ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 106-S11

Introduction of Transition Zone Design for Bridge Deck

Link Slabs Using Ductile Concrete
by Shunzhi Qian, Michael D. Lepech, Yun Yong Kim, and Victor C. Li
This paper presents an innovative approach to designing the
transition zones between concrete deck slab segments and an
adjacent highly deformable link slab on a steel girder composite
bridge deck. (A link slab provides a special class of jointless bridge
for which only the bridge deck is made continuous rather than both
the deck and girders). The transition zones represent a fraction of
the ends of the link slab introduced to divert stress from the potentially
weak link slab/deck slab interface. The link slab studied herein is
built with an engineered cementitious composite (ECC), an ultra
ductile concrete, adopted in a recent demonstration project in
Southeast Michigan. Conventional design of concrete link slabs
leaves the old/new concrete interface as the weakest part of the
bridge deck system. Due to the presence of a link slab debond zone
(part of the link slab is debonded from bridge girder to provide hinge
flexibility), this interface also experiences high stress concentrations.
In addition, the effectiveness of the link slab design depends on the
integrity of the interface so that imposed rotation and tensile
deformation will be accommodated within the highly deformable
ECC link slab. The basis of the suggested approach is to isolate the
concrete/ECC interface away from the structural interface between
the debond zone and composite zone to prevent interfacial
cracking. The shear studs and lap-spliced reinforcement located
within transition zones facilitate load transfer between the
concrete deck and the ECC link slab. These modifications are
expected to cause a shift of the stress concentration from the
concrete/ECC interface to the bulk part of the ECC link slab. In
support of this new design concept, experimental tests are carried
out on the behavior of the ECC link slab-bridge deck-girder
connection. Detailing of the transition zone, that is, spacing of
shear stud and development length/lap splice length requirement is
then laid out in a design procedure based on results of shear stud/
ECC pushout and reinforcement pullout tests.

(Kim et al. 2004). Within concrete link slabs, these two

objectives directly contradict each other, simply due to the
well-known dependence of controlled crack width in reinforced
concrete upon high steel reinforcement ratios. The high
reinforcement ratios in turn result in a large flexural stiffness,
which is not desirable to achieve a hinge-like behavior for
the link slab. Furthermore, saw-cut control joints filled with
sealant, which are commonly used in concrete link slabs in
Michigan and Texas to relieve stress due to combined
mechanical and environmental loads (Caner and Zia 1998;
Gilani and Jansson 2004), potentially pose problems similar
to those in expansion joints due to the relative large saw-cut
width (larger than 0.118 in. [3 mm]) and wearing out of the
sealant through debonding, splitting, and damage from
noncompressible debris (Purvis 2003). Overall, the brittle
nature of normal concrete limits the durability of bridge deck
link slabs.

Keywords: cracking; engineered cementitious composite; lap splice; stud.

INTRODUCTION
Deterioration of bridge structures with mechanical expansion
joints between simply supported spans constitutes a significant
infrastructure deficiency, resulting in high maintenance and
repair costs (Kim et al. 2004; Lepech 2006). Damage due to
debris accumulation within the expansion joint leads to
leakage of water through the joint or cracked concrete deck,
followed by corrosion of girders and girder bearings, as
shown in Fig. 1. One of the solutions for these problems is to
use link slabs to replace expansion joints (Caner and Zia
1998). Link slabs provide a special class of jointless bridges
for which only the bridge deck is made continuous rather
than both the deck and girders.
To realize a durable jointless bridge deck for improved
resistance to aggressive agents, it is crucial that crack widths
in the link slab remain tight (less than 0.004 in. [0.1 mm]
according to NCHRP Report 380 [Krauss and Rogalla 1996])
while the flexural stiffness of the link slab is minimized to
reduce its impact on the simple-span nature of the bridge
96

Fig. 1Corroded bridge: (a) girder bearing; and (b) girder

end reinforcement due to leakage of bridge joint. (Photo courtesy
of R. Till, Michigan Department of Transportation.)

ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 1, January-February 2009.

MS No. S-2007-248 received July 4, 2007, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the November-December
2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2009.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

Shunzhi Qian is a Research Fellow in the Microlab, Faculty CiTG, at the Delft
University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. He received his PhD from the
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. His research interests include the application
of high-performance fiber-reinforced cementitious composites to highway and other
infrastructure systems for improved durability and sustainability.
Michael D. Lepech is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, Stanford, CA. He received his BSE, MSE,
and PhD from the University of Michigan. His research interests include the development and modeling of durable high-performance cementitious composites for use in
the design of sustainable infrastructure systems.
Yun Yong Kim is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at
Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea. His research interests include
the design of fiber-reinforced cementitious composites and their structural applications,
including durable retrofit of aged infrastructures.
Victor C. Li is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
at the University of Michigan. His research interests include the design of ultra ductile
and green cementitious composites and their application to innovative infrastructure
systems and integration of materials, structural, and environmental design.

Whereas it is very difficult, if not impossible, for concrete

to maintain tight crack widths with a minimal amount of
reinforcement, engineered cementitious composites (ECC)
represent a material solution that can simultaneously achieve
tight crack width (typically less than 0.002 in. [0.06 mm])
and minimize steel reinforcement ratios in the link slab.
These can only be achieved by ECC-type materials due to
their self-controlled crack width along with high tensile
strain capacity (tensile strain value corresponding to ultimate
tensile strength obtained in a uniaxial tensile test [Fig. 2]). A
typical tensile stress-strain curve of ECC under uniaxial
tensile loading (material testing without steel reinforcement)
is shown in Fig. 3, along with crack width development at
different loading stages. As can be seen, the crack widths
within ECC material are not a function of reinforcement
ratio as in reinforced concrete, but are rather an inherent
material property similar to compressive strength or elastic
modulus. The tensile strain-hardening behavior, that is,
increasing load capacity with increasing straining without
localizing into a fracture plane, distinguishes ECC from
normal concrete and fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC).
Concrete and FRC show tension-softening after first cracking
that is, a decreasing load capacity with increased opening of a
localized fracture. The tensile strain capacity of ECC is
approximately 500 times that of normal concrete in this case.
The significance of crack width in controlling the
permeability coefficient of cracked concrete has been
demonstrated by Wang et al. (1997). The permeability
coefficient indicates the ability of concrete to bypass a fluid
with specific viscosity under a pressure gradient. The
permeability coefficient of cracked concrete was shown to
decrease by seven orders of magnitude (from 102 to 109 in./
second [104 to 1011 m/second]) as crack width decreases from
0.02 to 0 in. (0.55 to 0 mm). When crack width falls below
0.004 in. (0.1 mm), the flow rate is similar to uncracked
concrete. Hence even with a large number of surface cracks,
ECC may behave like sound concrete with no cracks, by
virtue of its tight crack width control (typically less than
0.002 in. [0.06 mm]). Similar results were also observed by
Lepech and Li (2005).
Given the ability to self-control tight crack width regardless
of the amount of reinforcement, the use of ECC as a material
for bridge deck link slabs has been proposed (Li et al. 2003;
Kim et al. 2004; Kim and Li 2004). The research revealed
that the property requirements for link slab applications were
satisfied by the mechanical properties of ECC material.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

Compared with normal concrete, the self-controlled tight crack

width of ECC material associated with the superior tensile
strain capacity is expected to provide significantly enhanced
durability to an ECC link slab, resulting in potential realization
of highly durable concrete bridge deck systems. This is the
motivation behind the adoption of ECC material in an actual
implementation of an ECC link slab on a bridge deck in the
fall of 2005 in Southeast Michigan.
In a jointless bridge deck system, an ECC link slab can be
used to accommodate bridge deck deformations due to
temperature variation, live load, and shrinkage, replacing a
typical expansion joint or concrete link slab. The interface
between concrete and ECC, however, may become a weak
link due to minimal mechanical interaction and load transfer
across the cold joint between the existing concrete deck and
newly cast ECC link slab, as the concrete and ECC are not
cast at the same time. This phenomenon has been observed
by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)
(Gilani and Juntunen 2001; Gilani and Jansson 2004) in a
preliminary laboratory investigation, where the design of an
ECC link slab followed conventional concrete link slab
design procedures. During their monotonic test to failure on
a specimen simulating a jointless bridge deck using an ECC
link slab, the interfacial crack between ECC and concrete
grew noticeably (Fig. 4) while the width of cracks in the
ECC link slab were maintained below 0.002 in. (0.05 mm).
This indicates that a macroscopically crack-free bridge deck

Fig. 2Uniaxial tensile test setup for ECC specimen.

Fig. 3Typical tensile stress-strain curve and development

of crack width of ECC.
97

system may be difficult to realize due to potential large

interfacial cracks, even though ECC material satisfies the
property requirements of link slab design.
The conventional design procedure for concrete link slabs
does not address this potential interfacial cracking problem.
In the design of conventional concrete link slabs (Caner and
Zia 1998), the debond zone begins at the interface between
the link slab and the concrete deck (Fig. 5(a)). This imposes
high stress concentrations at this interface. Previous experiments
suggest that the bond strength between concrete and ECC
(hot joint: concrete and ECC are cast at the same time) is
approximately 290 psi (2 MPa) (Zhang and Li 2002). As
mentioned previously, the concrete/ECC interface is cold
jointed when an ECC link slab is used to replace an expansion
joint, considerably lowering the interface bond strength. Overall,
this conventional design procedure makes the interface the
weakest part of the bridge deck system.
In the proposed new approach for designing the transition
zone (Fig. 5(b)) at the ends of the ECC link slab, however,
the location of the shear studs connecting the steel girder and
the deck are extended into part of the ECC link slab, shifting
the high stress concentration expected at the end of the
debond zone away from the ECC/concrete interface. In addition
to shear studs, the existing longitudinal reinforcement is lap

Fig. 4Significant interfacial cracking at ECC link slab/

concrete deck slab interface (Gilani and Jansson 2004).

Fig. 5Schematics of link slab design concepts for: (a)

conventional method without considering transition zone;
and (b) proposed method focusing on transition zone design.
98

spliced with new reinforcing bars within the ECC link slab.
This creates a transition zone between the debonded portion
of the ECC link slab and the concrete deck or between the
structural interface and the material interface (Fig. 5(b)). The
shear studs and lap-spliced reinforcement located within the
transition zone facilitate stress transfer between the concrete
deck and the ECC link slab. These modifications are expected
to prevent any failure of the ECC/concrete joint, but allow
the free portion of the ECC slab to inelastically deform in
response of tensile stretching, thus functioning as a jointless
expansion joint. For constructability reasons, severe coldweather casting of ECC link slabs is not recommended (Li et
al. 2005). Due to this, most thermal deformation imposed
upon the ECC link slab will be tensile in nature. Therefore,
compressive strains due to thermal deformation will not be
of significance to the design of ECC link slabs.
The purpose of this article is to present the experimental
background and the design details of the transition zone
between ECC link slabs and adjoining concrete deck slabs.
First, full-scale testing of link slab under fatigue loading will
be presented to demonstrate the feasibility and advantages of
the proposed new design approach focusing particularly on
the integrity of the link slab/concrete deck interface. Second,
the design details of the transition zone, that is, the spacing
of shear studs and development length/lap splice length of
the top mat longitudinal reinforcement will be clarified based
on the results of shear stud pushout tests and reinforcement
pullout tests. Finally, the implementation of this new design
approach into a recent (2005) ECC link slab demonstration
project in Southeast Michigan is highlighted.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
While the conventional design procedure for concrete link
slabs does not address the potential interfacial cracking
problem, this paper presents a new approach of designing the
transition zone between an ECC link slab and the adjacent
concrete deck slab based on experimental tests of the
behavior of the ECC link slab-bridge deck-girder connection. A
detailed procedure for designing the transition zone is laid
out for easy adoption by practicing engineers. This procedure
has been adopted in an ECC link slab demonstration project
in Southeast Michigan. The new transition zone design is
expected to prevent interfacial cracking between the ECC
link slab and concrete bridge deck, ensuring a successful
implementation of the ECC link slab. This should result in a
highly durable jointless bridge deck, leading to a significantly
enhanced service life of the bridge.
FATIGUE TESTING OF FULL-SCALE
LINK SLAB SPECIMENS
Background of link slab full-scale testing
Three full-scale link slab specimens were tested cyclically
to support the contention that interfacial cracking may be
prevented by the newly introduced transition zone within
link slab and therefore a macroscopically crack-free jointless
bridge deck can be designed and constructed with ECC link
slabs. While previous laboratory investigations of link slabs
(Caner and Zia 1998; Gilani and Juntunen 2001) involved
testing of a 1/6-scaled bridge including a link slab with two
adjacent spans, the present study focused on testing of a fullscale link slab portion exclusively. According to Kim et al.
(2004), the test conditions produce effective load severity
five times greater than under field conditions in terms of the
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

bending moment imposed by maximum allowable girder end

rotations within the AASHTO design code (AASHTO 1998).
The experimental investigation of ECC link slabs was
conducted using a representative section (28 in. [711 mm]
wide) of a link slab between the inflection points of the adjacent
deck slabs (128 in. [3250 mm] long). The zero moment
condition at the inflection points as well as the boundary
conditions at the pier were simulated by roller supports at the
specimen end supports and at the load points (Fig. 6). For
practical purposes, the test setup represents an inverted
orientation of the link slab region.
The loading sequence chosen was similar to the procedure
adopted by MDOT (Gilani and Juntunen 2001), as shown in
Fig. 6. All specimens were subjected to sequential static
loading up to two times the deflection, causing a reinforcing
bar stress in Specimen LS-1 of 40% of its yield strength,
which is the current limit stress criterion for concrete link
slab design. The final step of the sequential static loading
stage simulates potential overload. In the subsequent cyclic
loading procedure, the load at 40% yield of the reinforcement in
Specimen LS-1 is chosen as the mean load with an amplitude
up to a maximum deflection at 0.00375 rad rotation angle
(Fig. 6). This maximum rotation angle (0.00375 rad)
corresponds to the allowable deflection of a bridge span
under live load according to Section 6.10.5 of the AASHTO
code (AASHTO 1998). Cyclic loading was carried out to
100,000 cycles due to restrictions in the availability of the
testing equipment.
Figure 7 shows the specimen geometry of three link slabs,
including the debond zone length (50 in. [1.27 m]) equal to
roughly 2.5% of assumed adjacent spans (both 82 ft [25 m]
long). The thickness of the link slab was 9 in. (230 mm),
corresponding to a typical deck thickness in simply
supported composite girder bridges. Specimens LS-1, LS-2,

Fig. 6Full-scale link slab testing: (a) loading pattern; and

(b) test setup.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

and LS-3 were used to simulate the concrete link slab new
construction, ECC link slab new construction, and a retrofit
of an existing bridge deck replacing mechanical expansion
joints with an ECC link slab, respectively.
It should be noted that for Specimens LS-2 and LS-3, the
proposed transition zone design approach was implemented,
meaning that additional shear studs were extended within the
transition zone of the link slab and additional reinforcement
in the link slab was lap spliced with existing reinforcement
in the bridge deck for Specimen LS-3. This is different from
the link slab tests conducted by MDOT (Gilani and Jansson
2004), in which the test specimens were designed based on
the conventional link slab design approach, that is, the ECC/
concrete interface was adjacent to the debond zone, leaving
the interface the weakest component in the bridge deck system.
Results and discussion
For success of the link slab application, the integrity of the
link slab/deck interface and the overall crack pattern (particularly the crack width) in the bulk part of the ECC link slab
are critical. For details of the specimen preparation and
experimental program, refer to Li et al. (2003) and Kim et al.
(2004). It should be noted that because the incorporation of
an ECC link slab in a bridge deck is for durability reasons
rather than load capacity, the formation of cracks, if any;
their width at the interface; and the crack pattern in the bulk

Fig. 7Geometry of link specimens for: (a) Specimen LS-1;

(b) Specimen LS-2; (c) Specimen LS-3; and (d) cross section
of link slab specimens. Units in in. (mm).
99

part of link slab, including crack width and distribution are

among the most important characteristics considered.
For Specimens LS-2 and LS-3, the test results revealed no
cracking at the interface between the ECC link slab and
concrete deck slab during cyclic testing, whereas the
intended microcracks were mostly confined within the
debond span of the link slab up to the location of the shear
studs (Fig. 8). This indicates that cracks would have
appeared at the concrete/ECC interface had it been located at
the end of the debond zone. The modification of the design
to locate the concrete/ECC material interface away from the
structural interface (Fig. 5(b)) between the debond zone and
girder/deck composite zone prevented cracking at the
material interface. Furthermore, the additional shear studs
placed between these two interfaces provided composite
action between the girder and ECC slab, effectively holding
the material interface together to prevent cracking. As a
result, concrete/ECC interfacial cracking caused by stress
concentrations is prevented. Cracking is limited within the
debond segment of the ECC link slab, where sufficient strain
capacity exists to accommodate large deformation demands.
Therefore, this new approach of designing the transition
zone in link slabs will provide enhanced integrity of the
concrete/ECC interface, preventing undesirable material
interfacial failure.
Although structural failure did not occur in all the specimens
during fatigue testing, the cracking patterns of ECC link slab
specimens were much more desirable compared with that of
the concrete link slab specimen, as shown in Fig. 9. For
Specimen LS-1, a small number of large cracks were
observed. During fatigue cycles, no additional cracks were
seen to form and the existing cracks generated during the
preloading stage gradually grew wider. The crack widths in
concrete ultimately reached approximately 0.025 in. (0.64 mm)

Fig. 8Crack pattern at tension surface of link slab in: (a)

Specimen LS-2; and (b) Specimen LS-3.
100

at 100,000 load cycles. In contrast, a large number of hairline

cracks were observed in ECC link slab Specimens LS-2 and
LS-3 during the preloading stage. Additional microcracks
appeared as the number of loading cycles increased, whereas
the existing crack widths were maintained below 0.002 in.
(0.05 mm), slightly opening and closing at the maximum and
minimum loads, up to 100,000 cycles. Such tight crack width
results in low permeability (Lepech and Li 2005) and
diffusion coefficients (Sahmaran et al. 2006), and enhance
the durability of an ECC link slab particularly under severe
environmental conditions, such as in regions where deicing
salts are frequently used. This distinction of ECC link slabs
from concrete link slabs can only be achieved with the
assured integrity of the concrete deck/ECC link slab interface,
thus allowing the ECC link slab to function effectively as an
expansion joint.
REVIEW OF SHEAR STUD PUSHOUT AND
REINFORCEMENT PULLOUT TEST
Having investigated the behavior of the ECC link slabbridge deck-girder connection and demonstrated the
feasibility and advantages of the proposed new design

Fig. 9Crack pattern marked with ink pen for clarity after
cyclic test for: (a) Specimen LS-1; (b) Specimen LS-2; and
(c) Specimen LS-3.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

approach for transition zones in full-scale link slab tests,

more detailed experimental investigations have been carried
out on the local behavior of the load transfer mechanisms in
the transition zone, that is, shear stud pushout tests (Fig. 10)
and reinforcement pullout tests (Fig. 11). Detailed experimental
programs for both tests can be found in Li et al. (2003) and
Qian and Li (2006). Only results from these tests relevant for
clarifying the design details of the transition zone are
reported herein. Specifically, the spacing of shear studs and
development length of the top mat longitudinal reinforcement
required for load transfer across the transition zone are
analyzed in the following.
The mixture proportions and results for shear stud pushout
tests are summarized in Table 1, where three different ECC
mixtures (ECC 1, ECC 2, and ECC 3) were tested along with
one concrete mixture as a comparison. As can be seen, stud
anchors in ECC (ECC 1) can achieve much higher shear
strength and slip capacity (structural ductility) when
compared with concrete of comparable compressive strength
due to the extreme ductility of ECC, which suppresses the

Fig. 10Geometry of: (a) shear stud; and (b) pushout

specimen. Units in in. (mm).

brittle fracture mode typical of concrete response. It should

be noted that ECC 3 specimens have two rows of shear studs,
a total of four studs inside both slabs, whereas all other series
(ECC 1, ECC 2, and concrete) have only one row of two
shear studs on both slabs, as shown in Fig. 10. The ECC 3
specimens were conducted specifically to investigate the
effect of the spacing (in the longitudinal direction of the
bridge deck) on the structural response of shear stud anchor
connections. The spacing chosen was 4 in. (102 mm), which
is slightly smaller than the lower limit suggested by the
AASHTO code (AASHTO 1998) (six times stud diameter,
4.5 in. [114 mm] in this case) for conservativeness. The
diameter of the stud connector chosen was 0.75 in. (19 mm),
which is common in composite bridge construction (An
and Cederwall 1996; Badie et al. 2002). The shear
strength test results summarized in Table 1 provide the
basis for the calculation of the number and spacing of
studs in ECC for transition zone detailing purposes.
As shown in Fig. 11, reinforcing bar pullout tests were
carried out to obtain the appropriate development length of
No. 3 reinforcing bars embedded within ECC material.
According to the AASHTO code (1998), minimum steel
reinforcement ratios for resisting shrinkage and temperature
stresses are required to provide at least 0.125 in.2/ft (265 mm2/m)
in each direction. To provide this amount of reinforcement, No. 3
reinforcing bars with a spacing of 10.5 in. (267 mm) were
placed longitudinally in the deck. This minimum reinforcement

Fig. 11Reinforcing bar pullout test setup.

Table 1Mixture proportions, material properties, and structural response of concrete and ECC materials
pushout specimens
No. of
specimens
Mixture
tested

Type I
portland
cement

Water

Silica
sand*

High-range
Coarse Type F fly water-reducing
aggregate
ash
admixture

PVA
fiber

u, %
0.01

fc,
ksi (MPa)

Qm,
kips (kN)

Sc,||
in. (mm)

5.5 0.2
29.1 0.4 0.067 0.004
(38.0 1.4) (129.6 1.9) (1.7 0.1)

Concrete

0.45

ECC 1

0.58

0.8

1.2

0.03

0.02

6.7 0.1
36.2 4.0 0.228 0.012
2.5 0.4 (46.0 0.4) (160.9 17.7) (5.8 0.3)

ECC 2

0.53

0.8

1.2

0.03

0.02

43.2 2.6 0.252 0.051

2.5 0.3 8.7 0.3
(60.0 2.1) (192.3 11.7) (6.4 1.3)

ECC 3

0.53

0.8

1.2

0.014

0.02

9.0 0.3
34.2 3.4 0.197 0.031
2.2 0.3 (62.4
2.0) (152.1 15.1) (5.0 0.8)

*F110

sand for ECC1, ECC 2, and ECC 3, and ASTM C778 sand for concrete.
size of 0.75 in. (19 mm).

Uniaxial tensile strain capacity (assumed value for concrete).

Measured shear strength per stud.

||
Slip capacity (average slip at peak load).
Maximum

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

101

ratio for the top mat of longitudinal reinforcement is also

employed in standard MDOT bridge slabs (MDOT 2001).
Considering the retrofit of an existing bridge using an ECC
link slab, No. 3 reinforcing bars were expected to be lap
spliced with new reinforcing bars of the ECC link slab. From
the pullout test results (Li et al. 2003), a 6 in. (152 mm)
embedment length is found to be adequate to develop the
yield strength of both plain and epoxy-coated reinforcing
bars in ECC, meaning that the development length of these
reinforcements in ECC is 6 in. (152 mm). The AASHTO code
(1998), however, requires a 12 in. (305 mm) minimum
development length for No. 3 reinforcing bars in concrete.
Hence, if the AASHTO code (1998) requirements of
development length were directly adopted for ECC, it will be at
least as conservative as that of concrete due to high ductility of
ECC, which can totally suppress the bond splitting failure
as sometimes seen in reinforcing bar pullout test from
concrete (Li et al. 2003).
TRANSITION ZONE DESIGN
Shear stud detailing
The deformation (strain) demand on the ECC link slab due
to shrinkage, thermal effects, and live load must be
accommodated within the debond zone of the link slab.
Therefore, corresponding forces (stress) developed in
debond zone must be transferred through the transition zone
back into the composite girder of the bridge by both the shear
studs and lap spliced reinforcements, in addition to the
concrete/ECC interfacial bond. For conservativeness,
however, the contribution from the reinforcement and interfacial
bond will be ignored for shear stud detailing purposes.
Based on the shear strength of studs in ECC (capacity side)
from shear stud pushout tests, the maximum strain demand
of ECC (Li et al. 2003, 2005) and corresponding stresses
(forces, demand side), a simple design procedure for transition
zone detailing in terms of spacing of shear studs is developed.
Demand sideThe maximum tensile strain demand of
ECC (ls) is determined from the imposed strain due to the
combined effect of shrinkage, thermal loads, and live loads,
as shown in following equation
T T L long
ls = ----------------------------------------- + sh + LL
L dz

(1)

where ls is the required tensile strain of ECC due to combined

effects of temperature, shrinkage, and live loads; T is the
coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete and steel
(0.0000065 in./in./F [0.0000117 m/m/C]); T annual

Fig. 12Typical tensile stress-strain behavior of ECC

designed for link slab application.
102

temperature variation at bridge location (approximately 90 F

[50 C] for Michigan according to the AASHTO code
[1998]); is the support type factor, = 2.0 for joints with
two roller bearings (one for each adjacent span), and = 1.0
for joints with one roller bearing and one pin bearing for
adjacent spans or joints with two pin bearings; Llong is the span
length of longer adjacent bridge span (larger one of L1, L2),
inches; Ldz is the length of link slab debond zone (= 5% (L1
+ L2) + GAP), inches; L1, L2 is the length of adjacent bridge
spans, inches; GAP is the gap between adjacent bridge
girders, inches; sh is the shrinkage strain of ECC (= 0.001
from Weimann and Li [2003]); LL is the maximum tensile
strain due to live load (= 0.0008(c + d)/d, more detailed
derivation can be seen in Li et al. [2005]); c is the distance
from top of slab to centroid of tensile reinforcement, inches;
and d is the distance from neutral axis to centroid of
tensile reinforcement, inches.
Force demand F dThe corresponding stress ls of the
derived maximum tensile strain demand is determined from
the representative tensile stress-strain relation of the ECC
material used in the link slab. As shown in Fig. 12, a
corresponding stress (800 psi [5.5 MPa]) can be found for a
given tensile strain (assumed value of 2%). In addition, the
link slab width (same as bridge deck width ws) and thickness
ts are needed to calculate the total force demand Fd developed
in the link slab, which must be transferred through the
transition zone and is the product of ls, ws, and ts. That is
Fd = lswsts

(2)

where Fd is the force demand in the link slab that needs to be

transferred by shear studs; ls is the corresponding stress of
the derived maximum tensile strain demand of ECC material
used in the link slab; ws is the width of the link slab (same as
the bridge deck width); and ts is the thickness of the link slab
Capacity sideAs shown in Table 1, the shear strength of
individual studs in the ECCs (Qm) has been experimentally
investigated by Qian and Li (2006) along with a new result
of pushout test with two rows totaling four shear studs in
each slab. According to the ACI Building Code (ACI
Committee 318 2005) for anchorage in concrete (the
AASHTO code [AASHTO 1998] has no corresponding
provision), the required reduction in shear strength of grouped
anchor studs may be ignored when the spacing between
shear studs is greater than three times the embedment length
of the stud. This condition may apply to ECC very
conservatively given that load redistribution among
different shear studs (in the longitudinal direction of the
bridge) may occur due to superior structural ductility of the
studs within ECC. This means that the shear strength of
ECC 1 and ECC 2 (36.2 and 43.2 kips [160.9 and 192.3 kN],
respectively) may be used as the lower bound of the actual
structural response when spacing between shear studs is
more than three times the embedment length (3 in. [76 mm] in
the case of Fig. 10). For closer spacing of shear studs (less than
three times the embedment length), the result of ECC 3 (34.2 kips
[152.1 kN]) may be used conservatively for design purposes.
Force capacity FcThe number of shear studs per row on
a steel girder flange may be assumed to be two or three,
depending on the width of the girder flange as allowed by the
AASHTO code (AASHTO 1998). Given the shear strength
of an individual shear stud in ECC (Qm), the number of the
girders (Ng), and the number of shear studs per row (Nr), the
total shear strength for one row of shear studs on all girders
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

(Rs = NgNrQm) can then be calculated. The product of Rs and

the required number of rows of shear studs (N) will yield the
total shear capacity of the transition zone provided by the
studs. That is
Fc = Rs N

(3)

Number and spacing of shear stud rows within transition

zoneBy equating the demand side (Eq. (2)) and capacity
side (Eq. (3)) of the transition zone, the number of rows of
shear studs needed (N) can be derived as follows
N = Fd /Rs = lswsts /Ng NrQm

(4)

According to Li et al. (2003, 2005), the length of the ECC

link slab is the sum of 7.5% of each adjacent girder span (L).
Within this length, 5% of each girder span should be
debonded from the ECC link slab to reduce its stiffness so
that the stress developed in the link slab can be minimized.
The 5% debonding length was based on results from Caner
and Zia (1998) that showed that the simply supported
configuration of the multiple span bridges would not be
affected by a debonding length of up to 5% of the adjacent
girder span. Additionally, it was found necessary to extend
the length of the ECC link slab 2.5% further into each adjacent
span (length of transition zone) to help transfer load from the
girders into the ECC link slab through additional shear studs.
Knowing the length of transition zone, the spacing of shear
studs in transition zone (Sst) can then be determined by the
following equation
Sst = 2.5% L/N

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

FIELD IMPLEMENTATION
The proposed new approach of designing the transition
zone in link slabs has been adopted by MDOT in a recent
ECC link slab demonstration project in Southeast Michigan.
The project site is Grove Street over Interstate 94 in Ypsilanti,

(5)

Reinforcement detailing
As mentioned previously, No. 3 reinforcement has been
tested to investigate its development length requirement in
ECC. While overly conservative for ECC, the AASHTO code
(AASHTO 1998) will be adopted for calculation of the
development length and lap splice length of existing No. 3
reinforcing bar in ECC for easy adoption by DOT designers.
It should be noted that the existing top mat reinforcement
should be run into the transition zone far enough to allow for
a lap splice with the additional reinforcement in the ECC link
slab. The detailed calculation for development length and lap
splice length can be found in Li et al. (2005) based on the
AASHTO code (AASHTO 1998).

Fig. 13Finished ECC link slab.

Conversely, as long as both adjacent spans are longer than

68.5 ft (20.9 m) and a typical thickness of 9 in. (229 mm)
deck slab is used, the requirement for additional reinforcement
bars in the ECC link slab can be satisfied with No. 3 reinforcing
bar at a spacing of 10.5 in. (267 mm) (detailed derivation is
given in the Appendix). According to Gilani and Jansson
(2004) and Li et al. (2005), six out of seven link slabs already
built by MDOT (including recently built ECC link slabs)
have adjacent span lengths longer than 68.5 ft (20.9 m),
suggesting No. 3 reinforcing bar may be used at a spacing of
10.5 in. (267 mm) in most cases if ECC were to be used in
these link slabs.
Only the determination of the top mat of the longitudinal
reinforcing bar is covered within this paper. Other reinforcement,
such as transverse reinforcement in both top and bottom
mats, along with any minimum reinforcement within the
bottom mat is not addressed. These reinforcements should be
designed following AASHTO design procedures. Similarly,
all reinforcement detailing for sidewalks, barrier walls, or
other bridge features should be completed following
AASHTO design procedures.

Fig. 14Intact interface was observed on ECC link slab

after 1 year in service.

Fig. 15Details of transition zone area in link slab

demonstration project. Units in in. (mm).
103

approximately 45 minutes outside of Detroit. Through the

cooperation of state transportation officials, industry
consulting engineers and contractors, and research personnel
at the University of Michigan, this first infrastructure
demonstration project of ECC material in the U.S. (Fig. 13)
was completed in mid-November 2005.
After opening to traffic for 1 year, the ECC link slab
revealed excellent performance. No interfacial crack was
observed, as can be seen in the shoulder region in Fig. 14.
The portion of interface in the traffic lanes cannot be directly
observed due to very high traffic volume. Nevertheless, it is
expected that the difference, if any, should be very minor
between these two portions of the interface. This short-term
observation indicates the promise of the proposed new
transition zone design approach.
The overall design procedure for an ECC link slab can be
found in Li et al. (2003, 2005). The actual reinforcement
layout of the transition zone area in the ECC link slab is shown
in Fig. 15, where the steel girder, shear studs, and reinforcement
details can be clearly seen. For this application, 30# roofing
paper was used to form the debond zone. According to the
AASHTO code (AASHTO 1998), overall requirements for
center-to-center spacing (pitch) of shear studs shall not exceed
23.6 in. (600 mm) and shall not be less than six stud diameters
(4.5 in. [114 mm] in this case). Specifically, the longitudinal
spacing of the shear studs in the ECC link slab transition
zones was found to be approximately 7 in. (178 mm), with
three studs in the transverse direction for each steel girder
using the procedure described in the previous section.
As for the reinforcement detailing, it was found that No. 3
reinforcing bar at a spacing of 10.5 in. (267 mm) can satisfy
the requirements of this link slab application. Because the
ECC link slab was incorporated within new bridge deck
construction, the existing reinforcement was run continuously
into the ECC link slab. Therefore, the consideration on
development length and/or lap splice length was not
necessary in this application. If these reinforcements must be
terminated at the transition zone, however, they can still be
designed the same way as in the case of a retrofit, which
requires a lap splice length of 14 in. (356 mm) and should be
staggered a minimum of 6 in. (152 mm), as recommended by
AASHTO code (AASHTO 1998).
CONCLUSIONS
To achieve the potential realization of a durable concrete
bridge deck system by incorporation of an ECC link slab, an
innovative approach of designing the transition zone in a link
slab has been proposed. This design approach was also
implemented into an ECC link slab demonstration project in
Southeast Michigan. Intact interface after 1 year of service
suggests the promise of the new transition zone design
approach. The basis of the suggested approach is to locate
the concrete/ECC interface away from the structural
interface between the debond zone and girder/deck
composite zone, preventing interfacial cracking. The shear
studs and lap spliced reinforcement located within the ECC
link slab transition zone further assist in load transfer
between the concrete deck and the ECC link slab.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this
investigation:
1. The results from the full-scale link slab experiment
suggest that the addition of shear studs in the transition zone
is very effective in shifting the stress concentration from the
interface to the bulk part of the link slab. As a result of this
104

stress concentration shifting, no cracking is observed at the

bridge deck/link slab interface under fatigue loading,
whereas desirable microcracking formed over the debond
zone of the link slab up to the location of shear studs;
2. Based on the experimental studies on shear stud pushout
tests, it was concluded that stud anchors in ECC can achieve
much higher shear strength and slip capacity (structural
ductility) when compared with concrete of comparable
compressive strength due to the superior ductility of ECC.
From the reinforcing bar pullout tests, a 6 in. (152 mm)
embedment length was found to be adequate to develop the
yield strength of both plain and epoxy-coated reinforcing
bars in ECC, meaning that the development length of these
reinforcements in ECC is 6 in. (152 mm). However, the
AASHTO code (AASHTO 1998) requires a 12 in. (305 mm)
minimum development length for No. 3 reinforcing bars in
concrete. Hence, if AASHTO code (AASHTO 1998)
requirements of development length were directly adopted
for ECC, it will be at least as conservative as that of concrete
due to high ductility of ECC that can totally suppress the
bond splitting failure as sometimes seen in reinforcing bar
pullout test from concrete;
3. Experimental investigations demonstrated the feasibility
and advantages of the proposed transition zone design in the
ECC link slab. Overall, the proposed transition zone design
approach combined with advanced ECC material makes
ECC link slab a feasible solution for bridge deterioration
problems associated with mechanical expansion joints, and
potentially much more durable compared with concrete link
slabs designed using conventional methods; and
4. The proposed transition zone design approach has been
materialized through a detailed design procedure based on
experimental results of shear stud pushout tests and reinforcement pullout tests. Further, this new design method has
been implemented into a current ECC link slab demonstration
project in Southeast Michigan, validating it as a useful and
reasonable design tool for practicing bridge engineers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work has been supported by a research grant from the Michigan
Department of Transportation to the University of Michigan with project
managers D. Juntunen (2001) and R. Till (2002-2006). This support is gratefully
acknowledged. G. Fischer, S. Wang, M. Weimann, M. Li, and E. H. Yang
contributed to this project.

REFERENCES
AASHTO, 1998, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification,
second edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC.
ACI Committee 318, 2005, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 430 pp.
An, L., and Cederwall, K., 1996, Push-Out Tests on Studs in High
Strength and Normal Strength Concrete, Journal of Construction Steel
Research, V. 36, No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Badie, S. S.; Tadros, M. K.; Kakish, H. F.; Splittgerber, D. L.; and
Baishya, M. C., 2002, Large Shear Studs for Composite Action in Steel
Bridge Girders, Journal of Bridge Engineering, May-June, pp. 195-203.
Caner, A., and Zia, P., 1998, Behavior and Design of Link Slab for
Jointless Bridge Decks, PCI Journal, May-June, pp. 68-80.
Gilani, A., and Juntunen, D., 2001, Link Slabs for Simply Supported
Bridges: Incorporating Engineered Cementitious Composites, Report
No. MDOT SPR-54181, Michigan Department of Transportation, July, 88 pp.
Gilani, A., and Jansson, P., 2004, Link Slabs for Simply Supported
Bridges, Report No. MDOT SPR-54181, Michigan Department of
Transportation, June, 129 pp.
Kim, Y. Y.; Fischer, G.; and Li, V. C., 2004, Performance of Bridge
Deck Link Slabs Designed with Ductile Engineered Cementitious Composite
(ECC), ACI Structural Journal, V.101, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 792-801.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

Kim, Y. Y., and Li, V. C., 2004, Fatigue Response of Bridge Deck Link
Slab Designed with Ductile Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Concrete under Severe
ConditionsEnvironment & Loading (CONSEC04), Seoul, Korea, June,
pp. 832-841.
Krauss, P. D., and Rogalla, E. A., 1996, Transverse Cracking in Newly
Constructed Bridge Decks, Report 380, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP), Transportation Research Board.
Lepech, M. D., 2006, A Paradigm for Integrated Structures And Materials
Design for Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure, PhD thesis, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Lepech, M. D., and Li, V. C., 2005, Water Permeability of Cracked
Cementitious Composites, Paper 4539 of Compendium of Papers, ICF 11,
Turin, Italy. (CD ROM)
Li, V. C., 1993, From Micromechanics to Structural Engineeringthe
Design of Cementitious Composites for Civil Engineering Applications,
JSCE Journal of Structural Engineering and Earthquake Engineering, V. 10,
No. 2, pp. 37-48.
Li, V. C., 2002, Reflections on the Research and Development of
Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC), Proceedings of the JCI
International Workshop on Ductile Fiber Reinforced Cementitious
Composites (DFRCC)Application and Evaluation (DRFCC-2002),
Takayama, Japan, Oct., pp. 1-21.
Li, V. C.; Fischer, G.; Kim,Y. Y.; Lepech, M.; Qian, S.; Weimann, M.;
and Wang, S., 2003, Final Report on Durable Link Slabs for Jointless
Bridge Decks Based on Strain-Hardening Cementitious Composites,
Michigan Department of Transportation, Oct., 96 pp.
Li, V. C.; Lepech, M.; Li, M.; Lynch, J.; and Hou, T., 2005, Field
Demonstration of Durable Link Slabs for Jointless Bridge Decks Based on
Strain-Hardening Cementitious Composites, Final Report submitted to
Michigan Department of Transportation, Dec., 147 pp.
MDOT, 2001, Standard Bridge Slabs (Load Factor Design and Empirical
Design), Michigan Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highway
Technical Services, Issued on Nov. 27, 2001.
Purvis, R., 2003, Bridge Deck Joint Performance, NCHRP Synthesis
319, Transportation Research Board, 58 pp.
Qian, S., and Li, V. C., 2006, Influence of Concrete Material Ductility
on Shear Response of Stud Connections, ACI Material Journal, V. 103,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 60-66.
Sahmaran, M.; Li, M.; and Li, V. C., 2007, Transport Properties of
Engineered Cementitious Composites under Chloride Exposure, ACI
Materials Journal, V. 104, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 604-611.
Wang, K.; Jansen, D. C.; and Shah, S. P., 1997, Permeability Study of
Cracked Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 27, No. 3, pp. 381-393.
Weimann, M. B., and Li, V. C., 2003, Hygral Behavior of Engineered
Cementitious Composites (ECC), International Journal for Restoration of
Buildings and Monuments, V. 9, No. 5, pp. 513-534.
Zhang, J., and Li, V. C., 2002, Effect of Inclination Angle on Fiber
Rupture Load in Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites, Composite
Science and Technology, V. 62, No. 6, pp. 775-781.

(267 mm) as long as both adjacent spans are longer than 68.5 ft
(20.9 m), assuming a typical 9 in. (229 mm) thick deck slab
is present. The detailed derivation of this conclusion is
presented herein for the readers interest, which is based on
the design procedure of ECC link slabs in Li et al. (2003, 2005).
1. The AASHTO minimum requirement of reinforcement
ratio is found to be = 0.11/(10.5 9) = 0.001164 (the crosssectional area for a No. 3 reinforcing bar is 0.11 in.2 [71 mm 2]);
2. Length of link slab debond zone

APPENDIX IDERIVATION OF LOWER

LIMIT OF SPAN LENGTH TO USE AASHTO
MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT RATIO
While the transition zone detailing procedure was shown
previously mainly for the design of shear stud spacing and lap
splice length under combined bending and tensile deformation,
this appendix is for the design of additional reinforcement in
the ECC link slab (debond zone), where the major load case
considered is bending as long as the tensile strain capacity of
ECC is not exceeded. The requirement for additional
reinforcement in the ECC link slab can be satisfied with
AASHTO minimum reinforcement requirements for bridge
decks, that is, No. 3 reinforcing bar at a spacing of 10.5 in.

7. Check if moment resistance is larger than moment

induced by the maximum girder end rotation

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

Ldz = 0.05 (L1 + L2) + GAP 0.05 (L1 + L2) = 0.1L (A-1)
(assuming the length of both adjacent bridge spans is equal
to L);
3. Maximum beam end rotation max is equal to 0.00375 rad.,
which is constant for all span lengths. More details can be
found in Li et al. (2003, 2005);
4. Moment of inertia of link slab (per foot width of
bridge deck)
3

3
12 t
( 9 ) - = 729 in.4 (0.0003 m4) (A-2)
I ls = ---------------s- = 12
--------------------12
12

5. Moment in link slab due to max girder end rotation:

2E ECC I ls
2 ( 2900 ) ( 729 )
M ls = -------------------- max = ---------------------------------- 0.00375
0.1L
L dx

(A-3)

158,557.5
58,772
= ------------------------ kip-in./ft ---------------- kN-m/m
L

L
6. For a 9 in. (229 mm) thick link slab with AASHTO
minimum reinforcement ratio, moment resistance (per foot
width) of the link slab can be calculated by the following
equation (Li et al. 2005)
MR = 10,211 + 180.9 = 10,211 0.001164 + 180.9 =
192.78 kip-in./ft (71.46 kN-m/m)
(A-4)

Mls MR
158,557.5/L 192.78
L 822.5 in. = 68.5 ft (20.9 m)
Therefore, the lower limit of span length is 68.5 ft (20.9 m)
to use AASHTO minimum reinforcement ratio, that is, No. 3
reinforcement at spacing of 10.5 in. (267 mm).

105