-
els. Ideally, vertical faces of the panels must be roughened so that
sufficient bond is achieved between the panels and grout 共Issa et
al. 2003兲. Full-depth panel systems also require a finishing sur-
face as the grouted joints and shear pockets may cause an unac-
error for precast panel construction and on-site panel placement.
A disadvantage with a full-depth system is filling the shear
pockets and keys with grout. A large volume of grout is required,
which is a time-consuming process. Durability and strength could
be compromised when voids are present if the grout is not cor-
rectly placed. Therefore, serviceability of the system can be re-
duced as adequate shear transfer between adjacent panels via the
shear key is imperative. Although these full-depth panel systems
have considerable merit, they have only been adopted for field

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 / 503

Downloaded 25 Jan 2011 to 118.97.186.66. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
application on few occasions. Their lack of widespread use is
considered to be due to the difficulty in accommodating the vari-
able grade that inevitably occurs among the several precast pre-
stressed concrete girders within a given span. As such, the
concept of precast overhang panels is not new; however, the de-
tailing of these systems can vary, thereby affecting the overall
performance.
The newly proposed prestressed precast full-depth overhang
system developed by the Texas DOT 共TxDOT兲 can potentially
reduce the cost of construction and improve safety and the speed
of construction of bridges. The SIP panel system replaces the
bottom 100 mm of reinforced concrete used in CIP bridge deck
construction. These panels are nominally 100 mm thick and pre-
stressed transversely to the axis of the bridge. The panel surface is
typically roughened to enhance the bond between the panel and
CIP concrete. Panels span the girders and are placed adjacent to
one another along the longitudinal length of the bridge. SIP pan-
els are not connected at transverse joints. These panels are placed
on incompressible foam leveling strips, placed at the longitudinal
edges of the prestressed concrete girders, and cut to an appropri-
ate height over the length of the bridge to achieve the required
bridge deck grade. An advantage of using full-depth panels is the
increased quality control gained from casting off-site. However,
as the durability of the panels may be higher than a CIP system,
the addition of grouted shear keys and interior shear connector
pockets can decrease the overall durability of the system. Where
negative moments occur, cracks may open around shear pockets
and shear keys, allowing for chloride and moisture ingress, reduc-
ing the durability of the deck system. In some systems, longitu-
dinal posttensioning is also introduced to mitigate the potential
for transverse cracking 共Fallaha et al. 2004兲. This posttensioning
has the potential to prevent cracking in negative moment regions.
Transverse posttensioning has also been used, but gaining access
to the overhang to achieve this offsets the benefits of a precast
overhang, which purposely eliminates the need for gaining access
to the overhang.
Shear transfer between typical prestressed concrete girders and
deck is achieved through stirrups 共referred to as R-bars herein兲
extending above the beam surface to the concrete deck. In typical
construction, once interior panels are in place, exterior formwork
is attached to the outside girder to construct the overhang. Once
the overhang formwork is in place, longitudinal and transverse
reinforcing steel is placed in the overhang section and interior
bays to provide continuity across the deck. Finally, concrete is
placed on-site, resulting in a 100-mm-thick layer over the interior
SIP panels and 200 mm for the full-depth CIP overhang.
Therefore, this paper first explains the design and construction
concept of the full-depth precast overhang system, as recently
developed by the TxDOT, and then goes on to present an experi-
mental investigation on the load carrying capacity of the new
full-depth precast panel overhang system. Comparisons are made
with a conventional CIP overhang.
Full-Depth Precast Overhang System
The full-depth precast overhang system tested consists of two
full-depth overhang panels adjacent to one another 共1兲 where the
key components of the system are illustrated in Fig. 1. Neither
formwork nor falsework at the location of the exterior girder is
required on-site. The overhang panels are cast off-site in two
stages, as will be described later. One of the challenges of such a
system is achieving a deck-to-girder interface shear connection
504 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010
Downloaded 25 Jan 2011 to 118.97.186.66. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
3 300
11
9
2
16
1 300
200
1675
15
4
13
915
10
100
8
14
12
1830 7
6
5
Fig. 1. Two adjacent precast overhang panels
共2兲. For this purpose, each 2.4-m-wide precast panel includes
three composite pockets which measure 250 mm wide by 180 mm
long 共3兲. These are equally spaced over the panel length, and
allow for a connection to be made with either threaded rods or
bolts, extending from the prestressed concrete girder or welded
studs if a steel plate girder is used.
A haunch, or gap 共4兲, between the soffit of the precast panel
and the girder occurs when grading of the bridge to the appropri-
ate level is required. Typically the haunch height may range from
12 to 100 mm. This haunch variation accommodates the variable
共unknown兲 camber in the prestressed girders, with the larger
haunch heights typically near span ends. The haunch must be
filled through the composite pockets requiring a free flowing
grout material to be used. Due to the fluid nature of the grout, and
potential high pressure head from the placing operation, the cus-
tomary incompressible foam 共5兲 used for the SIP panels 共6兲 is no
longer adequate. A compressible foam 共7兲 is attached to the girder
and deck with adhesive to prevent leakage of the grout from the
haunch. But the use of such a soft foam requires leveling bolts 共8兲
to adjust the grading of the deck and support the self-weight of
the panel prior to placing the grout. Coil inserts are cast in the
precast panels for the housing of the leveling bolts, which can be
raised or lowered using a wrench. Two leveling bolts on the ex-
terior girder and one leveling bolt on the adjacent interior girder
are used to adjust the panel height accordingly.
Another section of importance is the transverse seam 共9兲 be-
tween adjacent precast panels. The panels are reduced to 100-mm
thickness along the transverse edges of the panel, with the excep-
tion of a full-depth 200-mm thickness at the overhang end of the
panels. This permits concrete to be placed into the transverse
seam without requiring formwork on the overhang. Hooked steel
from the top layer of reinforcement 共10兲 extends from the precast
panels to the transverse seam, where a C-shaped steel reinforcing
bar 共11兲 is tied to the extending bars. The transverse seam is filled
with concrete when the interior deck is cast. In other areas of the
bridge 共not including the overhangs兲, conventional methods of
placing and grading the deck, as well as R-bar shear connections
共12兲 are used.
For safety, to prevent overturning of the overhang panels, two
reinforcing bars 共Z-bars兲 共13兲 extending above the surface of the
precast panel are welded to the interior girder R-bars. The top
transverse layer of reinforcing steel 共14兲 extends from the full-
depth precast panels into the interior partial-depth panels to pro-
vide adequate lap-splices of steel for load transfer between
 PRECAST OVERHANG CONVENTIONAL OVERHANG tudinal bridge axis and 5.49 m in the transverse direction. The
setup consisted of two precast panels, 2.44 m long by 2.67 m
wide, cast adjacent to one another and placed on reinforced con-
crete beams that were supported continuously on the laboratory
(a) Prototype precast bridge deck construction showing floor. The concrete beams were rectangular, 300 mm wide, repre-
precast overhang (left) and conventional overhang (right) sentative of an AASHTO Type A girder top flange width. The
beams were 400 mm deep, sufficient to place internal reinforce-
PRECAST OVERHANG CONVENTIONAL OVERHANG
ment and fasteners while providing adequate space to place in-
200 mm strumentation on the deck soffit. Conventional precast panels
spanned the central beam and an external beam for the conven-
STAY-IN-PLACE (SIP) PANEL tional overhang system.
(b) Full-scale experimental set-up
Test Specimen Construction
Fig. 2. Basis of experimental test setup
Fig. 2共a兲 presents a cross section of the prototype bridge system
with the proposed precast, prestressed overhang on the left hand
exterior and interior overhangs. Longitudinal and transverse steel side of the bridge along with a standard conventional TxDOT CIP
is then placed on the remainder of the deck at a designated spac- overhang on the right hand side. Fig. 2共b兲 presents a cross-
ing 共15兲. A final 100-mm concrete placement 共16兲 ties the system sectional view of the experimental representation of the same two
together, after which the haunch and grout pockets are poured. A overhang systems. As these two different construction methods
thin wearing surface can be placed on the exterior bay, concealing only influence the overhang and first interior bay, the transverse
the pockets, in the shoulder area of the bridge. width of the setup can be reduced to three beams. The 2.44 m
wide by 2.67 m long prestressed panels were constructed in a
two-stage casting process at a precast plant.
Experimental Investigation The first stage concrete placement 共100 mm thick兲 for the
overhang panels was performed in the same long-line steel stress-
Two full-scale, double-panel specimens, representative of TxDOT ing bed as used for conventional SIP precast panels. The new
precast concrete bridge decks, were tested to characterize resis- overhang panels were prestressed along their length 共transverse to
tance to factored wheel loads, evaluate load-deformation behav- the bridge axis兲 with 9.5-mm diameter tendons stressed to 1,300
ior, map crack formations, and identify failure modes. Particular MPa and reinforced longitudinally with mesh providing 465 mm2
emphasis was placed on comparing the performance of the pro- of steel per meter. The second stage layer is reinforced orthotro-
posed precast overhang to the conventional CIP overhang system pically with D16 bars longitudinally at 150-mm centers, and D12
as shown in Fig. 2. bars transversely at approximately 150-mm centers. The spacing
Fig. 3 presents the overall experimental setup. Each of the two of the bars was approximate, as bars needed to be configured to fit
specimens has a footprint that measured 4.88 m along the longi- around the composite pockets. After release of the strands, the

X 250 x 180 BLOCKOUT 2-D16 spaced 50mm, 1-D16 spaced at 300mm

BOTTOM STEEL
OVERHANG

CONVENTIONAL CIP OVERHANG

PRECAST

C
A
A

SIP
PANEL
B B
TOP STEEL

SIP
OVERHANG
PRECAST

G
E

PANEL
Y Y D F

X
(a) Plan view of deck (d) Plan view of reinforcement details
SIP PANEL
STEEL STEEL TYPE SPACING
305 typ
A 9.5mm dia. tendons 150 mma
915 1830 1830 915
B Welded wire mesh 465 mm2/m
C D12 150 mm
(b) Section Y-Y D D12 150 mmb
E D16 150 mmc
200
F D12 150 mm
G D16 150 mm
a
Gas-cut tendons out of precast pockets once concrete is set
5490 b
Standard hook length on bars around pockets
(c) Section X-X c
Average spacing of 150mm, place around pockets

Fig. 3. Specimen 1 layout 共dimensions in millimeters兲

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 / 505

Downloaded 25 Jan 2011 to 118.97.186.66. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 1. Concrete Cylinder Compression and Splitting Tensile Results
Compressive strength 共MPa兲 Tensile strength 共MPa兲
Specimen
number Component Cast date 3-day 7-day 28-day Time of test Time of test
1 Stage I February 5, 2008 29 41 55 58 6.0
1 Stage II February 8, 2008 41 50 53 62 5.5
1 SIP panel February 12, 2008 30 45 53 62 6.1
1 Deck March 28, 2008 26 45 58 59 5.5
2 Stage I January 31, 2008 37 47 60 66 5.6
2 Stage II February 5, 2008 29 41 47 52 5.2
2 SIP panel February 11, 2008 34 45 48 52 6.0
2 Lab-cast overhang April 14, 2008 32 45 55 58 4.7
2 Deck closure May 19, 2008 20 24 33 31 3.2
Note: Stage I⫽first stage pour of precast overhang panels; Stage II⫽second stage pour of precast overhang panels; and SIP Panel⫽stay-in-place panel for
interior bay.

second stage concrete placement 共100 mm thick兲 was cast on top
of the first stage concrete. Over the panel width, there were three
full-depth rectangular pockets that provide a location for shear
connectors between the panel and bridge girder 共Fig. 3兲.
Specimen Layout, Materials, and Reinforcing Details
Specimen 1 was designed to provide a comparison between the
performance of the precast overhang and the conventional CIP
overhang systems. The main difference in the reinforcement de-
tails was the existence of continuous bottom prestress from the
first interior girder to the overhang in the precast panel, as well as
the effect of the seam between the panels. As shown in Fig. 2共b兲
the specimen consisted of a conventional overhang and a precast
overhang. Composite action was provided between the girder and
precast overhang panel through the grout in the haunch and the
threaded rod connectors at each pocket. The conventional over-
hang had the customary D12 R-bar stirrups at 300-mm centers
extending above the beam surface by 130 mm. Details are given
in Fig. 3.
Specimen 2 was designed and tested with the dual objective:
共1兲 to confirm the findings of the precast overhang system tested
on Specimen 1 and 共2兲 to investigate an alternative approach for
constructing full-depth overhang panels. The latter objective was
achieved by constructing a conventional panel system, referred to
as “lab-cast” panels. This consisted of a second stage concrete
placement on top of a standard precast, prestressed SIP panel to
achieve a full-depth overhang panel. The reinforcement details for
this system are similar to the precast overhang system, with the
exception that the bottom layer of prestressing strands were re-
placed with conventional reinforcement. As with the conventional
overhang system, D12 deformed reinforcing bars were placed at
150-mm centers. The shear connections for this system were simi-
lar to the Specimen 1 connectors with the exception of the pock-
ets, which were reduced from 250⫻ 175 mm to 150-mm square
pockets. Smaller composite pockets allowed for the main top steel
over the cantilever portion to be consistently spaced at the
150-mm uniform spacing. It was anticipated that by evaluating
the lab-cast panels, information could be obtained on the effect of
the prestress in the bottom layer. Moreover, as the reinforcement
details were also the same as the conventional overhang, this
enabled the effects of the transverse seam to be investigated.
All precast panels for the research program were fabricated at
a precast plant, using the long-line pretensioning methods, while
all other specimen components were constructed in the High-Bay
Structural and Materials Testing Laboratory at Texas A&M Uni-
versity. The precast panels were constructed with TxDOT Class H
concrete with a specified 28-day compressive strength of 34 MPa.
Type H concrete, with a specified target strength of 34 MPa, was
also used for the laboratory beams. A TxDOT Type S concrete,
with a target strength of 28 MPa, was used for the deck. Both
concrete types have a maximum water-to-cement ratio of 0.45.
Type S concrete has larger coarse aggregates than a type H mix
共Texas DOT 2004兲. A slump of 100 mm was specified for all
concrete mixtures. Cylinders were cast from each concrete batch
in accordance with standard practice 共see ASTM C192 Standard兲.
Compression tests 共according to ASTM C39兲 were conducted at
3, 7, and 28 days after casting and at the time of testing of the test
specimens. Splitting tensile tests were also conducted on the day
of testing in accordance with ASTM C496. Table 1 shows the
compressive strengths of the different concretes used in the re-
search at 3, 7, and 28 days after casting, and also the measured
compressive strength on the day of each experiment. Splitting
tensile strengths at the time of specimen testing are also given in
Table 1. Tensile tests were also conducted to characterize the mild
steel and prestressing strands used in the panels and CIP decks.
Table 2 shows key values from the tension tests.
Specimens 1 and 2 had a 50-mm haunch. A high performance
grout was used to fill the haunch. A water-to-powder 共w/p兲 ratio
of 0.19 was used for all grouts placed in the haunch area. The
pockets of Specimen 1 were filled with the same high perfor-
mance grout except the w/p ratio was 0.16. After less than 12 h,
after the grout placement subsidence, cracks were observed
around the pocket perimeter of Specimen 1. As a result of this,
TxDOT Class S concrete was used in the pockets for Specimen 2.
No visible cracks were observed when concrete was placed in the
pockets in Specimen 2.
Specimen Loading Plan
Hydraulic jacks with 2,200 kN capacity were used to apply the
vertical loads that represent the dual wheels of a truck. The loads
Table 2. Stress-Strain Values for Steel Reinforcement
Yield stress Yield Strain at onset
Specimen 共MPa兲 strain of strain-hardening
CIP D12 434 0.00185 0.0095
CIP D16 504 0.00255 0.0140
Precast wire mesh 434 0.00215 0.0025
Precast D12 455 0.00250 0.0055
Precast D16 434 0.00230 0.0025

506 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010

Downloaded 25 Jan 2011 to 118.97.186.66. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 4. Loading positions for both deck specimens
were applied via steel load plates, 75 mm thick, seated on a 12.5-
mm-thick neoprene pad 共Shore 70, similar in hardness to a tire
tread兲 over a rectangular tire footprint measuring 250 mm long by
500 mm wide. The magnitude of the applied loads was measured
via an in-series load cell placed above the load plates. To repre-
sent the most adverse design scenarios required by the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specification 共AASHTO 2004兲, loads were
placed on the concrete deck surface at various locations on the
deck, as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4共a兲 presents the load cases tested on Specimen 1. Load
Cases 1.1 and 1.2 are the required AASHTO factored load at the
longitudinal midpoint 共or seam兲, and the longitudinal quarter-
point 共center of a panel兲, respectively. For the overhang, this po-
sitioned the center of the load plate 150 mm off the beam face,
resulting in 50 mm of the load plate bearing over the beam. This
load location is referenced in Section 3.6.1.3 of the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 共AASHTO 2004兲. Load Case
1.3 is the edge failure load, where the wheel load edge is on the
edge of the panel. This may be representative of a crash load, with
an increased moment due to the overturning force from the barrier
resistance. The shear force will be the same as the AASHTO
required load point; however, a greater moment at the beam face
makes it more critical. Load Cases 1.4 and 1.5 are similar to 1.1
and 1.2, while Load Case 1.6 differs from Load Case 1.3, as it is
on the seam edge. Load Case 1.7 is an axle load 共two-wheel load兲
at the midpoint of each panel. Load Case 1.8 is the interior failure
load for an axle. Axle wheel loads were spaced at 1.83-m centers.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 / 507
Downloaded 25 Jan 2011 to 118.97.186.66. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
250
Load Case
200
Wheel load (kN)
1.1
1.2
150
1.4
1.5
100
2.1
2.2
50
2.5
2.6
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Vertical Displacement (mm)
Fig. 5. Force-deformation for the vertical load plate, 600 mm from
overhang edge 共AASHTO load兲
Loading for Specimen 2 is shown in Fig. 4共b兲. The overhang
loading on the lab-cast side was the same as with Specimen 1 for
the conventional and precast overhang to allow direct comparison
of results. The load on the precast side was a trailing wheel load
on the same panel as shown in Fig. 4共b兲. Load Case 2.4 was a
trailing wheel load on the interior panel of the precast overhang
side. Load 2.8 was similar but with the trailing wheel load on the
lab-cast side such that one wheel load was on the adjacent panel,
adjacent to the seam. Wheel loads represent trailing axles spaced
at 1.22 m, whereas in Specimen 1, Load Cases 1.7 and 1.8 rep-
resent a total axle load with the two-wheel loads spaced 1.83 m
apart.
Experimental Results
For all 16 loading conditions, force-displacement data were ob-
tained based on the wheel load and the vertical displacement
below the center of the load plate. String pots were placed along
the beam face to obtain the true panel deflection by allowing for
compression and “bedding in” of the beam to the strong floor.
Longitudinal and transverse displacement profiles were electroni-
cally recorded in the axis of the wheel load.
AASHTO Overhang Seam Load
Both precast overhang panel setups and lab-cast panels behaved
in a similar fashion for Load Cases 1.1, 1.4, 2.1, and 2.5. For the
precast overhang, some hairline cracks were only observed at
loads of 267 kN at the seam above the exterior beam face. The
conventional overhang had three cracks on the underside of the
deck propagating from the beam face. The cracks were continu-
ous to the overhang free edge. Top surface cracks were observed
above the beam face and along the beam centerline.
Fig. 5 presents the results for the AASHTO overhang wheel
load at the longitudinal midpoint of the bridge deck 共the
transverse seam between precast panels兲. Vertical displacements
obtained were small, with the largest displacement being approxi-
mately 0.3 mm, corresponding to a slab transverse rotation of
0.002 radians at the beam face.
AASHTO Overhang Midpanel „Quarter Point… Loads
The design AASHTO loading was applied at the longitudinal
quarter point of both specimens. For the precast overhang, this
corresponded to the longitudinal midpoint of a precast panel. No
 500

400

Wheel load (kN)

300 Load Case
1.3
200
(a) Specimen 1 conventional overhang failure (Load 1.3)
1.6
100 2.3
2.7
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Vertical displacement (mm)

(b) Specimen 1 precast, prestressed overhang(Load 1.6) Fig. 7. Force-deformation for overhang failure

Fig. 6. Observed failure cracks of overhangs

cracks were apparent in the surface of the precast panels. The
conventional overhang had two hairline cracks on the underside
of the deck in line with the load plate.
Load-displacement curves for these tests are presented in Fig.
5. In Specimen 1, the stiffness of the precast deck was similar to
the stiffness of the conventional overhang of approximately 1,000
kN/mm. The stiffness values of the precast overhang and lab-cast
sections of Specimen 2 were greater than that of Specimen 1.
These tests on both specimens displayed neither cracks nor any
residual displacements.
Overhang Failure Loads
A flexural failure mechanism in the overhang was achieved by
moving the loading footprint to the edge of the deck. In Specimen
1, a single wheel load was placed on the edge of the seam for the
precast overhang 共Load 1.4兲. The lab-cast overhang in Specimen
2 was loaded the same way 共Load 2.7兲. This provides an indica-
tion of the C-bar strength connecting adjacent panels in compari-
son to the continuous reinforcement in the conventional panel
failure load 共Load 1.3兲. Specimen 2 used a trailing wheel load
applied over the same precast overhang panel 共Load 2.3兲.
Cracks were mapped at selected loads based on the force-
deformation data during the experiment. Photographs taken at the
time of failure are shown in Fig. 6. The conventional overhang
failure was close to symmetrical about the load plate. For the
precast loads, cracks were observed in the panel adjacent to the
panel loaded.
The force-displacement curves for Load Cases 1.3, 1.6, 2.3,
Interior Loads
Load Cases 1.7 and 1.8 consisted of two simultaneously applied
wheel loads via a spreader beam that represented a truck single
axle as illustrated in Fig. 4共a兲. One wheel pad was placed in each
of the two interior bays of Specimen 1. In Specimen 2, Load
Cases 2.4 and 2.8 also consisted of two simultaneously applied
wheel loads, 1.22 m apart to represent tandem wheel loads. These
were applied along a midspan line parallel to the longitudinal axis
of the bridge. In this way, the AASHTO tandem axle condition for
one bay 共between beams兲 was represented. In Load Case 2.4 the
two loads were placed within one panel, adjacent to the seam. In
Load Case 2.8 the tandem loads were placed with one near the
center of the panel and the other straddling the adjacent panel.
The purpose of the comparison was to highlight the possibility of
any difference in the imposition of bending and the possibility of
shear stresses across the seam.
Specimen 1 had a few surface cracks for both load cases, all of
which were confined on the beam faces. Flexural-punching shear
failure occurred on the interior beam of the precast side at 850
kN. Fig. 8 provides the results of all interior failure loads 共Load
Cases 1.8, 2.4, and 2.8兲 as well as quarter-point loads 共Load Case
1.7兲. It is evident that Load Case 2.4 is the critical case in the
trailing wheel load over a single panel. However, the initial stiff-
ness in all load cases is comparable up to approximately 311 kN
for loading near the seam. Note that this is well in excess of the
maximum factored AASHTO load 共⬃200 kN兲. Behavior beyond
311 kN is still satisfactory, with a moderate degree of ductility
共failure warning兲 exhibited.
800
Wheel load (kN)

600
and 2.7 are shown in Fig. 7. The curves indicate that the initial
stiffness was similar for the precast panels and CIP overhang with
400
a single applied load up to approximately 133 kN. Up to approxi- Load Case
mately 200 kN the force-deformation behavior is similar for the 1.7 CIP 1.7 PC
precast and conventional overhangs loaded at the seam. For 200
1.8 CIP 1.8 PC
Specimen 1, the ultimate load capacities were 440 and 374 kN for
2.4 2.8
the CIP and precast overhangs, respectively. The 13% reduction 0
in load carrying capacity, in the full-depth precast system is at- 0 5 10 15 20 25
tributed in part to the presence of the seam in the precast system. Vertical displacement (mm)
However, it should be noted that both ultimate capacities signifi-
cantly exceed the AASHTO truck load of 71 kN. Fig. 8. Force-deformation for interior failure cases

508 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010

Downloaded 25 Jan 2011 to 118.97.186.66. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 3. Peak Loads and Factors of Safety for Tested Double-Panel Bridge Deck System
Load case Description
Exterior
1.3 Conventional midspecimen edge load
1.6 Precast overhang seam edge load
2.3 Precast overhang trailing wheel load
2.7 Lab-cast overhang seam edge load
Interior
1.8 Interior trailing axle load midpoint
2.4 Precast interior trailing wheel single panel
2.8 Lab-cast interior trailing wheel straddling seam
Note: 200 kN design load= wheel load+ multiple presence factor+ live load+ impact factor 33%; and 267 kN design load= wheel
presence factor+ live load+ impact factor 75% for joints.
Discussion
Results from the overhang tests indicate that the precast overhang
system exhibits sufficient capacity for a 900-mm overhang.
Table 3 lists the observed load factors 共factors of safety兲 obtained
from the double-panel testing. Note that these are only for the
capacity of the precast overhang system, not the bridge as a
whole. The 13% decrease in carrying capacity in the precast over-
hang panel compared to the conventional overhang cannot be
solely attributed to the seam. First, it should be noted that al-
though constructed to be similar, the properties of the materials
used in the two overhangs were different. The yield stress of
the D16 top transverse reinforcing steel bars was 504 MPa for
the CIP overhang compared to 434 MPa in the precast overhang.
Second, the precast system had a considerably smaller posi-
tive moment in the longitudinal direction at the seam 共M y
= 25.6 kN-m/ m for precast and M y = 81.8 kN-m/ m for CIP兲.
This was due to the conventional overhang using bottom longitu-
dinal D16 steel reinforcement while the precast side used a
welded wire mesh of R10 rounded bars providing 465 mm2 of
steel per meter.
A further reduction in ultimate capacity was observed when
loading the lab-cast overhang when compared with the pre-
stressed precast overhang. The effect of transverse prestressing in
the lower half of the precast overhang is small in the negative
moment overhang region. The main contribution in strength is
from the top transverse D16 steel in this region. Reduction in the
ultimate capacity in the lab-cast specimen was likely due to the
bottom reinforcement layout. The D16 steel reinforcing bars were
designed and placed to mimic the conventional section and not
the steel mesh used in the prestressed precast overhang panels.
The development length of the reinforcing thus increases at the
transverse seam where the steel is terminated in each panel.
Strength is compromised as the D16 bars are not developed
within the failure plane of the lab-cast panels. Due to the increase
in development length there is effectively no positive reinforce-
ment in the longitudinal direction 共M y = 0 kN-m/ m兲 at the point
of failure. An increase in strength would be expected, had the D16
reinforcing bars had standard hook length, or a mesh had been
used in the lab-cast panels.
Greater ductility was observed in the precast overhang panel
when compared to the conventional panel and lab-cast systems.
In terms of total loads on a panel, Load Case 2.3, which repre-
sented trailing wheels on a single panel, does not appear to ad-
versely affect the ultimate capacity. Although the ultimate failure
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 / 509
Downloaded 25 Jan 2011 to 118.97.186.66. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Peak wheel load Reserve capacity factor
共kN兲 共ultimate/load factor兲
440 2.20
374 1.40
360 1.35
302 1.13
859 3.22
565 2.12
667 2.50
load+ multiple
load is within 4.5 kN of the single wheel seam load, the stiffness
was reduced for this load case. A folding mechanism along the
beam face was observed, resulting in larger ultimate vertical dis-
placements of 20 mm compared to 12 mm for the singular seam
load.
Conclusions
Based on the results from the two full-scale double-panel speci-
mens, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The concept of using conventional SIP panels and a precast
overhang panel to construct a concrete deck system was veri-
fied. Current AASHTO-based designs have substantial re-
serve strength over the required AASHTO design factored
loads. In spite of minor 共13%兲 weakening being introduced
via the transverse panel-to-panel seam, the full-depth, pre-
stressed precast panels also showed sufficient strength in
both interior and exterior bays.
2. Overhang failure loads were made critical by loading at the
edge of the panel and seam joint. It is evident that the intro-
duction of the seam decreases the overall strength, but only
the bottom longitudinal steel is discontinuous. Nevertheless,
some positive 共and negative兲 moment strength is still pro-
vided due to the CIP panel-to-panel joint that has a single
layer of C-bars. Although this is weaker than the full-depth
overhang, the overall reduction of load carrying capacity is
only some 13%, and based on this research is considered safe
for general implementation.
3. Under normal service loads 共including overloads兲, the stiff-
ness of the full-depth precast-prestressed panels was compa-
rable to the conventional CIP decks. Under normal service
loads deck cracking should not be expected.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted under a contract from TxDOT
to TTI 共Project 0-46100兲 in collaboration with Dr. Tyler Ley of
Oklahoma State University. Dr. Ley provided the initial design
for the precast panels. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
The research team also acknowledges the assistance of Ricardo
Gonzalez, TxDOT project director, Graham Bettis, Ralph
Browne, Loyl Bussell, Robert Cochran, Lewis Gamboa, John
Holt, Michael Hyzack, Manuel Padron, and Alfredo Valles, all
project advisors from TxDOT. The findings and opinions are
those of the writers.
References
AASHTO. 共2004兲. LRFD bridge design specifications, 3rd Ed., Washing-
ton, D.C.
Babaei, K., Fouladgar, A., and Nicholson, R. T. 共2001兲. “Nighttime
bridge deck replacement with full depth precast concrete panels at
Route 7 over Route 50, Fairfax County, Virginia.” Transportation
Research Board, 80th Annual Meeting, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C.
Badie, S. S., Baishya, M. C., and Tadros, M. K. 共1998兲. “NUDECK-An
efficient and economical precast bridge deck system.” PCI J., 43共5兲,
56–74.
Badie, S. S., Baishya, M. C., and Tadros, M. K. 共1999兲. “Innovative
bridge panel system a success: Concrete international 共CI兲.” J. Am.
Concr. Inst., 21共6兲, 51–54.
Buth, E., Furr, H. L., and Jones, H. L. 共1972兲. “Evaluation of a pre-
stressed panel, cast-in-place concrete bridge.” TxDOT Research Rep.
510 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010
View publication stats Downloaded 25 Jan 2011 to 118.97.186.66. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
145-3, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Tex.
Fallaha, S., Sun, C., Lafferty, M., and Tadros, M. 共2004兲. “High perfor-
mance precast concrete NUDECK panel system for Nebraska’s sky-
line bridge.” PCI J., 49共5兲, 40–50.
Goldberg, D. 共1987兲. “Precast prestressed concrete bridge deck panels.”
PCI J., 32共2兲, 26–45.
Issa, M., Idriss, A., Kaspar, I., and Khayyat, S. 共1995兲. “Full-depth pre-
cast, prestressed concrete bridge deck panels.” PCI J., 40共1兲, 74–85.
Issa, M., Riberio do Valle, C. L., Abdalla, H. A., and Islam, S. 共2003兲.
“Performance of transverse joint grout materials in full-depth precast
concrete bridge deck systems.” PCI J., 48共4兲, 92–103.
Texas DOT. 共2004兲. “Standard specifications for construction and main-
tenance of highways, streets and bridges.” Item 421, Austin, Tex.,
516–535.
Tsui, C. K., Burns, N. H., and Klinger, R. E. 共1986兲. “Behavior of
Ontario-type bridge deck on steel girders: Negative moment region
and load capacity.” Center for Transportation Research Rep. 350-3,
Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Yamane, T., Tadros, M., Badie, S., and Baishya, M. 共1998兲. “Full depth
precast, prestressed concrete bridge deck system.” PCI J., 43共3兲, 50–
66.