Chapter 5 Bridge Deck Slabs

Bridge Engineering


Basic types of bridge decks
In-situ reinforced concrete deck- (most common type) Pre-cast concrete deck (minimize the use of local labor) Open steel grid deck Orthotropic steel deck Timber deck

Bridge Engineering


In-situ reinforced concrete deck

Bridge Engineering


Pre-cast concrete deck Bridge Engineering 4 .

Open steel grid deck Bridge Engineering 5 .

Orthotropic-steel deck Bridge Engineering 6 .

Timber deck Bridge Engineering 7 .

m kN-m/m 18 ⎠ ⎝ Where P20 is 16. Distribution of Loads and Design of Concrete Slabs Main reinforcement perpendicular to traffic ⎛ S +2⎞ M =⎜ ⎟ P20 .24.315. P 18 is 72 kN for M18 or MS18 loading and S is the effective span length Bridge Engineering 8 .2 ≤ S ≤ 24.000 lb for H20 or HS20 loading.61 ≤ S ≤ 7. ft ⎝ 32 ⎠ ft-lb/ft or ⎛ S + 0.61 ⎞ M =⎜ ⎟ P .Bridge Deck Slab Background A) AASHTO 1.

Distribution reinforcement Bridge Engineering 9 .

134m) HS20 (MS18) loading Span up to and including 50 ft (15.24 m) LLM = 900 S ft-lb (13.06S or (1.48 m) LLM= 1000(1.1) kN-m Bridge Engineering 10 .0) ft-lb 14.Bridge Deck Slab Main reinforcement parallel to traffic Distribution of wheel loads E=4+0.0 ft (2.3 S-6.219+0.24 to 30.6(1.06S) maximum 7.30S-20.14 S kN-m) Span 50 ft to 100 ft (15.

below) “Computation of Stresses in Bridge Slabs Due to Wheel Loads”. The above design method developed based on Westergaard theory. March. 1930 Bridge Engineering 11 .Bridge Deck Slab . (Ref. Public Roads.

Bridge Deck Slab B) CSA-CAN3-S6-M78 CAN/CSA-S6-88 Similar to AASHTO Above methods very conservative Substantial strength enhancement Arching action developed in system C) CHBDC – Limit States Design 1) Serviceability limit states i) deformations (8.4) iii) control of cracking (8.3) Bridge Engineering 12 .1) ii) vibration (

1) Deflections and rotations occurring immediately upon the application of loads shall be determined by elastic methods using the value of Ec at the time of loading and considering the effects of cracking and reinforcement.13.Bridge Deck Slab 1) Serviceability limit states i) deformations (8. Bridge Engineering 13 .

if there is no sidewalk. at the inside face of the barrier.4. Bridge Engineering 14 . does not exceed the limit given in Figure (A) for the anticipated degree of pedestrian use. including the dynamic load allowance.4) Superstructures. shall be proportioned so that the maximum deflection due to the factored traffic load. The deflection limit state shall apply at the centre of the sidewalk or. other than for long span bridges.Bridge Deck Slab 1) Serviceability limit states ii) vibration (3.

Bridge Engineering 15 .Bridge Deck Slab An approved method shall be used to ensure that vibration likely to occur in normal use will not cause discomfort or concern to users of a pedestrian bridge.

Figure (A) Bridge Engineering 16 .

3) .Bridge Deck Slab 1) Serviceability limit states iii) control of cracking (8. Bridge Engineering 17 .12.

reinforcing bars (8. the stress range shall not exceed 65 MPa Bridge Engineering 18 .1) Stress range in straight bars shall not exceed 125MPa Stress range at anchorages.5.3.Bridge Deck Slab 2) Fatigue limit state. connections and bends shall not exceed 65 MPa Tack welding of primary reinforcement shall not permitted Stress range in the vicinity of welds shall not exceed 100 MPa For other types of welded splices.

the following assumptions are considered i) strains in bars and concrete proportional to the distance from neutral axis ii) maximum usable strain at the extreme compression fiber is 0. 1) E times steel strain if stress is less than f y 2) f y if strain is more than yield strain s Bridge Engineering 19 .The ultimate limit state – strength (or stability) All sections of the slab shall be proportioned to have factored resistance that are at least equal to the sum of the force effects of the factored loads. Besides satisfying equilibrium and compatibility.0035 iii) Stress in steel.

The ultimate limit state – strength (or stability) iv) Concrete has negligible tensile strength in calculation of flexural and axial tensile resistance v) stress-strain distribution pattern is as follows Bridge Engineering 20 .

75 Φs =0. ⎡ a ⎞⎤ ⎛ M u = Φ ⎢ As f y ⎜ d − ⎟⎥ 2 ⎠⎦ ⎝ ⎣ a= As f y α1 f c'b ' 1 c C = T → α f ba = As f y → a = Φ c=0.The ultimate limit state – strength (or stability) For reinforced concrete slabs.90 As f y } α1 f c'b Material resistance factors Bridge Engineering 21 . the factored resistance may be calculated by: Where.

Methods of analysis Yield line method Westergaard theory Influence line Grillage analogy Orthotropic plate theory Folded plate method Finite element and finite strip method Bridge Engineering 22 .

along which the reinforcement has yielded The section must be under-reinforced (as required by bridge design codes) Helps find Moments at the plane of failure Load at which the slab fails Gives an upper bound solution Bridge Engineering 23 .Yield Line Method The principal is similar to that of the plastic design theory of steel frames Reflects the true behavior at ultimate limit state Especially for existing bridges It is a crack in a reinforced bridge.

Axes of rotation pass along lines of support Axes of rotation pass over columns. Yield lines must end at slab boundary Simple supports attract positive or sagging yield lines while continuous supports do the opposite.Yield Line Method Characteristics: Yield lines are straight. A yield line dividing two slab parts must pass through the point of intersection of the axes of rotation of the two parts. Equilibrium or virtual work method Bridge Engineering 24 .

Bridge Engineering 25 . P represents the external load and V is the volume between the deflected surfaces and the original plane of the slab.Yield Line Method Virtual work method Upper bound Study many failure patterns Choose the pattern with highest moment or least load Energy dissipation at yield line D (l . M ) External work by loads E ( p. θ is the rotation of the yield line and M is the moment of resistance per unit length. θ . V ) Where. l is the length of yield line.

Yield Line Method Bridge Engineering 26 .

H. London. 1961. Reference: Wood. So. “Plastic and Elastic Analysis of Slabs and Plates” .Yield Line Method We = ∑ ∫∫ pδdxdy = ∑ (P∆ e ) Wi = ∑ (mblθ ) c ∑ (P∆ ) = ∑ (m lθ ) b The virtual work gives an upper bound to the failure load P or lower bound to resistance moment M. try many patterns and select the lowest P or highest M. Bridge Engineering 27 . Thames and Hudson. R.

a restrained slab goes through these stages: 1) Development of fixed boundary action 2) Cracking 3) Development of compressive membrane action. if the slab is unreinforced. or superposition of the latter action and fixed action if the slab is reinforced 4) Failure Bridge Engineering 28 .Behavior of a restrained slab When subjected to a concentrated load.

Behavior of a restrained slab Bridge Engineering 29 .

Behavior of a restrained slab Bridge Engineering 30 .

it is possible to reduce the amount of reinforcement in such slabs quite considerably.background Conventional design of deck slabs based on flexure and shear can be quite conservative And significant increase in strength is possible from internal arching action developed within the slab and the supporting beam system Consequently. Restraints at the edges of simply supported slabs increase their load bearing capacity Bridge Engineering 31 .Empirical method . without undermining the level of safety.

background Development of fixed boundary action and compressive membrane action are grouped and named as arching action. This fact is reflected in CHBDC by suggesting minimal reinforcement in the deck slab.Empirical method . provided certain conditions are met. Arching action leads to increase in slab strength. Bridge Engineering 32 .

bounded by exterior supporting beams and: (a) Slab is composite with parallel supporting beams. for which the lines of support are also parallel (b) The ratio of the supporting beams spacing and thickness is less than 18. Bridge Engineering 33 .Empirical method – Conditions (CHBDC) Slab of uniform thickness.0. The spacing of the supporting beams in calculating this ratio is taken parallel to the direction of the transverse reinforcement.

Criteria (c) Spacing of the supporting beams not to exceed 4.Empirical method .0 m. The slab extends beyond external beams wide enough for the development length of bottom transverse bars (d) Provide longitudinal rebars in the deck slab in the negative moment regions of continuous composite beams. Bridge Engineering 34 .

General and specific Criteria for empirical method General criteria Bridge Engineering 35 .

Minimum concrete cover and tolerances Bridge Engineering 36 .

Minimum concrete cover and tolerances Bridge Engineering 37 .

Minimum concrete cover and tolerances Bridge Engineering 38 .

Minimum concrete cover and tolerances Bridge Engineering 39 .

Minimum concrete cover and tolerances Bridge Engineering 40 .

Minimum concrete cover and tolerances Bridge Engineering 41 .

continued Bridge Engineering 42 .General and specific Criteria for empirical method General criteria.

Empirical method .Criteria Negative reinforcement on supports is provided accordingly If the general criteria plus the specific ones are fulfilled. then empirical method is applicable Decks normally need 4 layers of re-bars Main top and bottom re-bars to transfer live load to supporting girders Distribution bars on the top of lower main bars and bottom of upper main bars to aid distribution of wheel loads and act as temp. shrinkage re-bars Bridge Engineering 43 .

Criteria Bridge Engineering 44 .Empirical method .

Empirical method For skew angle of more than 20 Bridge Engineering 45 .

Empirical method Transverse reinforcing bars are placed on a skew. the reinforcement ratio for these bars is not less than ρ cos 2 θ where θ is the skew angle The spacing of reinforcement in each direction does not exceed 300 mm Bridge Engineering 46 .

Deck reinforcement 4 layers Bridge Engineering 47 .

Example Bridge Engineering 48 .


Bridge Engineering



Bridge Engineering



Bridge Engineering


Example Bridge Engineering 52 .

Example Bridge Engineering 53 .

Example Bridge Engineering 54 .

Example Bridge Engineering 55 .

over 200 million/year on highway bridge deck repair In Canada. Ontario. over 20 million/year on bridge repairs Bridge Engineering 56 .Bridge deck deterioration Chloride-containing deicing salt causes corrosion of rebars and later damage to concrete In US.

Spalling Basic spalling mechansim Bridge Engineering 57 .

Deck protection methods Protection systems Bituminous waterproofing Pre-fabricated sheeting Thin adhesive films Galvanized Rebars Epoxy coating of rebars Stainless steel Cathodic protection Bridge Engineering 58 .

Cathodic protection Developed by California Department of Transportation Bridge Engineering 59 .

5 ~ 25 mm Air content 6% Bridge Engineering 60 .Thicker Cover Use thicker cover and denser concrete IOWA method Slump 12.

steel Lighter. GFRP (bars. more durable. brittle. less life-cycle cost? Bridge Engineering 61 . lower E. sheets) Fiber Matrix FRP vs. more initial cost.Composites CFRP. stronger.

Composites. Matrix Thermoset Polyester Vinyl Resin Epoxy Phenoic Polyurethane Thermoplastic Bridge Engineering 62 .

Composites. Fibers Aramid Boron Carbon/graphite Glass Nylon Polyester Polyethylene Polypropylene Bridge Engineering 63 .

Composite – Carbon fiber bars Bridge Engineering 64 .

Composites – Glass fiber bars Bridge Engineering 65 .

Composites. Surface roughness Bridge Engineering 66 .

Composites Domain of application Construction of new structures Renovation. repair of existing bridges Retrofit of existing bridges Embedded or externally applied rods Bridge Engineering 67 .

temp. humidity Bridge Engineering 68 ..Composites Important issues: Design to be consistent with limit states design principles Rigorous material testing procedures Design provisions for reinforced and prestressed components Site preparation and construction procedure Fire resistance Long term durability Ultraviolet rays.

Composites Testing FRP internal reinforcement Cross sectional area Anchor for testing FRP specimens Tensile properties Development length Bond strength Surface bonded FRP reinforcement Direct tension pull-out Tension of flat specimens Overlap splice tension test Bridge Engineering 69 .

Composites Design Flexure Deformability condition to ensure concrete crushes first Crack limitations less severe than for steel bars Deflection limitation similar to conventional members Shear Stirrups fail in corners due to premature fracture at the bends Few tests show shear resistance is less than predicted Bridge Engineering 70 .

Composites Design Thermal stress Expansion of FRP very different than concrete Large thermal stresses in harsh climates Must consider thermal stress in the design Fire resistance depends on Critical temperature of FRP varies for various types Thickness of concrete cover. aggregates Ultraviolet rays Not concern in embedded bars Use protective coatings. additives to the resin Bridge Engineering 71 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful