Reinforced Concrete Slab Design

Using the Empirical Method

BridgeSight Solutions™
for the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

BridgeSight
TM

Software
Creators of effective and reliable solutions for the world’s bridge engineers

2688 Venado Way

Rescue, CA 95672
Phone: 530-672-1569
E-mail: rdp@BridgeSight.com
Internet: www.BridgeSight.com
Title Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method Publication No. BSS09011999-1
Abstract
This design example illustrates the Empirical Design Method for composite concrete bridge decks specified in Article
9.7.2 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification.

Notes

Author Staff - BridgeSight Software Sponsor BridgeSight Software

2688 Venado Way
Rescue, CA 95672
Specification AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, 2nd Edition 1998
Original Publication Date 9/1/99 Date of Latest Revision 9/1/99 Version 1.0
Notice of Copyright Copyright © 1999 BridgeSight Software, All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, photocopied, recorded, or otherwise), without prior written permission from
BridgeSight Software.

i
Disclaimer
This BridgeSight Solution™ is provided complements of BridgeSight Software. BridgeSight Software asserts a copyright in
this work. BridgeSight Software retains the exclusive ownership of this copy of the BridgeSight Solution™.
This document is provided AS IS without any warranty, express or implied by anyone using, distributing, copying or
otherwise possessing this document. The entire risk as to the use, results and performance of this document is assumed by
you. BridgeSight Software does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use of, merchantability
or fitness for a particular use of the product. Should this document prove defective, you assume the entire cost of all
necessary servicing, repair or correction. Further, BridgeSight Software does not warrant, guarantee, or make any
representations regarding the use of, or the results of the use of this document in terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability,
currentness, or otherwise and has no obligation to correct errors, make changes, support or distribute updates; and you
rely on this document solely at your own risk. BridgeSight Software will not be liable for any damages, service, repair,
correction, loss of profit, lost savings, or any other incidental, consequential, or special damages of any nature whatsoever
resulting from the use or inability to use this product including any claims, suits or causes of action involving claims of
infringement of copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, or unfair competition. The Licensee indemnifies and
holds harmless BridgeSight Software, its officials, employees, and contributors for any injury to the person or property of
third parties arising out of the use of or any defect in this document.
BridgeSight Software retains all rights not expressly granted. Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver of
BridgeSight Software’s rights under United States copyright laws or any other Federal or State law.

ii
Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method BridgeSight Software © 1999

Introduction
One of the first components of a bridge that you will design is the deck. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification
suggests three different methods for the analysis of bridge decks for slab-on-beam systems. This installment of the
BridgeSight Solutions™ series will give a brief overview of the different analysis methods and will focus on the Empirical
Method of design. The Empirical Method is by far the easiest method provided the bridge configuration, materials, and
construction techniques satisfy some minimum criteria.
This design example is part of the BridgeSight Solutions™ series. The BridgeSight Solutions™ series is comprised of
design aids and design examples to assist practicing engineers and engineering students learn and implement the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specification. Visit the BridgeSight Solutions™ section of our web site at www.BridgeSite.com for
more information.

1
Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method BridgeSight Software © 1999
Code Reference
Analysis Methods for Decks
The LRFD Specification suggests three methods of analysis for slab-on-beam bridge decks; 9.6.1
approximate elastic methods, specified in Article 4.6.2.1, refined methods, specified in Article 4.6.3.2,
or an empirical design method for concrete slabs specified in Article 9.5
The approximate elastic method of analysis simulates the behavior of the bridge deck with transverse
strips of deck. The strips are run from edge-to-edge of the bridge deck and are modeled as continuous
beams supported at the centerlines of the girders.
The refined method of analysis consist of modeling the bridge deck and girder system with finite
elements. This is a time consuming process and difficult to validate. Such a method should only be
used for special structures.
The empirical method is a “no analysis” method in which a prescribed amount of reinforcement is to
be provided in the slab. This BridgeSight Solution™ will focus on the Empirical Method.

Empirical Design Method

This example will illustrate the empirical design method. The empirical design applies only to the 9.5.1, 9.7.2
main part of the slab and is not to applied to overhangs. Design of the overhang is beyond the scope of
this BridgeSight Solution™. For continuous bridge decks, the contribution of the longitudinal bars
may be utilized for resisting negative moments at interior supports.

Given
• The cross section and span configuration show below
• Alignment of bridge is N 90° E
• Bearing of piers is N 27° E (27° skew angle)
• Slab concrete has a 28-day strength of 28MPa.
• The slab is cast-in-place and water cured.
• Assume a 15mm sacrificial wearing surface.
• Full depth diaphragms are used at lines of supports
• Slab and girders are made composite
• Traffic barriers are composite and structurally continuous with the overhang
910mm
240mm

1175mm 1175mm
Pier 1 - 5 spaces @ 2 000mm = 10 000mm
Pier 2 - 5 spaces @ 2 500mm = 12 500mm

Typical Section
(All Dimensions Normal To Alignment)

2
Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method BridgeSight Software © 1999
Code Reference

28 000 mm

Span Configuration

Determine Effective Length

Because of the flared girder lines and the skewed piers, we need to use a coordinate geometry (COGO) 9.7.2.3
model to quickly find the effective length.

L1 L1/3
C

11 2 4
Girder A C9

2C
1 3 6
Girder B 10
12 8
L2/3
7
5
L2

Centerline of Bridge
r1

r2
Pie

Pie
Framing Plan/COGO Model
(Girders C-F Omitted for Clairity)

The Framing Plan/COGO Model is shown above. The coordinates of the various points shown in the
model are:
Point X (mm) Y (mm)
1 0 6000
2 28000 7500
3 3142 6168
4 31928 7710
5 0 4000
6 28000 5000
7 2075 4074
8 30595 5093
9 30462 7631
10 29127 5040
11 22333 7196
12 21088 4753

Some important distances are:

Item Distance (mm)
L1 28827

3
Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method BridgeSight Software © 1999
Item Distance (mm) Code Reference

L2 28537
2C 2938
Seffective between points 9 and 10 2742
Seffective between points 11 and 12 2915
Effective Length 2915

Design Depth of Slab

Design depth is the gross depth of the slab, less any depth that is expected to be lost as a result of
grinding, grooving, or wear.
Design Depth = 240mm - 15mm = 225mm

Effective Length to Design Depth Ratio

The effective length to design depth ratio is 2915mm/225mm = 13

Core Depth
Core slab depth is shown in the figure below. It can be computed as
Core Depth = Gross Slab Depth - Top Cover - Bottom Cover
Depth

Depth
Core

Slab

Reinforcement

Top Cover = 65mm (Deck surfaces subject to tire stud or chain wear) Table 5.12.3-1

Bottom Cover = 25mm (Bottom of cast-in-place slabs, Up to No. 36 bar)

Core Depth = 240mm - 65mm - 25mm = 150mm

Check Design Conditions

The design conditions listed below must be satisfied to use the empirical design method. If these 9.5.1
conditions are met and the reinforcement provisions are satisfied, for other than the deck overhang,
9.7.2.4
the deck may be assumed to satisfy service, fatigue and fracture, and strength limit states requirements.
Criteria Satisfied (Yes/No)
• Cross-frames or diaphragms are used throughout the cross-section at lines Yes
of support;
• For cross-section involving torsionally stiff units, such as individual N/A
separated box beams…;
• The supporting components are mode of steel and/or concrete; Yes
Precast Concrete I-
Beams
• The deck is fully cast-in-place and water cured; Yes
Check your standard

4
Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method BridgeSight Software © 1999
Criteria Satisfied (Yes/No) Code Reference

specifications!
• The deck is of uniform depth, except for haunches at girder flanges and Yes
other local thickening;
• The ratio of effective length to design depth does not exceed 18.0 and is Yes
not less than 6.0; 6 ≤ 13 ≤18
• Core depth of the slab is not less than 100 mm; Yes
150mm > 100mm
• The effective length, as specified in Article 9.7.2.3, does not exceed Yes
4100mm; 2915mm < 4100mm
• The minimum depth of slab is not less than 175mm, excluding a sacrificial Yes
wearing surface where applicable; 175mm < 225mm
• There is an overhang beyond the centerline of the outside girder at least Yes
5.0 times the depth of the slab; this condition is satisfied if the overhang is 1175mm/225mm =
at least 3.0 times the depth of the slab and a structurally continuous 5.22
concrete barrier is made composite with the overhang; 5.22 > 3.0
• The specified 28-day strength of the deck concrete is not less than 28MPa Yes
• The deck is made composite with the supporting structural components Yes

Select Reinforcement
The slab configuration satisfies the necessary design conditions. The slab must be reinforced with four 9.7.2.5
layers of isotropic reinforcement. Reinforcement shall be located as close to the outside surfaces as
permitted by cover requirements. Reinforcement shall be provided in each face of the slab with the
outermost layers placed in the direction of the effective length. The minimum amount of
reinforcement shall be 0.570mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0.380mm2/mm of steel for
each top layer. Spacing of steel shall not exceed 450mm. Reinforcing steel shall be Grade 420 or
better.
Because the skew angle for this structure exceeds 25°, the specified reinforcement in both direction
shall be doubled in the end zones of the deck. Each end zone shall be taken as a longitudinal distance
equal to the effective length of the slab specified in Article 9.7.2.3.

Bottom Layer Reinforcement

Use two layers of No. 16 bars. The cross-sectional area of a No. 16 bar is 199mm2. The maximum
199mm2
allowable spacing of No. 16 bars is 2 = 350mm
0.570 mm
mm .

Use No. 16 bars at 175mm in the end zones and No. 16 bars at 350mm elsewhere.

Top Layer Reinforcement

Use two layers of No. 13 bars. The cross-sectional area of a No. 13 bar is 129mm2. The maximum
129mm2
allowable spacing of No. 13 bars is 2 = 340mm
0.380 mm
mm .

Use No. 13 bars at 170mm in the end zones and No. 13 bars at 340mm elsewhere

5
Appendix

Conversion Factors
Multiply By To Produce
in 25.40 mm
ft 0.3048 m
in2 645.2 mm2
ft2 0.0929 m2
in3 16387 mm3
ft3 0.0283 m3
in4 416231 mm4
ft4 0.00863 m4
lbf 4.448 N
kip 4.448 kN
ton 8.896 kN
lbf/in 0.175 N/mm
lbf/ft 0.015 N/mm
kip/in 175.2 kN/m
kip/ft 14.6 kN/m
lbf 0.453 kg
lbm 0.453 kg
slug 14.594 kg
ft/sec2 0.3048 m/sec2
psi 6894.757 Pa
ksi 6.895 MPa
psf 47.88 Pa
ksf 0.04788 MPa
°F (°t-32°)/1.8 °C

Reinforcing Bar Properties

Bar Size Nominal Nominal Nominal Bar Size Nominal Nominal Nominal
Mass Diameter Area Weight Diameter Area
No. kg/m mm mm2 No lb/ft in in2
10 0.560 9.5 71 3 0.376 0.375 0.11
13 0.994 12.7 129 4 0.668 0.500 0.20
16 1.552 15.9 199 5 1.043 0.625 0.31
19 2.235 19.1 284 6 1.502 0.750 0.44
22 3.042 22.2 387 7 2.044 0.875 0.60
25 3.973 25.4 510 8 2.670 1.000 0.79
29 5.060 28.7 645 9 3.400 1.128 1.00
32 6.404 32.3 819 10 4.303 1.270 1.27
36 7.907 35.8 1006 11 5.313 1.410 1.56
43 11.380 43.0 1452 14 7.650 1.693 2.25
57 20.240 57.3 2581 18 13.600 2.254 4.00

A-1