Design of r.
c bridge deck
Most of the new bridge decks are constructed of reinforced
concrete. Based on the Load and Resistance Factor Design(LRFD)Bridge Design
Specifications (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
[AASHTO] 2012), Section 9.6.1, bridge decks are allowed to be analyzed using the
following three methods:
Elastic method, also known as traditional method or equivalent strip method, where
the deck is divided into strips and analyzed as a reinforced concrete flexural element.
Empirical method, also known as the Ontario method, if the deck meets certain
criteria then the minimum amount of transverse reinforcing steel shall be 0.27 in
2 per foot in the bottom layer and 0.18 in 2 per foot in the top layer. This corresponds to
a reinforcing steel ratio of 0.34% in the bottom layer and 0.23% in the top layer,
assuming an 8 inch thick deck and using No.5 rebars. However the Florida Department
of Transportation [FDOT] Structures Manual January 2009, Structures Design
Guidelines(SDG) Section 4.2.4 requires the use of no. 5 bars at 12 inches in both
directions in the top and the bottom layers.
Refined method, or finite element modeling, where the deck is modeled using
detailed three-dimensional shells or plate elements.
Solid slab bridges
Single spans
The solid slab is the simplest form of reinforced concrete bridge deck. Ease of
construction resulting from the simplicity makes this the most economic type for short
span structures. Solid slabs also have good distribution properties which makes them
efficient at carrying concentrated movableloads such as wheel loads for highway
bridges. However, above a span of around 10 m the deadweight starts to
become excessive, making other forms of construction more economic. Solid slab
bridges can be simply supported on bearings orbuilt into the abutments. Until recently,
bridge engineerstended to be quite pedantic about providing for expansion
and even bridges as short as 9 m span were often provided with bearings and
expansion joints. However, bearings and expansion joints have proved to be among the
most troublesome components of bridges. In particular, deterioration of substructures
due to water leaking through expansion joints has been common especially in bridges
carrying roads where de-icing salt is used. Recently, the fashion has changed back to
designing bridges that are cast integral with the abutments or bank seats (Department
of Transport, 1995). Apart from the durability advantages, this can lead to saving in the
deck due to the advantage of continuity. On short span bridges with relatively high
abutment walls, being able to use the deck to prop the abutments can also lead to
significant savings in the abutments. However, this normally depends on being able to
build the deck before backfilling behind the abutments. When assumptions about
construction approach such as this are made in design, it is important that they should
be properly conveyed to the contractor, normally by stating them on the drawings.
A feature of the design of integral bridges which has not always been appreciated is
that, because the deck is not structurally isolated from the substructure, the stress
state in the deck is dependent on the soil properties. This inevitably means that the
analysis is less accurate than in conventional structures. Neither the normal at-rest
pressure behind abutments nor the resistance to movement is ever accurately known. It
might be argued that, because of this, designs should be done for both upper and lower
bounds to soil properties. In practice, this is not generally done and the design criteria
used have sufficient reserve so this does not lead to problems. Depending on the
ground conditions, span and obstacle
crossed, the abutments of a single-span bridge may be
separate or may be joined to form a complete box. Such
box type structures have the advantage that they can be
built without piles even in very poor ground, as the bearing
pressure is low. Since the box structure is likely to be lighter
than the displaced fill, the net bearing pressure is often
negative. This can lead to problems in made ground as
the embankment either side of the box may settle much
more than the box, leading to problems with vertical alignment and damage to the
surfacing or rails over the bridge.
RC slab bridges are normally cast in situ. An exception is
very short span shallower structures (typically up to some
6 m span and 3.6 m clear height) which can be most economically precast effectively
complete as box culverts, leaving only parapets and, where required, wing walls to cast
in
situ. This form of construction is most commonly used for
conveying watercourses under embankments but can be
used for footway and cycletracks.
In situ construction is very convenient for greenfield sites
and for crossing routes that can be diverted. It is less convenient for crossing under or
over live routes. For the
latter, spanning formwork can be used if there is sufficient
headroom. However, in many cases beam bridges are more
convenient and the precast beams will normally be prestressed. RC box type structures
can, however, be installed
under live traffic. They can be pushed under embankments.
The issues are considered by Allenby and Ropkins (2004).
A reasonable amount of fill over the box is needed to do
this under live traffic. The box structure is cast adjacent to
its final position and then jacked into position with antidrag ropes preventing the
foundations below and the fill
above moving with it. If there is not much fill depth, it
becomes impractical to push the box whilst keeping a road
or rail route over the top still. A similar approach can, however, be used with the box
cast in advance and then jacked
into place in open cut over a relatively short possession.
Multiple spans
In the past, some in situ multi-span slab bridges were built
which were simply supported. However, unlike in bridges
built from precast beams, it is no more complicated to
build a continuous bridge. Indeed, because of the absence
of the troublesome and leak-prone expansion joints, it
may actually be simpler. It is therefore only in exceptional
circumstances (for example construction in areas subject
to extreme differential settlement due to mining subsidence)
that multiple simply supported spans are now used.
Making the deck continuous or building it into the abutments also leads to a significant
reduction in the mid-span
sagging moments in the slab. The advantage of this continuityin material terms is much
greater than in bridges of prestressed beam construction where creep redistribution
effects
usually more than cancel out the saving in live load moments.
Various approaches are possible for the piers. Either leaf
piers can be used or discrete columns. Unlike in beam
bridges, the latter approach needs no separate transverse
beam. The necessary increase in local transverse moment
capacity can be achieved by simply providing additional
transverse reinforcement in critical areas. This facility
makes slab bridges particularly suitable for geometrically
complicated viaducts such as arise in some interchanges
in urban situations. Curved decks with varying skew
angles and discrete piers in apparently random locations
can readily be accommodated.
Whether discrete columns or leaf piers are used, they can
either be provided with bearings or built into the deck. The
major limitation on the latter approach is that, if the bridge
is fixed in more than one position, the pier is subject to
significant moments due to the thermal expansion and
contraction of the deck. Unless the piers are very tall and
slender, this usually precludes using the approach for
more than one or two piers in a viaduct.
