An Investigation On Transversely Prestressed Concrete Bridge Decks

An Investigation on Transversely
Prestressed Concrete Bridge Decks
J. Paul Smith
Objective
Study of transverse post-tensioning of
concrete bridge decks as an alternative to
improve durability.
Types of Bridges in Indiana

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Slab & slab-on-girder
Type of RC bridge
Box-beam
Scope
Develop design specifications applicable to:
Slab bridges
Slab-on-Girder bridges
Problem Statement
q [F/L]
?
Assumption:
Linear behavior
Specimen for Experimental Phase of

Texas Study
3.78 in.
6.28 in.
3.59 in.
3.48 in.
8.52 in.
3.78 in.
9.64 in.
3.48 in.
Girders
8.52 in.
4.82 in.
3.14 in.
Diaphragms
9.64 in.
4.82 in.
9.87 in.
Location of strain
gages
C
L
0.6ksi
1.2ksi
24
18
10
20
19
11
25
12
21
13
27
26
14
22
4.80ft
23
15
1.80ft
16
17
8.70ft
5.5 ft
1.2ksi
11 ft
1 2
where
: measured strain
E c (ksi) 57 f c' (psi)
9
8
exp E c
1.80ft
Modeling Alternatives
(SAP2000)
beam
2D Model
shell
Girders and diaphragms as beams (Type I)
3D Model
(slab as shell)
Flanges as beams
and webs as
shells
Diaphs. as shells (Type II)

Diaphs. as beam (Type III)
Comparison of Analytical (SAP2000)

& Experimental (Texas Study) Results
Top
Stresses
Modeling Type
2D
3D(I)
3D(II)
3D(III)
16
14
14
14
Max
40
38
38
42
mean[(s/exp)-1]x100%
ax Max[(s/exp)-1]x100%
Analysis using ANSYS 5.7
Alternative modeling:
Use brick and shell elements
SAP2000 vs. ANSYS 5.7

(Texas Model)
Variables of Interest
Girders (spacing, stiffness)

Diaphragms (spacing, stiffness, location)
Boundary conditions
Post-tensioning spacing
Slab thickness
Base Case
q/h = 100
q/h = 100
2.5 ft
1.00 ft
24.33 ft
14 in.
8.25 in.
8 in.
8.25 in.
7.75 in.
7.75 in.
27
22in.
in. ft
25.34
27 in.
7 in.
21.5 in.
21.5 in.
10.75 in.
10.75 in.
22 in.
24.33 ft
6 @ 8.83 ft
1.00 ft
Preliminary Evaluation of
Variables (2D Modeling)
Base Case:
Effect of Girder Spacing:
a) Half Spacing
b) Quarter Spacing
Effect of Girder (No diaphragms):
a) Concrete girders
b) Steel girders
Effect of Diaphragms:
Top half:
diaphragms present
Bottom half:
diaphragms no present
Effect of boundary conditions:
Fully restrained except
against displacement in x
Restrained against
displacement in x
Effect of Post-tensioning Spacing:
a) Forces at every other node:
@ 4
b) Forces every four nodes:

@ 8
Effect of Slab Thickness:
8 slab
6 slab
Preliminary Identification of
Relevant Variables (2D Modeling)
Diaphragms (stiffness, location, spacing)
Boundary conditions
Post-tensioning spacing
Effect of Diaphragms
Distribution of transverse stresses is mainly
affected by diaphragm size and location.
Notation
Normalized stress = s/q
C
L
Location 19
Location 18
Stripe 2
Location 7
Location 6
Location 5
Location 4
Location 3
Location 2
Location 1
Stripe 1
Location 14
Location 13
18 @ 25.33 in.
Effect of Diaphragm Size

1.1
1.1
Ad (in2) =65
Ad (in2) =176
Ad (in2) =270
0.8
0.9
Normalized Stress
Normalized Stress
0.9
0.7
0.6
Ad (in2) =65
Ad (in2) =176
Ad (in2) =270
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
1
10 11 12
Location No.
Stripe 1
13 14
15 16 17 18
19
10 11
12
Location No.
y
Stripe 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Effect of Diaphragm Location

(Exterior Diaphragms Only)
1
1
Diaphragm Position
Location 1
Location 3
Location 5
Location 7
Location 9
Location 13
Location 17
Normalized Stress
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.9
Normalized Stress
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
2
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Location
Location
Location
Location
Location
Location
Location
0.8
0.4
Diaphragm Position
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Location No.
Location No.
y
Stripe 1
1
3
5
7
9
13
17
Stripe 2
Minimum Stress vs.

Diaphragm Position
1
N ormalized Stress
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
1
10
11
Location No. (of diaphragm)
12
13
14
15
16
17
Top Stress
(for Unit stress at middepth of flange)
Effective Width of T Beam vs.

Top Stress
1.00
0.90
0.80
Beff
0.70
Beff x h
0.60
0.50
0.40
0
50
100
150
200
Beff (in.)
250
300
350
400
400
Diaphragm Location vs. Effective Width

420
300
Beff x h
350
500
B eff (in .)
Beff (in.)
150
200
250
340
260
y = 30 x - 23.5
R2 = 0.99
100
180
50
100
0.40
0
8
9 10
Location No.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
N o r m a liz e d S tr e s s
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
20
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
1
10
11
Location No. (of diaphragm)
12
13
14
15
16
17
Conclusions at this Stage

Distribution of transverse stresses mainly
influenced by:
Diaphragm axial stiffness and position
Boundary conditions
Influence of diaphragm position:

Rationalized using T-beam analogy

An Investigation On Transversely Prestressed Concrete Bridge Decks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Investigation On Transversely Prestressed Concrete Bridge Decks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Investigation on Transversely

Prestressed Concrete Bridge Decks

Types of Bridges in Indiana

Specimen for Experimental Phase of

Girders and diaphragms as beams (Type I)

Diaphs. as shells (Type II)

Comparison of Analytical (SAP2000)

Analysis using ANSYS 5.7

SAP2000 vs. ANSYS 5.7

Girders (spacing, stiffness)

b) Forces every four nodes:

Effect of Diaphragm Size

Effect of Diaphragm Location

Minimum Stress vs.

Location No. (of diaphragm)

Effective Width of T Beam vs.

Diaphragm Location vs. Effective Width

Location No. (of diaphragm)

Conclusions at this Stage

Influence of diaphragm position:

You might also like