1996Journal of Bridge EngineeringRequires access

Static Behavior of Noncomposite Concrete Bridge Decks under Concentrated Loads

M. Petrou, Philip C. Perdikaris, Mingzhu Duan

Open publisher page 13 citations

Abstract

Tests were conducted under a concentrated monotonically increasing static wheel load on 1/6.6-scale physical models of three different types of noncomposite deck structure: (1) the entire deck supported on four steel girders; (2) an isolated deck slab region with a width equal to 1/3 of the bridge span; and (3) a 102-mm-wide transverse “beam” deck strip, both simply supported on two opposite edges on adjacent girders. Three reinforcing arrangements for the noncomposite concrete deck are studied: (1) orthotropic steel reinforcement (AASHTO); (2) isotropic steel reinforcement ( Ontario 1983); and (3) “isotropic-0.2%” minimum steel reinforcement. Flexural steel and concrete strain measurements in the “beam” deck strip models are compared with those in the models of the entire bridge deck where combined membrane compression and bending is present. Depending on the degree of the lateral and/or rotational edge restraint of the deck specimens, the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the models of the entire bridge deck ranges from five to 10 times that of the “beam” deck strips. Although some of the deck models failed primarily in flexure, all of them eventually punched through at a maximum deck deflection of less than 50% of the deck thickness.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Tests were conducted under a concentrated monotonically increasing static wheel load on 1/6.6-scale physical models of three different types of noncomposite deck structure: (1) the entire deck supported on four steel girders; (2) an isolated deck slab region with a width equal to 1/3 of the bridge span; and (3) a 102-mm-wide transverse “beam” deck strip, both simply supported on two opposite edges on adjacent girders. Three reinforcing arrangements for the noncomposite concrete deck are studied: (1) orthotropic steel reinforcement (AASHTO); (2) isotropic steel reinforcement ( Ontario 1983); and (3) “isotropic-0.2%” minimum steel reinforcement. Flexural steel and concrete strain measurements in the “beam” deck strip models are compared with those in the models of the entire bridge deck where combined membrane compression and bending is present. Depending on the degree of the lateral and/or rotational edge restraint of the deck specimens, the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the models of the entire bridge deck ranges from five to 10 times that of the “beam” deck strips. Although some of the deck models failed primarily in flexure, all of them eventually punched through at a maximum deck deflection of less than 50% of the deck thickness.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 13 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Tests were conducted under a concentrated monotonically increasing static wheel load on 1/6.6-scale physical models of three different types of noncomposite deck structure: (1) the entire deck supported on four steel girders; (2) an isolated deck slab region with a width equal to 1/3 of the bridge span; and (3) a 102-mm-wide transverse “beam” deck strip, both simply supported on two opposite edges on adjacent girders. Three reinforcing arrangements for the noncomposite concrete deck are studied: (1) orthotropic steel reinforcement (AASHTO); (2) isotropic steel reinforcement ( Ontario 1983); and (3) “isotropic-0.2%” minimum steel reinforcement. Flexural steel and concrete strain measurements in the “beam” deck strip models are compared with those in the models of the entire bridge deck where combined membrane compression and bending is present. Depending on the degree of the lateral and/or rotational edge restraint of the deck specimens, the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the models of the entire bridge deck ranges from five to 10 times that of the “beam” deck strips. Although some of the deck models failed primarily in flexure, all of them eventually punched through at a maximum deck deflection of less than 50% of the deck thickness.

Key concepts: Deck, Structural engineering, Girder, Deflection (physics), Slab, Beam (structure), Orthotropic material, Materials science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Static Behavior of Noncomposite Concrete Bridge Decks under Concentrated Loads — Research Paper | ScholarLens