An Investigation on Transversely Prestressed Concrete Bridge Decks

J. Paul Smith

Objective
Study of transverse post-tensioning of concrete bridge decks as an alternative to improve durability.

Types of Bridges in Indiana

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Slab & slab-on-girder Box-beam

Type of RC bridge

Scope
Develop design specifications applicable to:
Slab bridges Slab-on-Girder bridges

Problem Statement

q [F/L]

s?
Assumption: Linear behavior

Specimen for Experimental Phase of Texas Study

3.78 in. 3.48 in. 8.52 in. 3.59 in.
3.78 in. 6.28 in.

9.64 in.

Girders
4.82 in.

3.48 in. 8.52 in. 9.64 in. 3.14 in.

Diaphragms
9.87 in.

4.82 in.

Location of strain gages

C L
ksi 1.2ksi 1.2 ksi 0.6ksi 1.2 0.6 ksi 0.6 ksi
24 18 19 20 25 26 21 22 27 23 1.80ft 4.80ft

1.2ksi

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 8.70ft

11 ft 5.5 ft

1 2

7 8

9 1.80ft

Modeling Alternatives (SAP2000)

2D Model
beam

shell

Girders and diaphragms as beams (Type I)

3D Model
(slab as shell)
Flanges as beams and webs as shells Diaphs. as shells (Type II)
Diaphs. as beam (Type III)

Comparison of Analytical (SAP2000) & Experimental (Texas Study) Results

Top Stresses
m Max

Modeling Type
2D 3D(I) 3D(II) 3D(III)

16 40

14 38

14 38

14 42

m = mean[(ss/sexp)-1]x100% Max = Max[(ss/sexp)-1]x100%

Analysis using ANSYS 5.7

Alternative modeling:
Use brick and shell elements

SAP2000 vs. ANSYS 5.7 (Texas Model)

Variables of Interest
Girders (spacing, stiffness) Diaphragms (spacing, stiffness, location) Boundary conditions Post-tensioning spacing Slab thickness

Base Case
q/h = 100
2.5 ft 1.00 ft

q/h = 100

24.33 ft

14 in.

8.25 in.

8.25 in. 7.75 in. 27 in.

8 in.
27 22in. in. ft 25.34 7 in.

7.75 in.

21.5 in.

21.5 in.
10.75 in.

10.75 in.
22 in.
24.33 ft

6 @ 8.83 ft

1.00 ft

Preliminary Evaluation of Variables (2D Modeling)

Base Case:

Preliminary Evaluation of Variables (2D Modeling)

Effect of Girder Spacing:
a) Half Spacing b) Quarter Spacing

Preliminary Evaluation of Variables (2D Modeling)

Effect of Girder (No diaphragms):
a) Concrete girders b) Steel girders

Preliminary Evaluation of Variables (2D Modeling)

Effect of Diaphragms:
Top half: diaphragms present

Bottom half: diaphragms no present

Preliminary Evaluation of Variables (2D Modeling)

Effect of boundary conditions:
Fully restrained except against displacement in x

Restrained against displacement in x

Preliminary Evaluation of Variables (2D Modeling)

Effect of Post-tensioning Spacing:
a) Forces at every other node:
@ 4

b) Forces every four nodes:

@ 8

Preliminary Evaluation of Variables (2D Modeling)

Effect of Slab Thickness:
8 slab

6 slab

Preliminary Identification of Relevant Variables (2D Modeling)

Diaphragms (stiffness, location, spacing) Boundary conditions Post-tensioning spacing

Effect of Diaphragms
Distribution of transverse stresses is mainly affected by diaphragm size and location.

Notation
Normalized stress = ss/q

Location 19 Location 18

C L

Location 14 Location 13

Stripe 1

Stripe 2

18 @ 25.33 in.

Location 7 Location 6 Location 5 Location 4 Location 3 Location 2 Location 1

Effect of Diaphragm Size

1.1 1 0.9 Ad (in2) =65 Ad (in2) =176 Ad (in2) =270
1.1 1 0.9 Ad (in2) =65 Ad (in2) =176 Ad (in2) =270

Normalized Stress

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 1 2 3 4 5 6

Normalized Stress

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

10 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Location No.

Location No.

y Stripe 1

y Stripe 2

Effect of Diaphragm Location

(Exterior Diaphragms Only)
1 0.9 0.8
Normalized Stress

1
Diaphragm Position Location 1 Location 3 Location 5 Location 7 Location 9 Location 13 Location 17

0.9

Diaphragm Position Location Location Location Location Location Location Location 1 3 5 7 9 13 17

Normalized Stress

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Location No.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Location No.

y Stripe 1

y Stripe 2

Minimum Stress vs. Diaphragm Position

1 0.9

Normalized Stress

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Location No. (of diaphragm)

Effective Width of T Beam vs. Top Stress

1.00

Top Stress (for Unit stress at middepth of flange)

0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0 50 100 150 200 Beff (in.) 250 300 350 400

Beff
Beff x h

Diaphragm Location vs. Effective Width

400

500

Beff x h

350

300

420

250

340
Beff (in.)

Beff (in.)

200

260 y = 30 x - 23.5 R2 = 0.99

150

180

100

100
50

20
0.40 0 0.70 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.60 0.50

8 9 10 11 Location No.

12

13

14

15

16

17

0 .9

Norm alized Stress

0 .8

0 .7

0 .6

0 .5

0 .4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 L o c a tio n N o . (o f dia phra gm)

Conclusions at this Stage

Distribution of transverse stresses mainly influenced by:
Diaphragm axial stiffness and position Boundary conditions

Influence of diaphragm position: Rationalized using T-beam analogy