CHAPTER 6 Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 6.1 INTRODUCTION It was pointed out in Chapter 1 that in a vast majority of cases, a bridge deck consists of a reinforced concrete flooring supported by a system of longitudinal beams—concrete (reinforced or prestressed), steel, or timber. These decks are usually cast in place with concrete of about 3000 to 4000 psi compressive strength. The curbs and parapets are normally cast after the deck has sufficiently hardened, to facilitate screeding off the slab. To enhance the service life of the deck, a wearing surface, usually }-in.-thick inte~ gral concrete, or 1}-to 2-in.-thick (14 in. minimum) asphalt concrete or latex-modified concrete [NCHRP-SYN, 1992],! is applied directly over the entire deck [AASHTO, 1992a; CRSI, 1983; PCI, 1975]. Detailed specifications covering the wearing surface are provided in AASHTO Div. Il, 28 [AASHTO, 1992a]. Treatment of various types of reinforced concrete bridges can be found in several references such as [ACI, 1991; ACI, 1969, 1977, 1995; PCI, 1975; CRSI, 1983; Heins and Lawrie, 1984]. Reinforced concrete bridges possess several advantages over other types, the ma- jor one being the adaptability of concrete to a wide variety of structural shapes and forms. Cast-in-place structures are continuous and monolithic, attributes which trans- late into easy construction, low costs, and good seismic resistance. They are ideally suited for curved alignments, skewed piers, abutments, superelevations, and transi- tions at the freeway connector ramps, and can be given the desired aesthetic appear- ance. According to the National Bridge Inventory (NBD) data for the years 1950-1989 \Latex-modified concrete, also called polymer-modified concrete, is a mixture of cement, aggregate, and a latex emulsion admixture of which there are several varieties, This type of concrete is less porous and more durable than asphalt concrete; consequently, it requires less thickness than asphalt concrete and is preferred over asphalt concrete for overlays. 382cuaeters: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 383 (FHWA, 1979, 1988}, reinforced concrete bridges were the preferred types for spans in the 20 to 60-ft range before the advent of prestressed concrete technology, and they are still built in that span range in many cases, In the span range of 60 to 120 fi, steel bridges were the preferred type, followed by reinforced concrete bridges. This trend has, of course, been changing in favor of prestressed concrete bridges due to the economics of the life cycle costs. Table 6.1 gives various kinds of bridges built in the United States in the 1950-1989 period [Dunker and Rabbat, 1990, 1992], of which 29 percent are reinforced concrete bridges [Dunker and Rabbat, 1992] For very short spans, say, under 35 ft for simple spans and 45 ft for continuous spans, an economical highway bridge superstructure may consist of a simple, longi- tudinal, one-way slab, spanning between the abutments (ACI, 1977]. In such a case, the slab acts as the principal load-supporting element of the superstructure, and can be characterized as a one-dimensional structure. For slightly longer spans, thicker slabs are required, which are uneconomical. However, they are made economical by providing voids in them. Voided slabs, considered economical for spans in the 40 to 65-ft range {ACI, 1977], are usually of the precast prestressed type, fabricated in plants in standard widths, transported to the site for erection, and possibly transversely post-tensioned. These are described in Chapter 7. ‘Alternatively, slab bridges can be designed as continuous structures to achieve longer spans. When designed as a continuous structure, the end spans are made shorter than the center span (ratio of approximately 1 to 1.25), an arrangement known as bal- anced spans. Such an arrangement results in the design positive moment in the end span about equal to the design negative moment at the intermediate supports (PCI, 1975]. For a single-span cast-in-place concrete bridge, an alternative for a longer span is a reinforced concrete deck supported over reinforced or prestressed concrete girders, re- sulting in a T-beam structure. T-beam bridges with simple spans are used for lengths up to about 60 ft and for continuous spans up to about 80 ft [ACI, 1977]. In this case, the slab is treated as a continuous element supported over the longitudinally spanning webs of T-beams. The slab also provides a broad compression flange (top flange) for the girders. In such an arrangement, because the bendings of the slab and that of the beam occur in the same plane but perpendicular to each other, a T-beam structure may be characterized as a two-dimensional structure. AA third type of structure is a reinforced concrete box beam in which the webs of a ‘T-beam structure are all connected by a common bottom flange, resulting in a cellular superstructure. Depending on the number of interior webs, box girders can be single- cell or multicell structures. They are usually economical for spans in excess of 50 ft. In the 50 to 100-ft-span range, they cost about one-third more than T-beam structures, although, based on experience, some contractors claim that they could build box girder bridges just as economically as they could build T-beams [Elliot, 1990]. Often pre- stressed (post-tensioned), this arrangement enhances the moment-carrying capacity of the superstructure, which makes it suitable for relatively longer spans. ‘The designs of reinforced concrete slab, T-beam, and box girder bridges are dis- cussed in this chapter; the designs of prestressed concrete bridges are presented in Chapter 7. Various reinforced concrete bridge superstructure configurations are shown in Fig. 6.1. Note that regardless of the type of longitudinally supported beams (webs of T-beams, steel stringers, or prestressed concrete girders) that support the deck384 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES TABLE 6.1 Number of highway bridges by year built and span range (1950-1989) [Dunker and Rabbat, 1992] ‘otal buit Yearbit | Materiat_[<20 | 20-39 | 40-s9 | 60-79 | 80-09 | 100-119 | 120-139 | 140-159 | 160-179 | 180-199 | = 200 | all spans 1950-1954 | Timber | 3026] 2s sf 9 | 7] 2 0 ° ° on pe eon Stel 1069 | 6734 4030] 256s | rise | a4 | 266 | a7 | m6 | a9 | 210 | 16789 Rent cone. | 1592] 688] 1717] “S87 | 203 | gs | 2 | te 7 1 | as | 907 Pres cone. | 30] 350 so} ow] 6 1 1 o | | con Teal sit | 1s6e7 | _s57| 3040 | 1322 | s37_| 209 | a2 | 03 | 50_| 227 | sare 1935-1959 | Timber | 2s08[ ams osi[ a] 2 [2 2 ° 0 1 1 | amo Stel 473 | 4699] 77s] 3983 | 2022 | a2 | am | am | a2 | os | 2 | ners Reint cone | 2335 | 7487] 3529] 1381 | ase | tse | ost |i 9 6 | 2 | saa Prestcone. | 75] 1172 | 1400} 1100} 281 | 4s 7 3 3 3 | [5 | sass Tout s7s7| 1susi| 9758 | 6528 | 2739 | oes | ase [216 | ize | 75 | 251 | isos 1960-1968 | Tinber 3201 anal os| 6[ s[ 1 2 1 0 o | 1 | sr Stel ori] 5415) 4998 | 4998 | 2850 | 1205 | aso | ons | sz | 96 | 238 | 2iarr Reint cone | 2643 | 774i] 3633] 1988 | a2] 36 | us | 37 | t6 | ag | 28 | i792 Prest-core. | 85 2381] 3013] 2565 | sss] ize | x | 6 7 3 | /s | sao ‘Tot 6400 | 17559 | 11659 | 9457 | sos | 18 | ost | 329 | ss | ua | 2m | sasre 1965-1969 [tinter 2m] asee[ sz] as | os[ 3 3 Y 0 1 | of an Steel 42 3935] a7e9| aa71 | 2s | 1603 | sis | ass | ase | tos | 292 | r0,t08 Reint.cone. | 2016 { 6123] 3307] 1530} 918 | sos | ass | 71 u 6 | 20 | 16993 Prestccone. | 83| 2749] 3538 3195 | 1199 | 3a | 7 | sv | oe | on | 7 | tase Teal 640 | 14396 | 10,01 | 9109 | sae | 2588 | os | _sa3_| 197 | 123 | s19 | 49990 wie | Timer [2102] verf sf iw] 2[ 0 ° ° 1 o | 2] 3s Steel 400 3446 | 2463 | 2172 | 2463 | 1961 | 96 | szz | ast | ist | 282. Reint cone. | 2019] 4583] 1971 | 606 | 420 | 326 | as7 | 6s | 2s |r) Prestecons. | 124 2852] 3134] 2493 | rsis | 74 | aon | soe | 2s | ot | se Tout 470s | w2a7e | 7619 | s2s7 | a7oi_|_sist_|_s761_|_a91_| 40s_|_205_|_ 357 wisi | Timber | i738] ue] ssf 2s [a | 2 0 1 ° o | o Stet | 280) 21 | 1785} 1283 | 30 | ais | gar | 462 | 202 ot | an Reintcone. | 495] 3909} 1617] 339 | 223) 13 | 99 | a7 6 6 | oz resecone. | 79 | 3067 | 3250]. 2270 | ast | 793 | 326 | 1s¢ | 36 | o | 58 ‘Toul eni7| 3917 | zoe | 20ss_| 1265 | oe _| soe | 166 | 256 rse0-i966 [timer | mi] sol a7{ is[ a] 2 t 0 ° o | o Steel 29 ai] rai] sre} sss | m9 | oa | 374 | 200 | 98 | 227 Reint cove. | 1136 3363] 1530] 296] 143] 94 | os | a | 16 4 | 6 Presu.cone. | 105] 2031] 3696] 2307 | ror | 733 | 32 | 99 | @ | 36 | 56 Tul zai |_9937 | ros | 3539 | 2009 | tess _| to | sos | 278 | 38_| 299 roas-1989 | Timber | os{ ass] wl of of 4 ° 1 0 1 v Steel i] 1970] 1358 900 | 40 | sea | as7 | sor | am | tos | a2 Reint cone. | 140 314] t675] 268} 120 | as | ss | 2 7 4a{o9 Prest.cone.| 60) 2249] 3932] 2677 | 169 | 107 | 426 | ww | 70 | si | oe out isis | s197 | 7005] 3854 | 2395 | ims | 966 | aes | 4 | toi 286 Metric (SI) conversion factor: | ft = 0.305 m. (sge Fig. 4.11), the methods of designing reinforced concrete decks are the same (AASHTO 3.24.3.1, Case A, main reinforcement perpendicular to traffic) [AASHTO, 1992a]. ! 6.2 MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION ‘The two materials used for the construction of reinforced concrete bridges are concrete and reinforcing steel, which were both discussed in Chapter 2. Design-related details of reinforcing bars are presented in a later section in this chapter.cuarrer6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 385 @ “HOOF? o © FIGURE 6.1 Various reinforced concrete bridge deck sections: (a) slab, (6) voided slab, (c) T-beam, (d) a three-cell box girder, (e) a four-cell box girder.386 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES 63 DESIGN METHODS 6.3.1 General Structural design of reinforced concrete bridges can be performed by the service load design method (AASHTO 8.15) or by the strength (or load factor) design method (AASHTO 8.16). This design approach is stipulated in AASHTO 8.14. AASHTO 8.14.1.3 further stipulates that the strength and serviceability requirements of the strength design are satisfied by the service load design if the service load stresses are limited to values prescribed by AASHTO 8.15 (discussed in the following sections). The service load requirements include requirements for deflection control, stresses at service loads, fatigue stress limits, and distribution of flexural reinforcement to control flexural cracking of concrete, which negatively affects driver and pedestrian comfort. These design aspects are covered by AASHTO 8.16.8 6.3.2 The Service Load Design Method 6 Various aspects of reinforced concrete design, including principles of designing structural elements such as slabs and T-beams, are covered in texts on reinforced con- crete design [Ferguson, 1979; Nawy, 1985; Nilson and Winter, 1986; McCormac, 1993] and will not be repeated here. However, various formulae to be used in design calcu- lations are presented here for a brief review. Figure 6.2 presents definitions of various parameters used in the service load design of reinforced concrete based on the cracked- section theory using the transformed area. For analysis of a cracked rectangular rein- forced concrete section, the neutral axis factor, k, is given by k= Jpn? + 2pn - pn 1) where p = A,/bd (reinforcement ratio) E/E, = modular ratio 1 = KB (lever-arm factor) 1 General p| jel as t al pop en ene walt 7A a] éXi *L [rong oa tL, FIGURE 6.2 Definitions of parameters used in service load design.cuarrer 6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 387 Values of the modular ratio, n, are defined by AASHTO 8.7 and 10.38.1.3 and given in Table A.14 (Appendix A). Variations in these values are sometimes made by cer- tain agencies. For example, the California DOT specifications [CALTRANS, 1993a] stipulate the following values of n: iB 1000-2400 psi n=15 = 2500-2900 =12 000-3900 =10 = 4000-4900 =8 = 5000 or more =6 Knowing the beam cross section, the area of reinforcing steel, and the design strength of concrete (f!), the value of k in Eq. 6.1 can be computed easily. Alternatively, it can be read from tables given in Appendix A (Table A.15). Finally, the allowable moment for a cross section may be obtained by considering independently the allowable concrete or steel stresses: Mz = 4fekjbd? (6.2) M; = Asfid (6.3) ‘The smaller of the two values given by Eqs. 6.2 and 6.3 should be taken as the allowable moment for the section. For design of a rectangular section, the following relationships should be used: 1. The depth of the slab or of a rectangular beam: d . (64) 2. Area of reinforcing steel required: M fee 6.5; ia (6.5) where b = 12 in. fora slab. ‘The values of the design coefficients k and to be used in conjunction with Eqs. 6.4 and 6.5 can be computed from the following expressions: n = GFE (66) 6.7) where f. = allowable stress in concrete ‘fy = allowable stress in steel reinforcement Note that, for given values of the concrete strength (2) and the grade of steel re~ inforcement (f,), both fz and f,, which appear in Eq. 6.6, are known quantities. As a solution to Eq. 6.6, Table A.16 (Appendix A) gives values of the design coefficients k and j for the commonly used values of f and f,.388. DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES The slab thickness, h, should be varied in increments of 3 in. As a first step, the slab thickness should be assumed based on the minimum thickness requirements for defiection control (AASHTO 8.9.2; see Ch. 5, Table 5.3). However, note that some agency specifications may mandate a larger minimum slab thickness for reasons other than structural requirements. After finalizing the slab thickness, its moment of resis- tance should be checked (from Eqs. 6.2 and 6.3) as a final step, to ensure that it is rot smaller than the design moment. 6.3.2.2 Allowable stresses (AASHTO 8.15): Flexure Allowable stresses in concrete Extreme fiber stress in compression 0.40, Extreme fiber stress in tension for plain concrete 0.21 f The fact that tensile stress in plain concrete is permitted by AASHTO should not be construed to imply that the use of plain concrete is permitted for structural members. In fact, plain concrete is not generally permitted for any structural use (and is even prohibited in many states, Pennsylvania, for example) unless the concrete members are fully supported for their entire length and they are not subjected to temperature variation. Cracking of concrete, plain or reinforced, is a very serious problem which affects the life of a structure, and every effort should be made to avoid it at the design stage. The modulus of rupture, f;, should be obtained from tests. In the absence of test results, the following values of modulus of rupture should be used: Normal-weight concrete 1S Jf! Sand-lightweight concrete 6.3 /f! AlLightweight concrete 55V fi Bearing stress, fy 0.30f! A higher value of the bearing stress is permitted when the supporting surface is wider on all sides than the loaded area; in such a case the allowable bearing stress on the loaded area may be multiplied by a factor of ,/(Az/Aj) but not one greater than 2. Allowable stress, f., in steel reinforcement Grade 40 reinforcement 20,000 psi Grade 60 reinforcement 24,000 psi Certain states or agencies may specify their own allowable stress values, which may be lower than those specified previously. For example, the California Department of Transportation specifies the following stresses [CALTRANS, 1993a]: Extreme fiber stress in compression for transversely reinforced deck slabs, f-: 1200 psi Grade 60 reinforcement for transversely reinforced deck slabs: 20,000 psicuarrers: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 389 Because of the relatively insignificant difference between the costs of Grade 40 and Grade 60 reinforcing steel, the latter is generally used in practice. In some states, use of Grade 60 reinforcement is mandated for highway bridges; Grade 40 reinforcement is used as an exception with the special approval of the chief bridge engineer, 6.3.2.3 Allowable stresses (AASHTO 8.15): Shear Shear stress in a reinforced concrete beam can be calculated from Eq. 6.8: Vv ve 6.8) Fd (6.8) Allowable stresses and design for shear are covered in AASHTO 8.15.2. In members subjected to flexure and shear, the allowable shear is given by Eq. 6.9: Ve = 0.95. / fi (69) A more detailed calculation of the allowable shear stress can be made from Eq. 6.10: Vd Ve = 0.9, /fi + 1100p) a)e 16 Vf (6.10) where M = design moment occurring simultaneously with V at the section being con- sidered, and Vd/M = 1.0 AASHTO specifications stipulate two conditions for providing shear reinforcement: 1, Shear reinforcement is to be provided when the design shear stress, v, exceeds the allowable shear stress for concrete, ve (AASHTO 8.15.5.3). 2. Minimum shear reinforcement is to be provided when the design shear exceeds one- half the allowable shear stress (AASHTO 8.19). Both cases are discussed in the next section. Design for shear. When the design shear exceeds the allowable shear stress, the excess shear must be carried by shear reinforcement. However, this excess shear is limited in such a way that the excess shear stress, (v — v-), does not exceed 4/f! (AASHTO 8.15.5.3.9); if it does, a larger beam cross section is indicated. The required shear reinforcement, perpendicular to the beam’s longitudinal axis (vertical stirrups), can be calculated from Eq. 6.11: = Ua vedbws fs oss-sectional area of all legs of stirrups pacing of stirrups. (6.11) where A, AASHTO 8.19.3 stipulates that the stirrup spacing should not exceed the smaller of d/2 or 24 in. These spacings are to be reduced by half, i.e, to the smaller of d/4 or 12 in., if the excess shear stress, (v — v,), exceeds 2./ fi.390 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES The minimum shear reinforcement is calculated by the following expression, with stirrup spacing limited to d/2 or 24 in.: Obs fy For requirements for other kinds of shear reinforcements, such as inclined stirrups or bars, readers are urged to refer to the appropriate AASHTO specifications. Ay = (6.12) 6.3.3 Strength Design Method (Load Factor Design Method) The load factor design method calls for designing reinforced concrete members by the strength design method, for which the relevant design requirements are covered in AASHTO 8.16, and the design assumptions are stipulated in AASHTO 8.16.2. The philosophy of load factor design was presented in Chapter 3. Details of strength design of reinforced concrete members are covered in several references [Nawy, 1985; Nilson and Winter, 1986; MacGregor, 1988; McCormac, 1993] and will not be repeated here, except that the principles will be presented. Essentially, the method is similar to that used for reinforced concrete buildings. Design loads (force, moment, shear, or stress) are obtained by multiplying service loads by the load factors, as stipulated in AASHTO. 3.22.3 (see Chapter 3, Table 3.12). It is required that the nominal strength of a member, multiplied by the strength reduction factor, , should not be less than the design forces. Note that in both cases—service load design and load factor design—the methods of structural analysis are the same. Various 6 factors as stipulated by AASHTO 8.16.1.2.2 are given in Table 6.2. Note that these ¢ factors have the same values as those used for the strength design of reinforced concrete buildings (ACI, 1995). In spite of similarities in the application of strength design principles to buildings and bridges, different load factors are used in the two cases because of differences in the variability of loads involved. For example, for reinforced concrete buildings, the load factors for the dead and the live load are 1.4 and 1.7, respectively [ACI, 1995], whereas those for a bridge are to be taken as 1.3 for the dead load and 6.5/3 (1.3 X 5/3) for live load plus impact [AASHTO, 1992a}: For buildings: > yiQ; = 1.4D + 1.7L (6.13) For bridges: DQ = 1.3(D+ {L+D] (6.14) TABLE 6.2, ¢ factors [AASHTO, 1992] Design parameter o a Flexure 0.90 b Shear 085 © Axial compression with spirals 0.75 ties 0.70 4 Bearing on concrete 0.70cuarrer 6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 391 asf ‘Compression side 1] AY |-—- @ = c=0.85(6a «9 All was L 6-4 T= Ah h ——) Tension side FIGURE 6.3 ‘Strength design of a rectangular reinforced concrete section [Nawy, 1985]. Figure 6.3 shows a rectangular reinforced concrete section for which Whitney’s rectangular stress distribution is applied. Equilibrium of horizontal forces under the balanced conditions yields Ca or O85 flab = Asf, Substituting A, = phd and solving for a, the depth of the rectangular stress block (AASHTO Eq. 8.17) gives a= Ah , ~ aRspe (6.15a) = Phd = oasf (6.15b) The moment equilibrium yields (6.16)392 _ DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Equation 6.16 gives the nominal strength of the section, which, multiplied with &, the strength reduction factor, is equated to the factored design loads, M, (AASHTO Eq. 8.16): My = $Mn = bAsfy(d - 3) (6.17) In Eq. 6.17, one substitutes the value of a from Eq, 6.15a to yield My = 6M, = fa = osss2f) (6.18) The constant 0.588 in the right-hand-side parenthetical term in Eq. 6.18 is rounded off to 0.59 in the ACI building code [ACI, 1995] and to 0.6 in AASHTO Eq. 8.15. Thus My = OM, = bAcfyd ( +0604) (6.19) Equation 3.19 is the fundamental expression used for designing rectangular rein- forced concrete sections in bending by the strength design method. For computational efficiency, this expression is written slightly differently by substituting A, = phd: M, = $pbdfyd (i - ost) (6.20) Rearranging the terms, we obtain My : onde on(t = ost) (6.21) Equation 6.21 is very convenient for use in design. For a given set of material strengths (jf! and f,), and for trial values of b and d, the left-hand term (M,/bd2) of Eq. 6.21 is completely known from values of the corresponding steel ratio, p, and hence the required amount of reinforcement can be calculated. As a practical matter, such values are tabulated for various combinations of f! and f,, as given in Appen- dix A (Table A.17), which is extremely helpful in design. The term M,/$bd? is some- times called the flexural, or the moment of resistance, factor and is denoted by R. The value of the balanced steel ratio, ps, obtained from compatibility of bal- anced strains in concrete (¢¢ = 0.003, AASHTO 8.16.3.1.2) and reinforcement fylEs, E, = 29,000 ksi) at ultimate conditions, is given by AASHTO Eq. ne OesPile( 87,000 ) (622) Sy 87,000 + fy A reinforced concrete section must be designed as an underreinforced section to en- sure yielding failure of reinforcement before crushing failure of concrete occurs. Con- sequently, the maximum reinforcement ratio, p, should not exceed 0.75 p; (AASHTO 8.16.3.1.1).cuarrer, Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 393 Since py is clearly a function of the given design parameters, namely, fy, f, and 1 (which again is a function of 2), its value is known in advance. For computational convenience and efficiency in the design process, values of pp are tabulated for various combinations of f and f,, as given in Appendix A (Table A.18). This table also gives values of 0.5p, a value which may be used for the initial design trial. Note that the depth of Whitney’s rectangular stress block, a, is related to the depth of the neutral axis, c, by the relationship a = Bic, where By is a coefficient whose value, subject to a minimum of 0.65, is given by Eq. 6.23 (AASHTO 8.16.2.7): ‘fi — 4000 Bi = 0.85 — 0.05 ar) (6.23) ‘The design of a reinforced concrete slab is initiated by selecting b = 12 in. and a depth (d) to meet the minimum recommended depth requirements, as shown in Table 5.3 (Chapter 5). With the design moment, M,, known, the value of My/dbd? is calculated, and the corresponding value of p is determined from Table A.17 (Appen- dix A). Knowing the required values of b, d, and p, the value of A, is calculated and the required bar spacing selected from Table A.19 (Appendix A). When a reinforced concrete member is designed according to the load factor de- sign, AASHTO 8.16.8 stipulates that the following serviceability requirements be satis- fied. 6.3.3.1 Service load stresses Stresses under service load conditions should not exceed the allowable stresses, as presented in the earlier sections. 6.3.3.2 Fatigue stress Tests indicate that reinforcing bars in bridge superstructures are more likely to be subjected to critical fatigue stresses than is the surrounding concrete; consequently, lon- gitudinal forces in all types of bridges are checked for fatigue at locations of maximum service stress range and bar cutoffs. In regions where stress reversal takes place, the slabs are doubly reinforced. AASHTO 8.16.8.3 stipulates that the range between a maximum tensile stress and the minimum stress in straight reinforcement should not exceed f7, given by AASHTO Eq. 8.60, as discussed in Chapter 5: fy = 21-033 fin + 8(5) (6.24) stress range, ksi frin = algebraic minimum stress level, ksi (tension positive and compression negative) rh = ratio of base radius (r) to height (fh) of rolled-on transverse deformations, equal to 0.3 when the actual value of r/h is not known. This fatigue stress limit is waived when the deck slab, with primary reinforcement perpendicular to traffic, is designed in accordance with AASHTO 3.24.3, Case A.394 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES 6.3.3.3 Distribution of flexural reinforcement ‘To control flexural cracking of concrete, tension reinforcement should be well dis- tributed within the maximum flexural zones. This requirement is critical only when the yield strength of flexural reinforcement exceeds 40,000 psi. In such a case, the bar sizes and their spacing at the maximum positive and negative moment sections should be so chosen that the stress in reinforcing steel under service load conditions does not exceed the following value (AASHTO 8.16.8.4, Eq. 8.61): z dgA & = 0.6f, (6.25) where A = effective area, in2, of concrete surrounding the flexural tension reinforce- ment and having the same centroid as the reinforcement, divided by the number of bars or wires. When the flexural reinforcement consists of sev- eral bar or wire sizes, the number of bars or wires are to be calculated by dividing the total reinforcement area by the area of the largest bar used d, = thickness of concrete cover measured from extreme tension fiber to the center of the closest bar or wire, in., limited to 2 in. maximum for calcu- lations Itis instructive to note that this requirement is similar to that required for the reinforced conerete buildings [ACI, 1995). Careful attention should be paid to quantities A and de, defined in Fig. 6.4, Note that fora single layer of tensile reinforcement, the depth (t) of the concrete area surrounding the reinforcing bars equals 2d., whereas, for a multiple-layered reinforcement, d, is measured from the tension face of the beam to the centroid of the nearest layer of tension reinforcement. Considerable research has been done on control of crack widths in reinforced con- crete structures because of their extreme importance in relation to associated corrosion problems. An exhaustive discussion on the causes, mechanisms, and controls of crack- ing in concrete can be found in texts on reinforced concrete design (Ferguson, 1979; Nawy, 1985; Nilson and Winter, 1986; MacGregor, 1988; McCormac, 1993] and in several other references [Broms, 1965; Gergely and Lutz, 1968; Nawy, 1968, 1972; ACT, 1972; Nawy and Blair, 1973; Lutz, 1974]. Concrete area in tension, A, FIGURE 6.4 Definitions of A and dz in Eq, 6.25 [Nawy, 1985}.cuaprers: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 395 A major parameter affecting the crack width in a reinforced concrete member is the bond stress between the reinforcing bars and the surrounding concrete. When the bars are bundled together, the contact area between the bundied bars and the concrete is smaller than that between the concrete and the single bars. To provide for this even- tuality, the Gergely-Lutz formula is expressed in a modified form [Nawy, 1972, 1985; Lutz, 1974]: Wimax = 0.0768 f, (6.26) where A’ = btly}, ‘Yo = number of bars if all are of the same diameter, or the total area of rein- forcing steel divided by the area of the largest bar if more than one size is used. The term 7}, is essentially a perimetric reduction of ye and is defined in Fig. 6.5. AASHTO Eq. 6.61 is the Gergely-Lutz formula (Gergely and Lutz, 1968] derived from the general formula based on a statistical study of test data of several investigations [Nawy, 1985]: Wmax = 0.0768 f; Vdd (6.27) NS, 1 GO NY Two bars Three bars Fourbars The= 08157 5p Toe = 0.650 Tre Toe= 05107. where A= ZafVaa @ Concrete area in tension, A, }—— eis FIGURE 6.5 Perimetric reduction factors with bundled bars: (a) perimetric factors; (b) section geometry of concrete area in tension [Nawy, 1985].396 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES where Wax = crack width in units of 0.001 in. B = (h—o)l(d — c) = depth factor, average value = 1.20 J; = maximum stress (ksi) in steel at service load level, 0.6, to be used if no computations are available It is important to note that f; = 0.6,;, in lieu of actual stress in reinforcing steel, is applicable to normal structures only. For computational simplicity, a parameter, z, is introduced in Eq. 6.27 [Nilson and Winter, 1986]: 2* QomxI2 Oi (6.28) ‘The z-w relationship of Eq. 6.28 can be expressed as w = (091) (6.29) Note that the units of z are kips per inch. The AASHTO specifications [AASHTO, 1992a] prescribe the following upper and lower limits on the value of z: z = 170 kipsfin. for members in moderate exposure conditions 130 kipsfin, for members in severe exposure conditions ‘The terms “moderate” and “severe” are not defined, however. For reinforced concrete culverts, the value of z is to be taken as 98 kips/in. (AASHTO 17.6.4.7). The California specifications [CALTRANS, 1993b] are somewhat more prescriptive with regard to the environmental conditions prevalent in various geographical state areas (not shown here) as follows: Area I: Mild climate, where frost is rare, or where, because of light traffic volumes, salt is applied infrequently. This area includes all portions of the state not specifically itemized as Areas If and II. Area Il: Moderate climate, where frost or light freezing occurs, but where chains are seldom used. Salting of the deck is only done in rare or emergency instances. Area Ill: Severe climate, where freeze-thaw cycles and heavy salting occur frequently and where chains are used. The upper limits on values of z, based on environmental conditions, are prescribed as follows: 1. 100 kips/in. for structures in direct contact with sea water or subjected to sea water spray 2. 130 kipsfin. for structures not in direct contact with sea water of subjected to sea water spray but located within 1000 ft of ocean or tidal water, and for bridge decks located in environmental Area III (severe climate) 3. 170 kips/in. for all cases other than those previously listed Specifications [CALTRANS, 1993b] suggest additional protective measures where members are exposed to very aggressive or corrosive environments, such as deicer chemicals. In such cases, protection should be provided by increasing the denseness or imperviousness to water, or by furnishing other protection such as waterproofing protection systems.cuaprer6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 397 TABLE 6.3 Tolerable crack widths for reinforced concrete [ACI, 1972, 1980] se create SRR EE ‘Tolerable erack width Exposure condition (in) mm) w/0.091* Dry air or protective membrance 016.4 176 Humidity, moist air, soil 0012 030 132 Deicing chemicals, 0.007 0.18, n Seawater and seawater spray; wetting and drying 0.006 0.15 66 ‘Water-retaining structures, excluding nonpressure pipes 0.004 0.10 44 **Volues inthis column added inthe table by the author. With the z value limits of 100, 170, and 130, the permissible crack width can be calculated from Eq. 6.29 as follows: eae w = 0.091 x 100 X 0.001 = 0,009 in. z= 170, w = 0.091 x 170 x 0.001 = 0.015 in. z= 130, w = 0.091 x 130 x 0.001 = 0.012 in. It can be seen that the smaller value of z corresponds to the smaller permissible crack width and has been used in examples where applicable. Tolerable crack widths for var- ious environmental conditions are shown in Table 6.3 [ACI, 1972, 1980]. Also shown are the corresponding values of z for comparison purposes. 64 REINFORCEMENT 6.4.1 General Requirements for providing reinforcement are covered in the respective design specifi- cations for concrete members (AASHTO Sec. 8, Part D). In all cases, attention should be paid to minimum sizes and types of bars permitted for use. For example, compres- sion reinforcement used to increase the strength of flexural members is to be enclosed by ties or stirrups of at least #3 bar for longitudinal bars that are #10 or smaller, and at least #4 bar for #11, #14, #18, and bundled longitudinal bars. Similarly, for com- pression members, at least six longitudinal bars in a square arrangement are required. ‘The minimum size of bars should be #5 (AASHTO 8.18.1.2). Because of practical and economic considerations, the use of #3 bar is generally not practical for longitudinal reinforcement in slab construction. Table A.20 (Appendix A) gives the area of a group of bars in a concrete member. Table A.21 (Appendix A) gives the minimum required beam widths for a given number of bars in a single leyer. Table A.22 gives the maxi- mum number of bars that can be placed in a single layer in a given beam width, with concrete having } in. and 1 in. size aggregates.398 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES 6.4.2. Flexural Reinforcement 6.4.2.1 Minimum reinforcement AASHTO 8.17.1 requires that at any section of a flexural member where tension reinforcement is required by analysis, the actual reinforcement provided should be suf- ficient to develop a moment at least 1.2 times the cracking moment, calculated on the basis of modulus of rupture for normal weight concrete (AASHTO 8.15.2.1.1): Ke= TS SRL (6.30) Me = f-S (631) where S = section modulus, based on uncracked section. 6.4.2.2 Spacing limits Spacing limits for reinforcing bars for bridges, different and generally more conser- vative than those for reinforced concrete buildings as recommended by the ACT [1995], are covered in AASHTO 8.20: 1, For cast-in-place concrete, the clear distance between parallel bars in a layer should not be less than 1} times the bar diameters, 1} times the coarse agetegate, or 1} in. 2. Where bars are placed in two or more layers, the bars in the upper layers should be placed directly above the ones in the lower layers. The clear distance between the bars in the two layers should not be less than 1 in. 3. Bundling of bars in a group is permitted. For bars #10 and smaller, a maximum of four bars can be bundled; for bars #11, #14, and #18, the number of bars in a bundle is limited to two. When the spacing limitations are based on bar diameter, a unit of bundled bars should be treated as a single bar of a diameter derived from the equivalent total area (AASHTO 8.21.5). 6.4.2.3 Protection against corrosion The ability of a structure to satisfactorily carry design loads over its design life with a minimum of maintenance problems is the intended goal of a good structural design; ice, structures should possess both strength and durability. Unfortunately, durability cannot be ensured by producing concrete of appropriate strength alone. It must be sup- plemented by providing adequate protection of concrete from aggressive media, Corro- sion of both the reinforcing and the prestressing steel is a disruptive phenomenon that is the cause of the most frequent and the most serious forms of degradation of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, Corrosion of reinforcing steel can be attributed to four main causes: carbonation or sulphation, chloride attack, inadequate cover, and cracks. It is an electrochemical phenomenon that initiates in the presence of chlorides, carbonates or sulfides, oxygen, and water that is generally furnished by the water in the pores of the concrete. When reinforcing bars are embedded in fresh concrete, with cement mortar surrounding steel, a thin coating of ferro-ferrous hydroxide forms on the surface of steel. This acts as a protective layer, thus passivating the steel surface [Mehta, 1986; Gerwick, 1993]; chlo- ride ions are the most common materials which can break down this passive protective layer. In addition to their presence in the water of the concrete mix, chlorides come fromcarrer 6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 399 marine environments and from salt spread on bridge decks to prevent icing. Sodium chloride from washed deicing salts can be splashed (by tires, for example) sideways over the parapets, bridge piers, and columns, with subsequent absorption up to 8 in. deep into the concrete [Bennison, 1987]. Corrosion adversely affects durability of concrete and is generally manifested by cracking or spalling of concrete, rust staining, corrosion of reinforcing steel, excessive deflection, and in extreme cases, failure of the member. Often, these phenomena are in- teractive, in that cracking of concrete leads to accelerated corrosion of reinforcing steel, followed by further spalling of concrete cover, exposing more steel [Gerwick, 1993]. In reinforced concrete, two broad categories of environmental factors affect durabil- ity: those causing or accelerating disintegration of or change in the concrete, and those causing or accelerating corrosion of steel. With proper design and good construction practice, corrosion damage can be mitigated. A detailed discussion of this topic is be- yond the scope of this book, but discussions can be found in several references [FIP, 1975; ACI, 1975, 1988; Gerwick, 1990; Mehta, 1991]. The single most effective measure to prevent corrosion of reinforcement in con crete is to produce concrete of very low permeability. Low permeability limits the penetration of chlorides and restricts the flow of oxygen and, in effect, lengthens the time for chlorides to reach reinforcing bars. Lower permeability and consequent in- crease in resistivity of concrete can be achieved by lower water-cement ratios. Most generally, corrosion involves concrete with water-cemeat ratios above 0.45 or 0.50. With the advent of superplasticizers, it is now possible to achieve water-cement ra- tios of 0.37 to 0.38, A summary of precautions and several countermeasures that can be taken to prevent corrosion of steel reinforcing bars in concrete is discussed by Gerwick [1993]. ‘An adequate protection to steel against fire and corrosion can be provided by a suf- ficient depth of concrete cover over the reinforcing bars. The minimum cover require- ments can be based on several criteria, namely, the compressive strength of concrete, the condition of exposure, the water-cement ratio, and the minimum cement content [Ben- nison, 1987]. AASHTO 8.22 requires the following minimum cleat cover (in inches), outside of the outermost steel, for protection of reinforcing bars from the environment: Concrete cast against and permanently exposed to earth cl) Concrete exposed to earth or weather Primary reinforcement 2 Stirrups, ties, and spirals iy Concrete deck slabs in mild climates ‘Top reinforcement Bottom reinforcement Concrete deck slabs that have no positive corrosion protection and are frequently exposed to deicing salts Top reinforcement 24 Bottom reinforcement 1 Concrete not exposed to weather or in contact with ground Primary reinforcement ly Stirrups, ties, and spirals 1 Conerete piles cast against or permanently exposed to earth 2400 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Note that these cover requirements are the minimum requirements recommended by AASHTO. In many states, depending on the environmental conditions, greater cover is mandated. For bundled bars, the minimum concrete cover is required to be equal to the equivalent diameter of the bundle, subject to a maximum of 2 in. If the bundled bars are used for concrete cast permanently exposed to earth, the clear cover is to be 3 in. Some states specify cover requirements based on the type of environment with respect to chloride concentration and call for increased concrete protection in corro- sive or marine environments, or in other severe exposure conditions, by increasing the denseness and imperviousness to water of the protecting concrete, or by other means. For example, the California Department of Transportation requires that elements in di rect contact with ocean water or ocean water spray conform to chloride concentrations between 10,000 and 20,000 ppm (parts per million) [CALTRANS, 1993a]. Its cover requirements for corrosion protection are shown in Table 6.4; the marine environment applies to other structural elements within 1000 ft of ocean or tidal water. Similarly, the British specifications [BSI, 1985] require different depths of concrete cover depending on the conditions of exposure (classified as mild, moderate, severe, very severe, and extreme) and the grade of concrete (C30, C35, C40, C45, and C50). TABLE 6.4 Minimum cover for reinforcement, (in.) (CALTRANS, 1993a] ee Environment __| Chloride concentration (ppm) 1000 0 | 5000 t0 | 10,000 0 Structural member or surface Normat | Marine | s000_| 10,000 | 20,000 Concrete east Piles 2 3 3 3 3 against andlor Footings 3 4 3 4 5 permanently Walls, 2 4 2 3 5 exposed to earth: | Columns: Flat and curved surfaces | 2 4 3 4 5 Comers 2 5 3 5 6 ‘Concrete exposed | “Top surfaces of decksiabs! [2 2 f=] = 25 to weather: Bottom surfeces of deck slabs ws | is-| — | — 25 Bottom slabs of box girder bridges ws fous | — | = 25 1: and Team webs and ‘outside faces of box ainder webs 1s 3 -|]- 3 Bottom ange bulb of pre- cast F- and Teams 1s 3 -|- 3 Curbs and railings 1 eo = Columns and caps: Flat surfaces 2 4 | e Comers 2 5 ~]- = Walls 2 3 Ss = Concrete not Principal i [as | — | - = exposed to weather | Strups, tis, and spirals 1 1 -|/- = oF not in contact with earth: "Special considerations are required in freezefthaw ares. 2Use epory-conted rebutcuarrer 6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 401 6.4.3 Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement AASHTO 8.20 stipulates that a minimum of 0.125 in.? of reinforcement per foot in each direction be provided for shrinkage and temperature near exposed surfaces of walls and slabs not otherwise reinforced. The spacing of such reinforcement is limited to a maximum of the smaller of three times either the wall or the slab thickness, or 18 in. To satisfy this requirement, it is a common practice to provide #4 bar @ 18 inches 0.c. in each direction; this gives a reinforcing area of 0.133 in.? in each direction. 6.4.4 Transverse Reinforcement AASHTO 3.24.10 stipulates that all reinforced concrete slabs be provided with distri- bution reinforcement, near the bottom fibers, placed perpendicularly to the main rein- forcement, to distribute concentrated loads laterally. The amount of such reinforcing steel is governed by the orientation of the main reinforcement with respect to direction of traffic: + For main reinforcement parallel to traffic (AASHTO Eq. 3.21): 224 Percentage of reinforcement = 4B but # 50% (6.32) s where S = effective span length. This requirement applies to slab bridges; the rein- forcement is to be provided in the bottom mat, placed above the main reinforcement. + For main reinforcement perpendicular to traffic (AASHTO Eq. 3.22): Percentage of reinforcement = 22 ut 67% (6.33) Js This reinforcement is required to be placed in the middle half of the span. Addition- ally, 50 percent of this reinforcement is to be provided in the outer quarters of the span (AASHTO 3.24.10.3). This requirement is applicable to slabs of T-beams and slabs supported over steel stringers. 65 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS In addition to the structural design of the slab and the T-beams, there are several con- structional details that are common to all types of bridges and that should be carefully considered in designing a bridge superstructure. These details are described briefly in the following paragraphs and will not be repeated in other chapters. 65.1 Diaphragms The subject of diaphragms was discussed in Chapter 4. In T-beam construction, they are provided between the beams at the ends and at some intermediate points along the span, and they are cast integrally with the slab and the webs. At the intermediate points,402. DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES they provide lateral support to beams, and when the abutmient does not extend above the bridge-seat level, the end diaphragms support the backfill. AASHTO 8.12 recommends providing diaphragms at the ends and at points of maximum positive moments for spans exceeding 40 ft. Generally, diaphragms are pro- vided at midspan or at the third-points. In the absence of any specific design require- ments, they are arbitrarily made 6 to 8 in. thick and provided with a nominal amount of reinforcement. When provided, the weights of diaphragms should be considered con- centrated dead loads to be carried by T-beams (and by any other beam or girder, for that matter). 6.5.2 Deck Joints To provide for expansion and contraction of the deck due to temperature and other causes, it is common practice to provide expansion joints in a bridge deck at the ex- pansion ends and at other desirable locations. Details for the expansion and contraction deck joints are spelled out in AASHTO Div. II, 8.9. In humid climates and areas subject to freezing, joints should be sealed to prevent erosion, filling with debris, and freezing- induced spalling. Experience has shown that expansion joints are a major source of su- perstructural maintenance problems as they malfunction over time. Consequently, there is a growing tendency to provide expansion joints at much greater intervals than before and, possibly, to provide jointless decks [Loveall, 1985; Wasserman, 1987; NCHRP- SYN, 1985, 1989]? The provision of expansion joints is a matter of construction details and practices that vary regionally; these provisions can be found in standard plans of bridge-owner agencies and are not discussed here. Because of the importance of the deck joints in bridges, special deck-joint systems are available from the industry [Koch, 1992}. 6.5.3 Bearings Bearings are devices provided at the abutments or piers and positioned between the bottom flanges of the beams and the top of the bridge seats. Basically, they serve the following important functions: 1. Uniformly distribute the concentrated horizontal and vertical loads due to beam reac- tions over bearing areas to eliminate highly localized stresses and resulting structural damage 2. Allow movements between the superstructure and the substructure (abutments and piers), and minimize the effects of loads due to volume changes resulting from shrinkage, creep, and temperature 3. For longer spans, allow rotations at the supports that will be caused by the deflection of the loaded beam A comprehensive discussion on the subject of bridge bearings can be found in the literature [Stanton and Roeder, 1982, 1983; Roeder and Stanton, 1983, 1991; Iversion For ad nal discussion on the subject, please see Chapter 3, Sec. 3.11—Temperature-Induced Forces.cuarters. Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 403 and Pfeifer, 1985; Pfeifer and Iversion, 1985; NCHRP, 1987; PBQD, 1992]. Design methods and requirements for bearings for highway bridges in the United States are given in AASHTO 14, 15, 19, 20, and Div. II, 18 [AASHTO, 1992a]. As opposed to the bearing devices of the past, which involved pins, rollers, rockers, and plates that required costly periodic maintenance [PBOD, 19921, the current trend is to use self lubricating elastomeric bearing pads such as PTFE (polytetrafiuoroethylene, Teflon be- ing a brand name version) bearing pads, which are fabricated from elastomers (elastic substances occurring naturally or produced synthetically, such as chloroprene or poly- chloroprene, manufactured and patented by du Pont under the trade name Neoprene). ‘These pads are of two types: plain, or unreinforced (consisting of elastomers only, gen- erally in single layer), and reinforced (consisting of alternate layers of steel, fiberglass, or fabric reinforcement—and elastomer, bonded together). These types of modern bear- ing pads have been found to be virtually maintenance free and highly effective in ac- commodating the necessary superstructural movements. The isolation of shock loads on structural members and minimization of vibrations between the contacting surfaces are some of the other important advantages of the elastomeric bearing pads. Of late, de- sign of bearing pads has become somewhat specialized and left to vendors [Voss, 1989, 1991; PBQD, 1992}. 6.5.4 Sidewalks, Curbs, Parapets, and Railings Sidewalks are usually provided for pedestrian traffic on bridges, generally carrying urban expressways, and wherever necessary. They should be of such widths as required by the controlling and concerned public agencies, but preferably not less than 4 ft [ACI, 1969]. When sidewalks are provided, they should be separated from the bridge roadway by the use of a suitable railing (AASHTO 2.7.3). Curbs and parapets are safety barriers provided parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bridge on both sides of the roadway, designed to prevent a moving vehicle from leaving the roadway. Both may be designed to form a combination curb and gutter section. Curbs are of two general types: parapets (nonmountable) and mountable curbs (also called brush curbs). Curbs are generally made 9 in, wide (maximum) and 8 to 10 in. high (AASHTO 2.2.5) with their inside faces sloping toward the roadway. Parapets are made of varying heights, but generally not less than 2 ft 6 in. high, and may be used in combination with the curbs. A typical parapet section (New Jersey type) is shown in Fig. 4.13. Curbs and sidewalks are poured after the hardening of the deck. Both should have vertical slits or other provisions of discontinuity to prevent them from resisting deck bending moments; this avoids any structural cracking. ' ‘AASHTO 2.7 mandates that railings be provided along the edges of the roadway for protection of traffic and pedestrians. Essentially, railings are safety devices provided to contain the vehicles. However, they also serve to protect the vehicle occupants in collision with the railing, to protect other vehicles near a collision, and to protect the ve- hicles or pedestrians on roadways underneath the bridge. Various kinds of railings are referred to as pedestrian railings, bicycle railings, traffic railings, combination traffic and pedestrian railings, and combination traffic and bicycle railings. AASHTO specifi- cations [1989, 1992b] provide current guide specifications for highway bridge railings.404 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES 6.5.5 Medians Lanes carrying the opposing traffic should preferably be carried on two separate struc- tures. However, when the width limitations dictate the use of the same bridge for lanes. of opposing traffic, they should be separated by traffic separators known as medians, usually of parapet sections 12 to 27 in. high. 6.5.6 Drainage Effective means of drainage, both transverse and longitudinal, should be provided on a bridge roadway. In those regions of the country where salts or deicing chemicals are not used, drainage of the deck is required only to prevent ponding of water in the travelled lanes. However, in the parts of the country subject to snow where salt is used as adeicing agent, positive drainage is a must to reduce high maintenance costs. General guidelines for drainage can be found in pertinent AASHTO specifications [AASHTO, 1991a,b]. However, most agencies with jurisdiction over bridges have their own specific policies and procedures for drainage. Vertical openings or drains through the deck are not efficient solutions for drainage because they invariably get clogged and become nonfunctional. The simplest solution to the drainage problem is to allow water to discharge over the side of the bridge. Transverse drainage is provided by a suitable crown in the deck (about } in./ft), and the longitudinal drainage by camber or gradient (AASHTO 1.5), all of which can be easily accomplished mechanically. For longitudinally horizontal bridges, a camber of 0.50 to 1.0 percent is generally provided to carry the water in the gutters to the ends of the span. Bridges built on a grade usually do not require any specific provisions for drainage. However, water flowing downgrade in a gutter section should not be permitted to run onto the bridge. Instead, it should be intercepted and discharged into a catch basin located off the bridge. Longitudinal drainage on long bridges should be provided by a sufficient number of scuppers or inlets of proper sizes. The details of deck drains should be such as to prevent the discharge of drainage water against any portion of the structure or on moving traffic below, and to prevent erosion at the outlet of the downspout. Overhanging portions of the deck should be provided with a drip bead or notch to prevent water from returning onto the bottom of the superstructure. 6.5.7 Roadway Width The width of the roadway oi a bridge is defined as the clear width measured at right angles to the longitudinal centerline of the bridge between the bottom of the curbs, or in their absence, the distance between the nearest faces of the bridge railing (AASHTO 2.1.2). The actual roadway width to be provided would depend on the number of traffic lanes and on the shoulder width, which in tum depend on the volume of traffic. Gen- eral guidelines for roadway widths suitable for various volumes of traffic are spelled out in pertinent AASHTO documents [AASHTO, 1992c,d]; however, practices may vary among states having jurisdictions over bridges. Usually, the roadway widths are at least the distances between the approach guardrails, if guardrails are provided, orcuarrer s: Design of Reinforced Conerete Bridges 405 they equal the width of the approach roadway section, including shoulders. Where a curbed roadway section approaches a bridge, the same section is carried across the bridge [AASHTO, 1992a, Article 2.3.1]. 6.6 DESIGN OF SLAB BRIDGES Slab bridges are characterized by simple or continuous concrete slabs spanning in the direction of traffic. They constitute the simplest type of highway bridges. Design of a reinforced concrete one-way slab to carry highway bridge loading is initiated by assum- ing a suitable thickness based on the minimum thickness requirements for deflection control, as stipulated in AASHTO 8.9.2 (see Chapter 5, Table 5.3). This gives the first estimate of the dead load due to the self-weight of the slab, to which the weight due to the wearing surface, say 25 to 35 Ib/f, is added to obtain the total dead load. The live load moments and shears are calculated according to the methods described in Chap- ter 4 and are multiplied by the factor (1 + 7) to account for the effect of impact. Note that, since the spans of the one-way slab bridges are usually under 35 ft, the value of the impact factor is 0.3. The slab is then designed for the sum of the dead and the live load moments (including impact). Note that the cost difference between a short span designed for HS15 and HS20 loading is generally less than 2 percent. The differences in reinforcing for continuous slab bridges designed for HS15 or HS20 loading, having 20-ft, 30-ft, and 40-ft end spans are only 0.3, 0.6, and 1.5 Ib/ft of the deck area, respec- tively. It is therefore recommended that all short-span concrete bridges be designed for HS20 loading (PCI, 1975]. Since the difference in the cost of Grade 40 and Grade 60 bars is not significant, itis also recommended that Grade 60 reinforcements be used for designing concrete bridges. Example 6.1 illustrates the design of a typical single-span reinforced concrete slab bridge. Both methods of design—the service load method and the load factor design—are illustrated. EXAMPLE 6.1. Design a two-lane reinforced concrete slab bridge for a clear span of 20 ft to carry HS20 loading. A provision of 30 Ib/ft? of dead load should be made in the design for the future wearing surface. The following data are given: f! = 3000 psi, Grade 40 reinforcement, clear width = 40 ft. Calculations, The design of a slab bridge essentially consists of two parts: design of the slab and design of the longitudinal edge beams. Design by the service load method: Design of slab. Assume 6 in, to the center of the bearings from the face of the abutments: 20+2x(§) = 21ft ‘The minimum slab thickness is given by AASHTO 8.9.3 (Table 5.3 in this text) for deflec- tion control: ‘S +10 toxin = 1.2 (3°) 22s 12) 1,24 ft406 _ DESIGN oF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Therefore, try a 15-in.-thick slab. Self-weight of slab = 1 x 1.25 x 150 = 187.5 Ib/ft? Wearing surface 30.0 Ib/ft? Total load 17.5 Ibi Dead-load moment Mp = wL?/8 = 0.2175 x (21)°/8 = 11,990 Ib-ft. To calculate live-load moment, the weight of one rear wheel of the HS20 truck (16 kips) is distributed over a width, E, per AASHTO 3.24.3.2: E = 440.065 = 4+0.06 21 = 5.26<7.0ft weight of one rear wheel ‘The weight on a unit width of slab = 3 16,000 = 3042 Ib ‘This 3042-1b load is treated as a concentrated load on a span of 21 ft, and the corresponding liye-load moment is PS 2 Mane = “FZ = 3042 F = 15,970 Ib-ft Compare this with moment due to HS20 lane loading. The lane load (both the uniform and the concentrated) is distributed over a width of 26; thus, 640 Tx5G = 60-8 pst The live-load moment due to this load is 2 2 My = ME 2 O8XQN _ 3959 est 8 8 The concentrated load is a TK526 ‘The moment due to this load is given by PL 1.711 X21 Moone was = FE = SUEXE = 1.711 kips = 8.98 kip-ft ‘The total live-load moment due to lane loading is, Mz = 3.352 + 8.98 = 12.332 kip-ft < 15.97 kip-ft (truck loading)! ‘Therefore, the truck loading governs. Use M = 15.97 kip-ft (the larger value): F 30 0 Impact: = 55 = 5 = 0342 >03 Hence, use J = 0.3 (maximum value). Thus, M; = 031597 = 4.79 kip-ft Moy = 11.99 +1597 + 4.79 32.75 kip-ftcuarrers: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 407 For f! = 3000 psi, n = 9 (Table A.14, Appendix A). For the design of rectangular sections, k = 0.351 and j = 0.883 (Table A.16, Appendix A). Thus, from Eq. 64, fo [ecm mame? 32.1502 mee oe Sekib tee ee cee ee Assuming #8 for main reinforcing bar, and 1 in. as clear cover, the total required slab thickness is h = 13.2+0.5 +1 = 14.7 in, Use h = 15 in,, required for deflection control. Then, the effective depth is d = 15 - 0.5 ~ 1.0 = 13.5 in. From Eq. 65, _ _32.75x12 ~ ).883 13. ‘Therefore, provide #9 @ 7 in, 0.c., Ay = 1.71 in. (Appendix A, Table A.19). Distribution reinforcement (AASHTO 3.24.10.2) Or 21 = 21.82% < 50% max. Therefore, Ay = 0.2182 x 1.65 = 0.36 in? Provide #6 @ 15 in. o.c., A, = 0.36 in2, di- rectly above and perpendicular to the main reinforcement. Percentage of reinforcement = 100/VS = Temperature reinforcement (AASHTO 8.20.1) Ay = § in? per ft in each direction. Provide #4 @ 18 in. 0.c, in each direction below the top face of the slab. Alll reinforcement details are shown in Fig. E6.1a, ‘Shear and bond (AASHTO 3.24.4), Slab designed for bending by the previous method is con- sidered satisfactory in shear and bond; hence, no further checking is necessary. Check for minimum reinforcement (AASHTO 8.17.1.1) fe = 75 Jf. = 7.543000 = 410.8 psi _ br 12x15? A Tee = 77 * 3375 in. = filer _ 410.8 X 3375 _ ay Mec = “iy = 7.5% 12,000 ~ 1941 Kot 12M, = 1.2 15.41 = 18.5 kip-f Mocsign = 32.75 kip-ft > 1.2Mc, = 18.5 kip-ft; OK. Railing Slab Curb-parapet FIGURE E6.la A reinforced concrete slab bridge.408 _ DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Fatigue stress limits (AASHTO 8.16.8.3). Fatigue stress limits are to be checked for the service load conditions, as provided by AASHTO Eq. 8.60. fy = 21 ~ 0.33 fin + 8(5) ‘The minimum stress level, fra, i8 caused by dead loads only. From service load design calculations, Mp = 11.99 kip-ft. = 2pe% st Ay = LTLin?, p = 55 = ayssaqg = 0.0106 From Table A.15 (Appendix A), for n = 9 and .0106 (by interpolation), k = 0.351 and j = 0.883. Therefore, the minimum stress, fnin, is Mg 21199112 Aid % 0.883 x 13.5 ‘The maximum stress is caused by the live load plus impact; the corresponding moment, including the dead-load moment, is Misi = 32.75 kip-ft. The corresponding stress in the main reinforcement is Soin = fa = = 7.05 ksi M 32.75 x 12 f= Tia ~ Tar xoaeaxias ~ 19-28ksi Thus, the actual stress range is fy = 19.28 — 7.05 = 12.23 ksi. According to AASHTO Eq. 8.60, fy = 2-033 X7.05 +8 X 0.3 = 21,08 ksi > 12.23 ksi Hence, the fatigue stress limit requirements are satisfied, Design of longitudinal edge beams. AASHTO 3.24.8 stipulates that edge beams be provided for all slabs having primary reinforcement parallel to traffic. Three alternatives are sug- gested for providing edge beams: 1. A slab section additionally reinforced 2. A beam integral with and deeper than the stab 3. An integrally reinforced section of slab and curb Although a safety curb would be provided for the bridge, it will be poured only after the slab has hardened (to facilitate screeding off the slab). As such, the curb is not considered an integral part of the longitudinal edge beam, which eliminates the second and the third alternatives. One would, therefore, choose the first alternative—an additionally reinforced section of the slab—as the longitudinal edge beam. Choose b = 24 in., so that the cross section of the longitudinal edge beam is 24 in. x 15 in. Provide a curb 10 in. high (standard depth), which gives the total height of the beam as 25 in, (for computing the self-weight). Self-weight (including the curb) = 24 x 25 x 42 = 625 Ib/ft ‘Weight of railing (assumed) 15 Ib/ft Total dead load Mp = 0.64 X (21)°/8 = 35.28 kip-ft ‘The live-load moment in a longitudinal edge beam is given by AASHTO 3.24.8.2: M1, = 0.10P29S = 0.10 X 16,000 x 21 = 33.6 kip-ft Mua = 35.28 + 33.6 = 68.88 kip-ft 640 lb/ftcuaerer 6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 409 ‘The required beam depth, with b = 24 in., can now be calculated from Eq. 6.4. With k = 0.351 and j = 0.883 for n = 9 (Table A.16, Appendix A), 2M 2XGOSXIZ 15 55 Fekjb ~ V12%0351 0883x247 With 1 in, cover and #8 as the main reinforcing bar, Arqiiea = 13.53+1+0.5 = 15.03in., say 15 in., as provided, The required reinforcement can now be calculated from Eq. 6.5: M_____68.88x 12 fiid ~ 20.0 X 0.883 X 13.5 ‘Therefore, provide four #9 bars, A, = 4.0 in? > 3.47 in.? (Table A.20, Appendix A). As = 3.47 in? Check for minimum reinforcement (AASHTO 8.17.1.1). From Eq, 6.30: Se = TS. Fe = 7.5 13000 = 4108 psi 2 Ig = 1 = 6750 int 12 ‘Then, from Eq. 6.31: = filer _ 410.8 x 6750 Hz 15 12,000, 12M, = 1.2 X 30.81 = 36.97 kip-ft Mocsign = 68.88 kip-ft > 1.2Mee = 36.97 kip Me = 30.81 kip-ft ; OK. Fatigue stress limits (AASHTO 8.16.8.3). Fatigue stress limits will be checked for the service load conditions. The permissible stress range is given by AASHTO Eq. 8.60: ee ‘The minimum stress level, fnin» is caused by dead loads only. From service load design calculations, Mp = 35.28 kip-ft. A, = 4.005 From Table A.15 (Appendix A), for n = 9 and p = 0.0123 (by interpolation), k = 0.373, Jj = 0.875. The minimum stress, therefore, is (from Eq. 6.5) M 35.28 X 12 A,jd ~ FOX 0873 x 135 p = Ajlbd = 4.00/24 x 13.5) = 0.0123 a 8.96 ksi ‘The maximum stress is caused by the live load plus impact; the corresponding moment, including the dead-load moment, is Miyai = 68.88 kip-ft. The corresponding stress in the main reinforcement is M__ __ 68.88 12 fea 1.0 x 0.881 x 13.: = 17.49 ksi Thus, the actual stress range, fy = 17.49 — 8.96 = 8.53 ksi. According to AASHTO Eq. 8.60, the permissible stress range is fy = 21 — 0.33 X 7.84 + 8 X 0.3 = 20.81 ksi > 8.53 ksi. Hence, the fatigue stress limit requirements are satisfied410 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES fo2'-o>} #5 dowels @14" f}-—- es" ie 7 * Li LETITIA IE TTEZ FEET ITI TTI ELIT a aA aA, eat 1s | wer" | #5@15" #4@18" | 20'-0" I= 6't 3" bituminous surface, crown 1h" Ca oe (@) Longitudinal section Tre : le Sa meee ees Gg) 101s" aus ‘Symmetrical LI #907" 488 about @—s Half roadway width ———————+} 2-0” (® Transverse section FIGURE E6.1b Reinforcement details (slab and the edge beams). Reinforcement details are shown in Fig. E6.1b. #5 dowels @ 18 in. o.¢., along with two #5 hanger bars, are provided for the entire lengths of longitudinal edge beams. Miscellaneous details. For effective drainage, the roadway surface is crowned by provid- ing varying thicknesses of the wearing surface across the deck cross section. According to AASHTO 8.5.1, devices for expansion and contraction due to temperature changes are to be provided at supports only for spans exceeding 40 ft. Thus, bearing pads are not required to be provided for slab bridges. Instead, the slab rests directly on the abutments—on the bridge seat precoated with a bituminous mixture—and fixed bearings are provided by plac ing vertical dowels usually @ 12 in. 0. along the length of the abutments. As shown in Fig. E6.1b, these dowels extend vertically 24 in. into the abutment and bend to extend 24 in, horizontally inside the slab. This detail also acts as a preventive measure against cracking that may occur near the abutment edges. Design by the load factor method: Design of slab, The following service load moments were calculated earlier: Mp = 11.99 kip-ft My = 15.97 kip-ft My = 4.79 kip-ftcuarreR 6; Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 411 These moments will be appropriately factored for a Group I loading combination per AASHTO 3.22.1 (see Table 3.12, Chapter 3). Bo x D + BL +1) 3 .0 for flexural members (see footnotes to Table 3.12) Br = 1.67 (or $) Thus, My = 1.3[11.99 + 1.67(15.97 + 4.79)] = 60.66 kip-ft. For flexure, @ = 0.9 (AASHTO 8.16.1.2). For a slab, b = 12 in., d = 13.5 in, (based on the minimum depth requirements, determined earlier). Thus, M, 60.99 x 12,000 Ghd? ~ VIXIZB.SP = 369.82 Ib/in? From Table A.17 (Appendix A), for M,/bd? = 369.0 Ib/in.? (close enough to 369.82 Ib/in.2), p = 0.0100, from which A, = 0.010 x 12 X 13.5 = 1.62 in? Therefore, provide #9 @ Tin. 0.c., A, = 1.71 in. (as in the case of the service load design method). Distribution reinforcement. This requirementis the same as in the case of service load design. Provide #6 @ 12 in. 0.c. directly above and perpendicular to the main reinforcement. ‘Temperature and shrinkage reinforcement. This requirement is the same as in the case of service load design. Provide #4 @ 18 in. o.c. in each direction under the top face of the slab. Check for minimum reinforcement (AASHTO 8.17.1.1). Calculations are the same as provided. earlier for the service load design, Fatigue stress limits (AASHTO 8.16.8.3). Fatigue stress limits are to be checked for the ser- vice load conditions, Calculations are the same as provided earlier for the service load de- sign. Design of longitudinal edge beams. From calculations for the service load design, one has the following values of design moments: Mp = 35.28 kip-ft M, = 33.6 kip-ft Thus, My = Y(Bp X D + 1.67B(L + 1] 1.3[1.0 X 35.28 + 1.67 x 33.6)] 118.81 kip-ft My _ M881 x 12,000 bb 0.9X24X 13.5" From Table A.17 (Appendix A), for M,/fbd? = 362.2 Ib/in.2, p = 0.0098, from which As = pbd = 0.0098 x 24 x 13,5 = 3.17 in? Therefore, provide four #9 bars, A, = 4.0 in.? > 3.17 in? (Table A.15, Appendix A). = 362.2 Ibfin?412 _ DESION OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Check for minimum reinforcement (AASHTO 8.17.1.1). These calculations are the same as provided eatlier for the service load design. Fatigue stress limits (AASHTO 8.16.8.3). Fatigue stress limit is to be checked for the service load conditions. Calculations for this are the same as provided earlier for the service load design. Since there has been no change in any type of reinforcement as a result of design by the load factor design method, the reinforcement details remain the same as those for design by the service load method (Fig, E6.1b). 6.7 DESIGN OF T-BEAM BRIDGES 6.7.1 General ‘T-beams are proportioned to conform to requirements as stipulated in AASHTO 8.10.1. Design of a T-beam consists of two parts: design of the transverse slab and design of the longitudinal beam of a T-section. The basic design procedure, similar to that used for T- beams in buildings, involves determination of three dimensions: the slab thickness, the spacing of webs, and the size of webs. Accordingly, the design of a T-beam is a two-step process. The first step is to design the slab, spanning continuously over the webs, per AASHTO 3.24.3.1, case A (main reinforcement perpendicular to traffic). The T-beam, spanning longitudinally between abutments or piers, with a portion of the slab acting as its top flange, is designed next. Design of a T-beam for highway bridges is initiated by selecting a suitable flange thickness as stipulated in AASHTO 8.11.1. For one-way slabs (main reinforcement parallel to traffic), the minimum thickness is governed by deflection control require- ments (AASHTO 8.9.2); the earlier editions of the AASHTO specifications stipulated the same minimum thickness requirements for the flanges of T-beams (main reinforce- ment perpendicular to traffic) also. However, these requirements for T-beam flanges were deleted in the later editions, and there are none in the current AASHTO specifi- cations [AASHTO, 1992a]. The reasoning behind this deletion appears to be the fact that, for a continuous slab spanning (transversely) over closely spaced supports (webs of T-beams), the deflection, being very small, does not constitute the governing factor. In the absence of any specifics, some engineers still use the same old requirements as a guide for the initial selection of the flange thickness, however. This minimum thickness may be superseded on the higher side by the regional or the agency requirements, for various reasons. The slab is designed to resist transverse bending due to loads that include its own weight, the wearing surface, and the live load plus impact. In a T-beam construction, «the slab is cast monolithically with the webs; accordingly, the span is taken as the clear distance between the webs (S). Because this distance is rather small, the value of the impact factor for slab design is always 0.3. In the absence of a definite expression to be used for calculating the dead-load moments (none are given in the AASHTO specifica- tions), a coefficient of 1}; is generally used for both the positive and the negative design moments (i.e., M = +wS?/10). For the T-beam design, the usual trial and error procedure is followed. Initially, a suitable (but minimum) depth of the T-section is selected based on the requirementscuarrer6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 413 of defiection control (AASHTO Table 8.9.2). A web width in the 12 to 15-in. range is selected arbitrarily for the initial trial section, to be modified later as necessary. A portion of the transverse slab is assigned to the T-section as its compression flange. The width of this portion of the slab that can be associated with the T-section as its compression flange is known as the effective flange width and was discussed in Chap- ter4. A comprehensive discussion of the concept of effective flange width can be found in the literature (Wang, 1953: Lee, 1962; Severn, 1962, 1964; Timoshenko and Goadier, 1970; Cheung and Chan, 1978; Sabins, 1979; Bakht and Jaeger, 1985]. For design purposes, the effective flange width should be the least of the following (AASHTO 8.10.1.1): 1. 41, where L = span 2. Six times the slab thickness + web thickness (61, + by) 3. The distance between the centerlines of adjacent webs Having selected the initial cross section of the T-beam, the self-weight of the beam is calculated, The sidewalks (where provided), safety curbs, and parapets are cast after the T-beams have hardened; accordingly, their weight, including that of the railings and the wearing surface, often referred to as the superimposed dead load, can be distributed equally to all T-beams. The dead-load moments are caused by the self-weight of the beam and the superimposed dead load. Moments and shear due to the live load and impact are calculated as discussed in Chapter 4, and the T-beam is designed for the total loads. The span length is taken as the clear span plus the depth of the T-beam, which need not exceed the distance between the centers of supports (AASHTO 8.8.1). The spacing of T-beam webs is a crucial factor affecting the economics of the T- beam flooring, which must be decided by the designer; however, there are no relevant criteria in the specifications. Although a larger web spacing would result in a smaller number of T-beams (and less formwork), it will also result in a relatively thicker slab and a deeper web. This is so because the live-load moment in the slab and the live-load distribution factor for the T-beam are both directly proportional to the clear web spacing. The determination of a specific combination of these parameters that would result in the east weight of a T-beam flooring is a problem of structural optimization, One should remember, however, that the least weight does not necessarily translate into the least cost, because the solution of the least-weight problem does not involve the cost function. Variations in local prices and in the availability of skilled labor and materials render the cost function highly indeterminate, which makes coupling the least-weight and the least-cost parameters almost impossible. From a practical standpoint, however, one may select initially a desirable slab thickness (74 to 84-in. range) based on the deflection and vibration control, or any other requirements (e.g., the minimum depth set by the owner agencies for practical reasons), and determine the slab span (web spacing) for which this thickness would be adequate. The spacing of webs should also be such that, preferably, the exterior T-beams would have the same flange widths as the interior ones. The clear roadway width to be carried across the bridge also influences the spacing of the webs to some extent. The total width of the slab, which equals the clear roadway width plus the widths of two parapet curbs, should be divided by a suitable whole number to arrive at the required number of webs. A few trials should give reasonably satisfactory spacings of the webs, usually in the 54 to 8.0-ft range.414 _pesow or MoveRN mona BaroGeS 6.7.2. Examples Example 6.2 illustrates the basic design procedure for a two-lane highway bridge car- rying HS20 loading. Although the calculation of maximum design moment in the slab and the T-beam is simple and straightforward according to the AASHTO method, the maximum design moment and shear in the T-beam at various locations along the span involves lengthy computations involving influence lines owing to the moving nature of the highway loads. EXAMPLE 6.2. Design a reinforced concrete T-beam bridge for a span of 40 ft between centers of bearings for HS20-44 loading carrying two traffic lanes 10-ft wide each and 6-ft shoulder widths on each side. Sidewalks are not required but standard parapets should be provided with railing (15 Ib/ft) on each side. A provision of 15 Ib/ft of dead load should be ‘made in the design for the wearing surface. Use f = 4000 psi and Grade 40 reinforcement. ‘The deck and the webs of the T-beams are to be cast monolithically. Assume the distance between the centerline of bearings and the face of the support is 15 in, Live-load deflection is to be limited to L/800, Calculations. The slab is to be supported as shown in Fig. E6.2a. A curb-to-curb roadway width of 32 ft has been arbitrarily selected (two 10-ft-wide lanes plus two 6-ft-wide shoul- ders) for this example. With the bottom width of the parapet curbs at 1 ft9 in. on each side, the total width of the slab comes to 35 ft 9 in, The slab is assumed to be supported by six ‘T-beams, so that each would have a flange width of 5 ft 11 in, A width of 3 in. has been added on each side of the parapet curb, resulting in a total slab width of 36 ft and a flange width of 6 ft, a convenient number (instead of 5 ft 11 in.). Elevation jp_ ________ 1g. 1+ 16'- "ae ps 3 —6 6 Fe Cross section FIGURE E6.2a Bridge cross section,cuaprer«. Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 415 Service load design (AASHTO 8.15): Design of slab Spacing of T-beams = 6 ft in, Estimated stem size = 15 X33, Estimated concrete slab thickness = 74 Asphalt wearing surface = 15 Ib/ft? Slab span: S 00 — #8 = 4.75 ft Minimum slab thickness (AASHTO Table 8.9.2 and Chapter 5 of this text): 1, = St10 _ 475 +10 2 0 = 20) ‘This is less than the assumed slab thickness of 7.5 in. Hence, use a 7. clear span = = 0,492 ft = 5.9 in, Self-weight of slab = (3) 1x 150 = 94 Ibi Wearing surface = 15 Ib/ft Total load w = 109 lb/ft = £0.25 k-ft x 16.0 = £2.70 kip-ft 50 Impact factor, 1 = 755 50 © TS +125 = 0.39 > 0.3 (maximum value permitted) Therefore, use J = 0,3 (maximum value). Hence, Mys = 2,70 x 1.3 = 351 kip-ft. Total design moment, Mr = 0.25 +3.51 = 3.76 kip-ft, With f. = 0.4 X 4000 = 1600 psi and f; = 20,000 psi, the design coefficients are (Table A.14, Appendix A) j= 087 k= 039 S 2X 3.76 X 12,000 © V 1600039 x 0.87 x12 = 3.72in.416 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Assuming #5 bars for the main reinforcement and 2 in, clear cover, fags = 3.72+ 4% 0,625 + 2 = 6.03 in. < 7.5 in, (min.), With t = 7.5 ind = 7.5~0.31—2 = 5.19 in. M As fia _ 37x12 © 20X08TXS.19 0.5 in? Provide #5 @ 7 in. 0.c. both at top and bottom. Ag = 0,53 in? > 0.5 in, reqd. Distribution steel: AASHTO 3.24.10, According to AASHTO Eq. 3.22 220 _ 200 As = = = a= = 92% > 67% (maximum required) vs Ja75 ms Hence, provide 67 percent of the main reinforcement as the distribution reinforcement. As, dist = 0.67 X 0.53 = 0.36 in? Therefore, provide #5 @ 10 in. o.c., A, = 0.37 in? This reinforcement is to be pro- vided directly over and perpendicular to the main reinforcement in the middle half of the deck span. At least half of this reinforcement should be placed in the outer quarters of the spans, to act as temperature and shrinkage reinforcement. Temperature steel: AASHTO 8.20 As = 4 in2/ft of slab Provide #4 @ 18 in. 0.c. (A, = 0.13 in.) directly under and perpendicular to the top reinforcement. All slab reinforcing details are shown later in Fig. E6.2. Interior girders 12in, Span (between centers of bearings) = 40 ft Distance between the center line of the bearing to the face of the support Spacing of T-beams = 6 ft 0 in, Depth of T-beam = 0.075 (AASHTO Table 8.9.2) = 0.07 x 40 = 2.8 ft = 33.6 in. Assume a total beam depth of 33 in. and a stem width of 15 in. as the initial trial section. In the absence of any controlling design criteria for the web size, its dimensions will be selected on the basis of shear, as shown later. Dead load Weight of slab @ 109 Ib/f? = 0.10960 = 5541Ib/ft Weight of T-beam stem = 15 x 25.5 x 4§9 481 Ib/ft ‘Total dead load w = 1052 lb/ft = 1.052 kt Mp = gwl? = } X 1.052 x (40) = 210.4 k-ft Vp = $x 1.052 x 40 = 21.04 kipscuarters: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 417 Le] peersstem fern Te dist. steel ay" and bottom Web} | FIGURE E6.2b Slab reinforcing details (web reinforcing not shown). Live load. The maximum live-load moment (LLM) can be computed from the influence line (IL, Fig. E6.2c). The maximum LLM occurs at 17.67 ft from support. The maximum dead- load moment is calculated at this point to be combined with the maximum live-load moment. ‘The LLM due to one HS20 truck is M;, = 32(9.864 + 3.68 + ! x 2.409) = 449.8 k-ft. Alternatively, the maximum LLM due to one HS20 truck can be read directly from Table AS (Appendix A) for HS20-44 loading: My = 449.8 ft-kips. Disteibution factor, DF. = : % = 50 50. 504125 © 40+125 10 Impact factor, 03 2.049 FIGURE E6.2¢ Influence line for maximum live-load moment.418 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Therefore, the design live-load moment including the impact is Myst = (LLM due to one track) (4) (Dist. factor) (1 + 1) = 449.8 x 3 X 1.0 X (1 + 0.3) = 292.5 k-ft In this calculation, the factor } has been used to convert the LLM due to one truck (two ‘wheel lines) to LLM due to one line of wheels, and the factor 1.0 (distribution factor = S/6) has been used to take into effect the number of wheel lines associated with one T-beam based on spacing of T-beams. The maximum dead-load moment at x = 17.67 ft from the support can be computed from the same IL diagram as for the live load. S20 truck S20 truck ka Pedpeia3P ) H1S20 truck S20 truck SSS petee see be hs k= 2G) = 133? © FIGURE E6.2d Critical transverse positions of truck due to wheel loads at the end of the beam.charter 6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 419 Mp = w X area under the IL diagram = 1.052 x ( x 40 x 9.864) = 207.5 ket Mrwa = 207.5 + 292.5 = 500.0 k-ft ‘The maximum shear in the T-beam is to be computed according to the provisions of AASHTO 3.23.1 (see discussion in Chapter 4, Sec. 4.7.2.2. and Fig. 4.17). Transversely, the HS20 truck (ie,, the axles) can be placed laterally in any one of the three positions shown in Fig. E6.2d. Axle positions in Figs. E6.2d(b) and E6.2d(c) give the same maximum reaction R, which is larger than that given by axle positions E6.2d(a). Note that Fig. B6.2d is similar to Fig. 4.17(c), drawn for the specific case of $ = 6 ft. Thus, R = 1.33P 1.33 X 16 = 21.33 kips. Note also that according to AASHTO, the rear wheel is positioned at the end of and directly over the T-beam (or the girder) (Fig. 4.17(a)), and it is assumed that itis not laterally distributed to other T-beams. The load due to the middle and the front wheels is assumed to be laterally distributed to other T-beams (see Example 4.1 in Chapter 4). Therefore, values of the middle and the front wheel loads associated with one T-beam (or girder) are obtained by multiplying the actual values of wheel loads by the same distribution factor as used for moment (ie., '5/6.0 = 6.0/6 = 1.0). The maximum live-load shear in the T-beam is obtained from the IL. for maximum reaction at support (Fig. E6.2e). Thus, load at the end _ inf. line ordinates Z “ N Vi.suppon = 21.33 + (16 X 1.0 X 0.65) + (4 x 1.0 x 0.3) = 32.93 kips x a distribution factors Vins = 32.93 x (I+ 0.3) = 42.81 kips FIGURE E6.2e Influence line for maximum shear at the support.420 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES ‘The maximum shear at the support due to the dead load is also computed from the IL. for maximum reaction: Vosupon = WX area under the IL diagram 1,052 x (} x 40 X 1.0) 21.04 kips 21.04 + 42.8: = 63.85 kips ‘As pointed out earlier, before designing the section for flexure, the web will be checked for shear. The reason for this first step is that the web must have a certain minimum cross- sectional area to resist shear. If the selected cross section of the T-beam works out to be adequate for this purpose, proceed with the flexural design. If not, the cross section of the T- beam will need to be revised, and rechecked for shear before proceeding to flexural design. The allowable shear stress in concrete is (AASHTO 8.15.5.2.1) ve = 0.95 Jf ‘The allowable shear to be carried by shear reinforcement is (AASHTO 8.15.5.3.9) 4.0 Jf! Therefore, the total allowable shear is given by v= 495 /fr = 4.95 (4000 = 313 psi Since v = V/byd (AASHTO Eq. 83), the minimum web area required to resist shear is Vroea VV bud = % ve _ 63.85 ESE} = 204 in? Assuming that two or more layers of flexural reinforcement will be required, a distance of 6 in, is assumed from its centroid to the bottom of the web; thus d = 33 - 6 = 27in., and byd = 15 X27 = 405 in.? > 204 in?, as required. 6 }-— ss —+|cuapter©: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 421 Calculate A, for flexure assuming d = 27 in. and the compression resultant at 41 (¢ = slab thickness) from the top fibers: M___ __500x12 Fd =) ~ BOXAT= TD Provide eight #11 bars (Ay = 12.50 in., Table A.20, Appendix A) as shown; their centroid is located at 2.98 in. above the centroid of the bottom layer: A 12.38 in? 3ar" TGs y = 12 X682+3X 3.41) = 2.98 in, d = 33~2~ 0,625 ~ 1.41/2~2.98 3 — 6.31 = 26.69 in. Now, calculate the moment of resistance of the cross section of the T-beam. Check whether the neutral axis lis in the flange or the web by taking about the flange-web interface the moments of the flange and that of the transformed area of the reinforcement (n = 8). The effective flange width bis to be the least of the following (AASHTO 8.10.1.1): 1. Li4 = 40 x 12/4 = 120in, 2. cle of webs = 6X 12 = 72in. 3. 26 Xt) + by = 2X6X7.5 +15 = 105in, Hence, be = 72 in, Check if the neutral axis (N.A.) is located in the flange or the web. This is easily done by comparing the moments of areas of the flange and the transformed area of tensile reinforcement (nA,) taken about the flange-web interface: + 72" a | aes ater | 4, | 263". Spe - - 33" al Is Beam cross section TAX TSX 7.52 2 8X 12.5 x (26.69 - 7.5) 2025 > 1919, hence, the N.A. lies in the flange.422 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Taking moments about the top fibers, one has 72 x y*/2 = 8 X 12.5 x (26.69 - y), which yields y = 7.33 in.; ie., kd = 7.33 in, , kd jd=d-5 7.33 = 26.69 — —— = 24,25 in, c a Tr m= Agia = 2 eae 5 = 505.2 k-ft > 500.0 k-ft; OK Now, check shear stress. Shear reinforcement is to be designed for shear at a distance d = 26.69 in. from the face of support (or 26.69 + 2 = 32.69 in., say, 33 in, from the center of support, which is 55.07 kips (AASHTO 8;15.5.1.4)). Note that the support width has been assumed to be 12 in. +H all Shear at a distance d = 2 ft 9 in, from the support ‘The maximum shear stress in the beam is vg = = = 55.07 1000 ms = Dod ~ 15% 26.69 ‘The shear stress that can be carried by concrete alone is, Ve = 0.95 JF! = 0.95 4000 = 60 psi Therefore, the shear stress to be carried by web reinforcement is, Vacet = Vax ~ Ye = 137.6 ~ 60 = 77.6 psi Maximum shear permitted to be carried by web reinforcement is (AASHTO 8.15.5.3.9) 4/fe1 = 4/4000 = 253 psi > 77.6 psi; OK Hence, the web section is adequate for shear. = 137.6 psicusrreRs: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 423 Select #5 U-stirrups, A, = 0.61 in? The required spacing is calculated from AASHTO Eq, 8.7: Whe (Crna 77.6 X 15 Maximum permissible spacing = d/2(AASHTO8.19.3) = 26.69/2 = 13,35in. > 10.48in. Therefore, provide #5 U-stirrups at9 in. 0.c. Minimum shear reinforcement is to be provided according to AASHTO 8,19.1.1(b) in the region where Jv. = v.. With #5 U-stirrups, this spacing is calculated from AASHTO Eq. 8.64: Avfy _ 0.61 x 40,000 50by ~~ 50X15 ‘The next step will be to calculate the moment at selected points along the span, by determining the required flexural reinforcement at those points and the points of cutoff of ficxural reinforcement. This step is demonstrated for the load factor design method, which follows the calculations for the exterior girder. 32.53 in. Exterior girders. For simplicity in design and construction, the exterior girders are pro- vided the same cross section as the interior girders. In addition to the dead-load moment due to the wearing surface and its own weight, itis assumed, conservatively (see Chapter 4), that the weight of the parapet curb is carried entirely by the exterior girder, Dead load From calculations for the interior girder, w Weight of the parapet curb (see Chapter 4) 1052 lb/ft 505 lb/ft Total we 557 Ibs Mp = }wl? = } x 1.557 x (40% = 3114 ket It was determined earlier that the maximum live-load moment occurs at 17.67 ft from the support. The dead-load moment at this point is found from the influence line as before. By proportion to dead-load for the interior girder (1.052 k/ft), 1.557 Mp = 207.5 X (as) = 307.1 k-ft Live load. For the live-load moment, the wheel loads are to be placed as shown in Fig. 3.7.7A. of AASHTO [1992a], and the live-load distribution factor will be calculated in accordance with AASHTO 3.23.2.3.1.2 (discussed in Chapter 4). For our case, the position of live load will be as shown in Fig. E6.2f, ‘The distribution factor, by the lever rule, DF = 5.25/6 = 0.875. 1=03 Misr = 449.8 X $x 0.875 X13 = 255.8 k-ft Mra, = 307.1 + 255.8 = 562.9 k-ft This value is higher than the moment of resistance of the interior girder (505.2 ‘The required increase is provided by an extra #11 bar (for 9 total #11 bars, Ay = 14.06 i424 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES \ fi | | | I T a. Lh ee FIGURE E6.2f Position of live load for the exterior girder. | 7 0" Table A.20, Appendix A) for the flexural reinforcement, as shown. The centroid of rein- forcing steel now passes through the middle row of the reinforcement. mn emaeeee 2) t a ~ t j—2:3°| 26.26" je1s'| d = 33-2-0.625 -141-2- 1412 = 26.26 in, Determine the location of the N.A. Check if it is located in the flange or the web, by ‘comparing the moments of areas of the flange and the transformed area of tensile reinforce- ment (nA,) taken about the flange-web interface: T2X TD 2 8 X 14.06 * (26.26 ~ 7.5) 2025 < 2110; hence, the N.A. lies in the web. 2X15 x (3.15 + y) + 15y?2 = 8 X 14.06 x (18.76 - ) "7.5y? + 652.48y — 85 = 0 which yields y = 0.13 in, inside the web), which is very small. For simplicity, this small distance of 0.13 in. will be ignored and the N.A. will be assumed to lie at the flange-web interface. Calculate the moment of inertia of the cracked section and check stresses. Teg = T2.X (7.5)? + 8 X 14,06 & (26.26 — 7.5) = 49,711 in*cuarrer 6; Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 425, My, _ 562.9% 12,000%7.5 _ . £0 = 1019 psi (Mye\ _ gy, (5629 x 12,000 X 18.76 49,711 ) = 20,393 psi ‘The overstress in tensile reinforcement is ‘20,393 — 20,000 ~ In view of the conservative approach used here, this slight overstress is considered insignif- icant and acceptable. Shear, The dead load is w = 1.557 W/ft, and Vp = LwL = } X 1,557 x 40 = 31.14 kips, ‘The live-load shear is computed in the same manner as for the interior T-beam (see Fig, £6.2g for the influence line). The rear wheel (16.0 kips) is positioned just at the support, and is not subject to lateral distribution.? The middle (16.0 kips) and the front wheel (4.0 ips) are positioned 14 ft and 28 ft, respectively, away from the rear wheel. Both these loads are subject to lateral distribution. Thus load at end inf, line ordinates “ ¢ N Vesuppon = 16.0 + (16.0 X 0.875 x 0.65) + (40 x 0.875 x 0.3) N 7 distribution factor = 26.15 kips Approach slab 2 ram Lg of support os Mies 26 #5 Ustimups @ 9” OC. ; Oy ERD A EACH RICO LEELA, { I Tal ttt i 7 eh tt 20° i Pe Ate pe pci hail Abb Pease bss Ey sEhS 6-8" T : ag f—Abutment Extra stimup Maypical S241 3 #11 QZ Details symmetrical about ¢ of span 0. 1 . Details of Interior Girder ‘Saat nt shown of roadway FF = t 1-3 #6 in 14 diaphragm 49°13" rsrhara}el Cross Section FIGURE E6.2g Reinforcing details for the T-beam bridge, To be conservative, the lever rule has not been applied here,426 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Vier = 26.15 X (1 +.0.3) = 34.0 kips Vraat = Vo + Vier 31.14 + 34.0 = 65.14 kips ‘The maximum shear permitted in the T-beam is Veax = Vnaxbwdl _ 313 X 15 X 26.26 ~ 1000 123.3 kips > 65.14 kips Hence, the section is adequate for shear. Calculations for bar cutoffs for the flexural reinforcement and the web reinforcement are not shown here; these are similar to those forthe interior girders, Details of reinforcement are shown later in Fig. B6.2g. Load factor design (AASHTO 8.16). All loads (moments and shears) were calculated earlier. ‘These values will be used for calculating the factored loads. Design of stab Group (N) = y[BpD + Bx(L+] (AASHTO Eq. 3.10) For group I, y = 1.3, Bp = 1.0, By = 1.67 From previous calculations, Mp = 0.25 k-ft, Mr+r = 3.51 k-ft My = 1.3(1.0 x 0.25 + 1.67 X 3.51) = 7.95 k-ft With the minimum slab thickness of 7.5 in., #5 bar for flexural reinforcement, and 2 in. cover, d = 5.19 in., as before. Thus, M, _ _7.95 x 12,000 bd? 09X 12x G19 With f! = 4.0ksiand f, = 40ksi, p = 0.0086 by interpolation (Appendix A, Table A.17). fy As = phd = 0.0086 X 12 X 5.19 = 0.54 in? ‘Therefore, provide #5 @ 6.5 in. o.¢. of main reinforcement, as before: Ay = 0.67 x 0.54 = 0.36 in.” ‘Therefore, provide #5 @ 10 in. 0.c., Ay = 0.37 in? ‘The temperature steel = { in.”/ft of slab, so provide #4 @ 18 in. 0.c. = 327.94 psi » As = 0.57 in? The distribution of steel is 67 perceat Fatigue stresses, Fatigue stresses need not be checked for deck slabs with primary reinforce- ‘ment perpendicular to traffic and designed in accordance with AASHTO 3.24.3. Design of interior girders. From calculations for the service load design, Mp = 207.5 k-ft, and Myx, = 292.5 k-ft. Therefore, -3[BpD + Bi(Mi+1)) .3[1 X 207.5 + 1.67°X 292.5] = 904.8 k-ft My, = Mul = 904,8/0.9 = 1005.33 k-ftcuaprer 6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 427 For the initial trial, use the same section as that for the service load design, and revise it as necessary. Assume nine #11 bars in three rows, and assume d = 33-7 = 26 in. Assume the lever arm, z, as the larger of 0.9d or (d — hy/2), where hy is the thickness of the compression flange: 2 = 0.9d = 0.9 26 = 23.4 in, — use (larger value) z= d—hy2 = 26-752 = 225 in. M_ _ 1005.33 x12 _ Tiel steel area, ay = 7 = OE = 12.89 0’ ‘The corresponding value of the compression area is Ag = fe. 4071289 = 151.65 in? O8sf ~ “O85x4 The flange area of the T-section is Ay = 72 X 7. compression block lies entirely in the flange, and = 540 in? > 151.65 in.? Hence the “Fas 211 in This gives a new trial value of z = d — a/2 = 26 — 2.1/2 = 24.95 in. 1005.33 x 12 _ 2 40% 2495 ~ '%09in Sods _ 120940 _ eB Ac sf O8sx4 142.23 in.’ 142.23 ‘ a= = .98 in, This gives a new trial value of z = d — a/2 = 26 ~ 1.98/2 = 25.01 in. _ 1005.33 x 12 _ A 4 “goxzsor ~ 1206in SyAs _ 40 12.06 in? Ae = 085 fi ~ “08Sx4 141.88 in. 141.88 : Ce re 1.97 in. ‘This gives a new trial value of z = d — a/2 = 26 — 1.97/2 = 25,02 in. — 1005.33 x12 _ ae Fi A= xo = 12.05 in.’ = 12.06 in.’, as before. Provide eight #11 bars (A, = 12.5 in?, Table A.20, Appendix A) as in the case of service load design, and check the nominal moment capacity of the beam, For this reinforcement layout, d had been calculated as 26.69 in, Af _ 12.5040 Sx fib 0BSX4xX72 My, = Asfy(d ~ al2) = 12.5 x 40(26.69 — 2.04/2\/12 = 1069.6 k-ft which is greater than the required value of M, = 1005.33 k-ft, and is therefore acceptable. a = 2.04 in,428 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Check for Pam. Calculate the depth of the neutral axis from the strain diagram (AASHTO 8.16.3.1.2). &=0.003 2 y | ey 625 /E,= OE, =0.00138 c 26.69 0003 ~ 0.003 + 0.00138 c= 18.28 in. a = Bic = 0.85 x 18.28 = 15.54 in, Hence, the compression area extends inside the web by (15.54 ~ 7.5) = 8.04 in, The total compression area, Ac, is le Y s }-15"| Ac = 72X75 + 15 X 8.04 = 660.6 in? C = 0.85 x fide = 0.85 X 4 x 660.6 2246 kips Tax = 0.75 X 2246 (AASHTO 8.16.3.1.1) 1684.5 kips Treut = Ap fy = 12.50 X 40 = 500 kips < 1684.5 kips; OK Check for paia- Unlike the requirements for buildings (per ACI code, pai = 200/f,), the requirements for the minimum reinforcements are given by AASHTO 8.17.1.1: $M, = 12M, (AASHTO Eq, 8.62) f= 75JVf (AASHTO 8.15.2.1.1) 7.5 x 4000 = 474.34 psicuarrer 6; Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 429 Locate the centroid of the concrete section (to calculate the moment of inertia of the gross section) by taking moments about the top fibers: A= 72X75 +15 X 25.5 = 922.5 in? 2 922.59 ae +15X25.5.x (s + 38) = 2025 + 7745.6 = 9770.6 0.59 in. from which ¥ _—— sl a A 72x (1.5) +72 X75% 10.59 ~ 75) 2 : : 2 +5 X15 x (10.59 ~ 7.50) + x 15 x (33.0 — 10.59)? 1531.25 + 25,264.22 + 147.52 + $6,274.42 54,217 in " Alternatively, the gross moment of inertia of the T-beam can be calculated from Table A.23 (Appendix A). For the present case, t/ = 7.5/33 = 0.2273, and b'/b = $ = 0,2083, For these values, C = 0.39059 (by interpolation). Therefore, I, = bbw(C) X72 x (33)? x 0.39059 = 84,220 int which is almost the same as the preceding value of Iy. Me = is (AASHTO Eq 8.2) 474.34 X 84,217 © 22.41 X 12,000 = 148.55 k-ft 1.2Mg. = 1.2 X 148.55 = 208.13 k-ft $M, = 0.9 X 1069.6 = 962,6 k-ft > 1.2Mz = 208.13 k-ft; OK Fatigue stress limits (AASHTO 8.16.8.3). Due to service loads, Mr+1 = 292.5 k-ft. The cen- ttoid of the cracked section is located at 7.33 in, from the top of the flange (see calculations for the service load design).430 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES | Kw Z 7 3 a 1 us| Ta = X72 X (1.33) +8 X 12.5 X (26.69 — 7.33 = 46,933 in.* Stress in reinforcement due to Mz. is 292.5 X-12,000 x 19.36 46,933 a Sint = (8) 11,583 psi ‘The minimum stress, firin, occurs due to dead load, Mp = 207.5 k-ft. By proportion, finin = 11,583 x (207.5/292.5) = 8217 psi. fy = 21 — 0.33 finn + 8(71h) (6.24) = 21 — 0.33 x 8.271 + 8(0.3) = 20.688 ksi > fis) = 11.583 ksi, OK Check for shear, Refer to the calculations for service load design. Vy = 1.3[BpD + BL + D) = 1.3(.0 x 21.04 + 1.67 x 42.81) = 120.3 kips Vy = Vale = 120.3/0.85 = 141,53 kips Ik ff—2-9" Shear at a distance d from face of left 20 support. Atadistance d = 26.69 in. from the face of support (ie., 33 in, or2.75 ft from the centerline of support), V, is calculated to be 20.0 . : Vn = 141.53 x ( 20.0 ) = 122.1 kips ‘The shear resistance of concrete is calculated from AASHTO Eq. 8.49 because of its sim- plicity, instead of from AASHTO Eq. 8.48: Ve =2Vfibud (AASHTO Eq. 8.49) = 2.4000 x 15 Xx 26.69 = 50.6 kips Vs = Vn- Ve = 122.1 - 50.6 1.5 kipscharrer 6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 431 Vemax = 8 J fibyd (AASHTO 8.16.6.3.9) = 8x 4000 x 15 x 26.69 = 202.6 kips > V, = 71.5 kips; OK 4 J Filbud = 4x (4000 x 15 x 26.69 = 101.3 kips > V, = 71.5 kips Hence, Smmux = d/2 (AASHTO 8.16.6.3.8 and 8.19.3). With #5 U-stirrups, A, = 0.61 in? Avfid _ 0.61 X 4026.69 _ 9... Ve a | 9.2 in, From Eg. 6.12 for minimum web reinforcement, = Avhy 50b, _ 0.61 X 40,000 © 50x15 = 32.5in, Sax = 4/2 = 26.69/2 = 13.35 in. > 9: 7G s in, (governs) Therefore, provide #5 U-stirrups @ 9 in. 0.c., and place the first stirrup at 3 in. from the end, Since Snax = 13.35 in,, use s = 9 in. (<9.2 in.) throughout the beam. There is no need for calculating spacing of stirrups at other locations in the beam in this problem. This is certainly a conservative approach. Alternatively, spacing of stirrups may be increased per AASHTO 8.19.1.1(a). Check for deflection (AASHTO 8.13). Although AASHTO 8.13.3 permits either the gross or the effective moment of inertia (i.e., I, or I,) for deflection computations, the smaller (con- servative) value will be used in this example. The effective moment of inertia, Z,, of the ‘T-section is Me 3 Me? is (i) tlh ~ (ie) Jes I, (AASHTO Eq, 8.1) Me la ‘Mc, = 148,55 k-ft (computed earlier) Mz = 500 k-ft (see calculations for the service load design) Hence 5007 500 = 2208 + 45,702 = 47,910in4 0.30 in. Moments and shears at intermediate points. It is customary to determine maximum moments and shears at several points along the span, usually at every tenth point (ie., at L/10), to de- termine points of cutoff for the flexural reinforcement and for spacing of stirrups. Points of cutoff for flexural reinforcement are best determined by plotting the moment capac- ity of the continuing reinforcement on the moment envelope for the beam. In this 40-ft span bridge, the maximum moment occurs at 17.67 ft from one of the supports. For illus tration, maximum moments at 5 and 10 ft from the support are calculated from influence lines. Maximum moment at 5 ft from support 16k 16k 16k |___ 14 14 Influence line for Mmax at 5 ft from the left support. Mp 052 X 5 X 4.375 x 40 92.05 k-ft Mz = 16(4.375 + 2.625) +4 x 0.875 = 115.5 k-ft Must = 115.5% 1.3 50,15 k-ft M, = 1.3(92.05 + 1.67 x 150.15) = 445.64 k-ft Maximum moment at 10 ft from support Mp = 1.052x1X7.5x40 157.8 k-ft Mi = 16(7.5+4.0)+4x05 = 186.0k-f Mp1 = 186.0 X 1.3 241.8 k-ft M, = 1.3(157.8 + 1.67 X 241.8) = 730.1 k-ftcuarrers: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 433 rn { rz Influence line for Myx at 10 ft from the left support. Some bars of the flexural reinforcement will be cut off where they are no longer re- quired along the span, Calculate the nominal moment capacities of the T-sections with only three bars in the bottom layer, and with only six bars in the bottom two layers. All bars, however, will be extended to full development length beyond the points at which they are not theoretically required. The extension requirements are intended to compensate for un- foreseen shifts or changes in the moment envelope. My, with 3 #11 bars d = 29,54in,, Ay = 4.68 in? 085 flab = Af, 4.68 x 40 a oesxaxTa 0.765 in. My = Af(d— _ x 4.68 40 (2966 - oe) 456.7 ket My = @My = 0.9 X 456.7 = 411.03 k-ft M, with 6 #11 bars d = 27.96 in., Ay = 9.37 in? O85 flab = Af, 9.37 x40 : Gay Ces 40g) ee 1 Dp X 9.37 x 40 (2796 “> 849.39 k-ft M, = $M, = 0.9 X 849,39 = 764.45 k-ft The bars can be cut off as follows: : 1, At 10 ft from the support, M, = 730.1 k-ft, whereas the M, of the section with six #11 bars is 764.45 k-ft. Hence, out of the eight total #11 bars, the top two #11 bars can be theoretically stopped at this point. 2. AvS ft from the support, M, = 445.64 k-ft, whereas the M, of the section with three #11 bars in the bottom layer is only 411.03 k-ft (smaller); hence, the additional three #11 bars cannot be cut off at this point. Calculate the maximum moment at 4 ft from the support and check if the bars can be cut off at this point.434 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Maximum moment at4 ft from support Mp = 1.052X$x36X40 = 75.7 ket Mz = 163.6+2.2)+4xK08 =96.0K-f Murr = 96.0X 1.3 = 1248k-ft M, = 1.3(75.7 + 1.67 X 124.8) = 369.3 k-ft st 16k 36° 36 22 | i 0 Influence line for Mmax at 4 ft from the left support. This is smaller than the M, (411.03 k-ft) of the section with three #11 bars, Hence, of the six #11 bars, the three #11 bars in the upper layer can be cut off at this point. The three #11 bars in the bottom layer will be extended the full length of the beams to satisfy the requirements of AASHTO 8.24.2.1 that at least one-third the positive moment reinforcement in simple members shall extend along the same face of the member into the support. Development lengths. The required development lengths of flexural reinforcement are gov- erned by AASHTO 8.24 and 8.25. + The basic development length (AASHTO 8.25.1), ln. is 0.044s f, bay = a Vie = 0.04 X 1.56 X 40,000 _ 49 46 J4000 but not smaller than 0,0004d, f, = 0.0004 x 1.41 x 40,000 = 22.56 in., or 12 in, (AASHTO 8.25.4). Hence, la, = 39.46 in., say, 40 in.—governs. The two #11 bars must be extended 40 in. in the direction of decreasing moment, beyond the point of maximum stress, * According to AASHTO 8.24.1.2.1, the cutoff bars should also extend, in the direction of decreasing moment, a distance equal to the greater of the following beyond the point where they are no longer required: 15 bar diameters, 15d) = 15x 1.41 = 21 in, 4 of clear span, 1/20 = 40x 2 = 24 in. Effective depth, d = 26.69, say, 27 in. — governs Hence, two #11 bars that are theoretically not required at 10 ft from the support must be extended 27 in. toward the support from this point,cuaprer6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 435 * According to AASHTO 8.24.2.2, the continuing reinforcement (six #11 bars) must have development lengths at least equal to 14 (40 in. in this case) beyond the point where they are no longer required to resist tension. + AASHTO 8.24.23 requires that the bar sizes should be such that ly computed for fy per AASHTO 8.25 satisfies the following equation: Iz = 1.3(M/V) +1, (AASHTO Eq. 8.65, modified) where M = computed moment capacity, assuming all positive tension reinforcement at the section as fully stressed V = maximum shear force at the section 1, = embedment length beyond the center of support 1.3 = coefficient giving 30 percent increase in the value of M/V in the develop- ‘ment length limitation, to account for the confinement of the end reinforce- ment by compressive reaction, which tends to prevent splitting and bond failure along the bars Flexural capacity of three #11 bars (M, = 411.03 k-ft) and maximum shear force at the support (V, = 120.3 kips) had been calculated earlier. The value of J, is kept 6 in, (AASHTO 8.24.2.1). Then My X 411,03 x 12 Ws 137 +h = “Ta The actual 1, of 40 in, meets this restriction, * When flexural reinforcement is cut off at some points in the tension zone of a beam, provisions of AASHTO 8.24.1.4 must be satisfied to prevent the tendency of formation of premature flexural cracks in the vicinity of the cut ends. To this end, the criteria stipulated in AASHTO 8.24.1.4.2 will be satisfied as follows: +6 = 59.3in. a, Extra stirrup will be provided along each terminated bar over a distance from the termination point equal to three-fourths of the effective depth of the member, ive,, 0.75 X 26.69 = 20 in, b. The excess stirrup area, A,, required is not to be less than 60by5 fy ¢. The spacing, s, should not exceed d/8B, where fy is the ratio of the area of reinforcement cut off to the total area of the reinforcement at the section. In the present case, with d = 26.69 in,, the values of d/8, are as follows: Eight #11 bars, A, = 12.5 in? Six #11 bars, A, = 9.37 in?2, By = (12.5 - 9.37/12. d/8By = 15.9 in, Three #11 bars, A, = 4.68 in.?, By = 5.68/9.37 = 0.5, d/8B, = 7.4 in, ‘The shear reinforcement provided consists of #5 @ 11 in. o.c. Provide one extra #5 stirrup each at locations of points of cutoff of the flexural reinforcement. This will satisfy both the area and the spacing requirement at those locations. Ay = 021, Distribution of flexural reinforcement. To control flexural cracking of concrete, tension re- inforcement should be well distributed within the maximum flexural zones. When the design yield strength, f,, of tension reinforcement exceeds 40,000 psi, provisions of AASHTO 8.16.8.4 must be satisfied. However, this condition need not be considered in the436 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES present case because f, = 40,000 psi for the reinforcing steel. Various reinforcing details are shown in Fig. E6.2g. Design of exterior girders, For simplicity in design and construction, the exterior girders ere to have the same cross section as the interior ones. In addition to the dead-load moment due to the wearing surface and its own weight, it is conservatively assumed that the weight of parapet curbs is also carried entirely by the exterior girder. The following values of the deud-load and the live-luad moment were computed earlier for the service load design: Mp = 307.1 k-ft Myst = 255.8 keft M, = 1.3[BpD + B(L+ 1) = 1.31.0 X 307.1 + 1.67 x 255.8) = 954.6 k-ft The required nominal capacity of the beam, M, = M,/ = 954.6/0.9 = 1060.7 k-ft. For the interior beam, M, = 1069.6 k-ft (calculated earlier). Vp = Jw = $x 1.557 X40 = 31.14 kips Maximum live load shear in the exterior girder due to service load plus impact was caleu- lated earlier as 34.0 kips. Therefore, Vy = L3[BpD + Bi(L + D) = 1331.14 + 1.67 x 34.0) = 114.3 kips For the interior girder, V,, was calculated to be 120.3 kips, which is greater than the value of V, for the exterior girder. Hence, the section provided is adequate. Detailed design of the exterior girders can be made following the same procedure as for the interior girders. It must be remembered, however, that per AASHTO 3.23,2.3.1.4, the exterior girder must have at least as much load-carrying capacity as the interior girder. Accordingly, the design details for the exterior girder will be made similar to those of the interior girders. Miscellaneous construction detalls. Practices vary among various bridge owner agencies, but the following practice is representative: 1, Diaphragms: 12-in.-wide full-depth diaphragms, transversely placed between all gird- ers, should be provided at both ends and at the midspan, The bottom of the beams and the diaphragm will be at the same level. The diaphragms will have three #6 bars through them, continuing transversely through the beams, and will be cast integrally with them. 2, Bearings: The beams will have a fixed bearing at one end and an elastomeric expansion bearing atthe other end. At the fixed bearing end, the end diaphragm is supported direcily on the bridge seat. Vertical dowels, projecting from the abutment, are bent so as to project inside the webs or the flange of the T-beams. At the expansion end, the end diaphragm. is supported on an elastomeric bearing pad placed on the bridge seat. 3. Drainage, Parapet Curbs and Railings: These are provided according to the prevailing practices of the bridge owner agencies. There are many other details that have not been covered in this discussion. Readers should refer to FHWA [1968}* or other similar references for typical details for concrete su- perstructures. All state highway departments and other design organizations have standard plans for use on bridges in their jurisdiction, and they should be consulted as necessary to prepare detailed drawings. “The agency should be contacted for the latest revisions.chapters: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 437 6.8 DESIGN OF BOX GIRDER BRIDGES 6.8.1 General Since the construction of the first reinforced concrete bridge in the United States in 1937, the popularity of concrete box girder bridges (reinforced and prestressed) has steadily increased, generally in the westem states, and particularly in California, where nearly 90 percent of all bridges built on the state highway system are concrete box girders, about 80 percent of them prestressed. Various box girder configurations are shown in Fig. 6.8. Although cast-in-place box girder bridges have been built for spans as long as 460 ft, for simple spans, they are generally economical for spans in the 95 to 140-ft range, limited by excessive dead-load deflections [Degenkolb, 197]. This makes them ideally suited for highway interchange structures for which the general span range is 50 to 150 ft. For longer spans, prestressed concrete box girders are more economical. Note, however, that a considerable overlap exists in the economics of reinforced and prestressed concrete box girder bridges, and both can be competitive under certain cit- cumstances; variations can be found regionally. Lightweight concrete is used to reduce the deadweight of the superstructure in cases where the normal-weight concrete is too heavy from a practical standpoint. For example, itis ideally suited for very high-level bridges where the dead load of the su- perstructure would result in unduly large columns and footings to resist seismic forces. Ithas also been found useful for multilevel interchange structures, where minimum, structure depths are required and locations for columns are limited. The reduced dead- weight of concrete translates into reduced reinforcement in the superstructure, and reduced reinforcing and concrete in the substructure. The corresponding reduction in material costs can more than offset the higher cost of lightweight concrete [AASHTO, Degenkolb, 1977]. Note that the differences in the physical properties of normal-weight and lightweight aggregates cause their design factors to vary (¢.g., modulus of rupture, J-, modular ratio, n, for deflection, and the multiplier for shear strength); however, the design procedures are identical. A thorough discussion on the use of lightweight con- crete is presented in an ACI committee reports [ACI, 1967, 1992]. Concrete box girder bridges have several advantages over other types: 1. The relative shallow depth requirement of a box girder bridge is a definite advantage where headroom is limited, a condition frequently encountered in urban areas. 2. Monolithic construction of the superstructure and the substructure offers structural advantages as well as enhanced aesthetics. The pier caps, in the case of continuous box girders, can be placed within the box, facilitating rigid connection to the pier shaft to develop continuity. 3. They provide ideal space for utilities such as gas and water pipelines; power, tele- phone and cable ducts; storm drains; and sewers; all of which can be easily and safely placed inside the large cells and completely hidden from view. In some cases, the cells of box girders have been used as culverts to carry large amounts of drainage. If necessary, the spacing of webs can be easily adjusted to facilitate the placement of these utilities at desired locations [Degenkolb, 1977; Elliot, 1990]. However,438 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES precautionary measures must be taken to prevent leakage, which might cause en- vironmental and costly maintenance problems. In some cases, it may be prudent to avoid their use for carrying utilities and drainage. 4. A significantly important characteristic of box girders is their high torsional stiffness, which makes them ideally suited for bridges on curved alignments. This is especially important for interchanges on freeways where the ramp structures typically require sharp curved alignment, the main reason for their preference throughout the United States. In states such as California, about 70 to 80 percent of all bridges are multicell concrete box girder bridges. Their high torsional stiffness also makes it possible to design them as a unit rather than as individual girders, 5. Box girder structures lend themselves to easy aesthetic treatment through smooth finishing of the soffit and the sides (Fig. 6.6) [Degenkolb, 1977]. Their requirement for economical depth-to-span ratio is much less than other types of bridges, resulting Ha ad Cr a TCI FIGURE 6.6 re Aesthetic treatment on the sides of box girders [Degenkolb, 197].cuarrer6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 439 tit tltnehi aft FIGURE 6.7 Mural formed in the exterior face of box girder bridge using different thickness of plywood [Degenkolb, 1977}. in a slender and aesthetically pleasing appearance. Any desired profile and architec- tural treatment can be given to the exterior faces of the box girders by giving them the desired surface finishes, as shown in Fig. 6.7 and as discussed in Chapter 11. Specially treated forms for the outer surfaces of the box girder have been used to obtain a smooth high-grade surface that does not require additional finishing, 6. In box girders, only the soffit and the faces of the exterior girders (webs) need to be given a high-quality finish; thus, savings result from the reduced costs of finishing. 6.8.2, General Design Considerations 6.8.2.1 Structural behavior A reinforced concrete box girder is essentially a T-beam with a transverse bottom flange similar to the top flange, resulting in a closed, torsionally stiff multicell configu- ration, Figure 6.8 shows configurations of several commonly used multicell box girder bridges [Libby and Perkins, 1976]. The top deck, supported on webs (also referred to as girders), performs two basic functions similar to a T-beam bridge: It supports the live load on the bridge, and it acts as the top flange of the longitudinal girders. Thus, the deck is subjected to simultaneous bending both transversely as well as longitudinally. No special consideration is made, however, for the simultaneous effects of maximum stresses occurring in concrete in both directions. The interior webs resist shear and often only a small portion of girder moments. Consequently, they are usually thinner than the webs of T-beams. This is so because, in the case of continuous T-beam spans, the webs must resist the negative girder moments,CJ [ ( 3 © @ FIGURE 6.8 Configurations of various multicell box girders (Libby and Perkins, 1976}.cuaprens: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 441 FIGURE 69 Sloped exterior webs of a box girder. as well as all the shear, and contain all the reinforcement for positive moments. While the interior webs are all vertical, the exterior webs may be vertical, inclined, curved, or otherwise profiled as shown in Fig. 6.6, often to improve aesthetics, When the exterior webs are inclined, their slope should preferably be 1:2 (Fig. 6.9) [CALTRANS, 1993c]. The bottom slab (soffit) of the box girder contains reinforcement for the positive ‘moment and also acts as a compression flange in the negative-moment regions of con- tinuous spans. The bottom slab also affords a superstructure considerably thinner than a T-beam bridge of the same span and permits even longer spans to be built. 6.8.2.2 Proportions ‘A comprehensive discussion on the proportioning of highway box girder bridges can be found in several references [Heins and Lawrie, 1984; Degenkolb, 1977; Elliot, 1990]. In general, a multicell box girder can be viewed as a T-beam structure with the webs connected by a transverse continuous bottom flange. The first box girder bridges were therefore designed on the basis of modified specifications for T-beam bridges. Depth. The recommended depths of box girders are dictated by deflection require- ments. For constant-depth box girders, AASHTO 8.9.2 recommends a minimum depth- span ratio of 0.0608 for simple spans and 0.0555 for continuous spans, as shown in Table 5.3 (Chapter 5). Parabolic soffits may be provided for continuous spans with even smaller depth-span ratios, as recommended by the Portland Cement Association [PCA, 1941, 1951}. Top slab thickness, As was,pointed out earlier, the current specifications make no recommendations for the minimum thickness of the top slab except that they satisfy the design requirements, i.e., carry the loads as a continuous slab for the selected web spacings. However, many designers use greater deck thickness, varying from 6 to 9 in. and as required by the standards and manuals in use, for the same web spacings. Cover requirements per AASHTO 8.22 should be satisfied. Since the underside of the deck is well-protected by the cell of the box, a 1-in. cover for the lower layer of reinforcement is adequate; however, the cover for the top reinforcing steel should be 2 in. or more, as warranted by the environmental conditions. Designers should consult variations in442. DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES these requirements as prescribed by specific states. For example, the California speci- fications [CALTRANS, 1993a] require a minimum thickness of 6 in. for cast-in-place box girders, but permit a minimum of 54 in. for plant-produced girders. Bottom slab thickness. The bottom slab or the soffit essentially performs three important functions: (1) It contains reinforcement for positive moment, (2) it func- tions as a compression flange for the negative moments for continuous box girders, and (3) it provides the desired architectural features of the girder. Historically, the thickness requirements for the bottom slab evolved without any criteria except an arbitrary thickness of 5} in. required for placing concrete around #4 bars above and below a #11 main girder reinforcement with 1} in. cover [Degenkolb, 1977]. The cover for the bars near the top can be 1 in. (or even less) because it has better protection than the one at the bottom. With the adequacy of this design proven by experience, the arbitrary 54-in. thickness for the bottom slab became a standard AASHTO requirement for minimum thickness, with only the minor modification that it should be the larger of 74 of the clear span between the webs or 5} in., but need not be thicker than the top slab, unless dictated by design (AASHTO 8.11.2). Local vari- ations exist. For example, the California specifications [CALTRANS, 1993a] require a minimum thickness of 5} in. for cast-in-place box girders but permit a minimum of 5 in, for plant-produced girders. Vent holes, 4 to 5 in. in diameter, should be provided in the bottom slab in each cell, adjacent to piers and abutments, to facilitate drainage of curing or of rain water, leakage through the top deck, and condensation. Each diaphragm, when provided, should also have a 6-in, opening. Occasionally, there is leakage from utilities. Inadequate drainage can result in accumulation of water and consequent serious overloads leading to possible failures. To increase the stiffness of the box girder, the soffit is thickened from the inside while maintaining a constant depth of the girder. In continuous spans, the stiffness re- quirements at the supports are higher to resist the negative moments; this is accom- plished by thickening the soffit at the supports as required: Webs. There are no provisions in the AASHTO specifications governing the spac- ing and thickness of webs (or girders). Their primary purpose is to resist shear and only a small portion of moments. Web spacings may vary between 7 and 8 ft. Opti- mum web spacings are suggested to be between 7 and 9 ft for spans to 150 ft, and as much as 12 ft for longer spans [Elliot, 1990]. Although webs as thin as 6 in. have been built [Elliot, 1990], a thickness of 8 in. is considered a desirable minimum for practical considerations, to facilitate placement of two-legged shear stirrups and concrete. Some designers use a rule of thumb of 1 in. for each foot of height, with an 8-in. minimum. For prestressed concrete, a minimum width of 12 in. is usually provided in order to accommodate large-diameter prestressing ducts [Degenkolb, 1977]. For relatively deep flexural members, it is good engineering practice to provide some auxiliary longitudinal reinforcement near the vertical faces in the tension zoae to control cracking in the web. Without such reinforcement, the width of the cracks in the web may greatly exceed the crack width at the level of the flexural reinforcement. Both ACI 318-95 (10.6.7) [ACI, 1995] and AASHTO 8.17.2.1.3 [AASHTO, 1992a] require such reinforcement, called the skin reinforcement, Aqy, to be provided in thecuaprers: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 443 deep webs of the girders. The requirements in both codes are identical. According to these requirements, the skin reinforcement, Asx = 0.012(d — 30) per foot of height, is required to be provided on each face along the height of a concrete member, provided the depth of the side face exceeds 3 ft. Such reinforcement is to be uniformly distributed along side faces of a member for a distance of d/2 nearest the flexural tension rein- forcement. The maximum spacing of this reinforcement is limited to the lesser of d/6 or 12 in, Practices vary, however. In California, this requirement applies to members exceeding 2 ft in depth, and no exception is made for the height; i.e., the reinforce- ment is to be provided along the full web height, with spacing limited to the lesser of web width or 12 in. [CALTRANS, 1993a, 8.17.2.1.4]. In all cases, the skin rein- forcement can be included in computing the flexural capacity of the member based on the stresses in individual bars, which are based on the stress and strain compatibility analysis. A reduction in the number of girder webs can be accomplished by cantilevering the deck beyond the exterior webs, An overhang half as long as the girder spacing usually gives an aesthetically pleasant as well as a more economical structure [Degenkolb, 1977). The interior webs are always vertical, whereas the exterior webs can be vertical or sloped. When sloped, the thickness of the webs is kept at 10 in, for practical consid- erations [CALTRANS, 1993d]. In addition, the exterior webs can have extra thickness. as required by the architectural features. Webs may be flared to meet the shear re- quirements, for example, in areas in the vicinity of supports, When this option is used, AASHTO 8.11.3 requires that the web thickness be tapered over a minimum distance of 12 times the difference in the web thickness. Fillets. Historically, ithas been thought that a state of stress concentration exists, at least theoretically, at the junction of various inside surfaces of the box girder (webs, the top, the soffit slab, diaphragms, caps, etc.). Longitudinal fillets evolved, in the opinion of some engineers, as a desirable means to provide for the smooth flow of stresses around these comers, which may develop when an arrangement of live loads on the structure causes differential deflections between adjacent girders [Degenkolb, 1977].Experience from many box girders built without any fillets between the soflit slab and the webs shows that they are not necessary. Consequently, they remain a feature of questionable structural effectiveness, and providing them has become purely a matter of judgment based on personal experience and preference. Requirements for fillets are covered by AASHTO 9.8.2.3, which requires that adequate fillets be provided at the intersection of all surfaces within the cell of a box girder, except at the junction of the web and the bottom flange, where none are required. The usual practice is to provide 4 in. by 4 in, fillets where necessary. California, which builds box girder bridges more than any other State, has similar requirements [CALTRANS, 1993a]. Reinforcement. General requirements for reinforcement are covered by AASHTO 8.17.2.3 as follows: 1. A minimum of distributed reinforcement of 0.4 percent of the flange area should be placed in the bottom slab parallel to the girder span. A single layer of reinforcement may be provided. Spacing of bars should not exceed 18 in.444 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES 2. A minimum distributed reinforcement of 0.5 percent of the’ cross-sectional area of the slab, based on the least slab thickness, should be placed in the bottom slab trans- verse to the girder span, and distributed on both faces of the slab. Spacing of bars should not exceed 18 in. All transverse reinforcement in the slab should extend to the exterior face of the outside girder webs in each group and should be anchored by a 90° hook. Because the preceding reinforcement requirements are standard for box girders used for highway bridges, most design organizations maintain this information in a tabulated form for quick selection of bars. Figures 6.10a and 6.10b show such tables taken from [CALTRANS, 1993c]. ‘The top slab ordinarily requires four layers of reinforcing steel. The transverse reinforcement at the top and the bottom of the slab is required to resist transverse bending of the slab and to transfer loads to the main girders. In addition, two layers of longitudinal bars are provided: one is placed on the top of the bottom transverse reinforcement, which acts as the distribution reinforcement, and the other is placed under the top transverse reinforcement, to resist negative girder moments in the case of continuous spans. 3. Girder reinforcement: The most commonly used size of the reinforcing steel in the girder is #11 bars when it is designed by the service load method. Use of #14 and #18 bars may be warranted if the number of smaller bars causes undesirable congestion, When designed by the load factor design method, the result generally is asmaller total amount of reinforcement, and usually #10 and #11 bars can be used [Degenkolb, 1977]. The layout of bars in the soffit is important. Experience shows a tendency for the cracks to form in concrete at the ends of tensile reinforcing steel. When a number of bars are terminated at the same location, the cracks tend to join and form a larger crack. Itis therefore considered a good practice to place the main reinforcing bars so that their ends are staggered, as shown in Fig. 6.11, rather than have them progressively shorter. In continuous reinforced concrete box girders, reinforcement for the negative mo- ‘ment is required in the top slab, whereas that for the positive moment is required in the bottom slab. To simplify shop detailing, cutting, handling, and placement, as few bar lengths as possible should be used. Because 60-ft bar lengths are available in most areas, the maximum bar lengths should be kept shorter than 60 ft to facilitate handling. Also, when the bar cutoffs are calculated, it is possible to use many bars of the same length by adding a foot or two to the required lengths, The additional cost of extra bar lengths (steel) is usually offset by savings in fabricating, handling, and placing a num- bet of different lengths. For cast-in-place reinforced or post-tensioned concrete box girders, it is customary to cast the top slab some time after the soffit slab and the webs are cast, thus forming a horizontal construction joint at the top of webs. During the interval of time after the web concrete has set to some degree and the girder reinforcement is capable of resisting ongitudinal stresses, any settlement of the falsework, compression of the falsework members, or additional take-up in the falsework joints produces negative moments in the uncompleted structure consisting of the soffit slab and the webs. These moments can cause tensile stresses and cracking in the girder webs unless longitudinal reinforcement (called interim reinforcement) is provided just below the horizontal construction jointseee CEE SIE CPERLIPE EROS s Tt sot Effective Top Dim, Trams. bars py G EMfective Top Dim, Trams. bars G spun sab F Sian Spuchg_ #8 bars #4 bars span sab F Se ‘Spacing 8 bare 4 bars ch” ws hak 0" O&M 5 oa" mw 43 war owt vee oe eu" 7 m4 2 me" oh" Ua 10" | oe m8 ier og" 18" 10" on” at ro bo" 10" mo mg par 0" m4 Bs" 10" i 8 bs to" m4 wa" to wos war “6 10" wos ws" mo ws wo" a" w 6 iso" a" 5 og ws" i" ‘ Bw 6 3 15-6" 2" wo 7g is" te Be 7 16-0 2 7 3" a Ba is" ca Bg 169" 12 ro ro" ra 2 ws? 2 ‘ 2 0 wr" w 7 2 m9" uw 1 wa) uw mon wa? uw moons ws" 4" won wo" 1” 23" Ww ” B iso" wr, 28" u” wo wis" wh" 26" uw 3 16" 12k" 26" a” wb woh 2.7" uw wo" 2k" 24" #710" 7 Min. reinf. in top of slab #4 bars continuous @ 18” Detail dimension 2" clear Detail dimension see (803) bo Tris bars en SBN |b St) 4 Bel LBS Twin, [TE Z “oe : Wf C WT tke — "clear F Bottom bars — Dobars | Equal spacing ; ‘Extra #5 bars total 2) i Slab on Concrete Girders 1+—— Effective span (S) —+ Detail data: Se Designers to specify span to Effective overhang shall not be Laecnmenmihiedametry ‘be waed and girder width srewee than} the etectve san) Mout) = 5 © Bria D bar 10 be Increase cover ver brs and aust Mate = "522 x 130x080 ~ 5265 +2) addled when §> U1 slab thickness if roqired for we Weigh per fin, width of ld Note environmental conditions. See BDS Goctades 35 #782 deck ova allowanes) For calves or bridge slabs supponing 8.22 and Memo to Designee 8-2 $= Effective spun Al, not povsons of BDS 64. Design data Impact factor 130 Design based on decks Design sretes See BDS 8.15 Continuity” face 08 having he of tore girder. “fr = 2,000 Ths. pe i. Pm Wicel load = 16k For two inder decks a Je = 1200 be. per in Disribwion Reoromen: special design i reuied me 0 220//a, max ~ 67%, See BDS 3.24.10 FIGURE 6.10 Deck slab reinforcement [CALTRANS, 1993c].ect jis teat ort | uns oe | uss ona oes fez Sas | see ses ses 7 ses i ee Fares aru Posse paDiepuI, ‘oma Sea A Ore 8 Bepeds pa we 1 wort aed seq. 7 woo "UY eapoem s “PE66T ‘SNVULTVO] TwsWeoI0jUIAL gels Mong 90r'9 aN, J9puI XO aas9UED pooIOsUIDY (5) weds oxnooyq ——» saouds yenba -xoudde ry Lo x. : x tun 2x9 ui Aid 5369 90% 3p 012108 126 Purs sag ad se 9 EeUNS Sag aad oe sag sep using ‘ays wouaoioyta uo uMous 94 wowinsnjsar fear Pe 2p aE 09 SION, ‘useds sea = x . JPpHID og ayaroU0D passansag 90g H se azis ‘ues yur ops J (s)unds oanooya —xy saoeds jena xoxo Xx. cy ce ) 446cuarrers: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 447 [aeewewenr eelceee | ||eesenenener=ness 12 |} 18 [ag }—_____ 1s 8 | 12 15 Ls Correct Incorrect FIGURE 6.11 Layout of bottom slab reinforcement (CALTRANS, 1993c]. at the top of webs. AASHTO specifications require that this interim reinforcement con- sist of 10 percent of the negative reinforcing steel, or two #8 bars placed at the top of the web for the full length of the girders. When the webs are narrow (c.g., 8 in. wide), one of the bars is placed about 4 in. below the other, leaving enough clearance for the vibrator to function properly (Degenkolb, 1977]. Diaphragms. The subject of diaphragms was discussed in Chapter 4 in some detail and will not be repeated here. Diaphragms are not required for box girders unless the box girders are sharply curved. AASHTO 8.12.3 stipulates that diaphragms are not required for straight box girder bridges and curved box girder bridges with an inside radius of 800 ft or greater. However, diaphragms do improve torsional resistance of curved box girders. Consequently, for box girder bridges with radii smaller than 800 ft, diaphragms spaced no greater than 40 ft apart are required, unless shown otherwise by tests or structural analysis. Some states have somewhat different spacing requirements based on their experience. For example, the California Department of Transportation. [CALTRANS, 1993a] requires maximum diaphragm spacing to be 40 ft for radii 400 ft or less, and 80 ft for radii between 400 and 800 ft. Only nominal reinforcement is needed in diaphragms, at the top and bottom, to sup- port stirrups, as the transverse steel in the top and bottom slab of the box girder provides for their continuity at the girders. Except when the diaphragms have utility openings, nominal shear reinforcement (say, #4 @ 12 in.) is sufficient. Both intermediate and end diaphragms with openings should be designed for loads, usually a truck wheel midway between girders (Elliot, 1990]. Construction. Most generally, box girder bridges are cast in place on falsework. In the case of multispan structures, two or more spans are made continuous over the in- termediate supports. However, for practical reasons, the entire box girder cannot be poured in one operation, and construction joints have to be provided, out of neces- sity, Requirements and practices vary from state to state. Two alternatives are in use: (1) Pour the soffit and webs together without a construction joint between them, and (2) have the soffit poured first, followed by the pouring of the webs and the top slab. In the first case, it is important to let the concrete in the soffit harden sufficiently before pouring concrete in the web forms, so that the soffit can resist the fluid forces of the fresh web concrete. After the web concrete has hardened, the forms are removed, the forms for the top slab are installed, and concrete for it is poured. In this case, a construction joint is created near the junction between the webs and the top slab. The forms used for the top slab are thus left in place. In the second case, a construction joint i the junction of the soffit and the webs [Degenkolb, 1977].448 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES 6.8.3 Design Procedure and Example At the option of the designer, a box girder can be designed as a structure consisting of several T-beams, or the entire superstructure can be designed as a unit. With the advent of computers, the latter practice has gained wide acceptance and is presented in the following example. The early box girder bridges were designed as modified T: beams. Since a box girder has a bottom slab in addition to a top slab, a better load distribution is obtained as compared to that in a simple T-beam bridge. Consequently, the load distribution factors for box girders are smaller than those for T-beam structures (S/T vs. S/6 for two or more traffic lanes). EXAMPLE 6.3. Design a reinforced concrete box girder for a simple span of 100 ft for a ‘two-lane highway bridge for HS20 loading. The typical cross section is shown in Fig. B6.3a. Use f! = 4000 psi and Grade 60 reinforcement. Calculations, The minimum depth is selected to satisfy AASHTO 8.9.2. Iryin = 0.0558 = 0.055 X 100 = 5.5 ft A total depth of 6 ft 6 in. is selected as required to satisfy stress criteria, as shown later. A thickness of 8} in, is selected for the top slab, required to support loads in transverse bending, supported over webs spaced at 9 ft 6 in. Its design is similar to that of a T-beam slab, as illustrated in Example 6.2, and is not repeated here. Provision has been made for a 3-in. asphalt concrete overlay for future wearing surface. The web thickness is selected as 12 in, Longitudinal fillets (4 in, by 4 in.) have been provided in all cells at the junctions of ‘webs and the top and the soffit slabs, although none is required at the bottom according to specifications. The bottom flange thickness, r, is computed according to AASHTO 8.11.2: Clear span between girder webs = 9.5 — 1.0 = 8.5 ft 5x12 16 = 6.375 in, or 6} in, Type 8 exert bare comes ‘N Ro 4" fillets (typ.) 1-0" yp, 309". FIGURE E6.3a ‘Typical cross-section of a box girder.cuarrers: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 449 Reinforcement parallel to girder. The minimum distribution reinforcement in the bottom slab, which can be provided in a single layer, is computed to satisfy the requirement of AASHTO 8.17.2.3.1. The width between the outside faces of the exterior webs is 29.5 ft. A, = 0.004 x 6,375(29.5 X 12) = 9.03 in? With bar spacings limited to 18 in. (i.., 1.5 £0, the minimum number of spacings is 29.5/1.5 = 20. Therefore, provide twenty-one # 6 bars, A, = 21 x 0.44 = 9.24 in? > 9.03 in; OK. Reinforcement transverse to girder span. This reinforcement is provided to satisfy the re- quirement of AASHTO 8.17. A, = 0.005 X 6.375 X 12 = 0.38 in2/ft For each face of the bottom slab, A, = } X 0.38 = 0.19 in? Use #5 @ 9 in. alter- nating at top and bottom, resulting in a maximum permissible spacing of 18 in. and A, = 0.41 in? This reinforcement will be anchored in the exterior faces of the outside girders as required by AASHTO 8.17.2.3.2. Design for main flexural reinforcement Dead load. The cross-sectional area, A, of the girder is, A = Top slab + bottom slab + overhangs + webs + fillets = 29.5 X 8125/12 + 29.5 x 6375/12 +2 5 x 4(7 + 12/12 +4 x 12(78 ~ 8.125 ~ 6.375)/144 + 12 x (4 x 4/144 19.974 + 15.672 + 6.333 + 21.167 + 0.667 63.813 ft? ‘Therefore, self-weight = 63.813 0.15 = 9.57 k/ft. Weight of the asphaltic concrete over- lay @ 35 lb/ft = (37.5 — 2 x 1.75) x 0.035 = 1.19 Wt. Weight of the Type 25 concrete barrier rail (California standard)’ = 0.392 k/ft. Total dead load = 9.57 + 1.19 + 2 0.392 = 11.544 lft Maximum moment due to dead load, Mp " pw? X 11.544 x 1007 4,420 k-ft Maximum shear due to dead load, Vp = 4 X 11.544 X 100 = 577.2 kips Live load. For L = 100 ft and HS20-44 loading (Table A.5, Appendix A), My = 1524 k-ft Vit. = 65.3 kips Used here for illustrative purposes only.450 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES The entire box girder will be designed as a unit, for which the distribution factors for the exterior and the interior girders are combined. The distribution factor is obtained by dividing the out-to-out slab width by seven (i.e., 5/7) per AASHTO 3.23.2.2, Table 3.23.1 (see Appendix A, Table A.7): The number of LL lancs = 37.5/7 = 5.38 lines of wheels (or 2.69 lanes). 50 Oras L+125 ~ 1004125 ~ 0.22 Mirss = 1524 2.69 1.22 5001 k-ft Vinay = 65.3 X 2.69 1.22 214.3 kips ‘Total design loads are Miwa = 14,430 + 5001 = 19,431 k-ft 577.2 +2143 = 791.5 kips 9 and d = +74 in. Veta Calculate the area of steel assuming j eee hid _ 19,431 x12 © 24X09 X74 ‘Try #14 bars, A, = 2.25 in.” per bar (Appendix A, Table A.20). The number of bars required = 145,9/2.25 = 64.84, say 65 bars. A, = 65 X 2.25 = 146.25 in? > 145.9 in; OK. Ay = 145.9 in? Serviceability check Check for moment, Check stresses in the concrete and the reinforcement. Analyze the girder as a cracked section. Check if the neutral axis lies in the flange or the web by taking the moment of areas about the bottom face of the top slab. The overhangs are assumed to have rectangular cross section for this computation. For f = 4000 psi and f, = 60 ksi, n = 8 (Appendix A, Table A.14). 37.5 X 12 X 8.125 x (4 x 8.125) 2 8 x 146.25 x (74 — 8.125) 14,853.5 < 7,073.8 Hence, the neutral axis lies in the web, and the section has to be analyzed as a Tsbeam, For simplicity, the overhangs and the fillets are neglected in this computation as shown in Fig. E6.3b. Assuming #5 stirrups and 2 in, clear cover, d = 18-2.0- 0.75 ~ 0.63 = 74.62 in, ‘Taking the moment about the neutral axis, 348 x 8.125 x (y — 3 X 8.125) +4 x 12x 4 x (y - 8.125 = 8 X 146.25 x (74.62 - y)cunprers: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 451 18° eee 1-0" yp. FIGURE E6.3b Cross section of the box girder. 2827.5y — 1,486.7 + 24y? — 390y + 1584.4 = 87,305.4 - 1170y 24y? + 3607.5y — 97,207.7 = 0 y? + 150.3y ~ 4050.3 = 0 23.33 in. Solving, y ‘The transformed moment of inertia of the cracked section is Tey = 348 X 8.125°/12 + 348 X 8.125(23.33 — 8.125/2)" +4 12 (23.33 ~ 8.125)°3 + 8 X 146.25 x (74.62 ~ 23.33)? = 15,555 + 1,049, 671 + 56,244 + 3,077,877 199,347 in Stresses in concrete and reinforcement can now be calculated from the flexure formula: My Tee _, (19,431 x 12) x 23.33 4,199,347 1.295 ksi < 0.4 x 4000 psi = 1600 psi; OK (e) gx (A243 x 12) x (74.62 — 23.33) 4,199,347 = 22.783 ksi < 24 ksi; OK Note that, in view of the above stresses, which are close to those permissible, a shallower section would not have been adequate. te Check for shear. Vax = 791.5 kips. Assuming that entire shear is resisted by all four webs, b= 4x12 = 48in, d = 74,62452. DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Shear stress, v = a (AASHTO Eq. 8.12) 791.5 48 X 74.62 0.221 ksi or 221 psi 0.95 /f! = 0.95 x 4000 = 60 psi 221 ~ 60 = 161 < 4/4000 = 256 psi; OK Use #5 two-legged stirrups, Ay = 4(2 x 0.31) = 2.48 in? (in 4 webs). The required spacing is Avfe O= vbw _ 2.48 x 24,000 ~~ T61 X48 Provide #5 two-legged stirrups @ 7 in. o.c. Check for minimum shear reinforcement (AASHTO 8.19.1): =77in, Check for minimum reinforcement for flexure Ay 50by 2.48 60,000 = =pxag— = © in. > 7.0 in. provided; OK $M, = 1.2Me (AASHTO Eq. 8.62) Me = filly, — (AASHTO Eq. 8.2) Locate the centroidal axis of the concrete section (Fig. E6.3c). Moments are taken about the top fibers, 348" | rope. FIGURE E6.3¢ Cross section of centroidal axis.cuapters: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 453 348 x 8.125(y, — 8.125/2) + 4 x 12 x 4(y¢ — 8.125)? = 348 x 6.375 X (78 ~ y; — 6375/2) + 4 X 12 x 478 — y, — 6.375)? 2827.5y, ~ 11,486.7 + 24y? — 390y + 1584.4 — 165,971.5 — 2218.5y, +123,123.4 — 3438y, + 24y? Ye X (2827.5 ~ 90 + 2218.5 + 3438) = 1,486.7 — 1584.4 + 165,971.5 + 123,123.4 8094y, = 298,997.2, which gives y, = 36.94 in, Ig = [348 x 8.125°/12 + 348 X 8.125 x (36.94 - 8.125/2)"] +4 x 12(36.94 — 8.125)9/3 + 4 x 12 x (78 — 36.94 ~ 6.375)*/3, + [348 x 6.3759/12 + 348 x 6.375 x (78 — 36.94 + 6.375)7/2)] = 15,555 + 3,056,330 + 382,803 + 667,644 +7513 + 3,182,053 = 7,311,898 ins SVR = 7.5 4000 psi = 474.34 psi = te yr — 474.34 X 7,311,894 ~ ~36.94 X 12,000 7824.2 keft Me 1.2Mc, = 1.2 X 7824.2 = 9389 k-ft GM, = 46,669 k-ft > 1.2Mor = 9389 k-ft; OK. Check for fatigue stress limits. Fatigue stress limits are to be checked according to AASHTO 8.16.8.3, as was illustrated in the design of the T-beam bridge. The range between the maximum tensile stress and the minimum stress is that caused by live load plus impact, whereas the minimum tensile stress is caused by dead-load moment alone, Mp = 14,430 k-ft Murer = 5001 k-ft = 8x (14430. 12x 51.29 ~ 4,199,347 = 16.92 ksi454 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWaY BRIDGES Stress due to live load plus impact: 5001 x 12 x 51.29 ftw = 8x (Pea) 5.86 ksi fy = 21 ~ 0.33 frin + 8(7/h) (AASHTO Eg, 8.60) = 21-0.33 x 16.92 +803 17.82 ksi > 5.86 ksi; OK Check for control of crack widths, Since f, = 60 ksi in this example, distribution of flexural reinforcement should be checked according to AASHTO 8.16.8.4: & z (AASHTO Eg. 8.61 laa ( Eq. 8.61) Various terms in the previous formula were described earlier and are defined in Fig, 6.34. Total number of reinforcing bars in flexure is 65. A= [4X 2x 12x 3.38 + (348 ~ 48) x 6.38/65 = 34.44 in? fe = fe = 0.6f, = 0.6 X 60 = 36ksi d, = 78 — 74,62 = 3.38 in,, use 2.0 in, (maximum permitted) z = 130 kips/in. for severe exposure conditions (AASHTO 8.16.8.4) 130 Ss = BLT ksi < 36 ksi; OK 2.0.x 34.44 Note that the smaller value of z = 130 kips/in, has been used, instead of the higher value of 170 kips/in,, to limit the cracks to the smaller permissible widths. Check for strength. The section so designed will now be checked for strength by the load factor method. 348" ay 7462" | — 1-0" yp. 338" —— ee ee & T Concrete area 3.38"=d, in tension, A, FIGURE E6.3d Showing d. and concrete area, A, in tension,carrer 6: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 455 0854+ a ‘Moment Group I loading: My = {BoD + B(L+ D) .3[1 X D + 1.67(L + 1D] = 1.3[14,430 + 1.67 x 5001] = 29,616 k-ft Ay = 146.25 in?, f, = 60 ksi C=T 0.85 flab = A, fy : Asfy 146.25 x 60 = TESS FE 7 Tas acaas ~ MN6in M, = 29,616 k-ft; OK Shear Vy = 1.3(577.2 + 1.67 X 214.3) 1215.6 kips 2Jfibyd (AASHTO Eq. 8.49) = 2/4000 x 48 x 74.62 = 453 kips Ve 1456 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES V, = A,fyd/S (AASHTO Eq, 8.53) = 2.48 X 60 x 74,62/7 = 1586.2 kips Va = Ve+Vs 453 + 1586.2 = 2039.2 kips GV», = 0.85 x 2039.2 = 1733.3 > V, = 1215.6 kips; OK Longitudinal shin reinforcement over the web heights. According to AASHTO 8.17.2.1.3, skin reinforcement should be provided for a distance of d/2 along the height of the girder. How- ever, according to California practice, this reinforcement should be provided for the full height. Ax = 0.012(d — 30) = 0.012(6.5 x 12 ~ 30) = 0.58 init height Provide #5 bar @ 12 in. (lesser of d/6 or 12 in.) 0.c. each face, Ax = 2% 031 0.62 in? > 0,58 in; OK ‘The preceding calculations illustrate that all design criteria have been satisfied. Rein- forcement details for the midspan section are shown in Fig. E6.3e. Details of development Tengths and bar cutoff points can be worked out as illustrated earlier for the T-beam bridge design example. (Details of top slab reinforcement not shown, Refer to Fig. 6.108) ‘Type 25-concrete barrier la "future A.C. overlay 45 stirrup @Toe. typ. all webs #5@ 12" each face : \Los- maton wei uniformly spaced FIGURE E63¢ Reinforcement details for cross section at midspan,cusprers: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 457 REFERENCES AASHTO. (1989). Guide Specifications for Bridge Railings, AASHTO, Washington, DC. ——. (19914). Model Drainage Manual, AASHTO, Washington, DC. ———. (1991b). Highway Drainage Guidelines, Volumes 1-8, AASHTO, Washington, DC. ——. (1992a). Standard Specification for Highway Bridges, 15th ed., AASHTO, Washington, DC, ——. (1992b). Bridge Guide and Manual Interim Specifications 1992, AASHTO, Washing. ton, DC. (1992c). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, Washington, DC. ——. (19924). A Policy on Design Standards—Interstate System, AASHTO, Washington, DC. ACI, (1967). “Guide for Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,” ACT Committee 213, ACIJ., 64(8), August, pp. 443-447, ——. (1969). “Concrete Bridge Design,” ACI Publication SP-23, ACI, Detroit. ——. (1972). “Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures,” ACI Committee 224, Proc. vol. 69, December, pp. 717-753. ——. (1975). "Durability of Concrete,” ACI Publication SP-47, ACI, Detroit, ——.(1977). “Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Structures,” ACI Committee Report, ACL Committee 443, ACI, Detroit, p. 116. ——. (1980). “Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures,” Concrete International, 2(10), October 1980, pp. 35-76. ——. (1988). “Concrete in Marine Environment,” ACI Publication SP-109, ACI, Detroit. ——. (1991). “Recommended Practice for Concrete Highway Bridge Deck Construction,” ACI Report 345, ACI, Detroit. ——. (1992). Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Performance, ACI, Farmington Hills, MI. ——. (1995). Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Structures, ACI Committee Report, ACI, Farmington Hills, MI. ——. (1995). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, (ACI 318-95) and Com- mentary (ACI 318-R95), ACI, Farmington Hills, ML. Bakht, B., and Jaeger, L. G. (1985). Bridge Analysis Simplified, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York. Bennison, P. (1987). “Repair and Protection of Reinforced Concrete Bridges,” in Concrete Bridge Engineering: Performance and Advances, R. J. Cope, ed., Elsevier Applied Sci- ence, New York, pp. 107-141. Broms, B. B. (1965). “Crack Width and Crack Spacing in Reinforced Concrete Members,” ‘ACT J, 62(10), October, pp. 1237-1256. BSI. (1985). BS 810: Part I 1985, Structural Use of Concrete, Code of Practice for Design and Construction, British Standard Institution, London, CALTRANS. (1993a). Bridge Design Specifications Manual (rev. 1993), State of California, Department of Transportation, Sacramento. ——. (1993b). Memo to Bridge Designers, State of California, Department of Transportation, Sacramento. (1993c). Bridge Design Details (rev. 1993), State of California, Department of Trans- portation, Sacramento. .. (1993d). Bridge Design Practice—A Design Manual, State of California, Department of ‘Transportation, Sacramento. Cheung, M. S., and Chan, M. Y. T. (1978). “Finite Strip Evaluation of Effective Flange Width of Bridge Girders,” Canadian J, Civil Eng., 5(2), February, pp. 174-185. CRSI. (1983). A New Look at Short-Span Reinforced Concrete Bridges, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Schaumburg, IL.458 DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHWAY BRIDGES Degenkolb, O. H. (1977). Concrete Box Ginder Bridges, ACI, Detroit. Dunker, K. F., and Rabat, B. G. (1990). “Highway Bridge Type and Performance Patterns,” ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 4(3), August, pp. 161-173. ——. (1992), “Performance of Prestressed Concrete Highway Bridges in the United States— ‘The First 40 Years,” PCIJ., 37(3), May/June, pp. 48-64, Elliot, A. L. (1990). “Steel and Concrete Bridges,” section 18 in Structural Engineering Hand- book, E. H. Gaylord and C. N. Gaylord, eds., McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York. Ferguson, P. M. (1979). Reinforced Concrete Fundamentals, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York. FHWA. (1968). Standard Plans for Highway Bridges: Volume 1. Concrete Superstructures, US. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Public Roads, Washington, DC. ——. (1979). Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges, Bridge Management Branch, Bridge Division, Federal Highway Admin- istration, Washington, DC, ——. (1988). Recording and Coding Guide for the Structu Nation's Bridges, Bridge Management Branch, Bridge Di istration, Washington, DC. FIP. (1975). “Practical Construction,” FIP Guides to Good Practice, Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte, London. Gergely, P,, and Lutz, L. A. (1968). “Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members,” in Causes, Mechanisms, and Control of Cracking in Concrete, ACI Special Publication SP-20, ACI, pp. 1-17. Gerwick, B. C., Jr. (1990). “Intemational Experience in the Performance of Marine Concrete,” Concrete International, ACI, May 1990; ELP. Notes 1991/1, Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte, London, -. (1993). Construction of Prestressed Concrete Structures, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York. Heins, C. P., and Lawrie, R. A. (1984). Design of Modern Concrete Highway Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Iversion, J. K., and Pfeifer, D. W. (1985), “Criteria for Design of Bearing Pads,” Tech. Rep. No. 4, Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, June. Koch. (1992). Koch Bridge Joint System, a brochure, Koch Materials Co., Stroud, OK. Lee, J. A. N. (1962). “Effective Width of T-Beams,” Structural Engineering, 40(1), January, pp. 21-27. Libby, J. R., and Perkins, N. D. (1976). Modern Prestressed Concrete Highway Bridge Super- structures: Design Principles and Construction Methods, Grantville Publishing Co., San Diego. Loveall, C. L. (1985). “Jointless Bridge Decks,” ASCE Civ. Eng., November, pp. 64-67. Lutz, L. A, (1974). “Crack Control Factor for Bundled Bars and for Bars of Different Sizes,” ACI4J., 71(1), January, pp. 9-10. MacGregor, J. G. (1988). Reinforced Concrete~Mechanics and Design, Prentice Hall, Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ. McMormac, J. (1993). Design of Reinforced Concrete, HarperCollins College Publishers, New York. Mehta, P. K. (1986). Concrete: Structure, Properties, and Materials, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. - (1991). “Concrete—50 Years of Progress,” ACI Publication SP 126, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf on Durability of Concrete, ACI, Detroit. Nawy, E. G. (1968), “Crack Control in Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI J. Proc., vol. 65, October, pp. 825-838, ventory and Appraisal of the jon, Federal Highway Admin-cuarrers: Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges 459 ——. (1972). “Crack Control in Beams Reinforced with Bundled Bars,” ACIJ. Proc., vol. 69, October, pp. 637-640. ——. (1985). Reinforced Concrete—A Fundamental Approach, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Nawy, E. G., and Blair, K. W. (1973). “Further Studies on Flexural Crack Control in Struc- tural Slab Systems,” a discussion by ACI Code Committee 318, and “Authors” Closure,” ACL J. Proc., vol. 70, January, pp. 61-63. NCHRP 298. (1987). “Performance of Elastomeric Bearings,” NCHRP Report No. 298, Trans- portation Research Board, Washington, DC. NCHRP-SYN. (1985). “Bridge Designs to Reduce and Facilitate Maintenance and Repair,” Na- tional Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis Report No. 123, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. . (1989). “Bridge Deck Joints,” by Burke, M. P., Jt., National Cooperative Highway Re- search Program Synthesis of Highway Practice Report 141, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. . (1992). “Latex-Modified Concretes and Mortars,” National Cooperative Highway Re- search Program Synthesis of Highway Practice Report 179, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council., Washington, DC. Nilson, A. H., and Winter, G. (1986). Design of Concrete Structures, 10th ed., McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York. PBQD. (1992). Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, and staff. Bridge Inspection and Rehabilitation: A Practical Guide, Louis G. Silsno, ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York. PCA. (1941). Continuous Hollow Girder Concrete Bridges, Portland Cement Association, Chicago. ——. (1951). Continuous Concrete Bridges, 2nd ed., Portland Cement Association, Chicago. PCL. (1975). Short-Span Bridges: Spans to 100 Ft, Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago. Pfeifer, D. W., and Iversion, J. K. (1985). “Bearing Pads for Precast Concrete Buildings,” PCI4., September-October. Roeder, C. W., and Stanton, J. F. (1983). “Elastomeric Bearings: State of the Art,” ASCE J. Str Div., 109(12), September, p. 2853. (1991). “State-of-the-Art: Elastomeric Bridge Bearing Design,” ACI J., 88(1), January— February. Sabins, G. M., ed. (1979). Handbook of Composite Construction Engineering, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. Severn, R. T. (1962). “The Deformation of a Rectangular Slab Stiffened by Beams under Trans- verse Load,” Magazine of Concrete Research, 14(41), luly, pp. 73-78. . (1964). “Effective Width of T-Beams,” Magazine of Concrete Research, 16(47), June, pp. 99-102. Stanton, J, F, and Roeder, C. W. (1982). “Blastomeric Bearings, Design, Construction, Materials,” NCHRP Report No. 248, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, August, p. 82. . (1983). “Elastomeric Bridge Bearing Specifications: Review of the Present and Proposals. for the Future,” Title No. 80-47, ACI J., Novernber-December, p. 514, Timoshenko, S. P., and Goodier, J. N. (1970). Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, pp. 262-268. Voss. (1989). Fiberlast—The Omni Direction Bearing Ped of Tommorrow, Voss Engr. Inc., Chicago, p. 14. (1991). Sorbtex—Fiberlast, a Design Manual, Voss Engr. Co., Chicago. ‘Wang, C. T. (1953). Applied Elasticity, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York. ‘Wasserman, E. P. (1987). “Jointless Bridge Decks,” AISC Engr: J., 3rd qtr., pp. 93-100.