1988Journal of Structural EngineeringRequires access

RC Bridge Decks Under Pulsating and Moving Load

Philip C. Perdikaris, S R Beim

Open publisher page 107 citations

Abstract

Tests were conducted on 1/6.6‐scale reinforced‐concrete bridge deck slabs under static load, pulsating load applied at a fixed point, and moving constant wheel‐load. Both isotropic and orthotropic reinforcing arrangements were considered. The current AASHTO design approach (orthotropic reinforcement) appears to be overconservative. The moving wheel‐load results in far more damage than the fixed pulsating load, and the cracking pattern due to the former loading is segmental (gridlike) and more extensive. The failure mode for all reinforced model decks is that of punching shear and not flexure. It is concluded that the reinforcement content in a bridge deck can be reduced significantly and satisfy both serviceability and strength requirements.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Tests were conducted on 1/6.6‐scale reinforced‐concrete bridge deck slabs under static load, pulsating load applied at a fixed point, and moving constant wheel‐load. Both isotropic and orthotropic reinforcing arrangements were considered. The current AASHTO design approach (orthotropic reinforcement) appears to be overconservative. The moving wheel‐load results in far more damage than the fixed pulsating load, and the cracking pattern due to the former loading is segmental (gridlike) and more extensive. The failure mode for all reinforced model decks is that of punching shear and not flexure. It is concluded that the reinforcement content in a bridge deck can be reduced significantly and satisfy both serviceability and strength requirements.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 107 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 on 1/6.6‐scale reinforced‐concrete bridge deck slabs under static load, pulsating load applied at a fixed point, and moving constant wheel‐load. Both isotropic and orthotropic reinforcing arrangements were considered. The current AASHTO design approach (orthotropic reinforcement) appears to be overconservative. The moving wheel‐load results in far more damage than the fixed pulsating load, and the cracking pattern due to the former loading is segmental (gridlike) and more extensive. The failure mode for all reinforced model decks is that of punching shear and not flexure. It is concluded that the reinforcement content in a bridge deck can be reduced significantly and satisfy both serviceability and strength requirements.

Key concepts: Orthotropic material, Serviceability (structure), Structural engineering, Reinforcement, Deck, Moving load, Cracking, Punching

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
RC Bridge Decks Under Pulsating and Moving Load — Research Paper | ScholarLens