RC Bridge Decks Under Pulsating and Moving Load
Philip C. Perdikaris, S R Beim
Abstract
Philip C. Perdikaris, S R Beim
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.
OpenAlex reports 107 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
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