See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239386643

Behavior, Analysis, and Design of an Instrumented Link Slab Bridge

Article in Journal of Bridge Engineering · May 2005

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2005)10:3(331)

CITATIONS READS
27 4,816

2 authors, including:

Mervyn Kowalsky
North Carolina State University
143 PUBLICATIONS 6,680 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mervyn Kowalsky on 20 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Behavior, Analysis, and Design of an Instrumented Link
Slab Bridge
Kenneth M. Wing, S.M.ASCE,1 and Mervyn J. Kowalsky, A.M.ASCE2

Abstract: Presented in this paper are the results of a research project on the monitoring and assessment of the first link slab jointless
bridge in the state of North Carolina. The structure was instrumented with a remote data acquisition system and monitored for over a year.
In addition, a controlled load test was conducted in an effort to determine the demand on the link slab under known loads. A procedure
for the limit-states design of a link slab system is also presented. Results indicate that while the crack size in the link slab exceeded the
design level, the link slab fulfilled its function. Furthermore, the rotational demand from the large controlled loads as well as the traffic
loads was similar in magnitude to the thermal induced rotations due to the difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the
bridge.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2005兲10:3共331兲
CE Database subject headings: Slabs; Bridges; Joints; Monitoring; North Carolina; Rehabilitation.

Introduction Research Objective, Motivation and Methods

The North Carolina Department of Transportation 共NCDOT兲 is
currently involved in a bridge rehabilitation and replacement pro-
gram where each of the state’s bridges is assessed to determine its
rehabilitation needs. One of the bridges identified for rehabilita-
tion is located in Waynesville, N.C. The structure is on US High-
way 23-74 bypass, a major thoroughfare to Great Smokey Moun-
tains National Park, and spans over Plott Creek and State Road
1173, in Haywood County, N.C. There are two bridges 共referred
to as the Plott Creek bridge in this paper兲, one for the east bound
lanes, and one for the west bound lanes. Each of the bridges
originally carried two lanes of traffic. As part of the rehabilitation
project, an additional lane was added to each bridge, which re-
sulted in additional columns and a complete redesign of the steel
girder and concrete deck superstructure.
Prior to the design of the new superstructure, research by
Caner and Zia 共1998兲 led to the development of a design concept
for jointless bridges where the locations for expansion joints are
replaced with continuous link slabs, with the objective being to
reduce the number of expansion joints. By reducing the number
of expansion joints, the bridge maintenance costs decrease. The
west bound Plott Creek bridge on US Highway 23-74 was se-
lected as a demonstration for the jointless bridge deck concept by
the NCDOT. As a result, a unique opportunity to instrument and
test the link slab design concept on a full-scale bridge was pre-
sented.
The objective of the research described in this paper is to assess
the performance of the first jointless link slab bridge in North
Carolina through the use of remote instrumentation and a variety
of testing and analysis methods. The motivation for the research
stems from the desire to determine if the bridge design assump-
tions were valid, and if necessary, to propose changes to the de-
sign concept. The most important assumption that requires veri-
fication was the assumption that link slab bridge girders can be
assumed to be simply supported for dead and live load.
The primary methods used to investigate the performance of
the bridge consist of a full-scale live load test and long-term
monitoring under seasonal and service level loading. This is aided
by a remote solar-powered data acquisition system that allows
collection of data at specified intervals. In addition to the experi-
mental studies, an analytical model of the bridge was developed
in an effort to predict the performance of the bridge link slab
under specified loads.
Review of Link Slab Design Concept
Research by Caner and Zia „1998…
In jointless bridge decks, the traditional expansion joints are re-
placed with “Link Slabs” which are the portion of the deck that

1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, North
Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State
Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on August 11, 2003; approved on May 3, 2004. This
paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, May
1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2005/3-331–344/$25.00. Fig. 1. Link slab design concept

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 331

 Fig. 2. Plott Creek bridge in Haywood County, N.C.

connects two adjacent simple-span girders 共El-Safty 1994兲. Tra-
ditional bridge deck joints pose many problems with regards to
bridge maintenance. For example, water penetration through the
joint damages the girder end bearings and supporting structures.
In addition, debris accumulation within the expansion joint pre-
vents the expansion of the deck and damages the joint.
One alternative to expansion joints, which are expensive to
install and maintain, are link slabs. Link slabs reduce both the
installation and maintenance costs associated with traditional
joints. It should also be noted that under normal service loads fine
cracks might develop in the link slab and still allow water to
penetrate into the slab. However, this situation is preferable to a
traditional expansion joint as less water penetrates to the bearing
below the girder.
To the knowledge of the writers, the only formal design ap-
proach for link slab bridges was proposed by Caner and Zia
共1998兲 as discussed below. The reader may refer to Figs. 1 and 2
for graphical representations of the link slab design concept while
reading the description below.
1. Design each span of the bridge as if it was simply supported.
Do not account for the effects of the link slab since the

Fig. 3. Bridge layout

332 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005

 Fig. 4. Section of link slab

stiffness of the link slab is much smaller than the stiffness of
the composite girders.
2. To further reduce the stiffness of the link slab, provide a
debonding length of 5% of the girder spans. The reduction in
stiffness of the link slab minimizes the stresses that will de-
velop by distributing the curvature over a larger area. Studies
show that debonding up to 5% does not affect the force de-
formation behavior of the structure 共El-Safty 1994兲.
3. Determine the maximum end rotations of the simply sup-
ported girders when subjected to service loads. Impose those
rotations on the link slab and determine the maximum mo-
ment in the link slab using gross section properties 共which is
conservative since cracks will occur in the link slab兲.
4. Design the link slab reinforcement based on the calculated
moment, using a conservative working stress, such as 40% of
the yield strength of the reinforcing bar.

Fig. 5. Bridge instrumentation layout

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 333

 Fig. 6. Thermocouple locations
5. Limit the crack width using the crack control criteria of the
AASHTO specifications.
This proposed method was based on the results of analytical
studies and a test program conducted by Caner and Zia 共1998兲.
Their test program consisted of two large scale test specimens
both of composite construction. One test specimen was a continu-
ous reinforced concrete deck slab cast on two simple-span steel
beams. The other test specimen was a similar deck cast on precast
reinforced concrete beams. The test procedure for both types of
specimens was similar. Each specimen was tested using four com-
mon support configurations to determine if different support con-
ditions would produce different behaviors of the link slab. For
each test, the specimens were loaded to no more than 40% of the
estimated ultimate load capacity to observe the behavior in the
elastic range. The load was applied incrementally and data for the
steel and concrete strains, loads, crack growth, and deflections
were collected for each increment 共Caner and Zia 1998兲.
Design of the Plott Creek Bridge Rehabilitation
In 1997, the NCDOT identified a suitable bridge in Haywood
County, N.C. to implement the use of a link slab to reduce the
number of expansion joints. The structure carried two lanes of
traffic and was being widened to accommodate a third traffic lane.
The original structure, which was built in 1965, underwent a re-
habilitation in 1998 where the abutments were modified from
conventional to integral abutments by embedding the girder ends
into the abutment concrete. In addition, another pier was added
and the cap-beams were extended to support the additional girder
line. Fig. 3 is a picture of the entire Plott Creek bridge in Hay-
wood County. The new superstructure is located on a horizontal
Fig. 7. Strain gauge layout over Bent 1
334 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005
Fig. 8. Strain gauge layout in Span A
curve with a slight superelevation. The original structure had
three interior expansion joints. After the rehabilitation, only the
centermost expansion joint remained. The other two interior ex-
pansion joints were replaced with link slabs, with one of them
being instrumented to monitor the performance of the link slab.
Fig. 4 illustrates the position of expansion joints and link slabs in
the bridge, while Fig. 2 is a section drawing of the link slab
showing the details and reinforcement. The link slab was de-
signed for a girder end rotation of 0.002 rad using the proposed
design procedure developed by Caner and Zia 共1998兲.
Bridge Instrumentation
Locations and Types of Instruments Used
The performance of the link slab was monitored with instrumen-
tation placed as shown in Fig. 5. To measure temperature at the
structure and also within the deck, there were 16 thermocouples at
different positions along the structure. These devices were FF-
K-24 Omega thermocouples. The maximum temperature that
these particular gauges can read is 200°C. There were 12 thermo-
couples located inside of the bridge deck and four attached to the
steel girders. At each location within the deck, there was a gauge
at the top of the slab and one at the bottom of the slab 共see Fig. 6兲.
To measure strain in the structure there were electrical resis-
tance strain gauges, as well as vibrating wire strain gauges. The
electrical resistance strain gauges were type CEA-06-250UW-120
gauges from Micro-Measurements. There were 12 electrical resis-
tance strain gauges located within the structure. Six of the gauges
were located in the bridge deck and six were attached to the steel
girders. At each location there was a gauge at the top of the deck
and also at the bottom of the deck. There was also a gauge at the
top, middle, and bottom of two of the girders 共see Figs. 7 and 8兲.
All exposed electrical resistance gauges were weatherproofed
with Micro-Measurements M-Coat D and Scotch 3M Mastic tape.
Unfortunately, these gauges proved to be unreliable and little use-
ful information was obtained from them.
The vibrating wire strain gauges were type EM-5 from
Roctest. The gauge was approximately 18 cm long with two end
disks of 2.5 cm diameter. The gauge has a range of 3,300 micro-
strain. Not only do these gauges measure strain, they also contain
a thermistor, which determines the temperature at the location of
the gauge.
 Fig. 9. 共a兲 Linear variable differential transform 共LVDT兲 layout and 共b兲 LVDT stands

There were 16 Schaevitz DC-SE Series linear variable differ-
ential transformers 共LVDTs兲 positioned on the bridge as shown in
Fig. 5. They were attached to stands that were designed by Wag-
ner 共2001兲 which were attached to the bents at the desired loca-
tions as shown in Fig. 9共a兲. The stands, shown in Fig. 9共b兲, were
placed between girders at locations marked by the triangles in
Fig. 5. Each stand supported a total of four gauges. Stands placed
between the interior girders 共girder line 4兲 measured deformation
relative to adjacent stiffeners, while stands placed on the exterior
girders 共girder line 5兲 measured deformation relative to aluminum
angles that were attached with epoxy to the girders. The stands
were bolted to the cap beam, and the LVDTs mounted to the
stands with plastic grips. Note that in Fig. 9共b兲 only two gauges
are visible. The other two gauges supported by the stand are on
the other side of the girder web.
The LVDTs mounted on the stands were used to determine the
girder end rotations based on the measured displacements. Three
different LVDT stroke lengths were used to instrument the struc-
ture: 50, 12, and 7 mm. As previously mentioned, at each location
there were four devices: two connected to the end of each adja-
cent girder at different heights 共see Fig. 9兲.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 335

Table 1. Loads Used during Live Load Test 共kN兲
Load 1 Load 2
Axle left/right left/right
1a 21.53/ 19.93 20.55/ 20.19
2 13.97/ 16.28 20.11/ 22.24
3 15.39/ 14.77 19.39/ 20.73
4 10.05/ 8.36 28.20/ 21.44
5 8.54/ 8.36 23.58/ 17.08
Total 137 214
a
Axle 1 is in front of the truck.
Description of the Campbell Scientific Remote
Solar-Powered Data Acquisition System
Power was supplied to the data acquisition system by a BP24 12
V, 24 A hour lead acid battery which was charged by an onsite
MSX10 solar panel 共1994兲. The solar panel was positioned to
minimize the potential for vandalism while receiving ample sun-
light to power the system. The solar panel and battery were con-
nected directly to a CH12R volt charge regulator, which limits the
power supply to the associated instruments in the event of a
power surge.
The charge regulator was connected directly to the central pro-
cessing unit, which was a CR23X-4M datalogger 共1998c兲 capable
of 4 MB of data storage. The datalogger controls all operations of
the multiplexers and stored data from the gauges until the data is
retrieved. The software used to control the collection of the data,
communicate with the datalogger, and setup telecommunications
used at this project site was PCW208 Datalogger Programming
Software 共1998d兲.
There were two models of multiplexers used at this site. The
first multiplexer was the AM416 Multiplexer 共1996兲 which was
the central collection point for thermocouples, electrical resis-
tance strain gauges, vibrating wire strain gauges, and LVDTs. The
second multiplexer, model AM25T 共1998a兲 was the central col-
lection point for the thermocouples. All of the gauges previously
discussed were connected directly to the appropriate multiplexer.
Data from these gauges was stored in the datalogger and down-
loaded remotely through the use of a COM200 9600 baud modem
共1998b兲.
The last component of the data acquisition was three ENC
16/ 18 weatherproof enclosures. These enclosures have small
Fig. 10. Truck positions on bridge
336 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005
Load 3 Load 4
left/right left/right
21.17/ 21.44 22.95/ 22.69
25.98/ 28.91 40.83/ 44.66
25.62/ 28.38 39.77/ 44.57
35.76/ 45.37 46.88/ 58.54
31.05/ 40.66 46.35/ 56.40
304 424
holes at the base which allow the wires from the gauges and the
other equipment to enter. Each box was equipped with a moisture
indicator card to guard against moisture intrusion as well as locks
to prevent the equipment inside from being vandalized. For fur-
ther details regarding the data acquisition system, see Warren
共2000兲.
Live Load Test
Load History
The live load test was conducted in June of 2001 and consisted of
four prescribed load levels positioned on the bridge at two differ-
ent locations. The first location was selected to produce the maxi-
mum positive moment in one of the spans adjacent to the link slab
共Position One兲 while the second location was selected to produce
the maximum negative moment in the link slab 共Position Two兲.
The magnitudes of the loads that were selected were based on
the capacity of the truck that was to be used to apply the loads to
the bridge, as well as the maximum allowable overload condition.
The first load used was the weight of the empty truck: 137 kN.
The third load used was close to the maximum allowable load for
the specified truck without the need of a permit, which in this case
was 304 kN. The second load used was approximately halfway in
between the first and third loads 共214 kN兲. The fourth and final
load that was used for the test was 424 kN. This was the largest
allowable permit load that the North Carolina Department of
Motor Vehicles 共DMV兲 allowed for this bridge. Table 1 lists the
loads that were used during the test, while Fig. 10 is a diagram of
 Fig. 11. Truck positions during live load testing: 共a兲 maximum positive moment; and 共b兲 maximum negative moment

the wheels and axles of the truck. The truck location on the bridge
for each of the two positions is shown in Fig. 11.
Expected Bridge Performance
A model was developed using the computer program Visual
Analysis 共2000兲 to predict the girder end rotations during the live
load test. Only Spans A and B were incorporated into the model.
The other half of the bridge is not instrumented and an expansion
joint separates the two halves. Only one girder line was modeled
at a time. The loads were positioned along the girders at the same
locations that the wheel loads were during the test, with one point
load used for each axle. The load that was used was a combina-
tion of the two wheel loads for each axle, assuming simple span
behavior of the deck. Tables 2 and 3 list the loads that were
entered into the computer model for the two different instru-
mented girders. These loads were obtained by multiplying the
wheel loads by the ratio of the distance the wheels were from the
girder to the girder spacing. In effect, this is the load that is
carried by the modeled girder. For example, the 26.26 kN load
used for girder four, axle one, was achieved by adding
共2.006/ 2.438兲 ⫻ 21.53 kN and 共1.048/ 2.438兲 ⫻ 19.93 kN. Table 2
lists the loads for the girder four run, and Table 3 lists the loads
for the girder five run. The girder four run is the model in which
girder four was analyzed and likewise the girder five run was the
model in which girder five was analyzed. The abutment was mod-
eled with a fixed joint and the expansion joint was modeled with
a roller joint. The link slab was modeled using a pinned connec-
tion at the girder end bearings of the two adjacent girders. The
stiffness of the composite girders and link slab were calculated by
transforming the concrete into an effective area of steel.
Test Results
The results of the live load test were compared to those obtained
from the Visual Analysis model. Figs. 12共a–f兲 represent the results
of this comparison where the truck is placed to generate maxi-
mum positive moment in Span B, while Figs. 13共a–f兲 provide the
results for the truck position which generates maximum negative
moment at the link slab. In each of Figs. 12 and 13, six graphs for
the six girder ends where rotation can occur are shown. Also, in
each graph, “V.A.” represents the results from the Visual Analysis

Table 2. Girder 4 Loads 共kN兲 Table 3. Girder 5 Loads 共kN兲

Load Load
Axle 1 2 3 4 Axle 1 2 3 4
1 26.26 25.57 26.62 28.61 1 10.95 11.09 11.78 12.46
2 18.48 26.08 33.78 52.75 2 8.94 12.22 15.88 24.53
3 19.00 24.85 33.25 51.84 3 8.11 11.39 15.59 24.48
4 11.86 32.39 48.89 63.69 4 4.59 11.78 24.92 32.16
5 10.61 26.72 42.99 62.33 5 4.59 9.38 22.33 30.98
Total 86.20 135.60 185.53 259.23 Total 37.19 55.86 90.50 124.61

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 337

Fig. 12. Comparison of experimental and analytical results for Position 1, maximum+ moment: 共a兲 Girder A4 at the link slab; 共b兲 Girder B4 at
the link slab; 共c兲 Girder B4 at the expansion joint; 共d兲 Girder A5 at the link slab; 共e兲 Girder B5 at the link slab; and 共f兲 Girder B5 at the expansion
joint

model, while “L.L.T.” represents the results from the live load
test. In each figure, a diagram indicates the truck position as well
as the location where the rotation is plotted 共shown as an ellipse兲.
Numerical results for the tests and analysis are also shown in
Tables 4–7. Note that the rotations from the live load tests were
obtained by dividing the difference of the LVDT readings at each
location by the vertical distance between the LVDTs.
From Figs. 12 and 13, good agreement is generally seen be-
tween the recorded and estimated values. This indicates that the
load distribution formulas provide a reasonable estimate of girder
demands. In each case, the vertical axis represents total load
while the horizontal axis represents the rotations at the point iden-
tified by an ellipse in the sketch included within each figure. It is
worth noting that the apparent nonlinear behavior in terms of
force versus rotation is due to the fact that the relative magnitudes
of the axle loads change with each run, thus changing the point of
the resultant total load, which leads to nonlinearity in the force
versus rotation plots. Clearly, one of the results from Fig. 12共b兲
appears to be unreliable, however, the remaining data points agree
reasonably well with the analysis results. It is also worth noting
that the rotations were higher in Span B than in Span A when the
truck was placed to generate maximum moment in the respective
spans 共see Fig. 12兲. This is expected due to the presence of the
integral abutment at the beginning of Span A and the free end at
the end of Span B.

338 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005

Fig. 13. Comparison of experimental and analytical results for Position 2, maximum− moment: 共a兲 Girder A4 at the link slab; 共b兲 Girder B4 at
the link slab; 共c兲 Girder B4 at the expansion joint; 共d兲 Girder A5 at the link slab; 共e兲 Girder B5 at the link slab; and 共f兲 Girder B5 at the expansion
joint

Table 4. Rotations 共rad兲 Due to Maximum Negative Moment 共Computer Model兲

Load
共kN兲 A4-N B4-S B4-N A5-N B5-S B5-N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
137 0.000080 0.000079 0.000077 0.000035 0.000033 0.000031
214 0.000110 0.000180 0.000185 0.000045 0.000066 0.000066
304 0.000143 0.000271 0.000284 0.000068 0.000138 0.000147
424 0.000187 0.000368 0.000393 0.000089 0.000183 0.000195

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 339

Table 5. Rotations 共rad兲 Due to Maximum Positive Moment 共Computer Model兲
Load
共kN兲 A4-N B4-S B4-N A5-N B5-S B5-N
0 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
137 0.000051 0.000150 0.000195 0.000021 0.000065 0.000084
214 0.000082 0.000274 0.000403 0.000033 0.000112 0.000155
304 0.000113 0.000396 0.000599 0.000056 0.000195 0.000300
424 0.000161 0.000571 0.000848 0.000077 0.000278 0.000417

Table 6. Rotations 共rad兲 Due to Maximum Negative Moment 共Live Load Test兲
Load
共kN兲 A4-N B4-S B4-N C4-S A5-N B5-S B5-N C5-S
0 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
137 0.000045 0.000026 0.000049 0.000005 0.000019 0.000042 0.000056 0.000001
214 0.000071 0.000046 0.000232 0.000005 0.000062 0.000117 0.000079 0.000002
304 0.000136 0.000102 0.000454 0.000005 0.000114 0.000200 0.000182 0.000006
424 0.000148 −0.000037 0.000524 0.000016 0.000110 0.000272 0.000224 0.000007

Table 7. Rotations 共rad兲 Due to Maximum Positive Moment 共Live Load Test兲
Load
共kN兲 A4-N B4-S B4-N C4-S A5-N B5-S B5-N C5-S
0 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
137 0.000070 0.000083 0.000119 0.000016 0.000043 0.000080 0.000126 −0.000008
214 0.000094 0.000835 0.000286 0.000022 0.000052 0.000177 0.000176 0.000021
304 0.000171 0.000204 0.000595 0.000027 0.000133 0.000289 0.000397 0.000016
424 0.000234 0.000149 0.000703 0.000076 0.000143 0.000409 0.000452 0.000020

Table 8. Daily Temperature Ranges 共Celsius兲 for Thermocouples Near Top of Bridge Deck
Value Top B4 Top A4 Top A 4-5 Top B 4-5 Top A5 Top B5
Maximum 14.32 18.09 17.10 16.88 N/A 18.43
Minimum 0.21 0.55 0.46 0.48 N/A 0.60
Average 6.86 9.80 8.99 8.86 N/A 9.93
Note: N/A⫽not available.

Table 9. Daily Temperature Ranges 共Celsius兲 for Thermocouples Near Bottom of Bridge Deck
Value Bottom B4 Bottom A4 Bottom A 4-5 Bottom B 4-5 Bottom A5 Bottom B5
Maximum 15.42 20.03 16.05 15.53 16.35 15.96
Minimum 0.45 0.62 0.47 0.47 0.54 0.56
Average 7.82 10.93 8.25 8.01 8.68 8.23

Table 10. Daily Temperature Ranges 共Celsius兲 for Thermocouples on the Girders
Value Bottom Steel Mid B4 Bottom Steel Mid B5 Bottom Steel Mid A5 Bottom Steel Mid A4
Maximum 16.68 21.81 22.05 21.20
Minimum 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 8.53 9.00 9.47 8.94

Table 11. Yearly Temperature Ranges 共Celsius兲 for Thermocouples Near Top of Bridge Deck
Value Top B4 Top A4 Top A 4-5 Top B 4-5 Top A5 Top B5
Maximum 27.47 35.54 34.70 35.32 N/A 36.12
Minimum −8.66 −11.12 −10.77 −10.41 N/A −10.90
Note: N/A⫽not available.

340 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005

Table 12. Yearly Temperature Ranges 共Celsius兲 for Thermocouples Near Bottom of Bridge Deck
Value Bottom B4 Bottom A4 Bottom A 4-5
Maximum 32.00 37.37 32.32
Minimum −9.63 −11.26 −9.78
Long-Term Monitoring
Overview
In order to assess long term performance of the link slab, the
bridge was monitored over the course of an entire year. During
the long-term monitoring phase, the data was acquired at 2 h
intervals. At each 2 h interval, the system was activated and data
was collected for 2 min. During the course of the 2 min that the
data acquisition system was activated, approximately 40 readings
were taken of each gauge. The speed of acquisition during the 2
min of activity was controlled by the rate at which the vibrating
wire gauges could be scanned. Unfortunately, these gauges took
approximately 3 s to read, thus limiting the rate at which the other
gauges could be scanned. Nonetheless, by reading the gauges
continuously, the possibility exists to assess girder end rotations
due to traffic loads during the 2 min of activity. All graphs in this
section that plot “day” on the horizontal axis start with “day 1” as
January 1.
Daily Temperature Variations
It is common for the range of temperatures throughout a typical
day to be in excess of 15°C at the bridge site. Tables 8–10 display
the maximum and minimum temperature ranges for the different
thermocouples over the course of a day. The average daily tem-
perature difference is also presented. The gauge located in the top
of the deck at the midspan of girder A5 was not working properly,
hence it is omitted from the tables.
Seasonal Temperature Variations
While the daily temperature variations can be in excess of 15°C,
the yearly temperature variations can be in excess of 45°C. Tables
11–13 display the maximum and minimum temperature ranges for
the different thermocouples over the course of a year. Again, the
gauge located in the top of the deck at the midspan of girder A5
is not working properly. Fig. 14 is a graph representing the tem-
perature at the underside of the girder minus the temperature at
the top of the deck over the course of a year. Only one location is
shown because the other thermocouple locations produced similar
results. From Fig. 14, the temperature at the bottom of the steel
girders was typically cooler than the top of the deck, which is as
expected. There are some exceptions to this, and these readings
were likely a result of momentary increases in temperature due to
truck traffic under the bridge passing at the time of the recordings.
The thermocouples are very sensitive, and those on the underside
of the bridge were exposed to the atmosphere and subject to pass-
ing variations in temperature, while those in the top of the bridge
were embedded in the deck thus giving a more reliable indication
Table 13. Yearly Temperature Ranges 共Celsius兲 for Thermocouples on the Girders
Value Bottom Steel Mid B4 Bottom Steel Mid B5
Maximum 33.00 29.51
Minimum −9.65 −10.01
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 341
Bottom B 4-5 Bottom A5 Bottom B5
33.24 34.43 32.67
−9.49 −9.82 −9.61
of internal temperature. Nonetheless, it is also possible that rain-
fall on the top of the deck or wind blown radiant heat could also
cool off the top of the deck, resulting in the variations shown in
Fig. 14.
Using the temperature difference from the top to bottom of the
bridge, the expected rotations for an entire year were calculated
and plotted in Figs. 15–18 along with the measured thermal rota-
tions based on the LVDT readings. The rotations are shown as
referenced from the condition at the first day of recording. There-
fore the rotations on subsequent days were obtained by subtract-
ing the rotation at day “x” from the rotation at day “1.” By defi-
nition, this can also include some rotations due to service loading,
however, these rotations were generally small compared to the
thermal induced rotations.
From these figures it can be seen that the expected thermal
rotations were larger than the measured thermal rotations. This is
not surprising since the recorded changes in temperature are
somewhat erratic as was discussed earlier and attributed to mo-
mentary variations in surface temperature.
Overall Link Slab Performance
The design rotation for the link slab, which was obtained by as-
suming simply supported girders, was 0.002 rad. Rotations of this
magnitude were never achieved, even during the overload condi-
tion. All of the rotations during the live load test were much
lower. As stated before, fine cracks may appear in the jointless
bridge deck at the link slab location under normal service loads.
Fig. 19 shows a picture of the crack located in the link slab for the
Plott Creek bridge. It is estimated that the crack width was 1.6
mm, which is very small when compared to the width of tradi-
tional expansion joints. It should also be noted that during the live
load test there was no notable change in the width of the crack. At
this project site a transverse saw cut was made along the link slab
to control the cracking. It was recommended that the crack be
filled with a hot poured sealant to improve its serviceability
共Caner and Zia 1998兲; however, it was left visible for the purpose
of this research program.
Design and Analysis Recommendations for Limit
States Design
The actual design criteria for the link slab in the Plott Creek
bridge was a limit to the crack width of less than 0.33 mm. The
width of the crack at the joint was approximately 1.6 mm. While
still very small, it is still much larger than the design criteria. It is
believed that the crack initiated as a result of localized debonding
Bottom Steel Mid A5 Bottom Steel Mid A4
29.95 29.43
−10.47 −10.10
Fig. 14. Daily temperature change for a thermocouple over the
course of a year
Fig. 17. Girder B4 comparison

of the concrete. As previously stated, the crack, which was al-

ready present before the testing was conducted, did not change
during any of the live load testing.
The 0.33 mm crack width limit comes from the AASHTO
crack control criteria 共1996兲 under exposed conditions. This crack
width is based on the fact that the cracks are going to be spaced
out over the length of the link slab. However, a saw cut was made
along the link slab to concentrate the cracks in one location. The
result of the saw cut is that the entire deformation is concentrated
at one location. One advantage of this is that instead of many
smaller cracks, the one large crack can more readily be repaired.
The disadvantage is that the deformation is concentrated at one
location, although by debonding, the strain in the reinforcement
may be kept to acceptable levels. It is clear that a larger limit for
crack width should be investigated for link slabs in which a saw
cut is present; however, that is beyond the scope of this research.

Limit States Design

Fig. 15. Girder A4 comparison
In a limit-states design approach, the engineer selects a series of
performance levels that the structural system must achieve. Each
performance level consists of two components: 共1兲 a performance
limit state, and 共2兲 a load under which the performance limit state

Fig. 16. Girder A5 comparison Fig. 18. Girder B5 comparison

342 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005

 Fig. 19. Crack located at link slab

is to be achieved. With regards to the design of link slabs, the f rM a

performance limit states are defined by residual crack widths, fs = 共3兲
6M cr␳␥ 兵1 + ␩␳/3 − 0.333关共␩␳兲2 + 2␩␳兴0.5其
2
while the loads are defined on the basis of girder end rotations
that are induced due to thermal or service loading. where f s⫽stress in the reinforcing steel, ␳⫽ratio of tension
Several design charts were developed for different steel ratios steel reinforcement, ␩⫽modular ratio 共Es / Ec兲, and
based on the geometry of the bridge specific to the Plott Creek ␥⫽distance to tension steel divided by overall section depth.
bridge. The process for developing these design charts is as fol- 3. Using the Gergely–Lutz expression 共McCormac 1998兲
lows. shown in Eq. 共4兲, solve for the effective tension area of con-
1. Compute the negative moment 共M a兲 induced in the link slab crete around the main reinforcement 共A兲, having the same
due to the applied end rotation using Eq. 共1兲 and the cracking centroid as the reinforcement, using different crack widths.
moment 共M cr兲 of the link slab using Eq. 共2兲.
␻ = 0.076␤f s冑dcA
3
共4兲
2EcId␪ where ␻⫽estimated cracking width in units of 0.03 mm,
Ma = 共1兲
L ␤⫽ratio of the distance to the neutral axis from the extreme
tension fiber and from centroid of main reinforcement,
dc⫽concrete cover measured from extreme tension fiber to
f rI d centroid of nearest reinforcement level in units of mm, and
M cr = 共2兲
y A⫽the effective tension area of concrete around the main
reinforcing divided by the number of bars in mm2.
where M a⫽negative moment induced in the link slab due to 4. Solve for the spacing, s, of reinforcement using Eq. 共5兲
applied end rotations, Id⫽moment of inertia of the link slab, 共Caner and Zia 1998兲.
␪⫽end rotation of the girder, L⫽length of the link slab,
M cr⫽cracking moment of the link slab, f r⫽flexural modulus A
for the deck concrete, and Ec⫽elastic modulus of the con- s= 共5兲
2dc
crete.
2. Compute the stress in the steel using Eq. 共3兲 共Caner and Zia
1998兲
Table 15. Steel Ratio of 0.010
␳ = 0.010 w 共mm兲

Table 14. Steel Ratio of 0.005 ␪ 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.00

␳ = 0.005 w 共mm兲 0.0005 No. 29 at 482

0.00075 No. 16 at 143
␪ 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.00 0.001 No. 10 at 60 No. 29 at 482
0.00025 No. 22 at 530 0.00125 No. 19 at 247
0.0005 No. 22 at 530 0.0015 No. 16 at 143 No. 29 at 482
0.00075 No. 13 at 157 No. 22 at 530 No. 32 at 1257 0.00175 No. 13 at 90 No. 22 at 304 No. 36 at 720
0.001 No. 13 at 224 No. 22 at 530 0.002 No. 10 at 60 No. 19 at 204 No. 29 at 482

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 343

Table 16. Steel Ratio of 0.015 were generally greater. In each case, the demands were much
␳ = 0.015 w 共mm兲 lower than the assumed design rotational demand. As a result, the
assumption of simply supported spans is acceptable although con-
␪ 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.00 servative. 共2兲 While the size of the crack in the link slab exceeded
0.00075 No. 32 at 451 the design criteria, it thus far has not impaired service of the
0.001 No. 22 at 190 bridge. Furthermore, the large size of the crack 共1.6 mm兲 is due to
0.00125 No. 16 at 98 the saw cut which forced all the deformation into one crack. Re-
0.0015 No. 13 at 56 No. 32 at 451 vised crack control criteria should be investigated for link slabs
0.00175 No. 25 at 284 that contain saw cuts to control crack location. 共3兲 A limit-states
0.002 No. 22 at 190 design approach where reinforcement is sized based on a rota-
0.00225 No. 19 at 134 No. 32 at 451 tional demand and crack control criteria is proposed which allows
0.0025 No. 16 at 98 No. 29 at 329 the engineer to quickly develop design charts for use for a variety
0.00275 No. 13 at 73 No. 25 at 247 of structural configurations.
0.003 No. 13 at 56 No. 22 at 190 No. 32 at 451

5. Compute the number of bars, N, needed using Eq. 共6兲.

b
N=
s The research described in this paper was supported by the North
where b⫽width of link slab in units of mm.
6. Calculate the area of the reinforcing bars needed, Ab, to ob-
tain the crack width with the specified girder end rotation
using Eq. 共7兲.
␳b␥h
Ab =
N tions to the large instrumentation effort.
where h⫽overall section depth.
7. Eliminate nonfeasible solutions from the charts such as small
spacing and large reinforcement bar diameters.
This procedure is then repeated as many times as necessary to
develop the desired design charts. By changing the crack width,
girder end rotation, and reinforcement ratio, different steel quan-
tities will be calculated to produce the desired results. Tables
14–16 are the design charts that were produced for a link slab
having the same geometry as the link slab at the Plott Creek
bridge. These charts can only be used for link slabs having the
same depth and length as the link slab in the Plott Creek Bridge
since the above-mentioned procedure is dependent on those two
variables. Charts were developed for steel ratios of 0.005 to
0.015. For each of the different steel ratios, different crack widths,
specifically 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 mm, were used for each of the
different girder end rotations to obtain the different steel quanti-
ties. Notice that in Tables 14–16, steel quantities are missing for
certain combinations because the results are not feasible. These
charts are only examples of the different charts that could be
produced using this procedure. Design charts could be developed
for any steel ratio, crack width, and girder end rotation desired by
using the above procedure as long as the results are feasible.
To use these charts, an engineer would chose a crack width
and girder end rotation based on thermal or service load condi-
tions. The intersection of the two would be the amount of rein-
forcing steel required in the link slab to achieve the prescribed
limit state.
Conclusions
Following over a year of monitoring of the bridge structure and
controlled live load testing, the following conclusions are pre-
sented: 共1兲 The link slab within the bridge was subjected to very
low rotations due to traffic loads, while thermal induced rotations
Acknowledgments
共6兲
Carolina Department of Transportation under research grant
HWY-2001-01. In addition, several NCDOT engineers were very
helpful during the project period including Tim Rountree, Rodger
Rochelle, Moy Biswas, Rob Woodruff, and Tom Koch. The writ-
ers would also like to thank Paul Zia, Matt Wagner, Bruce War-
共7兲 ren, Jerry Atkinson, and Bill Dunleavy for their various contribu-
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
共AASHTO兲. 共1996兲. sStandard specifications for highway bridges,
16th Ed., Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structure,
AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
AM25T solid state multiplexer instruction manual. 共1998a兲. Campbell
Scientific Inc., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
AM416 relay multiplexer instruction manual. 共1996兲. Campbell Scientific
Inc., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
COM200 instruction manual. 共1998b兲. Campbell Scientific Inc., Edmon-
ton, Alberta, Canada.
CR23X micrologger operator’s manual. 共1998c兲. Campbell Scientific
Inc., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
MSX10, MSX10R, and MSX20R solar panels instruction manual. 共1994兲.
Campbell Scientific Inc., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
PC208W datalogger support software instruction manual. 共1998d兲.
Campbell Scientific Inc., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Caner, A., and Zia, P. 共1998兲. “Behavior and design of link slabs for
jointless bridge decks.” PCI J., 43共3兲, 68–80.
El-Safty, A. K. 共1994兲. “Analysis of jointless bridge decks with partially
debonded simple span beams.” PhD dissertation, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC.
McCormac, J. C. 共1998兲. Design of reinforced concrete, Addison-Wesley,
Menlo Park, Calif.
Visual Analysis; software manual. 共2000兲. http://www.iesweb.com/.
Wagner, M. 共2001兲. “The behavior of prestressed high performance con-
crete bridge girders for US Highway 401 over the Neuse River in
Raleigh, NC.” MSCE thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
N.C.
Warren, B. 共2000兲. “Development of a data acquisition system for an
instrumented highway structure.” MSCE thesis, North Carolina State
University.

344 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005

View publication stats