~fc

':
,,

f '~-~
,

,.

""'U',

,'u

, .

r~lnnDvati-

'Blidle-P~el
, "_.,,

',.S,~t8maSaccess
,by Sameh,S'. Ba(iie, Mantu e, Baishya and Maher K.Tadros
hat do Florida, Texas, Pennsylvatia, "WestVir::,': ' ginia, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and several 3::;::". ' otheFstates have jn common with engmeering "'-today? The successful implementation of partiat-depth.,cast,.,' in-place'(CIP) decks with stay-in-place (SIP) precast con~ crete panel systems. Design, detailiqg, field implementation ': 'and test results are now available.'-<iMost oftbese systerns 'provide a. thin solid precast prestressed panel of~ to 4 in. (75 H) 100 mm) to function as a formtor the cast-in-place topping and a~so to house the positive momentreirorcemento These panels ar~ produced in 4.0 to 8.0 ft (1.2 to 2.4 m) widths depending on the available transportation and lifting equiptnent. Tbe precast panels are butted against each omer without any continuity between them. Then tbey are set on variable thickness bearing strips to allow for elevation adjustmem. This system does not have some ofthe disadvantages of the fuH-depth precast deck systems such as:
""

w
"

post-tensioning' to control' transverse joint cracking speclal arrangements f0r shear connectors in the supporting girder. However, this system still has some drawbacks which inelude the need to forro for the overhangs and to install a relatively large number of precast panels. Also, the discontinuity ofboth prestressing strands over the girder lines and between adjacent precast panels can pose disadvantages. Some designers believe tbat the minimum thickness of panels should be 3.5 in. (90 mm) in order to conform witb

. . . lorigitudinal

field adjustmerit of deck panels grinding the top ::;urface for improved ride quality

. . I

AASHT07 Standard Article 9.25.1.1', whichrequires 1.5 in. (40 rnm) clear cover. State agencies, sucb as Missouri,8 use 3 in. (75 mm)thick precastpanel pretensioned with.3/8 in. (9.5 mm) diameter strands. One of tbefactorS that is extremely important is tbe condition oftbe bearing ofthe precast panels on the supporting girders, Research on deck cracking by KIuge and Sawyer9 and Fagundo, et al.10has dernon'strated tbat tbe panels must be firmly bedded on groutor concrete on the supporting girders. In the case of skewed bridges, skewed spans are often cast in place for the full deptb of the deck. Goldbergll has reported that on lightly skewed spans (15 degrees or less) the panels are sawed to match the skew. A mnimum bearing length of 1.0 ft (0.3 m) on the short side of tbe panel is sometimes required. Research conducted at Pennsylvania Stat~ University by Barnoff et aL,I showed tbat the type of joint used berween deck precast panels affects neitberdeck behavior nor wheel load distribution. lt also showed that a 6 in. '(ISO mm)' projection of prestressing strands from the ends of the panel is adequate to anchor fue panel to tbe CIP topping. However, extensive research conducted at tbe University of Texas at Austin by Biescbkel2 showed that under cyclic loading there was no significant difference in tbe cracking pattem or cracking width between the bridge built witb precast panels where the strands projecting outside the panel, and the bridge built witb precast panels, where the strands were not projecting outsidethe panel. Research conducted at the University ofFlorida by KIuge and Sawyer9 showed tOOt in most cases the provided development length was 'less tban tbe AASHTO specification requirements. Therefore, the research recommended ta( rCIron:1g steel perpenccularto t(J.e prestressing strandsshould not be less tban No. 3 (9.5 mm) bars at 12 in. (300mm) oncenterlines,

R,searCh at University of Nebraska

Flg.1 - One-way shearfa/lure of conventional SIP. June1999

In ordet to evaluate the performance of a conventional precast, prestressed stay-in-place bridge deck , systein,I)'a'fulI-scale test was performed in the structurallaboratory of University of Nebraska, Omaba campus. An 8.0 x 20 ft (2.4 x 6.0 m) bridge deck system was tested using two 4.0 x 11.5 ft (1.2 x 3.5 m)'precast p(eStressedpaoels, each 3 in. (75 rnm) thick. The bridge deck system was designed for a girder spacing of 12 ft (3.6 m) with 4 ft (1.2 m) cantileveT00 either side.The total thickness ofthe bridge deck system was 9 in. (230 mm) where the top 6 in. (150 mm)was C[P reinforced concrete. Tbe design strength of the precast panel was 10,000 psi (70 MPa) andthe topping strength 51

:.

t
u'::t
4.S""";

4'.0"

12', o'"

b"O~'

4.S": ("jP TOPP,inc C"o,":"te

"""~'",,,i-:'<C

~ tr0l

t
I

by ~eral
.' ogmzed

,tates, it1s~

that sarne inher:-."

ent d isadvantages

,I
,

""

ar~ --- ,

8'!d..

associl\ted w~thin this~ system. These mclude: '.. The need to form for~-

the overhangs,
'~.S" .~casl Continuons ""nel,

. Handlinga largenum- ber of pre~ast~~nels,~~. . FonnatJon of reflectiv~ ---cracks ayer the trans verse joints between SI .

panels, and Prestressing reinforcement is under-developed resultin was 4000 psi (28 MPa). The precast panels were erected be'" in reduced capacity of the systern. tween the steel girders andowoo<ifonningusedto fonn the With these disadvantages in mind, a continuous precast decJ overhangs. subpanel system was conceived. The system was laad tested using 3:, simulated axle load consisting of four concentrated loadsin accordance with Continuous stay~in~place (CSIP) system AASHTO specifications.Initially, a service fatigue load was To provide a detailed description of the system, a 44 L" applied for 2 million cycles. Cracks started to fonn after 1,400,000cycles at the top surface ofthe panel over the girder (13.4 m) wide bridge is considered. The deck consists of lines. One crack fonnedapproximately over the centerline three 12 ft (3.6 m) spans plus two 4.0 ft (1.2 m) overhangs~ of each girder. These cracks covered the entire length of the The system can be usedwith steel or concretegirders. ': The system consists of: girders. A transverse crack at the bottom surface of the canA 4.5 in. (115 mm) precast prestressed panel tilevers was observed after 1,500,000 cycles. These cracks extended to the sides of the deck to a height of 4 in. A 4.5 in. CIP concrete topping (Fig. 2 shows the cros{ section of the deck system). (100 rnm)..These cracks in the cantilevers were consistent with field observations of actual bridges in service where Fig. 3 gives a plan view of the precast panel wllich covers-~ the entire width (44 ft) of the bridge. The panel width, B.." the joint between the precast stay-in-place (SIP) panels ex. tends as a reflective crack into the cantilevers. can vary from 4.0 ft to 12.0 ft (3.6 m) depending on thec~ After the fatigue test, the panel was loaded until failure transportationand lifting equipmentavailablein the field.... occurred. As the load increased, the cracks at the tOpsurface In this study, B was chosen at 8.0 ft (2.4 m). At fue girder18 ' over the girders started to increase, but no cracks at the positions there is a full-Iength gap for a width of 8 in. bottom surface between the girders were obseived. At a load (200 mm) to accornmodate the shear connectors. High ofO.7 times the factored AASHTO design moment, a curved strength concrete is used to cast the panel. Toe specified crack started to form over the top surface near one of release concrete strength is 4000 psi (28 MPa) and the, spefied 28-day compressive strength is 10 ksi (70 MPa).: the girders. At this stage, no slippage between the prestressed panel and CIP concrete was observed. At a load of 0.75 The panel is pretensioned &om end to end with 16 low re- .... times the factored AASHTO design moment, a sudden onelaxation strands ofO.5 in. (13 rnm)diameter and strength way shear failure took place next to the L - 44'.O' same girder mentioned above, shown in Fig. l. .'.0" 12..O" .'.0" \2., O" ---!r:.2: The shear failure took ... ., ~ ." ." ." 3'.." ." 11'. . " 1\'. ." 11'.." place as a resultof the "if "1 I'f ~'.8. lack of development length of the preGiodor Gu-der ....... GinIcr _la' IMI stressed strands in the !i.. precast panel. It is b~lieved that the loss of bond for the prestressed strands, in combination with the

Fig. ,2

Cross-section 01 the

'.:

'

.'

. .

'

.
'

S
, ,

I
'

~'I

lII8
,',

l."

large difference

in con-

.~, >\t,;",,,,,..

~:t~:~=

~:~:~,": .1'1"~;'

concrete and topping concrete), precipit at ed' the delami nation. and " '
,
,

: ..:t::~,; .;;: '.:: :~>:,i

'

','

",J.

'.

,'..
,

I'~O" ',

lJ

~ B

;:.;.~? :~"~:~.~;~~:.~..~, '

...4 '
"""'32ft.
,
"

WJd
~, ~;

\,I."\, \,1. \,

. ,

the beam shear fallure. . Although deck sys-

' jf
,

'

(TYP.)" " RciDfon:ed PactelSta 2 ft .

,
"

JJJ
l.
i
l."
, ,,'.

,"~~

.'

'

"

'

tems utilizing SIP precast panels with a CIP topping have been used 52

Fig. 3 - Plan vlew.

- _.._----0

- -..----- -_..

---.--

.
i
,

-='" -'"

ksi (1900 MPa). The strands are pro4,5"ECTION A.A

l'

~f270
",

vitkd io two layersaod uoiformlyspaced at

12 in. (300 ~~) as shown in section A-A, fic::.4, A mmmum clcar concrete cover of I in. (25 rnrn) is used for both the top and bottorn laycrs of strands. - In order to maintain the~8in. (200 mm) gap over the girders, 28 No. 6 (19 mm) rein(orc- ingbars are used in

~. 1~
.

e
.

'~,.r o.~ I

'.

..."""..~ 'z: - 7',.' a-r.O"

~
SECTION B-B

two layers, as shown in

_.=sectionC~C,.Fig. 4. Tbese bars also have an 18in. (460 mm) embedment Iength to trans-

mitthe prestressing force and compression ;;:;:force-from one partof the paqel to the next
--

'

noverthe gaps. To maintain continuity in the 1.1S' longitudinal direction between the adjacent 7~. i2!'-"'''''' ':0" ::,__preca~!:p3.Il,els, shear keys and reinforced _. a-r.O" -- pOcketsare provided. Reinforcedpocke~are' . spaced at 2.0 ft (0.6 m) in the center. In rder to avoid forming in the field,a 20 gage Flg. 4-,.. SetlonsA~A. EI-B,and C:-C.:~.6 x 6 in. (ISO x ISO mm) sheet metal stock . tb 35in. (90 mm}depending on the-girder spacing. Tbis is used as a s~~in-place form at the pockets. Tbe panel is 'reinforced longitdinally-with No. 4 (13 mm) bars spaced would alJow for 2.5 in. (65 mm) of clear cover to protect the reinforcement from eorroson. at 2 ft at the location of the pockets. The No. 4 bars were 'spliced using an inhovative confinement technique to proHandling and shipping vide for tension development. T'ne splice consists of a loose It is recommended thatthe panel be lifted at the location o. 90 in. No. 4 bar and a spiral whose size is shown in Fig. 5. the girder lines. This can be achieved with two techniques. This technique was separately evaluated with smaU tension Tbe first technique involves using multiple lift points with specimens and found to produce the full bar yield strength spreader beams"'~ shown in Fig. 6(a).Each lifting position of 60 ksi (410 MPa). . would have two lifting points nearthe sides of the panel.' Before the precast panels are set on the supporting girders, For very wide andlor ver)t thinpanels. it may be advisable :; grout barrier is installed along the girder edges~The grout to use the second technique.This involves using a stoppermay be formed trom light gage metal sheets attached "strongback" (stiffening frame) attached to the panel at to the top surface of the girder and the bottom surface of the the location of the girder tines, shown in Fig. 6(b). The' precast panel using a standard construction adhesive. strongback can be a structural steel or precast concrete mem. Once the panels are placed over the girders and adjusted ber. lt would be attached to the precast panel before the panel with the leveling devices, gaps over the girders are grouted is removed trom the forros and removed after the panels are witha t10wable mortarmix to about 1.5in. (40 mm) below placed on the girders and shimmed to the required elevation. the top surface of the panel. The mortar mix should have a compressive strength of 4000 psi (28 MPa) al the time of . Structural performance castingfor the topping slab. The mortarprovides a comFull-scale testing was conducted on the performance-the pression block needed to resist the negative movement over structure.15 Transverse continuity 'fprestressing reinforce[he girders due to loads imposed by the concrete paving machine and the self-weight of the concretetopping. ment over the girder lines resulted in full arching actioo. A 4.5 in. (115 mm) cast-in-place topping slab reinforced Tests showed that this system hadalmost twice the capacity with epoxy-coated welded wire fabric is utilized, shown in of a comparable conventional SIP system. Fig. 2. Note that the thickness ofthis layer could be reduced Conclusion

..'

00
"'f"~'I!;!i~l"O,.

'~

. Thesystem
Spiral. 3" 0.0.. l' pileb. et,ZS" win 4iamoter

was proven to have thefo.Uowing adv.antages:

.

Mlcal SlIeet

P-

~
Fig. 5.-'Reinfon:ed pocket detaii.

!.

,ij
et..'

S'

.t.It'eliminates field forroing for deckoverhangs. 2.. For rebabilitation of bridge deckS; it saves the time and labor n'eededto rearrange tbe shear connectors. 'Ibis is due to the opti-mized spaing.between the reinforcement'in the gaps. 3.It saves time alJ,dlabor because the SIP, panel covers the entire width oftbe bridge. Therefore, there is noneed to handle a large l1umber of pieces as in the case afthe conventional SIP precast panels.

!I

....

~'C

(a)

t
c
c c

-'

'
Cc

:' '

',cc

'

::;':'
C
C

c,

.-,'.,
c

c,

cc

",

cc CccC

cc

. ','~,

".

(b) rStrongback (steelor precastconc~te member)

~Attachment

~Pn:cast panel

Ag~ 6 -(a)Handling using muttiple lifting points; (b) Handlingusing "strOngback."',

,

4. The SIP precastpanel can be crownedto fonn a cross

slopesurface of the bridge. 5. The SIP precast panel is designed to support the paving machine loads and a construction load in addition to its selfweight and the topping slab self-weight. Therefore, there is no need to support the overhang during casting of the topping slab. 6. Tbe materials used in the production of the panel are non-proprietary and are inexpensive. 7. The reinforced pockets in the transverse direction between the precast panel help to provide continuity in the longitudinal direction, resulting in minimization of the reflective cracks at the transverse joints.
,

ITransportation Commission, Division ofBridges. 9. Kluge,R. W., and Sawyer, H. A., "Interacting Pretensioned Concre Form Panels for Bridge Decks;' Final Report No. cD610-635F, Depart-; ment of Civil Engineering, Engineering and Industrial Experiment Sta~ lion, University ofFlorida, Gainsville, pp. 58. :~ 10. FagUndo, F.E.; Tabatabai, H.; Soongswang, K.; Riehardson. 1.M.= andoCall,is, E.G., "Precast Panel Co~posite Brid8~ Decks;' Concrete lnter. natlOnat, Y. 7, No. 5, May 1995, pp A-65. r" 11. Goldberg, D., "Preeast Prestressed Concrete Bridge Deck Panels" SpeciaJ report prepared by pcr Bridge Committee, PCI Journal. Y. 32" No. 2, March-April 1987, pp. 26'-45. {l.. " 12. Bieschke, L. A., and KJingner, R. E., "Effect of Transverse Panet Strand Extensions on the Bebavior of Precas[ Prestressed Panel Bridge," PCI Journal, Y. 33, No. 1, January-February, pp. 68-88. (!. 13. Tadros, M. K., and Baisbya, M. c., "Raptd Replaeement of Bridge

"

8.The systemhas a far superiorperforman~ thanthe conventional SIP panel system under cyclic load. 9. Tbe system has almost double the flexural capacity of the conventional SIP panel system.
This anicle was prepared from a presentation in AtIanta, Ga., Fa1l1997. givenat the ACI Convention

Acknow~gments

Decks," National Cooperative Highway R~searcb Program, NCHRP Re;/..' port 407, Washington, D.C. 1998. V';, _J..~. Precast P'!stre,ssed Concrete Bridge Desif!.n Manual, Precast/Pre---1I stressed Concrete Institute, Chieago, 111., 1997. :":!: 15. Badie, S.; Baishya, M. C.; and Tadros, M. K.. "NUDECK - An .1t . Efficientand Econom}cal Precast Bridge ?eek System;' PCI Journal, Sep- .5E: .& ,cc tember-October, V. 4", No. 5,1998, pp. )6-74...: Ti
c
C

Received and reviewed

under Institute publ ieatian policies.

"1-f 1

The research reponed herein was perfonned under NCHRP Project 12-4l and Daniel P. Jenny Research Fellowsbip, PrecastlPrestressed Concrete lnstitute. Additional support has been provided by tbe l.fniversity of Nebraska-Lineoln Center for Infrastructure Researc::h, Kiewit Construction Company and HDR Engineering, Ine. Special thanks are d~.to WiIliam Dowd, Philip E. Rossbaeh, and Hussein Khali1 of HDREngineering Inc. in Omaba., Neb.; and Sharad Mote, Frank Watt, Jerry Thoendel and Gary Pietrok ofKiewit Engineering Company, Omaha, Neb. These individuals made signifieant eontributions to the development ofthe system described. Amin Einea, research assistant professor at the University of NebraskaLincoln, otTered suggestions and assistance with !he experimental programo The following statT and graduate researcb assistants belped with the project: Deborah Derrick, Jim Peoples, Hussam Kakish, SherifYehia.

1 ,'
' ', ,c

Sameh S. Badie is a research assistantl professor with the civil engineering departNebraska-Lincoln, in 1997.

I ment, University- ~f Nebraska"Lincoln. He ! r~ceived his PhO from the University of~.-:
,
c c

'

'

References,
1. BarnotT, R. M.; OrndortT, 1. A.; Harbaugh, R. B.; and Rainey, D. E., "Full-Scale Test of a Prestressed Bridge with Preeast Deck Planks," PCI

, , Mantu C. Baishya is a research assistanL~1 professor with the Center for Intrastructure;1 Researeh, University ot Nebraska-Lineoln. "t the state of Nebraska. He reeeived his PhO; from the University of Colorado-BouJder.
He is a professional structural engineer for
c~

".

;J;

Journal, V. 22, No. 5, September-October 1977, pp. 66-83.

2. Biswas, M., "Precast Bridge Deck Design Systems;' PCI Journal, Y. 31, No. 2, March-April 1986, pp. 40-94. 3. "Inverset Bridge System, Design lnstallation and Technical Manual," The Fort Miller Co. Inc., Schuylervil.e, N.Y., 12871. 4. Kelly, J. B., "Applications ofa Stay-in-Place Prestressed Bridge Deck Panels," PCI Journal, Y. 24, No. 6, November-December 1979, pp. 20-83. 5. PCI Bridge Committee, "Precast Prestressed Concrete Bridge Deck Panels," PCI Journal, Y. 32, No. 2. March-ApriI1987,pp, 26-45. f{ 6. PCI Bridge Committee, "Tentative Design and Construction Specifications for Bridge Deck Panels," PCI Journal, Y. 23, No. 1, January-FebI ruary 1978, pp. 32-39. 7. "AASHTO Standard, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials;' Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Sixteenth Edition, 1996.
'

in 1993.

I . 8. "Bridge
!WI

Manual of Design Section, Part I," Missouri Highway and

Maher K. Tadros is Cheryl Prewett Profes-= sor of Civil Engineering, University 01Ne- -= braska-Uncoln. He is past president of the =ACI-Nebraska ehapter and a member of several ACI technical eommittees, ineluding ACI Committee 31 ~-G, Prestressed"~ Concrete. j:, ... 1" ~ 'ic