Bearing Capacity of Prestressed Concrete Decks Slabs

Amir, S., van der Veen, C., Walraven, J. C.

Department Design and Construction, Structural and Building Engineering, Concrete Structures, Faculty of
Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.

de Boer, A.
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (Rijkswaterstaat), the Netherlands.

Abstract
In the Netherlands, most of the bridges were built more than 50 years ago and it is uncertain if they
are still safe. Experiments carried out to investigate punching shear capacity of transversely
prestressed concrete decks under concentrated loads have shown that sufficient compressive
membrane action (CMA) had developed in the deck slab and combined with the prestressing force,
the bearing capacity was much higher than predicted by various codes and theoretical methods.

Introduction

There are many bridges in the Netherlands that were constructed in the 60s or 70s of the last
century. Since then, the traffic flow has increased making the safety of such bridges questionable
according to the modern design codes. This paper describes the experimental research being
conducted in the Delft University of Technology, to investigate the capacity of a 1:2 scaled model
of a bridge with thin transversely prestressed concrete deck slab panels cast between precast
concrete girders and subjected to concentrated loads (Fig. 1). The effect of the transverse
prestressing level (TPL), the geometry of the deck, the type of loading etc, on the punching shear
strength is investigated. It is expected that in laterally restrained post-tensioned deck slabs, CMA
and the deck transverse prestressing will provide an enhanced bearing capacity in flexural and
punching shear.

Fig. 1 Top view and front view of the test-setup.

Experimental investigation

In order to simulate an actual bridge as closely as possible, a 1:2 scale was used to design the
prototype with failure expected to occur in the deck slab (Fig. 1). The deck prototype was 12 m
long and 6.4 m wide consisting of four precast concrete girders placed at 1800 mm c/c distance.
The deck slab was cast in-situ with a clear span of 1050 mm, thickness of 100 mm and posttensioned in the transverse direction. The 28 days concrete compressive cube strength was 75 MPa.
Two transverse prestressing levels were applied; 1.25 MPa and 2.5 MPa. Inclined interfaces were
provided at both sides of a deck slab in two out of three panels of the bridge. Most of the tests were
done with a load applied in-between two adjacent transverse prestressing ducts. Two transverse
beams were provided at the end of the girder-slab assembly, post-tensioned as well in the
transverse direction. Static tests were performed at different locations of the deck slab by applying
a concentrated load through a hydraulic actuator. The vertical and horizontal deflections of the slab
at various points and the development of cracks were recorded at various loading intervals.

3 Experimental results
Fig. 2 shows the test results. When a single load was applied at midspan (MSp) of the slab panel or
when a single or double load was applied close to the girder flange-slab panel interface (INT), a
brittle punching failure was observed. However, when a double load was applied at the midspan of
the slab panel, a flexural punching failure was observed. It can be concluded that an increase in
TPL increased the punching capacity of the deck slab. Tests done above the ducts (bounded black
in Fig. 2a) showed a higher capacity as compared to tests done in-between the ducts for the same
TPL. The indented interface was always found to be strong enough regardless of a straight (ST) or
an inclined (SK) interface.

Fig. 2a Single load punching failure tests.

Fig. 2b Double load punching failure tests.

4 Results of calculation
4.1 Single load tests at midspan with failure in brittle punching shear mode
Fig. 3 shows the punching shear capacity of single load tests calculated with: a) the background
report 25.5-02-37-prENV 1992-1-1(2002) and ACI 318 (2005) that do not consider CMA, b) the
UK BD81/02 that considers CMA. Both the background report 25.5-02-37-prENV 1992-1-1(2002)
and ACI 318 underestimate the punching shear capacity. This lack of capacity is attributed to the
ignorance of compressive membrane action and although the UK BD81/02 considers membrane
action but it also predicts a conservative punching capacity probably because it was developed for
reinforced concrete only.

Fig. 3a Code punching capacity without CMA.

Fig. 3b Code punching capacity with CMA.

4.2 Double load tests with failure in the flexural punching shear mode
The flexural punching shear capacity considering CMA for double loads acting at midspan of the
slab panel is calculated by a method outlined by Taylor et al (2002) and gives a fairly good
estimation of the failure loads when compared to those observed in tests.
Table 4
Comparison of test and calculated capacity

Test

TPL
[MPa]

Test load
[kN]

Predicted Flexural Punching load

[kN]
Arching + Bending (Effective width = 1960 mm)

BB11

1.25

377.9

431.4

BB05

2.5

490.4

533

BB16

2.5

553.4

533

Conclusions

Ongoing experiments have shown that substantial CMA develops in the deck slab and transverse
prestressing affects the bearing capacity positively. Failure always occurs in the span of the deck
slab panel and the interface between the girder flange and deck slab panel has proven to have
sufficient strength. Also, when loaded directly above a prestressing bar/duct, the deck slab
shows a higher punching capacity. Analysis of the current codes shows that the Eurocode 2
(2005) and ACI 318 (2005) have no provision for CMA and therefore underestimate this
effect in the punching shear capacity formula.

References
ACI Committee 318 (2005), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05)
and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
Background report 25.5-02-37 prENV 1992-1-1:2002, Section 6.4 (2002), J. C. Walraven, Delft
University of Technology, the Netherlands.
Taylor, S. E.; Rankin, G. I. B.; Cleland, D. J. (2002), Guide to Compressive Membrane Action in
Bridge Deck Slabs, Technical Paper 3, UK Concrete Bridge Development Group/British
Cement Association.
UK Highway Agency, BD 81/02 (2002): Use of Compressive Membrane Action in bridge decks,
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Vol. 3, Section 4, part 20.