ING — IABSE JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL GROUP OF THE INTERNATIONAL, ASSOCIATION FOR BRIDGE & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING The Bridge & Structural : 4 Engineer Vol. 33 No, 3 SEPTEMBER 2003 Price: Rs 100 Plus Packing and , NEW DELHI Postage ChargesSIMPLE STANDARDISE HANDOUT FOR MAKING SIMPLY SUPPORTED GIRDER BRIDGES (PSC/RCC/STEEL) INTO LIVE LOAD CONTINUOUS BRIDGES BY DECK SLAB CONTINUITY WITH ELIMINATION OF EXPANSION JOINTS By RK. Goswant ABSTRACT The application of Deck Slab Continuity Method, evolved in this paper, are described with a view to bridge design engineers extracting maximum adyantage from this powerful, yet simple, method of achieving continuity in multispan bridges, An unique formula has been developed with standardized reinforcement detailing handout to check the adequacy of this continuity slab by considering all variables parameters so that analysis of bridge Superstructure can be done as a simply supported structure, the simplest way of bridge designing. Ihis method not only will give the bridge designer a great relief, but it has a large benefits like economy, construction simplicity, no maintenance obligation, no traffic disruption for repairing, excellent riding quality and many many more compared with the other methods as well as conventional undesirable “jointed” span-by-span construction, 1. INTRODUCTION Precast or Prefabricated beams acting compositely with in situ top concrete deck slabs are not new. In fact last 40 years, the use of this form of construction has been extensively used to build multispan bridges on a span-by-span basis with movement joint at each support. Practically today’s bridge designers are striving to achieve the same goal as their counterparts were doing 40 years ago in both design & construction work : long- term serviceability, low maintenance requirement, and economy of construction. While New techniques have been mastered such as welding, adopting composite decks, Load Factor and Autostress designs, designers still cling to old concept that lessen the potential for achieving their goals. One of the more important aspects of design —reduction or elimination of roadway expansion devices and associated bearings—is. consistently overlooked or avoided by most of our bridge practitioners. * M.Tech, (Struc.), Associate, Basu & Associates (P) Ltd, B-2, 2nd Floor, J-Block Market, Saket, New Delhi-17Goswami on ‘The methodology of construction of Precast or Prefabricated beams acting compositely with in situ top concrete deck slabs is popular because it not only drastically reduces the construction time of the Bridge at site, but also eliminates the conventional casting formwork arrangement for Cast-in-Situ Deck system required with closely spaced centering/staging for formwork raised over stable non-sinking support Bases/ footings and huge manpower for erecting & dismantling the system every time after use, for reuse in next span for a multispan Bridge. Cost of such staging/centering for entire Deck Bridges in floating River Section is prohibitive causes obstruction to navigation, and for Fly-overs/Viaducts span on dry land causes considerable obstruction to traffic flow demanding provision of diversions/rerouting of Traffic etc. and also difficulties/delays, Provision of Expansion joint is one of the most problems over the decades for Bridge Engineers. It is observed that maintenance of these bridges is the crucial & substantial annual expenditure for the developed countries where it is introduced. Very poor provision of maintenance after construction for developing/under developed countries causes structural damage and reduces life of the structure as well as many other associated problems. 2. WHY JOINTLESS BRIDGES (ARE RECOMMENDED)? This is one of the most difficult problems over the decades for Bridge Engineers. Several studies have been done all over the world in last 20 years on the durability aspect of bridges which includes G.Manusell (appointed by MoT, UK) in 1992, Weisgerber™, Wallbank(™, Price‘, All of these studies, regardless of the country involved, highlighted expansion joints as being critical elements affecting, the maintenance-free sustainable lives of the Structures. It was found that the majority of expansion joints have some form of defect & reduce the performance of the bridges unless expansion joints are eliminated or number of expansion joint locations are minimized. Some reasons are given below. Bridge deck joints are subjected to heavy impact continual wear from repeated live loads as well as movement from expansion and contraction caused by temperature changes or creep and shrinkage, long term movement effects such as settlement and soil pressure changes. Joints are subjected to impact loadings, which can exceed design capacity. Retaining hardware for joints are damaged and loosened by snowplows and relentless pounding by heavy traffic. Broken hardware can become a hazard to motorists, and liability to owners. Inspections indicated that bolted connections, particularly those anchored by placement of a mortar bed under the complete joint, are inappropriate for routes with high density of heavy vehicular traffic. Vibrations caused by such vehicles have been found to result in stripping of bolt threads and, in some cases, severe deterioration of the anchorage arrangement. In addition to vibration related dathage, mechanical anchorages are also subjected to dynamic impact loads which has been shown to be up to 1.70 times the static wheel load,Sime SranpaRpise HANDOUT For MAKING SimpLy SupporteD Graver Bripaes (PSC/RCC/Steet)isto 13 Live Loap Contmivous Brinoes py Deck SLAB ConTinuiTy Wir ELimination oF Exransion Jomvrs (Koster,'). This plays a significant role in deterioration of anchorage zones as noted above, leads to deterioration of concrete in these joint locations having congested reinforcement, limited access rendering proper repair very difficult if not impossible. Joints tend to leak and, hence, allow salt-laden water & chlorides to penetrate deck. ends, abutments, and piers. Attempts to make waterproof such joints have been largely unsuccessful because live load, temperature, creep & shrinkage related movements, combined with poor workmanship in these constricted locations, tend to break down jointing systems over a period of time. This causes contact with ends of superstructure, bearings & sub- structure, Such leakage has contributed to substantial substructure, reinforced concrete & post-tensioned, pre-stressed concrete superstructure corrosion damage of the reinforcement / prestressed steel and connectionse Goswami ON One of the most important aspects of design, which can improve structural life and maintenance costs, is the reduction or elimination of roadway expansion joints and associated expansion bearings. Unfortunately, this is too often overlooked or avoided. Any type of joint is a potential source of weakness. The performance of prevailing expansion joint is unsatisfactory. In fact many of our costly maintenance problems originated with leaky joints, Most of these joints have service lives of few years compare to the life of the bridge structure. It is difficult to estimate the actual cost of such damages, which includes structural damage, reduces life of various structural elements & as well as many other unquantifiable problems e.g, traffic delays and disruptions/damages to the public transport are disregarded throughout 100 years of estimated life of the bridge 24 Jointless Bridges perform better than bridges with joints under any kind of longitudinal & transverse horizontal forces, e.g. braking, seismic, centrifugal etc., because continuity between superstructure and substructure aids in developing higher energy dissipation capacity. Cooper has stated that earthquake induced separation of multi-simple span bridges are commonly recognized as hazardous to the overall stability of structure. Over the years many examples of severe damage and collapse of multisimple- span bridges have been reported, e.g. after the 1971 San Fernando, 1989 Loma Prieta,! Northbridge, Kobe, 2001 Bhuj Earthquake etc. etc. Short girder seats are primary cause for this problem and the presence of a skewed or curved configuration increases the vulnerability (Chen & Duan*®), To provide connection between simple spans, the typical retrofit methods used in United States after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake were adding cable or rod restrainers, providing shear keys and catcher block etc. Dislocation of the girders can be controlled by the system stated in this paper of adoption of CONTINUITY /LINK SLAB in the continuous portion of bridge deck between simple spans.‘Supe StanpaRpIsE HANDOUT FOR MAKING SiwpLy Suprorte Girper Brivces (PSC/RCC/Stee1) Into 15 Live Loap Continous Brings BY Deck SLaB Continurry WITH ELIMINATION oF EXPANSION JomNTS Examples of Expansion joint problems and its damages 25 Most expansion joints after lapse of terms due to lack of maintenance do not serve the purpose for which it was installed. It gets filled with dust, debris, water, wearing coat materials (e.g. aggregate, cement, bitumen etc.) during over laying and freezes up which causes failure in their task to allow expansion & contraction of superstructure. It is a designer’s judgment & application of thought that what the margin of risk he should take as a “Reserve Provision” termed as “Maintenance” in a country like ours by keeping provision of expansion joint for a bridge structure which is designed for 100years service life. The real picture is known to everybody that how far inspection, maintenance & rectification of bridges is carried out in developing countries particularly in rural & semi-urban areas as per schedule. 2.6 After many research and tests conducted all over the world, considering better durability there has been a concern towards continuity in all types of bridges in recent years & most of the developed countries have now limited the minimum distance between two consecutive expansion joints to 60M or more, spacing as suggested by various Bridge Research & Development Institutions. In fact European Highway Agency now asks not only continuity at intermediate supports but also at the junction between decks and abutments (i.e. integral bridges) for all structures with a skew of less than 30° and length of less than 60m.3.1 Goswami on | COMPRESSIBLE FILLER MATERIAL z | (6. THERMOCOL) BETN, PRECAST GIRDER. 2 | AND CONTINUTY SLAB—~ 25MM THK. | CONTINUITY SLAB aye ‘SANE THCONESS OF DECK SLAB a ee \— PRECAST GIRDER END DIAPHRAGI ‘MIN. 300MM, THK. 3. SOLUTION FOR MAKING (OF PRECAST/PREFABRICATED BEAMS BRIDGES) JOINTLESS Adoption of live load continuous precast/composite deck system is currently most accepted remedy to minimize the number of expansion joint and increase maintenance- free life of the structure. In this paper we have used the concept of connecting two adjacent simply supported span girders with a Continuity/Link slab to form a jointless bridge deck, so as to eliminate the conventionally adopted deck joint between the decks. This study is to provide a Standard Equation and corresponding Standard Reinforcement Handout (given in APPENDIX-A) of Continuity/Link slab, for making simply supported spans formed by pre-cast or in situ Prestressed Concrete/Reinforced Conerete/Prefabricated Steel Girders continuous with provision of 1.5m wide footpath on either side considering all variable factors of construction e.g.. Center-to-Center distance of supporting Neoprene Bearing at seating of Girders, Length of Continuity/ Link slab, Properties of Neoprene Bearings, Moment of Inertia of Bridge Deck Systems, Modulus of Elasticity etc. An unique relation has been formulated in this paper to make this end bending moment constant for a particular thickness of continuity slab by either changing length of continuity slab or varying the stiffness of the Girder-Deck Slab system along with consideration of all probable variables, e.g. Neoprene Bearing stiffness, Span Variation, Mol of deck-girder system, Nos of bearing ete. along with long term time dependent effect, e.g, creep, shrinkage, temperature, differential settlement ete. and produce a standard reinforcement detailing which can be adopted.Sime SranbaRoist Hanour FoR MAKING SimPLY SuprorTeD GigpeR BrinGEs (PSC/RCC/StexL) NTO 17 Live Loan Conrisuous Baines py Deck Stan ContiNurry wrrtt ELIMINATION OF EXPANSION JOINTS 3.2. It is established that the stiffness required for the Composite Girder-Deck System as per the developed formula, vis-d-vis the stiffness of continuity/link. slab for minimum length desirable for implementation (Length. “X” as mentioned in Figure- 2) is very much sufficient and adequate to meet the requirement for design initially as a simply supported span. Designers must note that minimum length of continuity slab depends upon various practical requirements, e.g., gap for prestressing, access space for bearing inspection, replacement, space for lifting jack placement ete. 4. CONCEPT BEHIND ANALYSIS & FORMULATION ‘The approach of this paper is to provide expansion joint at every third span, which makes the deck system 3-span live load continuous. Same detailing may be adopted for two 2-span live load continuous for small bridges, which will always result in a lower bound design (i.e. safer & conservative). Rigorous analysis has been made for girders haying spacing from 16m c/c to 40m c/c of bearings, making the expansion joint spacing from 55m to 128m approximately. Movements at Expansion Joint Locations for different bearing spacings are given in Table-I for ready reference. It is found that the armoured Elastomeric Strip Seal Joints of single module, which have had the best long-term performance report till date, are safe enough to cater for these movements as suggested/recommended by various relevant codes (e.g. +-40mm as per MOST, India; +-5Omm as per US Codes etc.). Tape - 1 EXPANSION JOINT. '3-Span Liva\load Continuolss EXPANSION JOINT —~| Movement at Expansion Joint Location During Contraction for Three Span Live Load Continuous 18me/e} 20me/e | 22me/e | 24me/e} 26mefe | 2me/c | 30me/c] 32me/e | 34me/e Bearing] Bearing | Bearing | Bearing] Bearing | Bearing | Bearing] Bearing | Bearing ‘Temp.+ 2615) fears! baaqestiel age] 2e:50e] H29 30 31 32 Shrinkage +Creep Braking Seismic 20 22 23 25 26 21 28 30 32 (Only at Abutment Locs.)4d 42 44 Goswami on Above values are during contraction time which gives higher values than expansion So movement may be conservatively considered + of Table-I values for finalization of expansion joint gap. Even with the major change of neoprene bearing property, variation is within + 7%, i.e. very nominal The concept described in this paper is also generally applicable to composite steel bridge construction as all factors virtually remain same except for creep & shrinkage, effect of which is relatively insignificant in the steel composite deck system. It is to be noted that all superstructure elements should be designed as a simply supported span without taking any continuity effect, which hardly reduces maximum span moment values (shown in Figure-3), but provides for safer & conservative design and acts mainly as a flexible connection between adjacent spans, satisfying structural requirements (e.g. crack width etc.) in comparison to other existing methods adopted by bridge engineers, empirically at proscnt. Laboratory Tests on two large-scale specimens was conducted by Office of Engineering and Highway Operations Research and Development, Virginia to study the behavior of the link slab and girders. Test results indicated that the contribution of link slab to structural continuity is negligible since the stiffness of the link slab is much less than that of the beams with composite decks. They have suggested that the beams can be treated as simply supported structures without considering the link slab effect as mentioned and shown above on the basis of theoretical analysis. Furthermore, the stresses in the link slab are controlled primarily by the predominant bending effect due to the end rotations of the beams, mainly because of live axle load, rather than axial load effect. This bending moment is basically due to deflection of beam slab combination and rotation/deformation allowance of Neoprene Bearing arising out of the superimposed loadings coming in effect after continuity. Analysis & Design of link slab carried out in this paper are based on loadings and design criteria/guidelines stipulated in the Bridge Code published by Indian Road Congress (IRC). Apart from this, recommendation from various International codes has been referred to, where provisions do not exist in IRC. It should be noted that since the connecting slab is designed as a flexural cracked section, it would have been appropriate to consider only the “cracked” sectional stiffness of the connecting deck slab. However in the analysis “uncracked” sectional property has been adopted although it attracts larger moments, since the increase on cost is marginal. The analysis is based on minimum number of longitudinal girders as 3 (three) and minimum 5 (five) numbers of diaphragm for each simply supported span of 24m & above and for smaller span as 4 (four) numbers of diaphragm adopted. If the bridge decks are constructed by use of precast multiple girders placed side by side with cast-in-situ deck slab overlay, only two end diaphragms can be adopted for each span. It is stated already that the critical design moments in continuity slab is from the hogging moments caused in the downward deflection of Deck-Girder compositeSimp StanpaRpist Hanpour For Maxine Simpy Supportep Girper Bruars (PSC/RCC/Srem) wo 19) Live Loab Continuous Bripaes ay Dec Sta Coxmeurry wit ELIMINATION oF ExPaNsion Jomvts (eked "ges ff MWe ve toa agate sc sianiy suse coro Fig. 3. Comparative study between simply supported case and 3-span live load continuous case system from the superimposed loading, mainly live load, comirig in effect after continuity which can be seen in Figure-4. It may be noted that loadings for Vehicular Liye Load, its Dynamic Effect along with Braking & Differential Settlement loadings are major contributing factors for design of continuity slab. In fact 80-90 per cent of design moment during normal condition is attributable to the above from above three load conditions, out of which share of live load alone is around 60-65 per cent Fig. 4, Max. deflection due to live load on continuity slab 5. RELATION AMONG CIC DISTANCE OF BEARING, TOTAL M.O.I. OF THE BRIDGE CROSS SECTION, LENGTH OF CONTINUITY SLAB & SHAPE FACTOR OF NEOPRENE BEARING. Total M.O.I. of the Bridge Cross Section = 1, in m‘, —This includes all Beams & Deck Slab Modulus of Elasticity of Girder = Length of Continuity Slab ( Refer Fig-1 & 2) = Shape Factor of Neoprene Bearing =. 8 Total numbers of Neoprene Bearing under each = N. End Diaphragm Conc. Grade of Continuity Slab =" M, Lbs20 Goswamon Notations: MIN 8700 Each girder span length between Neoprene Bearings in m. (Refer Fig. -2) Thickness of Continuity Slab will be same as thickness of the Deck Slab and attempt should be made to adopt thickness as less as possible. But it should not be less than 200mm and not more than 240 mm (note that this thickness variation provision has been catered during analysis, design and given detailing). Top & Bottom Reinforcement For Both Fe- Fe-415 & Fe-500 = (16Tor + 20Tor) @ 100mm C/C. (Refer Appendix-A) RELATIO: 6. SIMPLE STEPS TO USE STANDARDISE DETAILING OF CONTINUITY SLAB BY USING STANDARDISE EQUATION GIVEN IN EQUATION-1 : ) EPs (ate): (ore S32) Paton Case-I : When Girder Properties (Ie) and Span Length (L) are known/ freezed : For this case of the Standardised Detailing, Minimum Length of Continuity slab (X) is to be found out from Equation-I according to following steps Step : Find out / calculate/ adopt a. Total Composite properties of all girders + deck slab system (Ic). b. Shape Factor of each Neoprene Bearing (S). c. Total numbers of Neoprene Bearing under each end diaphragm (N). d. Each Girder span length between Neoprene Bearings (L). Step-Il : Find out “X” from given Equation-1 by putting values as mentioned in Step-ISine Stanpanpist: HANDOUT FoR MAKING SiMPLy SurrorreD GnDER Bruges (PSC/RCC/Steet) mro 2 Live Loap Contiuous Brinass By Deck Stas CONTINUITY WITH ELIMINATION oF EXPANSION Jom Step-IIl Use given Standardised Detailing from Appendix ~A by adopting Minimum Length of Continuity slab as “X” as calculated in Step-II according to the pier cap & abutment cap arrangement. Actual value of “X” to be issued for construction should not be more than 10% of calculated “X”. Case-I Step-l pos Step-IT Step-IIL Case-1 Step-I Bo oR Step-I : When Length of Continuity slab (X) and Span Length (L) are known/ freezed : For this case of the Standardised Detailing, Total Composite properties of all girders + deck slab system (Ic) is to be found out from Equation-I according to following steps: Find out / calculate/ adopt Length of Continuity slab (X). Shape Factor of each Neoprene Bearing (S) Total numbers of Neoprene Bearing under each end diaphragm (N) Each Girder span length between Neoprene Bearings (L). Find out “Ie” from given Equation-1 by putting values as mentioned in Step-I. Use given Standardised Detailing from Appendix —A by adopting Minimum Composite properties of all girders + deck slab system as “Ic” as calculated in Step-Il. When Length of Continuity slab (X) and Girder Properties (Ic) are known/ freezed: For this of the Standardised Detailing, Girder span length between Neoprene Bearings (L) is to be found out from Equation-1 according to following steps: Find out / calculate/ adopt Total Composite properties of all girders + deck slab system (Ic). Shape Factor of each Neoprene Bearing (S). Total numbers of Neoprene Bearing under each end diaphragm (N). Length of Continuity slab (X). Find out “L” from given Equation-1 by putting values as mentioned in Step-.2 Step-III : N 10. 12 13. GosWAMION Use given Standardised Detailing from Appendix ~A by adopting Girder Span length between Neoprene Bearings as “L” OR Less as calculated in Step-II. 7. PRIMARY BENEFITS: Design of Superstructure as a simply supported one. Only adequacy of minimum length of connecting continuity slab shall be checked... Expansion Joint Length shall be reduced by 50 per cent. No forming & filling expansion joints at all supports are time consuming and costly. No waterproofing layers have to be shaped around joints, nosings etc No additional reinforcement provision and detailing is required. Sharing of longitudinal forces on bearings are uniform and ensures better distribution arrangement results in development of lesser forces on bearings due to braking etc Excellent riding quality, which avoids vehicular damage as well as accidental causes. No risk of corrosion of reinforcement from the leaking joints at the piers. No regular maintenance commitment OR disruption to traffic. No drainage arrangement is required for piers at continuity slab locations. No additional concrete and reinforcement is required. Simple way of construction Most important is that due to adoption of expansion joint life the bridges in some cases in our country had been found reduced considerably, cost of which can not be quantified. Fact is that after construction, nobody bothers about maintenance or replacement of those vulnerable elements of the bridge, life of which is much less than the life of bridge. Due to water deterioration & leakage through damaged expansion joints, bearings get damaged which cause collapse of the structure. 8. ATTENTION DURING DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION : In this paper, an attempt has been made to use a standard detailing (given in APPENDIX-A) to make the bridge three span live load continuous, though analysis of the bridges is to be carried out as simply supported spans, by connecting the continuity slab. Bridge designers only need to do the checking of adequacy of continuity slab OR Girder stiffness by using/satisfying the presented standardized formula. However some attentions are to be given during & after design & construction, which are described below:Simpce SraNbarpise Hanbour For Makino Suaecy Surrortep Girper Brupoes (PSC/RCC/Steet) nro 23 Live Loab Continuous Brinces sy Deck Stas Continurry wit ELIMINATION OF EXPANSION JOINTS a. CIC bearing distance of all three simply supported spans should be equal b. Min. Concrete grade of continuity slab shall be M-35. ©. Properties of precast/prefabricated girders must not vary more than 5 per cent. d, This system is not applicable for bridges having bearings other than neoprene type and all neoprene bearings must have identical properties. e. During replacement, all bearings, under each continuity slab should be lifted simultaneously. £ Detailing of footpath/crash barrier/kerb at continuity slab portion should conform the given detailing 25MM GAP IN KERD/CRASH 25M, PIN KERB/CRA. BARRIER /PARAPET (TYP. DARRIER/PARAPET. (1YP.) KERB/CRASH BARRIER DETAILING AT CONTINUITY SLAB LOC. 9. CONCLUSION : The concept of bridge deck continuity with or without Girder Continuous is being adopted in the developed world by elimination of Expansion joints.as much as possible. Prominent methods adopted are Mattock’s Method, Pritchard’s Method, Hambly’s Method, Maunsell’s Method etc. French designers also have used similar kind of method also. This paper indicates easiest way of adoption of this system with a Standard Equation for analysis and detailing, which contributes minimum Secondary effects and gives reasonably accurate analysis. Deck type continuous or through Continuous Girder concept of design has been adopted in this country only in rare cases. The relevant Bridge Codes prevalent in this country although being reviewed periodically, there is a large gap existing between practices adopted by Practicing Engineers of developed and under developed countries. In our country effort towards designing live load continuous bridges for precast girders is almost nothing comparing to the number of bridges each year constructed in India, in fact till date total number might not exceed ten. Even in major bridge projects simply supported small span girders are the system followed by Indian Conventional Engineers with least application of Engineering talent and little concern about long-term performance. It is hoped that with the method as suggested in this paper and the Bridge under construction following this principle, will be a great use to Indian Engineers. However note that the empirical formula given in this paper slightly different form Author’s mentioned paper in “Reference-1” because of change in value of Modulus of Elasticity (E.) as per IRC codes modified in recent times.24 Simp STANDARDISE HANDOUT FoR MAKING SIMPLY SupPorTED GiRpER Bripoes (PSC/RCC/Srest) into Live Loap Continuous Bripces By Deck SLAB ConTINUITY WITH ELIMINATION oF EXPANSION JOINTS Goswami ON 10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am greatly indebted to Mr. A. K, Bhattachriya -Retired Group General Manger, RITES & Mr. T. K, Basu-Managing Director, Basu & Associates Pvt. Ltd. for their continuous valuable views and suggestions. I also gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to the authors/guides of papers on this subject to which references have been made. 11. REFERENCES : 1 R.K. Goswami, “Joint Free Bridge Deck by Elimination of Expansion Joint”-Indian Roads Congress Journal, Volume 63-2. 2 R.K. Goswami, “Behavior & Analysis of Joint Free Bridge Deck by Elimination of Expansion Joint”-M.Tech Thesis, IIT Delhi. 3. Sunil Verma, “Behavior & Analysis of Joint Free Bridge Deck by Elimination of Expansion Joint”-M.Tech Thesis in assistance of R.K. Goswami and under guidance of Prof. A.K.Nagpal, IIT Delhi. 4, A. Kumar, “Deck Slab Continuity for Composite Bridges-The Structural Engineer, December-1998. 5 “Towards Joint Free Bridges”- Proceeding IABSE Henderson Colloquium, Pembroke College, Cambridge, UK, July1993. e Latest Bridge Design Codes Published By Indian Roads Congress & BS-5400.‘Simpce Stanparpise HanpouT FOR MAKING SiMPLY SueroxreD GirpeR Bripces (PSC/RCC/Steet) sro 25 Live Loap Continuous Bripges BY Deck SLAB Conrinurry wrri ELIMINATION oF Expansion JomNTs Appendix - A STANDARD DETAILING HANDOUT OF CONTINUITY SLAB INTINUITY SIAB~ THICKNESS SANE AS H/3 W3 H/o fore [pore o| fae DECK SiAB BETN. 200MM & 240MM. ‘THIS PORTION WILL BE CAST ALONG WITH DECK SLAB ‘NOTE-2 THIS PORTION WILL BE CAST AFTER COMPLETING OF ALL ‘CONSTRUCTION EXCEPT PLACING OF WEARING COURSE. COMPRESSIBLE FILLER MATERIAL (¢g-THERMOCOL, SHALITEX ETC.) ‘BETWEEN PRECAST GIRDER AND CONTINUTY SLAB—-25MM THK. END DIAPHRAGM MIN, 300MM. THK. = = & s = Saal ; 16% @ 100C/C.-e1 20% @ 100C/C.-gt TeyO 100c/c~e2 2080 100C/C.-g1 HALF PLAN SHOWING TOP R/F. CARRIAGEWAY WIDTH 20%-g3 © 100C/C E E a 3 3 [Foor Pata Plan showing reinforcement detail of continuity slab26 GoswaMIon ¢ SYMMETRY. Nee 750 x/3 x3 i “+ —- —- PATH/KERB [REFER NOTE-A |REFER 'NOTE-B|REFER NOTE-C A2/A3 x/3 50 pt 100C/c.-g1 po oof we wr Se +- 20% @ 1006/C.-g2 ete -DUPH. R/F. 18% © 100C/C.-eF a Section - A-A 124 @ 1406/c. (TOP & BOTTOM) _ 25mm. gap in foot path/kerb— we wa xh 0 ce! [as x/3 Oc / o-8 sy -20%@ 100C/C}gi + 1640 1 i REFER|NOTE-C 20% @ 1006/C| Section - B-B NOTE-C BAR MARKED “g!” & “ef” AT TOP LAYER ARE TO BE PLACED AS SHOWN BELOW : @| gt fot/e2 gh Jot/e2 190 | 100 ele ee 8 [vest |e \P"'100SumpLe STaNDARDISE HANDOUT FOR Maxine SMPLy SupporreD Giver Briors (PSC/RCC/Sreet) ro 27 Live Loap Continuous Baipces By Deck Stan Continurry wir ELIMINATION oF EXPANSION JOINTS Section - B-B 43/43 ere 100, ve. e2 @ 100C/C. ei @ 1000/C. e281 et Section - C-C RCC. DECK SLAB [FINISHED R.C.C. DECK TOP ¢ oF EYPANSION JoINT (— WEARING COURSE | AS/PROFILE § PROVISION OF GUTTER AT EXPANSION JOM LOCATION TO DRAIN OUT WATER IF IT |__KEEP PROVISION OF 'U'-BOLT (168) DURING CONSTRUCTION OF DECK SLAB FOR FIXING OF GUTTER. PROVISION OF GUTTER AT EXPANSION JOINT LOCATION TO DRAIN OUT WATER, IF IT LEAKS Special Notes & Parameters : 1. ALL DETAILING IS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF 3-SPAN LIVE LOAD CONTINUOUS. 2. CONCRETE GRADE OF CONTINUITY SEGMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS M-35. 3. CLEAR COVER OF OUTERMOST R/F IN CONTINUITY SEGMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED ‘AS 40MM. 4. IRC 70R LIVE LOAD & 500 KG/M2 BASIC INTENSITY OF FOOTPATH LOADING IS CONSIDERED IN ANALYSIS/DETAILING. 5. NON-SHRINK MORTER OF STANDARD MAKE SHOULD BE USED FOR CONCRETING OF CENTRAL “X/3” GAP PORTION OF CONTINUITY SLAB 6 IF FABRICATED STEEL PLATE GIRDER IS USED INSTEAD OF PRECAST PSC/RCC GIRDERS, DETAILING SHOWN IN SECTION B-B SHOULD BE FOLLOWED FOR ALL THROUGH THE CONTINUITY SLAB.28 Goswan on Appendi ample 1. Calculation of Continuity Slab Length ( X ) for 4-Girder System of Two Lane Bridge (7.5m Carriage way width having 30m c/c Neoprene Bearing with 3-Span Live Load Continuous provision . Given Data: 1c=2.27m4 L=30m SS Se11.60 N=4 220m. 1_), (32500), (30 30 116 x4 vas GE )ABIE) 6) (eons) 227 )* X32s00 /* Noe PHB 10 yg) tl 2. Calculation of Min. M.O.I. (Ic ) required when Continuity Slab Length is 1.60m for 4-Girder System of Two Lane Bridge (7.5m Carriage way width ) having 30m c/c Neoprene Bearing with 3-Span Live Load Continuous provision . Given Data : MIN 8700 « <7 ——— X=1.6m. 1L=30m => Fe=32500 Mpa S=11.60 N=4 i ) (2250.) (x) ( 30) ( 11.6 x 4 I) (5288 N52 (1 tog ig 2m" = 160 32500 4 xT 108 105% x \1+log iy mE 312m 1. Over the years, many different expansion device systems have been used on our bridges. Most have developed problems that have resulted it the need for replacement. Additionally; significant damage to substructures, bearings and girder ends has resulted from leaking expansion joints. However, no expansion joint system has been found that is entirely problem free. The primary objective of expansion devices is to allow for expansion and contraction of a bridge structure yet seal the deck and provide protection for bridge girders, bearings and substructure elements from leaking water. An additional objective is to provide a smooth, quiet roadway-riding surfaceGoswami on 29 Siveve StaNDARDISE HANDOUT FOR MakiNG Simpy SurpoxtED Gikbex Brubces (PSC/ROC/Stex2) mvro Live Loap ‘Continuous Brupces BY Deck SLAB CONTINUITY WITH ELIMINATION OF EXPANSION JOINTS 2. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STAFF BRIDGE BRANCH; BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL 2. Over the past thirty years, engineers have become more aware of the pitfalls associated with the use of expansion (cycle control) joints and expansion bearings. Joints are expensive to buy, install, maintain and repair. Repair costs can run as high as replacement costs. Successive paving will ultimately require that joints be replaced or raised. Even waterproof joints will leak over time, allowing water — salt-laden or otherwise — to pour through the joint accelerating corrosion damage to girder ends, bearings and supporting reinforced concrete substructures. Accumulated dirt, rocks and trash fill elastomeric glands leading to failure. Hardware for joints can be damaged and loosened by snowplows and the relentless pounding of heavy traffic. Broken hardware can become a hazard to motorists and a liability to owners. INTEGRAL ABUTMENTS FOR STEEL BRIDGES-Edward P. Wasserman, P.E. and John Houston Walker, P.E. Structures Division, Tennessee Department of Transportation, 1996.